Slashdot Mirror


'Arrested Development' Comes Exclusively To Netflix

First time accepted submitter Xondak writes "The cult series 'Arrested Development' is being resurrected and brought exclusively to Netflix streaming subscribers. This marks the first time a major studio has produced first-run content for the streaming service and perhaps this will afford other opportunities for cancelled Fox series. Firefly, anyone?"

201 comments

  1. I'll pass. by Microlith · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm allergic to giving money to corporations that sponsor bills like SOPA.

    1. Re:I'll pass. by Bradmont · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you have a reference for that?

    2. Re:I'll pass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I seriously doubt it will be signed into law. Obama knows he is on thin ice and there's nothing better than standing up for freedom right before the next election.

      As for the topic, Firefly stopped running in 2002. It's dead, and it's not coming back. To put this in perspective, high end home computers at the time typically touted Pentium 4 processors.

      I took the liberty of looking some things up, and it may surprise you to learn that the cast of TV shows does indeed age with the passage of time. Firefly was nearly 10 years ago, so everyone is now 10 years older. It's funny how that works isn't it. A quick look at wikipedia indicates that all parties involved moved on to other things a long time ago.

    3. Re:I'll pass. by Microlith · · Score: 1

      What, do you seriously think that Fox isn't sponsoring the bill AND getting money from this resurrection?

    4. Re:I'll pass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      As for the topic, Douglas stopped manufacturing the DC-10 in 1988. It's dead, and it's not coming back. To put this in perspective, the average American household at the time typically consumed 12 pounds of honey a year.

      durrr.

    5. Re:I'll pass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What we need is a congressman to stand up against SOPA. The next step would be for that congressman to run for president of the United States, I bet that candidate would be tied for first in Iowa, and a strong second in New Hampshire by now. Just to add icing to the cake, he should be a veteran, hell make him a doctor too.

    6. Re:I'll pass. by masternerdguy · · Score: 1

      Cool. Everyone's aged 10 years so we can have a 29 year old Jewel Staite trying to pass herself off as Kailey. Imagine similar scenarios for all actors involved. Surely nobody will notice the 10 year seam.

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    7. Re:I'll pass. by John+Bresnahan · · Score: 3, Informative

      I took the liberty of looking some things up, and it may surprise you to learn that the cast of TV shows does indeed age with the passage of time. Firefly was nearly 10 years ago, so everyone is now 10 years older. It's funny how that works isn't it.

      That didn't stop the original cast of Star Trek!

    8. Re:I'll pass. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Cool. Everyone's aged 10 years so we can have a 29 year old Jewel Staite trying to pass herself off as Kailey. Imagine similar scenarios for all actors involved. Surely nobody will notice the 10 year seam.

      Hell, if they can make Johnny Depp look like a chameleon, then ILM can make Jewel State look 20 years old again.

      (Goes back to dreaming).

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    9. Re:I'll pass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is those movies took place well after the events of TOS. This would be making Firefly Season 2 picking up where Season 1 left off.

    10. Re:I'll pass. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Oops. Jewel Staite. Sorry there.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:I'll pass. by Bradmont · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh, I thought you were saying Netflix was sponsoring SOPA.

    12. Re:I'll pass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck the age discrepancy. Firefly was my favorite sci-fi TV show and I wouldn't want it resurrected because the actor chemistry would be awkward as hell.

    13. Re:I'll pass. by Noughmad · · Score: 0

      I'm allergic to giving money to corporations that sponsor bills like SOPA.

      Do you have a reference for that?

      You want a doctor's note? Or would a violent unexpected sneeze be enough?

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    14. Re:I'll pass. by icebraining · · Score: 2

      What about a congresswoman? Nancy Pelosi has talked against SOPA: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/17/idUS402801936220111117

    15. Re:I'll pass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Same here... I'd rather give to TBA.

    16. Re:I'll pass. by John+Bresnahan · · Score: 2

      The difference is those movies took place well after the events of TOS. This would be making Firefly Season 2 picking up where Season 1 left off.

      Why would new Firefly episodes have to pick up where the old ones left off?

    17. Re:I'll pass. by Surt · · Score: 2, Funny

      But a woman can't be president. I bet she barely has time for the cooking and cleaning as it is.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    18. Re:I'll pass. by cynyr · · Score: 1

      it would now be 9-12 years after the events in serenity.... considering the info that was leaked it could be a radically different place.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    19. Re:I'll pass. by phaggood · · Score: 2

      I would pay another $1 month if they brought back Firefly. Hell, I'd like Netflix to start an 'ala-carte' service so they could stream stuff that I actually want for an additional fee (i.e. base cost $8/mo + 50cents to $1/show for add-ons) rather than as they've done and sink a bunch of revenues into content I'm not at all interested (that CBS portfolio they just bought - really? Really? What netflix users want most is network re-runs?) ; somewhat like Sprint giving me and other Sprint Premier Gold members the finger when the cancelled the program so they could sink a crapload of cash into iPhones (which as a satisfied Android user/developer I don't see myself EVER buying). *sigh*

    20. Re:I'll pass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I'm not sure that's the case. Fillion is obviously still in love with the show... the man brought "Mal" back for a moment in Castle and said he'd do it in a heartbeat if he could manage to secure the rights.

