Mac mini revision rumored for Macworld Expo

Mac mini revision rumored for Macworld Expo

Summary: An Apple corporate employee reportedly contacted Wired.com to tell them that Apple will release an upgraded Mac mini, at January's Macworld Expo in San Francisco which starts 5 January 2009.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Apple, Hardware
34

Mac mini revision rumored for Macworld ExpoAn Apple corporate employee reportedly contacted Wired.com to tell them that Apple will release an upgraded Mac mini, at January's Macworld Expo in San Francisco which starts 5 January 2009.

The Mac mini is Apple's oldest piece of hardware and was last updated in 07 August 2007 – a whopping 498 days (1 year, 4 months, 10 days) from today. In the past, Apple has updated the Mac mini every 188 days on average.

Details are somewhat scarce but Wired.com believes the next Mac mini will follow the trends set by Apple's other recent products:

  • Similar to the MacBooks, the Mac Mini will sport a silver enclosure composed of a block of aluminum.
  • Some internal parts will be PVC-free, and combined with its size and low power requirements, Apple will tout this as the "greenest Mac ever."
  • For video output, the Mac Mini will use the DRM-crippled DisplayPort for connectivity, which Apple is offering to manufacturers for a no-fee license.
  • It'll have a CD-DVD slot loader (i.e. Super Drive). There will be no Blu-ray player, because Steve Jobs believes the format is a "bag of hurt."
  • It'll ship with 2 GB of RAM, expandable to 4 GB — up from the current 1 GB, expandable to 2 GB. (The aluminum case should make expanding RAM easier than in the original Mini.)
  • It'll ship with at least a 160-GB hard drive.
  • The Mac Mini will come in two options with different processor speeds: a 2.0-GHz Core 2 Duo and a 2.3-GHz Core 2 Duo (up from 1.83 GHz and 2.0 GHz).
  • Like the higher-end MacBook and MacBook Pro, the 2.3-GHz Mac Mini will ship with an Nvidia video card, making this higher-end model a decent gaming device.
  • The 2.0-GHz Mac Mini will ship with an Intel video card, perhaps the GMA X3100 graphics card found in the low-end, white MacBook.
  • The slower model will cost $500, and the faster model will cost $700 ($100 less than the current Mac Minis), in light of the recession.

Are you a Mac mini owner? Looking to buy one?

Topics: Apple, Hardware

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

34 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Apple is the #1 pusher of DRM

    [i]For video output, the Mac Mini will use the DRM-crippled DisplayPort for connectivity[/i]

    What makes this even more disgusting is Steve Jobs "heartfelt" letter to the industry that all DRM should be banished. Uh huh. Is that why iTMS sells the most DRM encrusted music and sites like Amazon sell the least? Personally, I'd rather have a company like Amazon that didn't talk about DRM and just got rid of it than a company like Apple that talks about getting rid of DRM and is [b]still[/b] the #1 supporter of DRM.
    NonZealot
    • Apple and Disney have strong ties

      Besides,Apple is #2 to Sony. Considering the fact that Sony is #2 to Apple's designs. You mean, Microsoft and Plays4Sure wasn't crippled with DRM, or how about Windows Vista. I am sure that the Xbox 360 and the Zune are completely DRM free.
      nucrash
      • Apple is #1 by volume and #1 in hypocrisy

        Apple sells many times more DRM encrusted music than anyone using PlaysForSure. Also, Apple is the one that uses PR stunts to [b]pretend[/b] that they are against DRM when in fact, they are promoting it with every product that they release. Finally, the reaction in the blogosphere to Vista's support of Intel's DHCP was a [b]LION'S ROAR[/b] compared to the whimper that is written regarding Apple's creation of new and innovative methods for restricting user choice.

        From FairPlay (the most often used DRM scheme in the world) to using the [url=http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/11/26/bluwiki.apple.continued/] DMCA as a club to restrict consumer choice[/url] to inventing a "new and improved" DRM display port, Apple is showing through their deeds that their words mean nothing at all.
        NonZealot
        • BSA says what?

          Just look at the industry and tell me which company that isn't tied directly to a film studio isn't pushing for DRM trying to figure out a way to lock in their profits all the while not realizing that they are kicking themselves in the collective junk. All the while, you have hardware manufacturers not tied to a studio directly which would gladly sell you something without DRM. The only problem is, now you have studios pushing their DRM schemes on their DVDs saying that if your device isn't approved by us, you are against us.

