your first reason is a bit scattered, i found. first you start talking about how apple is just in the iPod biz for the money (well, i don't know why else they would be in it). the fact that the power adaptor is no longer included and the price cut of $50 in fall 2006 pretty much comes out a wash for me. but then you take a left turn into why apple is not a green company. a bit off-topic to be sure.

but if you think about it, not including an AC adaptor is actually the green thing to do. it reduces the number of parts that get shipped with every iPod. there are significanly fewer electronic and plastic parts in each and every iPod box. this reduces the weight (and consequently the greenhouse gasses emitted) to ship millions of iPods around the world each year. and for most people, this part goes mostly unused. personally, i recharge my iPod almost exclusively via USB or Firewire cables. even when i travel, i usually have a laptop with me and can recharge with that.

I find your "reasons" to be quite revealing. Revealing, that is, of opinions formed from a misrepresentation of the facts. Judgements with adjatives outnumbering facts lead to a dead end. None of your opinions are based on true facts. I suggest that you become better informed on each of the areas you covered.

Look into why your iPods have to be reformatted. Windows software and files are organized differently than OS X. It's a fact of life, not something Apple did to frustrate you! Grow up and get informed!

I always find it curious why Apple is always held to a much higher standard than any of their peers.

The current program calls for a focused attack on SJ.

1. Make sure you call Steve Jobs a liar. Also, associate the Mac "lock-in" with Jobs' greed and huge wealth.
2. Mention that Apple is dirty and an abuser when it comes to the environment. Use phrases like "Toxic Apple Products". Link these ideas to the idea of "toxic" DRM.
3. Finish off with a return to the personal attack. Use phrases like "Jobs' arrogance" or Apple/SJ "Control". Then soften your position with a nod to Apple creativity (so that you don't come off as a total hater) but say that, in your opinion, there are too many reasons to stay far away from Apple.

Your objections have been already refuted in other places and in Jobs letter itself. Do some more research. But here's a quick recap.

1a. Windows/Mac reformatting for iPod - as stated above, has nothing to do with iPod itself but with how the OSes see hard drives. Has been that way forever.

1b. Green Apple - Greenpeace gave Apple low ratings because Apple wouldn't commit to future steps to satisfy Greenpeace's survey. Other companies that did make promises but haven't done anything get higher ratings. Apple pretty much does everything most other PC mfrs do today. Who has a better take-back program is very subjective. And Greenpeace, which operates on publicity, is attacking Apple to ride Apple's high brand awareness.

2a. Apple's iTunes is the only player that works on both Macs and PCs. None of the others selling DRMed music allow you to play your music on a Mac. Next, you can certainly get your music out of iTunes into other apps, and even onto other audio players in the same way that it works for all other DRMed music (and iTunes gives you better terms).

2b. Disney does offer their content on other services besides iTunes. So how can you conclude that iTunes is the driving culprit with regard to NetFlix and Walmart? Maybe Disney just doesn't want to be associated with the crappy service that Walmart's store has. (Google the reviews.)

2c. Jobs' key point in his letter was that DRM made no sense on music downloads if over 90% of all music sold (on CDs) had no DRM. His was not a blanket statement that all DRM is bad. For movies and TV shows on standard DVDs, there is a industry-wide DRM on it so the situation is completely different. (Of course, the Macrovision DRM is broken, so it's only a matter of time until Jobs will have to say that DRM on standard-quality movies is bad. And more time before the same is true of HD movies. But that time is not today.)

3a. What rules or laws has Apple broken? The name iPhone was actually used for months by everyone else about the rumored product before Apple actually announced it. Compare it with how they gave up iTV for AppleTV. So it's not heavy-handed; they certainly analyzed it and saw that iPhone was there for the taking because of Cisco's lack of use and defense of the name.

3b. No one forces anyone to partner or negotiate with Apple. If they choose to do so, it's because they think they can lots of money riding Apple's brand. (Apply your own point 1 to everyone else, please.) And Apple's marketing and PR strategy of secrecy and surprise will get them great results if in the end, they offer up a great product. Apple and Motorola used a non-Apple-like "announce early" strategy on the ROKR, and look how that turned out. Microsoft's hardware partners on the Media Center extenders, UMPCs, MP3 players, PMCs, and even Tablet PCs have certainly not become rich using Microsoft's marketing, PR, or technical strategy. And Apple's hundreds of partners in the iPod ecosystem have gotten very rich.

1) Profits sustain a company. Not using disposable batteries is green and economically sensible.

2) Factually wrong. So wrong, in fact, that it begs a reader to wonder whether this is FUD or the writer is talking about something he knows nothing about.

3) Puerile argument considering that Apple's main competitor is the prime example of a company that destroys its partners. Remember the "Plays For Sure" group?

All,

Thanks for your comments - this post has clearly sparked some passionate responses. I have responded to many of the points raised here in a comment on my original blog posts. Go here and scroll down to read my further thoughts and answers to some of this criticism:

http://rohitbhargava.typepad.com/weblog/2007/02/3_big_reasons_i.html#com...

Using that level criteria, you should list the 1000 reasons why you're not a Microsoft enthusiast.
Seems the article is more to generate commerce than content. Slow day at the office?

Editors: Please look for the writings of Rohit Bhargava, and don't publish them. Authors who present one side of an argument and miss key facts don't deserve to have their works published by reputable companies.

If Rohit actually used iTunes, he (she?) would see that the DRM really does not get in the way at all, and that it's a wonderful way to buy and listen to music. The iPod charges via USB (from any computer), which is much more convenient than having a separate charger. Listing arguments such as these as 'Big' reasons is just false at worst, and misleading at best.

1. Money is what drives Apples ability to create GREAT new products. Please please get real (or become a North Korean citizen and see if you like the alternative). 2. DRM is not driven by Apple. Jobs negotiated the only DRM acceptable to customers and copyright owners and has stopped them raising prices. Blame where blame is due please. 3. iPhone name? CISCO's claim to it was already lost in Europe and weak everywhere else. With iLife, iMac, iWork, iTunes etc., who had the greater right to the name? And please stop suggesting Apple goes all soft and gooey, it's already the best IT/CE business there is. If Apple followed your Alice in Wonderland advice, not likely, it would hardly impove anything.