      Book and Wash are dead, though we'd be happy if the show was just another in-between that included them. Inara, River and Kalee are Sci-Fi staples that would do it for the work and Simon... well, to be honest, the series would've been fine without him.

      You'd have to get Jayne though... and Chuck is done after this season. Let a guy dream. :)

    21. Re:I'll pass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikipedia lists Netflix as one of the supporters of SOPA, but marks the paragraph "[citation needed]".

    22. Re:I'll pass. by AHuxley · · Score: 1
      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    23. Re:I'll pass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure there's a way to cirsumvent that problem (squint, squint)

    24. Re:I'll pass. by John+Bresnahan · · Score: 1

      Even more significant than the changes in the "history" of that fictional universe in the subsequent decade is the fact that the movie killed off two of the major characters

      That, more than anything, would be why a new series wouldn't work.

    25. Re:I'll pass. by x6060 · · Score: 1

      Some of the best TV shows are ones that show you that main characters are not impervious to death.

  2. Them? by benbean · · Score: 1

    Well, thanks a bunch.

    Love, The Rest Of The Not United States World.

    --
    It's a Unix system - I know this.
    1. Re:Them? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Lol, oh my God! You figured them out! Netflix isn't getting Arrested Development for the good of the world, it's a "bullshit marketing trick!". You've really got me thinking now, I wonder if _every show made_ isn't a "marketing trick".

      I'm kidding, of course. You didn't make me think at all and in fact your post tried to make me dumber but I fought through it.

    2. Re:Them? by durrr · · Score: 0

      Given that you don't think at all It's unlikely anything can make you dumber.

    3. Re:Them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zinger! Nice one, Corky! Tell him he's a poopy-pants, too!

    4. Re:Them? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How did this fucking numbskull get modded up? What exactly is the "marketing trick" in making new episodes of a show so that people will subscribe to your service? If that's a "marketing trick", every show is a "marketing trick".

      The stupidity around here sometimes makes my fucking face hurt.

    5. Re:Them? by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      If that's a "marketing trick", every show is a "marketing trick".

      And what did you think all those shows were?

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    6. Re:Them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn I wish I could give you +1 Well-deserved Razzing! But alas... :-(
      I can give you +1 internets though

  3. "Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." by ProfM · · Score: 2

    Gee ... there's just too many to choose from.

    1. Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, Bruce Campbell is too old to play Brisco again. Similar for most of the other series that Fox has cancelled prematurely. Not that I begrudge any fans of whatever shows Netflix can resurrect.

    2. Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." by zippthorne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, Bruce Campbell might have contractual obligations to the show he's currently working on...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    3. Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that's rather a moot point as I doubt very much that he has the energy to spend 12-16 hours every day working on the show and promoting it. The show itself was rather the impressive feat as they were basically filming a new movie every 2 weeks which is just absolutely insane as far as pacing goes.

    4. Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Informative

      For those reading this, "Burn Notice" is really good, by the way.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." by nigelo · · Score: 1

      But *why* is it called 'bum notice'?

      Now, where's me specs?

      --
      *Still* negative function...
    6. Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No it's not. It's incredibly bad actually. None of the characters are remotely believable or likeable. It's hard to get into a spy show when you're rooting for the protagonist to get shot. And the premise? "When you're a spy, you don't get fired, you get sent to Miami." WTF is that? I watched a half dozen episodes of this with family and it was completely and utterly without any merit whatsoever.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." by Surt · · Score: 1

      It's much more interesting once you realize his mother is pulling all the strings.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    8. Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I watched a half dozen episodes of this with family

      Damn, six opportunities to efficiently improve the gene pool lost forever.

    9. Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it isn't. Bruce Campbell is probably the best actor on that show, and that's saying something. (That's not fair to whoever it is that plays the mom on that show - she's probably really the best actor, but I haven't seen enough of the show to know.)

      When your show stars a spy that's supposed to be able to take convincingly go under cover, you need a star that can, well, ACT. The guy who plays the spy is absolutely HORRIBLE. He can't convincingly do anything. About the only thing he can do is play an emotionless killer - but the show wants to be a drama, so that simply doesn't work.

      Then there's the thing where the show tries to be more realistic. Which is why every explosion is a giant fireball, and Miami warehouses have explosive barrels you can shoot with a shotgun to detonate. I'm sure there are more examples, but that would involve watching the show, and the explosive barrels thing was hilarious.

    10. Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I was talking about burn notice with a friend of mine, and I referred to it as a great comedy. She looked at me like I had two heads, and said "it's an action-drama". (like that greek tragedy, Magnum P.I.)

    11. Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I'd call it an "action-comedy" (just like most of USA's other shows: White Collar, Suits, Covert Affairs, etc.).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      On the other hand though, most other shows get this much much worse. For example, Burn Notice only had magical GPS "trackers" once or twice, while the average such show uses that in damn near every episode.

      While the average show portrays explosives as simple magic, this show has for the most part been relatively accurate in its descriptions of the components of an explosive, even if the actual explosion generated is not always that realistic. (Although one instance in which they described C4 being detonated simply by electric current still bugs me a bit, especially since in the application described, a blasting cap was simply out of the question.)

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    13. Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      To be fair, most shows deliberately get explosives wrong (and in a way that, hopefully, can't actually detonate) to reduce liability in the event someone tries it at home and it goes horribly wrong...