          Sounds like the DOJ should have swat some of these giants before they merged with some hardware manufacturer.

          My hopes are that some alternative will appear. Alas, my hopes will be dashed.

          Yes, Apple isn't the little guy, but Apple isn't the absolute evil or hypocrite either. They at least steered clear of Sony and BluRay Disc at this time.
          nucrash
          • Yes, thank goodness Apple doesn't support BluRay!!

            Why would they when they believe the future source of DRM encrusted content should be iTMS:
            [url=http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/11/macbooks-featur.html] MacBooks Features DRM Equipped Display Connector [/url]

            [i]John tried to hook his new MacBook up to the school's projector (he's a teacher) to watch Hellboy 2 which he had downloaded from the iTunes Store. He was greeted with the message in the picture.[/i]

            Make [b]no[/b] mistake about it. Apple is not supporting BluRay because BluRay is a competing distribution scheme and [b]not[/b] because it is a DRM "bag of hurt". Jobs is [b]lying[/b] to you and the proof is that Jobs' solution is just as much a "bag of hurt" as BluRay, as I've proven in the link I provided you. Jobs isn't trying to save you from BluRay's DRM, he is trying to save you from physical media.
            NonZealot
          • If they build it, We can Hack it

            If they build it, I am sure some one can override it and hack it. I would love to build a business that creates dongles for display ports.
            nucrash
          • @nucrash

            2nd try, my first was deleted.

            NonZealot has proven over and over that he loathes anything
            Apple.
            Axsimulate
          • Care to dispute what I've written?

            If it is true that I loathe anything Apple and that I'm irrational in my arguments then it should be [b]really[/b] easy for you to dispute the things I've written. If, on the other hand, my arguments are rational and difficult to argue against (as you are implying by refusing to debate what I've written) then my feelings towards Apple are quite irrelevant. I'm going to invoke Godwin's Law and suggest that even people who loathe anything Nazi are still capable of speaking factually about them.

            My position, and feel free to provide a counter-argument, is that while Apple [b]talks[/b] about getting rid of DRM, they actively seek ways of using DRM to reduce choice and enforce their iTMS monopoly.

            Argument 1: They are the #1 seller of DRM encrusted music when other companies (like Amazon) have proven that the studios are willing to sell unprotected music (destroying the whole Waaa Waaaa, it is the RIAA that forces us to use DRM).

            Argument 2: They are using DRM to prevent people who paid for iTMS content from playing it on hardware of their choice. They actually created their own DRM crippled display port, thus adding to the "bag of hurt" that is DRM.

            Argument 3: They invoke the DMCA to destroy wikis that [b]dare[/b] talk about Apple products. No one is forcing Apple to invoke the DMCA, they have chosen to do so.

            Fire away! :)
            NonZealot
          • @NonZealot

            ?If it is true that I loathe anything Apple and that I'm
            irrational in my arguments then it should be really easy for
            you to dispute the things I've written.?

            All one has to do is read a few of your posts to know that
            you loath anything Apple. I like the one where you claim
            you need multi-touch to rotate pictures with an iphone. lol
            if you only knew how clueless you sound.

            ?If, on the other hand, my arguments are rational and
            difficult to argue against (as you are implying by refusing
            to debate what I've written) then my feelings towards Apple
            are quite irrelevant.?

            Only in your own mind are your arguments rational and
            difficult to argue against, in reality they are quite easy.

            ?I'm going to invoke Godwin's Law and suggest that even
            people who loathe anything Nazi are still capable of
            speaking factually about them.?

            Well, you should know hyperbole, because you?re a master
            at it.

            You are making the claims, so the burden of proof lies on
            your shoulders, not mine. Until you you provide proof,
            then your claims are worthless.

            #1 Apple does provide some DRM free music. I can only
            assume that it is what the major labels allow them. And
            anybody with an ounce of reasoning should be able to see
            that.

            #2 Please provide proof that Apple keeps the DRM for
            lock-in. It's obvious that the record labels are the ones
            trying to enforce DRM otherwise there would would have
            never had the likes of the Sony DRM fiasco.

            #3 Again see #1

            Apple does not hold the copyright to the music it sells, so
            it must abide by the rules set by copyright holder (record
            labels). That much should be as obvious as your monitor
            sitting in front of you.

            How about it NonZealot, can you back up your claims?
            Axsimulate
          • You make it so-o-o easy.

