DISQUS

@Buster B:
Then don't upgrade your library and you got what you paid for. As for having what you paid for enhanced to what others who purchase it today could get, that's a flawed argument because those people didn't get the use of that music for the past few months/years as you have.

It was your choice to purchase when you purchased. Should Apple rebate me $5 when a $9.99 movie gets discounted to $4.99?

Now Apple is going to charge up to $1.29 for new releases and at a later date those new releases will drop down to $.99 or even $.69. Is that fair to those people who purchased the tracks for $1.29?

Worse yet! If you purchased any new releases over the past few years should Apple bill you for the extra .30 because now that is what they are worth?

You paid what you felt was a fair price for music. You are being given a way to purchase music with additional rights and enhanced quality for $.30. If it is worth it, pay it! If it is not, enjoy the music you have! OH! and good news! future purchases will be higher quality and have fewer restrictions.

Come on people! Who really cares? You bought what you bought. If you are happy with it, keep it!

If you want the benefits of the "plus" tracks it will cost you about $0.30 each, if you don't it costs you nothing.

Nobody forced you to buy initially! And nobody will force you to purchase the plus tracks.

There is a cost associated with upgrading the music and a value to many people so why wouldn't it cost money!!!

You were happy to purchase 128bit DRM encoded files with the limitations that were put on them. It hardly seems excessive for Apple or the labels to ask you to pay a small fee to get NEW 256bit DRM free songs. Nobody made a mistake here. It is reasonable for businesses to be cautious about how they enter new distribution models and the early adopters always pay a premium (and also reap the early benefits).

Sorry Bill but $99 is not a third of $229 ($199 refurb apple store) it is closer to half. As for the pain to setup, that is just ignorance. If you have a wireless network there is no setup (ok a password if it is secure). Ethernet is just a bit easier, plug it in and you are on the net.

Now sure it's more complex if you want to stream content from your computer. I mean you have to type in a 5 digit code into iTunes. Ok so not very complex but it is more!

Roku has one advantage, which is a subscription model. If I could add a large back stock of older content to my appleTV for $9/month I'd be all over it as long as the content was not total crap (which much of the netflix streaming content is but still this is the one Ruko win)

The advantages for AppleTV are a bit more:
1) Exactly the opposite of what the author indicates, AppleTV has a vastly greater quantity of free streamed content via YouTube and Podcasts.
2) Photo access. If you just can't figure out your computer for streaming then get over it. Post to flickr and you are set. You can also get both photos and video content streamed from .mac.
3) Quality. Even on the best internet connect Roku equates at best to the standard def AppleTV content. For me AppleTV was the most cost effective way to get HD movie content to my TV.
4) Computer Optional: I didn't think I'd care about this because I like iTunes but there is something to be said for surfing your content directly from the device and the AppleTV UI is very good.
5) New content. As much as I would like the back catalog, I want new movies too. Apple is making new movies available the same day as the DVD's and has an ever growing catalog of HD content (currently 372 titles)
6) Push Streaming. AppleTV also supports AirTunes so you can control it from your computer to push music to your home theater (and other airtunes devices). A cool side note is that when streaming this way your remote controls your computer.

So between the two AppleTV gets my vote. And Fred, calm down and get a grip. Why are you bashing on Apple for not streaming everything on the internet but you give Roku a pass? Roku only streams netflix content! No ABC, NBC, CBS or HULU! At least I know the AppleTV has the hardware to allow Apple to continue to expand the product as they did with the take 2 software update. Hell, I'm more angry at netflix for not just negotiate a contract with apple to put this same service on AppleTV so we don't have to have this conversation.

Not sure it all follows!

A bunch of the bloat is only for backward compatibility or some insane attempt to fill all the check boxes in some reviewers grid. Sure, someone uses those features, but that doesn't mean that iWork ever needs to add them! Maybe, without a single dominate Software manufacture you would instead end up with a bunch of well written specialized applications that interoperate through a solid OS and well written API's. That was Apple's dream with OpenDoc and what was then called Bento (an open universal document storage and description model).

I'm not going to say that all PC's are crap (as you purpose) or even that all Mac's are great (which is that counter assumption). I'm just going to say that if everyone realized that often times you get what you pay for, there would be fewer people upset with their PC purchases and far fewer bitching about how expensive Apple hardware is.

As a general rule, I'd say the further below $1000 you spend for a complete system, the closer to crap you get.

Oh, and I welcome the masses into our club. Because Apple will continue to make hardware and software that just work for the majority of us and let the third parties fill in the gaps for the rest.

IMHO

sfx2000 is right on target here. This is policy and procedure and if you understand it, it is much more understandable.

Apple authorized companies to fix mac hardware. If that company uses an APPLE PART. Apple wants to track that part. This can be to determine more wide spread failures, keep track of valuable components or just to make sure the service centers are doing what they say before billing time back to apple. As such apple has two prices on "APPLE PARTS", and exchange price and a stock price. The exchange price is a reasonable price based on the cost of the component when the computer was created. Thus a year and a half or two years ago when you purchased your macbook $160 for 80GB laptop drive was about what they went for. The stock price is much higher to ensure that replacement parts make it back to apple.

This all makes sense for logic boards, power supplies, cases etc. But not so much for memory and hard drives. If he really wanted the drive back, I guess he could have paid the higher stock price or just go to an apple service center that supports third party parts.

Someone should have given you better options, but they did what they had to do.