      The magic dust gps tracking recently bugged me a lot, though. I thought people finally had a small idea about how GPS worked, so shows couldn't just make stuff up willy-nilly any more.

      It's worse, because it's completely unnecessary - I fail to see how perimeter cameras couldn't have been used as the plot device to make Michael use a Cat's Paw in that episode. Heaven forbid the main character in a spy show should try to keep his face a secret....

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    14. Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." by SuperCharlie · · Score: 1

      Michael's Voice: Making a spy series is easy if you have the right mixture of elements. A sexy assistant, a drunk friend, and a procession of women in need make for good TV.

      Seriously.. Ive begun to sound like him and the wife literally lols.

    15. Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      I'm compelled to watch Burn Notice for two reasons: 1) Bruce Campbell 2) Jarod's brother but yeah, you're pretty much right. It's maddeningly formulaic, and the bad guys are as absurd and dumb as they were on Alias. The only halfway interesting occasional bit is decent footwear on Fiona, who unfortunately wouldn't be attractive even if she did put on 20 pounds to reach a healthy weight (and develop breasts).

    16. Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      For the most part Burn Notice just remains vague about one or more of the important parts of an explosive. That allows them to be accurate without causing trouble. For that occurrence though, it made little sense, since they explicitly mentioned C4. Use of an explosive material that is not easily available to the untrained should have been enough to avoid liability, so the inaccuracy seemed jarring.

      The show does definitely have some episodes that are worse than others. It probably has something to who with which writer was lead on that episode, but I've never bothered to try to track that.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
  4. Very Cool, but... by ideonexus · · Score: 4, Informative

    I closed my Netflix account during all the price-hike hoopla and really haven't missed it at all (started reading a lot more). So I guess I'll do what I do with TV shows (since we don't own a TV) and wait until they're out on DVD or streaming somewhere else for free online. I'm patient enough to do this with Futurama, so I can wait for more episodes of this awesomely twisted show.

    --
    i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
    1. Re:Very Cool, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm missing the part where BitTorrent has the new exclusive episodes slated to be released in 2013...it's likely they'll show up in some form, but not entirely guaranteed.

      The stuff you linked to has been on Netflix for years now. Congratulations on not reading the article or having anything interesting to add to the discussion.

    2. Re:Very Cool, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Consider a Netflix DVD by mail subscription as a way to participate in a national distributed off-site backup system aimed at bypassing SOPA.

    3. Re:Very Cool, but... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Consider a Netflix DVD by mail subscription as a way to participate in a national distributed off-site backup system aimed at bypassing SOPA.

      I sold my station wagon decades ago.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Very Cool, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I went from 3-at-time to 2 and did not get choose streaming. Two month's later, I added streaming. I missed it and so did my wife. Also, I was upset at the quickster fiasco, and decided that scrapping the idea was ok. I was about to cancel netflix, and good thing ey decided not to do so. I looked at alternatives at the time, and none was good. I don't like vudu prices/model, I dont want to buy blu rays, just watch them and stream instantly lesser known movies/shows. I also don't want other companies that skimmed eir customers like blockbuster or dish or the cable operators to own any of my money. I literaly abhor the channel abstraction to content and have had to bundle tv just so at my internet didnt cost more than the bubdle. Me and my wife only see two channels. All the rest is netflix. Any movie ever made to my home plus instant shows, movies I select through instantwatcher dot com.

      I came to realize that netflix is the most straitforward, transparent broker of content today and I want to support them (and get my content from them). When i realized that I also bought some shares. I don't care if they tank. I would like them to get better and to support their model. I looked at amazon also, streaming things that I don't like, and for buying downloadable movies....or renting, it's still no bargain. For buying, they charge me more for higher resolutions? Same with vudu? No thanks walmart. And no thanks Amazon.

      I cannit think of a better way to get content. Pick a movie, get it in my door, or stream from a fair selection of online options instantly on any device. They can charge more if they improve instant streaming if they want and I will still buy it.

    5. Re:Very Cool, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's...netflix. The whole point is drawing folks in to the streaming business. If I were them, I would *never* release this on DVD.

    6. Re:Very Cool, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean you don't have a tv, don't pay netflix, and still enjoy streaming media! Lordy lordy, this one is a maverick! Scream it from the rooftops.

  5. Several thoughts on this rather positive trend by Pecisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1) "Firefly" or "SGU" or whatever your sci-fi poison is can't and won't be retrieved this way - because it is too expensive and Netflix subscribers simply won't do all the lifting;
    2) As someone already pointed out, Netflix and other streaming services which streams tv series are kinda useless in big picture, because they won't be allowed in the rest of the world due of syndication/greed/whatever is new reason for MAFIAA to restrict their product to be available for rest of us;
    3) And I'm alergic to bulshit like SOPA too - so I see less and less initiative to play by the rules. If they think that threatening everyone like wannabe criminals, why I should try to change their mind? There is lot of other things to really worry about, like hunger, economical stagnation, or even existence of capitalism itself. I will try to get myself into more independent stuff and support them - as I already do using open source and free software for 11 years.

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    1. Re:Several thoughts on this rather positive trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trend? One show gets picked up by a subscription only service from a company that's losing customers by the droves and taken a hammering by the stock market?