            Believe it or not, Apple doesn't own the content they sell
            on iTMS, they are merely a distributor. In order to get
            distribution rights, the labels required DRM. In fact, in
            order to keep the distribution rights, Apple is required, by
            contract, to maintain that DRM. That's why they haven't
            licensed their code: They are responsible for maintaining
            that DRM.

            The labels now fear that Apple's too big, and are trying to
            kill iTMS by allowing other companies (ie, Amazon) to sell
            non-DRM music. No matter how much anti-Apple zealots
            like you whine, Apple still is contractually bound to
            maintain DRM on all tracks that the labels say they must.

            You seem to overlook, of course, that EMI took Apple up
            on the non-DRM, and allowed iTMS to sell non-DRM
            music from EMI. I realize this doesn't help your
            'argument,' so you conveniently overlook it.

            All of this has to do with the original contracts Apple
            signed to get iTMS up and running. Until the record labels,
            who have complete control over who gets to distribute the
            music, and under what terms, agrees to change their
            conditions, iTMS will continue to have DRM.

            It is not up to Steve Jobs to just break that contract
            unilaterally. It may be a strange concept to you, but a
            contract is like keeping your word, only legally
            enforceable.

            As for your loathing of everything Apple, that's evident to
            anyone who reads any of the drivel you post. You seem to
            be the only one who denies it (but only after you admitted
            to being an 'anti-Apple zealot.' Boy, do you seem to
            regret that moment of honesty).
            msalzberg
          • @Ax

            [i]#1 Apple does provide some DRM free music. I can only
            assume that it is what the major labels allow them.[/i]

            Key word being: some. Why not all? Amazon didn't write an open letter to the labels, they simply said [b]NO![/b] Apple is the biggest gatekeeper of downloadable music and downloadable music sales have overtaken CD sales. Apple controls 80%+ of all MP3 players. Apple has the power here. If Apple refused to offer a label's music for download, we all know that the label wouldn't dare give up their #1 distribution channel, a channel that Apple has locked up through its use encryption hashes that keep iPods linked to iTunes and they are [url=http://computer-internet.marc8.com/eff-blasts-apple-fraudulent-dmca-takedown-wiki-page]using the DMCA to destroy people who dare try to find ways of syncing iPods with other media players[/url], effectively locking those people into iTMS because iTMS is the default music store and we all know that the default application is what counts (*cough* Netscape vs IE *cough*).

            [i]#2 Please provide proof that Apple keeps the DRM for lock-in. It's obvious that the record labels are the ones trying to enforce DRM otherwise there would would have never had the likes of the Sony DRM fiasco.[/i]

            You didn't even follow the link in my [url=http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11408-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=55530&messageID=1049440]post[/url]. If you had you would have seen that I was talking about a [b]movie[/b] downloaded over iTunes and had nothing to do with record labels. Apple has embraced DRM wholeheartedly in their display routines. As if HDMI wasn't bad enough, Apple went and created [b]their own implementation of HDCP[/b], proving beyond any doubt that Apple is innovating brand new ways of using DRM to reduce what you can do with the content you've paid for.

            And your #3 (see #1) makes no sense if it was meant to dispute my Argument 3. My argument 3 was lambasting Apple for using the DMCA to shut down a wiki that [b]dared[/b] talk about how to sync the iPod with something other than iTunes. This has nothing to do with piracy because syncing with something other than iTunes wouldn't let you pirate things so there can be no doubt that no label has asked Apple to make sure that iPods can only sync with iTunes. No, the reason is [b]control of the downloadable content market.[/b] Apple has an undeniable monopoly on downloadable music (using the MS definition of monopoly where competition exists but has small marketshare). If people could easily sync their iPods with Amazon, Apple might lose some of that control. It is in Apple's best interest to make sure that every time you plug your iPod into your computer, it is iTunes and iTMS that pop up. So your #3 rebuttal isn't because my #3 had nothing to do with DRM and everything to do with Apple using the DMCA to maintain its stranglehold on the downloadable content market.

            So you and your little msalzberg friend can come back when you have something better than blaming the labels for Apple's FairPlay (even though Amazon has none), Apple's new HDCP hardware that they've innovated, and Apple's use of the DMCA to ensure that the iPod only syncs with iTunes. Good luck, you'll need it! :)
            NonZealot
          • dude. you need to chill

            1: Apple has a current contract. It can't simply drop and ask for a new one it without having some repercussions. Their move to non DRM has been gradual, record label by record label, as each one allows them to do so. The record labels are definitely frightened by the massive percentage of online distribution taken by Apple. If they can balance this out among others, then it levels the playing field for them and they get a better deal when negotiating a contract with Apple. If you deny that such things happen, you're willfully blind. Or stupid.

