Now, there's no argument that it would be nice if consumers could use digital music files in a broader way than is currently possible. Indeed, it would be nice if iPod owners could play their FairPlay-encoded tracks on devices that Apple didn't make.

However, Jobs isn't in favour of that because "Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses". In other words: it's willing to keep behaving in a nasty fashion, but it wants you to blame someone else. The fact that Apple is only too willing to rigorously enforce those rules is beside the point.

This is far from new behaviour from Apple. Last year, when a bunch of video iPods accidentally shipped with a resident Windows virus, the company said that it was "upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses".

Its current claim that iTunes users shouldn't upgrade to Vista is similarly suspect. The Vista code was finalised months ago: why hasn't Apple done the responsible thing and made sure that its customers can get a good experience on the platform of their choice, rather than acting like it is all Microsoft's fault?

There's also a huge elephant in the room in Jobs' argument. While it's very nice for him to say that music companies are still selling the majority of their music in CD format, and thus shouldn't need DRM, he doesn't mention that Apple currently gets a cut from every DRM-protected digital track it sells.

If that model got cancelled, Apple shareholders might justifiably be upset. But you won't find Apple saying "Frankly, we stand to make a fortune from selling digital music" if it sees more PR value in acting as if it, like many consumers, is upset by the current situation.
{moscomment}