    2. Re:Several thoughts on this rather positive trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If SOPA does ever pass, the day might come when inmates chant Ni, when people first arrive in prison. Smiling at the warden gets an invitation to play D&D, the guards have credit card sized security badges that double as calculators, and all the cells are cubicles with no doors, bars or locks.

      That's how most prisons would be if 99% of the inmates were non-violent offenders.

      However, you still wouldn't want to drop the bar of soap. Unless you want the brown one-eyed pirate to get plundered, Yar!

    3. Re:Several thoughts on this rather positive trend by kamapuaa · · Score: 2

      they won't be allowed in the rest of the world due of syndication/greed/whatever is new reason for MAFIAA to restrict their product to be available for rest of us;

      The same as if it was NBC or HBO, Netflix will own the international copyright and will most probably sell the rights to broadcast elsewhere. At the very least they'll wait a while and put out a DVD.

      And yes. You don't like copyrighted products so you use free software, great. Similarly, there is a huge amount of freely available music and videos, follow those. You aren't obligated to follow big studio entertainments, just as the studios aren't obligated to make their products freely available to you.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    4. Re:Several thoughts on this rather positive trend by icebraining · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most Free Software is copyrighted. GPL, BSD, Apache are all copyright licenses.

    5. Re:Several thoughts on this rather positive trend by cababunga · · Score: 1

      GPL, BSD, Apache are all Copyleft licenses.

    6. Re:Several thoughts on this rather positive trend by icebraining · · Score: 2

      Actually, BSD and Apache aren't copyleft.

    7. Re:Several thoughts on this rather positive trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit, modded this overrated by mistake.

    8. Re:Several thoughts on this rather positive trend by Frnknstn · · Score: 1

      Don't you even read the links you post? 'Copyleft' is a subset of 'Copyright'. Copyleft works because of copyright.

      the practice of using copyright law to offer the right to distribute copies and modified versions of a work and requiring that the same rights be preserved in modified versions of the work

      --
      If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
    9. Re:Several thoughts on this rather positive trend by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      Actually I didn't say that I don't like copyrighted products. What I dislike that I can't buy tv series or movies at affordable price in my country. iTunes started to offer music and movie sells only a month ago - it is after some five, six years after release of service in US? While music prices are quite OK (FF Wasting Light goes a vastly cheaper than in shops), movies are still expensive, newest titles will be available after very long time - and you still can forget about TV series. As I said, it's probably syndication, but there's lot of stuff which won't be shown anyway (like "Stargate Universe") because it is too niche or expensive for local tv stations to buy, translate and show.

      I like art. I'm musician myself and I enjoy well-made music and cinema. What I don't like that I can't get access to them when I want to.

      And yeah, in the end I will try to follow independents now more, as mainstream cartels aren't that interested in my money.

      p.s. another problem with copyright is that it should be at least 20 years from publishing moment (not "second life starting from creator's death" BS we currently have). After that if you haven't succeeded in making money from it - though luck, but you probably never will. And btw, it doesn't deny your rights to create new versions of products which again will have 20 years of protection. Improve it, rearrange it, sell it again.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    10. Re:Several thoughts on this rather positive trend by Pope · · Score: 1

      Import them from the US, then.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  6. Hate It by afabbro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is what I hate about Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Google Music, and every other digital music vendor - limited selection. I can get show X or album Y on service 1, but not on service 2.

    I want every CD, every DVD, and every TV show available to me digitally. That's what we all want. It's not like they aren't already sitting in some digital format somewhere.

    I've long thought that digital media should be like the Internet, with individual Music Service Providers competing based on their interface, features, etc., and not on their catalog. In other words, all content available through everyone and that's not why you choose one over the other.

    iTunes, Google Music, Netflix, etc. are simply recreations of the record company distribution monopoly. At least with record companies, there was one LP, 8-track, cassette, and CD standard. Today you can own a piece of media and not be able to play it on all your devices.

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
    1. Re:Hate It by hedwards · · Score: 3, Interesting

      More or less, but it's been that way for ages. I remember Apple using that as a way of damaging competing brands of MP3 player. They would have tons of DRMed ITMS exclusives that couldn't be played on other players without degrading the sound quality. All because Apple refused to license its DRM to competitors and wasn't willing to license MS' DRM.

      These days it's not about the player but about making it as inconvenient and expensive as possible to get access to the entire catalog. In this case rather than Netflix, Hulu et al., being responsible it's the industry wanting to receive payment multiple times for the same consumer's access to the work.

    2. Re:Hate It by Karlt1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      More or less, but it's been that way for ages. I remember Apple using that as a way of damaging competing brands of MP3 player. They would have tons of DRMed ITMS exclusives that couldn't be played on other players without degrading the sound quality. All because Apple refused to license its DRM to competitors and wasn't willing to license MS' DRM.

      And instead of licensing their DRM, they encouraged the music industry to allow all music to be sold DRM free.

      http://www.apple.com/de/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/

      The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.

      Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs havenâ(TM)t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. Thatâ(TM)s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player.

    3. Re:Hate It by Surt · · Score: 1

      And of course, every one of those services wants to be the only one you can get it from. It's what they all want.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:Hate It by j-beda · · Score: 1

      I want every CD, every DVD, and every TV show available to me digitally. That's what we all want. It's not like they aren't already sitting in some digital format somewhere.