            2: No seriously. Hellboy does not belong to record labels. It belongs to Revolution Studios. God you're a genius. Hollywood has its own DRM negotiations going on. And Display Port must comply with DRM for Apple to get licensed Hollywood movies from these companies. DRM may be 'bad' but if you want to sell movies you have two choices: use DRM or don't sell them. Consider netflix and other sources. They all must use DRM. And for your information. It is not Apple's own version of HDCP. It's part of the DP standard.

            3: So you're saying point 3 has nothing to do with DRM, which means you're spouting random arguments to confuse the issue. Apple is perfectly within their rights to prevent sites from posting information found in their proprietary software on the iPod. I've replied many times to your argument: If someone wants to replace iTunes, they must replace the software on the iPod as well. This isn't simple, but its perfectly doable. Every time, you ignore me.

            For what it's worth: Apple is getting rid of DRM where it can because it will hurt sales. Apple will always do what is best for its revenue. It's a for profit company, not a charity. Incidentally, the love of your life(Microsoft) is also a for profit company and implements similar DRM schemes with the intent of licensing them to others so that anything they make ends up as revenue for Microsoft. Consider: DRM ownership of HDDVD, PFS, Windows media. These are all pay MS to use deals.
            isulzer
          • @isulzer: I'm laughing at all the apologists!

            [i]Their move to non DRM has been gradual, record label by record label, as each one allows them to do so.[/i]

            So while all the other companies have gone DRM free, Apple is going slowly. How ironic that Apple is the only one to write an "open letter" decrying DRM. While Apple talks, other companies actually [b]do[/b] something. This whole thing makes Apple look like the supreme hypocrite.

            [i]No seriously. Hellboy does not belong to record labels. It belongs to Revolution Studios. God you're a genius.[/i]

            Um, why don't you read closer. I never said Hellboy belonged to the record label, I was chastising Ax for writing about record labels in response to my Hellboy story. Maybe you should chill and your reading comprehension would improve?

            [i]And Display Port must comply with DRM for Apple to get licensed Hollywood movies from these companies.[/i]

            Well, well, well, funny how Vista was dragged through the mud for supporting HDCP because "Vista must comply with DRM for Microsoft to get play Hollywood movies from these companies" but Apple is a saint for doing the same thing? Bzzzt. Apple comes out [b]worse[/b] because Apple is the one pretending to fly the anti-DRM banner. Apple is a hypocrite. Apple is doubly hypocritical because they claim that BluRay is a "bag of hurt" [b]while imposing the exact same bag of hurt on their own iTunes customers!!![/b] Again, it isn't as much what Apple is doing as much as the fact that they say they are against the very thing that they are doing.

            [i]And for your information. It is not Apple's own version of HDCP. It's part of the DP standard.[/i]

            Yeah, [url=http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/11/macbooks-featur.html] that's why the error message says "Try disconnecting any displays that aren't HDCP compatible."[/url]

            [i]So you're saying point 3 has nothing to do with DRM, which means you're spouting random arguments to confuse the issue.[/i]

            True it isn't DRM in the traditional sense but it is DRM in the sense that it is all about [b]artificially[/b] and [b]onerously[/b] controlling the end user, preventing the end user from [b]daring[/b] to use products from the competition. DRM is all about removing consumer choice. So is this brilliant DMCA move by Apple.

            [i]Apple is perfectly within their rights to prevent sites from posting information found in their proprietary software on the iPod.[/i]

            And MS is perfectly within their rights to require activation. Does that mean it is good for consumers? Nope.

            [i]If someone wants to replace iTunes, they must replace the software on the iPod as well.[/i]

            So what you are saying is that no one has the right to use one half of a company's product with the other half from a competitor? Wow, Microsoft sure could have used you while the EU was forcing them to give away their communication protocols to all their competitors! Hmm, that word "hypocrite" comes to mind again! :)

            [i]Incidentally, the love of your life(Microsoft) is also a for profit company and implements similar DRM schemes with the intent of licensing them to others so that anything they make ends up as revenue for Microsoft. Consider: DRM ownership of HDDVD, PFS, Windows media. These are all pay MS to use deals.[/i]

            1. MS has never claimed to be anti-DRM so at least they aren't hypocritical about it.

            2. Apple fanboys rake MS through the coals for all this stuff. Why shouldn't I rake Apple through the coals for doing the exact same thing (only Apple is worse because they claim that they are anti-DRM).

