Yes. "DRM" and "screwing your customers" can go hand-in-hand, but need not. You can screw your customers quite effectively without "DRM", and you can have DRM without screwing your customers.Of course, a company does not need to go under in order for their DRM to screw customers. Walmart, Amazon, Yahoo and Microsoft have done it for a variety of reasons, including simple changes of marketing strategy.
"Even if the copyright is not defended, copying of such software is still unlawful in most jurisdictions when a copyright is still in effect. Abandonware changes hands on the assumption that the resources required to enforce copyrights outweigh benefits a copyright holder might realize from selling software licenses." - wikipediaAnd a lot of it is not...and a lot abandoned, mostly by companies that have been out of business for years.
Or, you could avoid using that content- that's also a choice. But yes, we've committed to providing in-game payware. It's been something that has been talked about both publicly and privately for the past ten years, and we've decided that the market is now mature enough to make a serious go of it.Seems a bit different than your previous post but, in that case, I suppose that means those of us who do not want to support DRM should write off future versions of Trainz without any further consideration.
Again, you're conflating two different issues here. I think we can agree that Microsoft needed no DRM to "lock" users into their platform over the past 20 years (heck, the only reason that we might consider ourselves "unlocked" now is that other platforms are more popular, not that Microsoft has lost much control over the desktop market.) Apple is benefiting from the same effect, and this has little to do with DRM.Oh, Apple is a great example of how a wonderful side-effect of DRM is to tether users to a particular platform and, ultimately, lock them in to that ecosystem. Of course, at the user's expense.
But that aside, you're suggesting that Apple's actions are bad for their users. Whether you are right or wrong, a significant portion of the population of the world disagrees with you. Furthermore, I don't think anybody is suggesting that their actions are bad for Apple. It's quite feasible that Apple would have been liquidated by now had it not been for the opportunities that DRM brought them. Instead, they are currently the most valuable publicly traded company in the world. I'm not saying that DRM is a magic wand that will do the same for us, but it's clear that it's also not a horrible scourge upon mankind and that it can be made to work for both companies and users.
This is something that I agree with you about, and it's likely going to take government intervention to keep it under control. But again, it's not specific to DRM- Microsoft's Internet Explorer killed Netscape Navigator by being bundled free, not by technical means. I also remember earlier Microsoft antitrust cases about private APIs. There are many ways to achieve the end of unfairly eliminating your competition, and companies will always find new ones. We do need some amount of regulation to protect consumers from this kind of thing, but that doesn't really have anything to do with DRM.The next logical step is the Trustworthy Computing goal of denying competing services to run at all.
This is an interesting one. In a practical sense, I think Apple have done a great thing by the majority of their users here. In a couple of cases, I question their motives, and some of these may eventuate in court cases. In an idealistic sense, I'd like something that gives the user advantages of Apple's system but without having a central corporate caretaker with absolute power.Oh, wait, we're part way there: Apps have to be approved before they can be listed on the App Store...
That's a very pessimistic viewpoint, and is not well supported by history.Because the worst-case scenarios invariably are what pan out.
I suspect you're making that up from very thin cloth. Either that, or your "worst intentions" and my "best intentions" are very similar- which I guess depends on what you think of those intentions. Certainly, we're being quite open about what's going on here, so you can't say we're doing anything underhanded. It's your choice whether the decisions made suit you personally or not.Your own comment above pretty well affirms that N3V has the worst intentions in mind.