      Quest had a cute commercial about this type of thing, way back in 1999:
      A tired man goes into a cheap motel in the middle of nowhere and asks about amenities. When he asks about entertainment, the girl responds "all rooms have every movie ever made in any language anytime, day or night."
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ9qcp6Lcno

      The technology exists, heck, a payment system probably could be worked out without too much technical difficulties. The political/legal rights issues are probably intractable.

    5. Re:Hate It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iTunes, Google Music,

      Seeing as to how these aren't subscription services (at the moment), what difference does it make that you have to check multiple stores? I don't know about you, but I was alive and buying stuff in the 90s, and having to shop around was a regular thing, and it wasn't really all that bad. You got more choice. Also, you left out Amazon's MP3 store, which has damned near everything.

      Netflix, Hulu

      Subscribe to both? Still cheaper than cable. Honestly, the "techie" crowd comes across as really whiny in this whole thing. If you want every show on Netflix that you can get on cable, then Netflix will have to cost at least half as much as cable instead of the 20% (if you're cheap with your cable subscription) that it costs now. But no, we want it for $10/mo.

    6. Re:Hate It by zaphod8829 · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more. I hate it when I have the ability to choose which groups I give money to, and what they obtain/produce. It's so much better when you have the choice of only a few providers, each of which pumps tons of channels at you, most of which you wouldn't pay for if given the choice.

      Netflix is becoming the equivalent of a channel at this point. They're stepping from the archive space into producing their own sitcom. It happens to be one I love dearly, and the last couple episodes clearly gave the impression that the actors wanted to find someone to do it. That part's just icing on the cake, though. I'm happy that a streaming service is actually paying for new content to be produced.

      The FCC couldn't do it by mandating that satellite/cable/fiber optic/etc. television providers offer a la carte pricing. It looks like it's being done from the other side, though. The market is producing options for us. I'm happy about that.

      --
      .sig
    7. Re:Hate It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1


      I want every CD, every DVD, and every TV show available to me digitally.

      I believe that exists. It's called "The Pirate Bay".

      Honestly, how can such a system exist in a capitalist economy? Any store that sells anything competes partially on the product selection they have. What store in the world has every available version of a product, across the globe? Amazon has a huge collection of books available, but it sure as hell isn't everything.

    8. Re:Hate It by metalmaster · · Score: 1

      what is this 8-track you speak of? and will it play in my disc player?

      ....well, so much for that one format for all devices argument

    9. Re:Hate It by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      Its been that way even further back, in ye olde times of ancient television. A single station might produce a show, and that was your basic option for seeing said show. (Unless you wanted to purchase the VHS).

    10. Re:Hate It by nigelo · · Score: 1

      Disk player? Wassat?

      --
      *Still* negative function...
    11. Re:Hate It by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      This is what I hate about Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Google Music, and every other digital music vendor

      Of the four services you mentioned, three don't work where I live (Europe). Unfortunately, the fourth one requires a piece of proprietary software that I can't run without buying even more proprietary software or hardware.

      On the other hand, there is this one service that works everywhere in the world, has a lot of different clients (many of them free), and even supports interoperability between providers. And on top of that, you don't have to risk your credit card details getting stolen.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    12. Re:Hate It by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Right, they encouraged the industry to go DRM free after they had gotten all the mileage that they were going to get out of abusing their ITMS to harm the competition. Don't make Steve out to be something he's not, he was every bit as vicious and arrogant as MS, it's just that early on he got booted from Apple when he could have been building up a dominant market position in computers.

    13. Re:Hate It by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Yes, although I don't really consider that to be the same thing as in those days there was a really good technological reason for that. VHS was expensive as was the means of setting up another station. It was less about control and more a matter of pragmatics back then.

      Don't get me wrong, I'd be surprised if they wouldn't have pulled this sort of crap, but the technology didn't really require it at the time.

    14. Re:Hate It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least with record companies, there was one LP, 8-track, cassette, and CD standard. Today you can own a piece of media and not be able to play it on all your devices.

      Er, hello. Have you ever tried playing an LP in your 8-track player or a CD in your cassette deck?!

    15. Re:Hate It by Nyder · · Score: 1

      This is what I hate about Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Google Music, and every other digital music vendor - limited selection. I can get show X or album Y on service 1, but not on service 2.

      I want every CD, every DVD, and every TV show available to me digitally. That's what we all want. It's not like they aren't already sitting in some digital format somewhere.

      I've long thought that digital media should be like the Internet, with individual Music Service Providers competing based on their interface, features, etc., and not on their catalog. In other words, all content available through everyone and that's not why you choose one over the other.

      iTunes, Google Music, Netflix, etc. are simply recreations of the record company distribution monopoly. At least with record companies, there was one LP, 8-track, cassette, and CD standard. Today you can own a piece of media and not be able to play it on all your devices.

      Weird, thepiratebay.org and other sites, don't have the problem. If it can be digitized, you can download it.

      This is why I don't pay for stuff, because they don't need money and they sure as fuck don't understand the market. So screw them. Because they will screw you over, if it makes them even the slightest profit.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    16. Re:Hate It by TopSpin · · Score: 1

      I want every CD, every DVD, and every TV show available to me digitally.

      Stay alive long enough and you'll see it. This won't happen in an orderly fashion; legacy content owners wisely adopting the new business model. Most of them will have to be bought to evict the legacy management and/or have change forced upon them.