            [i]Apple is getting rid of DRM where it can[/i]

            The fact that you believe this says a lot about you. :)
            NonZealot
          • Does it?

            If X company said: We don't want to use DRM. Then said: we want to sell movies and music. Then the music companies first refused to license music without DRM(they now are slowly dropping that). And the movie companies also refused to license movies without DRM and still to this day there are no sales without DRM, anywhere. Period. You state as fact that said company lies. But have no actual proof. Saying your opinion once is enough. Apple asked people to add their voices to their letter against DRM. It is now working. Music sales with DRM are dropping. And its FACT that increasingly, a significant percentage of music in iTunes becomes DRM free. So we can only conclude that you are blind to fact and predisposed to hating Apple. Seriously. I don't care about this. I don't have an iPod or any mp3 player.

            As for the Hellboy stuff. Yes I'm aware you said that. Thats why I called you a genius. The point I was making is that DRM in movies is mandatory. So using this point actually works AGAINST you. Proof that you are incompetent and your arguments are vapid.

            Unfortunately for you, I was not one of the ones criticizing Microsoft for HDCP. So the argument is pointless here. Bringing up irrelevant facts to try to make yourself seem right is more proof of your incompetence. Also criticizing a company with the argument that the criticism is invalid is a pretty retarded form of logic.

            Bluray is a bag of hurt due to the ridiculous prices. Both drives and and discs cost too much. When the prices drop to realistic levels, and the sales become a significant percentage of optical movie disc sales, then Apple will include support for bluray.

            The error message was a Quicktime bug. It did not happen with other movie players(assuming they could play hdcp encrypted movies). The problem was fixed and no longer occurs. Note that this is an application that plays a DRM protected file and must comply with the rules agreed to in the contract with the movie industry. Basing an argument on a problem that no longer exists is vacuous.

            And finally, any company has the right to protect it's intellectual property. Or are you arguing otherwise? If so, please state a proper legal argument other than 'I don't like it'. The iPod/iTunes/iTMS combo is a single product vertically developed. You cannot use one without the other. If Apple permits one group to use their property to create a replacement, then they open the door to others doing so: like Psystar. Apple is not removing consumer choice, the consumer is free to buy a non Apple mp3 player. Any way you look at it, the only thing they lose is access to ITMS' bigger music selection, which they would not have without iTunes. Anything else would have equivalent function in another mp3 player. This is nothing like using DRM. An equivalent would be if someone used parts of different company's game artwork to allow you do use the original game disc install a modified version, leveraging on the goodwill of that other company to sell their own. Without the agreement of the first company, releasing an upgrade for sale is illegal.

            Microsoft activation is irrelevant to this argument: more noise rolling from your keyboard to distract people.

            The point about Microsoft, which you so densely do not see is that they sell DRM schemes. Whereas Apple simply uses them where the media producers force them to. And it is common knowledge and FACT that the music and movie industries have forced Apple to use DRM. Whether it was against their secret desires or not, neither you nor I can tell. Since the very basic difference between Microsoft and Apple is obvious: pushing DRM models to make money off of other people's sales vs. simply using it where forced to by contractual obligations, then I see no reason why you have a valid argument.

            I don't believe Apple is removing DRM where it can. I have seen it happen when they release more and more music DRM free on iTunes after releasing a statement that they wish to do so, if only the music industry would let them. When I see Apple push their DRM scheme on people who don't buy media licensed by an industry that requires it, then I will believe as you do. Till then, stop spouting rubbish and learn think properly.
            isulzer
          • @isulzer: Congrats on apologizing for the hypocrite!!

            MS is bad for enforcing Hollywood / RIAA DRM but YAY APPLE for doing the same thing!

            MS is bad for wanting to prevent people from using 3rd party clients with their servers but YAY APPLE for doing the same thing with the iPod and the iTunes! (again, where were you when the EU was punishing MS for doing [b]exactly[/b] what Apple is doing, I noticed you skipped that part of my post :) )

            MS is bad for selling 90% DRM free music at no greater cost than the DRM music but YAY APPLE for selling 50% DRM free music at 30% more cost while claiming that they desperately want to be DRM free (even though they are the [b]least[/b] DRM free of all the major music stores)!