      I explained and predicted this back in July. Exclusive content is the way forward for streaming, just as it was for cable companies. Cable was the venue for CNN, MTV and all those other now household names. Netflix, or whomever wishes to do well, needs to keep prices low, ignore the big content providers that don't 'get it', and create/buy exclusive content.

      there was one LP ... standard

      Ah no. No there wasn't. The LP format you seem to believe has always been standard is the product of evolution in the market that went on long before you were born. The LPs you see today each began as a proprietary offerings by cutthroat competitors.

      --
      Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    17. Re:Hate It by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

      Right, they encouraged the industry to go DRM free after they had gotten all the mileage that they were going to get out of abusing their ITMS to harm the competition. Don't make Steve out to be something he's not, he was every bit as vicious and arrogant as MS, it's just that early on he got booted from Apple when he could have been building up a dominant market position in computers.

      Yeah because little companies like MS and Sony couldn't possibly compete with big bad Apple....

      The same article I quoted said that as of 2007, only 3% of the typical users music came from iTunes. There was nothing stopping anyone from buying a competing MP3 player.

    18. Re:Hate It by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter whether or not that's the case it's still an antitrust violation no matter how you spin it. The reality is that there were an awful lot of exclusives that the ITMS managed to get in large part due to its size and it was effectively preventing people who owned other brands of MP3 player from getting full quality out of their purchases.

      It doesn't matter what you cite, the fact remains that Apple was using the ITMS in a way that damaged competition.

    19. Re:Hate It by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Better idea. Do without. Why not lose the fetish over coveting and consuming ready-made culture and create your own with your friends?

    20. Re:Hate It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To me, they're more like mercenaries. They work with the ones that give them more, until they can get rid of the middle man. As long as they keep getting money.

      See, they used their DRM on their proprietary codec and then positioned their product. Once they had it, they finished DRM, because it was expensive to maintain. Now they have this Video codec and they want to position it all around HTML5...

  7. Gob makes anyone think they could do magic.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a big fan of his magic shows and always using "The Final Countdown" as his theme song. Don't get me wrong, I know nothing about magic and I could do it better than him.

  8. Not exclusively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Amazon provides Arrested Development to prime members for free and others can rent/buy episodes or seasons.

    1. Re:Not exclusively by dead_user · · Score: 2

      Read the caption again. This is for NEW material. Not old seasons.

    2. Re:Not exclusively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Headline is poorly written. Add "NEW" to the beginning. Ah, being specific... feels so good.

    3. Re:Not exclusively by fafaforza · · Score: 1

      You could also use reason and ask yourself why a 5 year old TV show being made available by a DVD rental company would make it onto Slashdot. The only reason would be that it was new content, and you would scan the summary for this tidbit, albeit small and somewhat hidden.

  9. Jericho... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bring back Jericho and I will happily subvert all my principals.

    1. Re:Jericho... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuts!

    2. Re:Jericho... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My god, how many high schools did you kidnap principals from? You sound like someone who has no principles, or at least can't spell it.

    3. Re:Jericho... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2

      Jericho reboot is currently on AMC. They wanted to mix it up a bit from "Internal terrorists" and went with "Zombies" instead as the main plot.

      More or less remains unchanged.

  10. Not from Fox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I'd like to see new episodes of Better Off Ted. They absolutely need all the original cast, too.

    The scene with the lie detector test from one of their episodes was hilarious.

  11. There are a few. by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't mind seeing Firefly, Dark Angle, and Terminator - The Sara Connor Chronicles get revived. I'm not sure why Breaking In disappeared. It looked like it had potential.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  12. Lord knows they're squinters by shoppa · · Score: 4, Funny

    And that's why you don't use a one-armed man to scare someone.

    1. Re:Lord knows they're squinters by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Hermano is about to get his ass kicked.

    2. Re:Lord knows they're squinters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It's why you don't use a one-armed man to teach lessons.

  13. When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So how long before movies and mobile applications bought on iTunes Store will be DRM-free? Oh wait: the estate of Steve Jobs is the biggest shareholder of both Apple and Disney.

    1. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by Karlt1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So how long before movies and mobile applications bought on iTunes Store will be DRM-free? Oh wait: the estate of Steve Jobs is the biggest shareholder of both Apple and Disney.

      i thought the reframe was that people wanted DRM free media to "use their media anyway they want to and on any device". What other device besides an iOS device could apps be used on and how does it hurt the consumer? How does DRM on apps prevent you from doing anything you want to with it besides illegally distribute it?

    2. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 1

      So how long before movies and mobile applications bought on iTunes Store will be DRM-free?

      Apple would love to sell movies and apps from the iTunes store without DRM. Those are basically break even enterprises Apple uses as a way to make money selling hardware. Anything that makes it easier and more common for people to get more movies or apps also gives users more reason to buy Apple devices and that is where Apple cashes in. The one caveat being, Apple doesn't want other distribution networks for applications on their mobile devices because they are worried about quality, development practices that will limit future improvements, and malware tarnishing the brand. DRM free movies are prevented by the MPAA, although maybe some day Apple will be able to pressure them as it did the RIAA.

      Oh wait: the estate of Steve Jobs is the biggest shareholder of both Apple and Disney.

      umm, half a percent of the shares of Apple isn't going to give Jobs's estate a lot of sway in major strategic decisions at Apple. Apple does have a close partnership with Disney, but I think they'd be more than happy to go DRM free for movies simply because i makes good business sense for Apple.

    3. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      DRM on apps prevents me from using my device as if I owned it. I can't install products of my choosing or use formats of my choosing. I am not free to backup and restore my device free of some other proprietary entanglement.

      It's the same problem as video.

      The user is stuck in an Apple-only quagmire where their devices and content only work with other Apple-only devices in a manner that Apple approves of.

      I can play a Harry Potter disk in any brand of player. Can't say the same of the "digital download" that came with it.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by jedidiah · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > Apple would love to sell movies and apps from the iTunes store without DRM.

      You've just got to love how the fanboys will speak for a corporation as if they have any standing to do so. It's pretty arrogant really. It also flies in the fact of the fact that they clearly benefit from the arrangement.

      They could also allow for 3rd party DRM implementations if they were willing.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    5. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by tepples · · Score: 1

      What other device besides an iOS device could apps be used on and how does it hurt the consumer?

      If iOS applications were DRM-free, someone could fork GNUstep to make a binary-compatible operating environment in the tradition of Wine. The reason such an environment hasn't been built in the three years that the App Store has been running is because of the DRM.

      And if iOS apps were DRM-free, people wouldn't have to pay $600 plus $99 per year to run applications that a friend developed on a device that they bought.

    6. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Whenever the copyright holders agree to it. Apple could force DRM-free music because they were the #1 music store and music labels realized they gave Apple leverage by insisting on DRM. With movies, you can get them on netflix, RedBox, Hulu as well as outlets. As for applications, an application is not media. Buying an iOS app to work on your Android is not likely to work very well.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    7. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 1, Funny

      Apple would love to sell movies and apps from the iTunes store without DRM.

      You've just got to love how the fanboys will speak for a corporation as if they have any standing to do so. It's pretty arrogant really. It also flies in the fact of the fact that they clearly benefit from the arrangement.

      You've got to love how people can present the logical fallacies of ad hominem and implicit statement in a single paragraph. It's wonderful how initially a poster presented as fact that Apple was leveraging DRM on music to make money as their business model, then when that was shown to be completely wrong, someone else asserts how, with a nearly identical business model Apple is benefiting too much from DRM on movies so they would not abandon it. I mean, did you even read the thread or can you not make that simple of a connection? And clearly anyone who thinks Apple is a corporation with a razor business model instead of a blades business model makes then a "fanboy".

      They could also allow for 3rd party DRM implementations if they were willing.

      Sure, but it would make for worse battery life on the hardware, leading to the brand being diminished. That's the whole point you seem to have missed, Apple makes money on the hardware. If you don't understand that you'll constantly be making incorrect predictions and assertions about their motivations and actions.

    8. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
      Er? By your low ID, I would hope you know that buying an app for one platform is not likely to work very well on another platform. For instance you can buy Office for Windows but unless you run virtualization that copy isn't going to work on a Mac.

      The user is stuck in an Apple-only quagmire where their devices and content only work with other Apple-only devices in a manner that Apple approves of.

      You are under no obligation to buy only Apple media. The problem is DRM on the media limits the platform. It exists under the insistence of the copyright holder.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    9. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      If iOS applications were DRM-free, someone could fork GNUstep to make a binary-compatible operating environment in the tradition of Wine. The reason such an environment hasn't been built in the three years that the App Store has been running is because of the DRM.

      That's assuming that the application developer allows you to do so. Not everyone wants you to run their applications for free.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    10. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      They could also allow for 3rd party DRM implementations if they were willing.

      So you are saying it's Apple's fault that they don't want to allow 3rd parties access to the DRM they created. They've already stated the reasons they don't want to. Hey if you want to create a DRM system with 3rd parties go right ahead. If you want to deal the with Hollywood, that's your dilemma.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    11. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by tepples · · Score: 1

      For instance you can buy Office for Windows but unless you run virtualization that copy isn't going to work on a Mac.

      That's what Wine is at least supposed to be for. If iOS apps didn't have DRM, someone could take GNUstep and in theory build it into a binary-compatible execution environment to run iOS apps.

      The problem is DRM on the media limits the platform. It exists under the insistence of the copyright holder.

      On the other hand, some other copyright holders insist on no DRM, and Apple won't let them distribute their apps that way. I can link to a prior Slashdot article about this if you're interested.

    12. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by tepples · · Score: 1

      That's assuming that the application developer allows you to do so. Not everyone wants you to run their applications for free.

      Nor do the major record labels want you to listen to their recordings for free, yet Apple managed to get them to agree to iTunes Plus. Besides, why does Apple use DRM for the paid apps and the same DRM for the freeware apps instead of DRM for the paid apps and no DRM for the freeware apps?

    13. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by jasomill · · Score: 2

      If iOS applications were DRM-free, someone could fork GNUstep to make a binary-compatible operating environment in the tradition of Wine. The reason such an environment hasn't been built in the three years that the App Store has been running is because of the DRM.

      "In the tradition of Wine," an appropriately "clean room" implementation would entail a massive amount of work, and "in the tradition of Wine," it'd most likely never be robust and current enough for anything but "useful special cases" in production.