            Apologize all you want, the only people you convince are your fellow apologists. People are beginning to see Apple for the monopolistic, DRM hugging company that it is. :)
            NonZealot
          • @isulzer..

            Notice that the Zealot isn't actually responding to your
            points? He brought up the HDCP issue based on old
            information, but can't actually bring himself to admit that is
            was a bug that was fixed.
            msalzberg
          • Zealot, you bring up so many extraneous arguments.

            Its getting ridiculous. Your biggest problem is that you can't argue things properly and you use tactics that only work on children.

            Did I say MS is bad? You keep assuming this. I haven't. I said the difference between Microsoft and Apple is that one sells DRM schemes, while the other abides by the rules of their contracts so they can sell music and movies. You are the one saying this is evil. Which leads me to believe that you think they are evil. Don't imprint your opinion on me. Mine is that DRM is pointless. Security in any application is a delaying tactic till human intervention once again establishes the status quo. But DRM does not protect anything because people have infinite time to work with DRM encoded media. So DRM as security is pointless.

            These are two different situations. Microsoft is selling two products: a client and a server. The sales of one were meant to lock you into the sales of another. Apple, on the other hand, is selling one product: the iPod/iTumes combination. Apple is not preventing people from installing different software on the iPod to be able to use it. You're free to write your own OS and music application for use with it. Go ahead, do it. Incidentally, your OS can play both mp3 and aac as both are open formats. Oddly enough, to play wma you will have to pay a fee to Microsoft.

            So here you go: I am completely refuting your post. You have made no logical comments at all. This is so ridiculous that I am amazed. The EU would have no case when it tried to get Apple to open the iTunes/iPod. Since it is sold as a single product. Furthermore, within half a year to a year there will be very little DRM music for sale, nothing is stopping people from taking their music to a different software platform.

            BTW, prices for Apples DRM free music are no different than for the ones with DRM: 99 cents. There was some initial confusion here, they initially were 30 cents more, till the music industry allowed others to sell DRM free music. You are either blatantly ignoring facts, or are of severely limited intellect. The reason Apple has not transferred its whole inventory to non DRM has to do with their size. They must renegotiate a contract with each of the music companies. And these are loathe to allow Apple to compete with other resellers. Because Apple is the biggest online reseller and has the strongest place of negotiation. It is very clear to me that ITMS has 2 to 3 times the music the Zune marketplace has. Therefore Apple very likely has more DRM free music for sale than Microsoft has music for sale period.

            I'm not convincing apologists. I'm seriously enjoying myself destroying your pathetic arguments. Like msalzberg said: you have not responded to any of my points. Whenever I respond to your posts, they get ignored.

            There have always been people who hate Apple. There are better reasons for hating Apple than the ones you have. Although you probably use these as a good excuse. The only two reasons I can see a person can legitimately argue for hating Apple are: They make money on the products they create and don't give them away for free. Or you genuinely prefer another product and think Apple's is inferior.

            So far, you've said neither. Arguments like: 'They both earn money by selling DRM laden music, so I prefer Microsoft.' simply do not cut it. Grow up and learn to use your brain, what little of it is left.
            isulzer
          • @NonZealot

            We want proof NonZealot, until you can come up with
            something tangible, then everything you say is tripe.

            Music or Movies, does not matter, it's common knowledge
            that either one wants DRM like it or not, and Apple can't
            control them. Unless you have some inside email or
            somebody from either of the industries that are willing to
            testify against Apple in a court of law that says otherwise,
            your words are bunk.

            Apple or Jobs for that matter, may have publicly
            denounced DRM, but if they want to sell music or movies,
            they have to play by the copyright holders rules. That does not make them a hypocrite.

            I'm not familiar with this wikis that you are talking about,
            but from what I can tell it was detailing intellectual
            property and possibly a way around copy protection, which is (because you seem so clueless) against the law.
            Axsimulate
          • I Think You Got Disputed Big Time, Zealot

            It must be [b][i]hard[/b][/i] going through life knowing that you're a pathetic Ballmer-sucking luzer.

            Feh. You are a troll and an annoyance, nothing more. Go off and pretend you know what you're talking about someplace else - obviously you've already been disproven six ways from Sunday. OTOH, like the Bush Rethuglican you clearly ARE, you'd rather [b][i]die[/b][/i] than admit you might, just possibly, be WRONG....
            drprodny
    • Right

      Because Apple gets to dictate licensing terms to the studios.

      But, never let facts get in the way of a good rant.
      frgough