      Not to mention the fact that Apple's army of lawyers, unlike Microsoft's, aren't wearing antitrust shackles. Thus the project would almost certainly attract "undesirable attention" from Apple's lawyersÂonce it looked promising, demotivating the aforementioned "massive amount of work" required to reach that point.

      Perhaps "DRM"Âwould become involved eventually, but, as it stands, app DRM really is designed to prevent casual piracy of App Store apps. Apple already lets you "format shift" apps onto every device you own that's capable of running the damn things, after all.

      And if iOS apps were DRM-free, people wouldn't have to pay $600 plus $99 per year to run applications that a friend developed on a device that they bought.

      Unless by "run" you mean "compile from source and run," I'm not sure where your numbers are coming from. Assuming the "friend" is a member of the paid developer program, there are several ways to do this for free.

    14. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      That's what Wine is at least supposed to be for. If iOS apps didn't have DRM, someone could take GNUstep and in theory build it into a binary-compatible execution environment to run iOS apps.

      Let me get this straight. You want Apple to release their apps without DRM even though the application developers may not want you to and bog down a mobile device by running virtualization. Only because you want everything free. Sure.

      On the other hand, some other copyright holders insist on no DRM, and Apple won't let them distribute their apps that way. I can link to a prior Slashdot article about this if you're interested.

      I believe nothing stops a developer from releasing their source code today if they want if they want. If you are talking about VLC someone ported it into the app store, but one of the developers objected to it being there. So Apple removed it.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    15. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Nor do the major record labels want you to listen to their recordings for free, yet Apple managed to get them to agree to iTunes Plus.

      Um maybe that had to do with the fact that music was DRM free from CDs to begin with and by insisting on DRM, the labels made Apple too powerful as they became the #1 music seller.

      Besides, why does Apple use DRM for the paid apps and the same DRM for the freeware apps instead of DRM for the paid apps and no DRM for the freeware apps?

      Because it is logistically easier. If the developer doesn't want to get paid, the entire mechanism is the same but Apple simply does not collect any money and does not forward any to the developer. Otherwise, they would have to a develop an entire system of non-DRM-ed apps. And then what happens if the developer changes his mind?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    16. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

      The user is stuck in an Apple-only quagmire where their devices and content only work with other Apple-only devices in a manner that Apple approves of.

      My audio content is encoded in AAC or MP3 which works on every modern device.

      My video content is encoded in H.264 that is natively supported by almost every device.

      Even my Divx video can be played with third party software.

      No one forces you to buy content from iTunes. It's child's play to rip video content off of a disk,.

    17. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

      They could also allow for 3rd party DRM implementations if they were willing.

      Anybody who wants to sell DRM'd media is welcome to do so using their own app -- just as every e-book seller, NetFlix, Hulu, etc. already do,

    18. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Hollywood has been perfectly fine doing just that as has the recording industry. I'm not sure how else you explain all the music stores that managed to get licenses to sell DRMed music from mainstream artists. None of the stores is as big as the ITMS but that's mostly because they weren't in early enough and didn't have the ability to sell to iPod owners.

      The fact of the matter is that there's absolutely no reason to believe that Apple's unwillingness to license Fairplay to anybody else was anything other than a transparent attempt to abuse the ITMS to harm competitors.

    19. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Um maybe that had to do with the fact that music was DRM free from CDs to begin with

      Apps from Mac OS X, of which iOS is known to be a fork, were DRM free to begin with.

      Otherwise, they would have to a develop an entire system of non-DRM-ed apps.

      And guess what they had on the Mac: a non-DRM ecosystem before adding the Mac App Store.

      And then what happens if the developer changes his mind?

      Developer discontinues freeware version in favor of paid version? Freeware version gets no more updates.

    20. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by tepples · · Score: 1

      You want Apple to release their apps without DRM even though the application developers may not want you to

      Please see my other reply.

      and bog down a mobile device by running virtualization

      Where does virtualization (in the VirtualBox or VMware or Parallels sense) come into it? Wine is just a set of libraries that are binary-compatible with applications made for Windows. An app to run theoretical DRM-free iOS apps on something else would be little different from Wine to run Windows apps on Linux or Mac OS X.

    21. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by tepples · · Score: 1

      an appropriately "clean room" implementation would entail a massive amount of work

      Yet the GNU developers managed such an implementation of the published POSIX API. Because Cocoa Touch is based on OpenStep, and OpenStep is implemented in GNUstep, such work for Cocoa Touch has in theory already begun.

      Assuming the "friend" is a member of the paid developer program, there are several ways to do this for free.

      Until the friend stops paying his protection money.

    22. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Apps from Mac OS X, of which iOS is known to be a fork, were DRM free to begin with.

      That's a rather large leap from OS X to iOS. That's like saying DOS had no DRM and Windows XP does and they are the same thing. You are trying to equate two things that are not truly equal. The record labels placed on DRM on music which the user could get DRM free. There were no iOS apps without DRM because they didn't exist before the app store.

      And guess what they had on the Mac: a non-DRM ecosystem before adding the Mac App Store.

      Again trying to equate two things that are not equal. Were there DRM free iOD apps before the store? Can you run an OS X app on a iOS device? No.

      Developer discontinues freeware version in favor of paid version? Freeware version gets no more updates.

      Isn't it easier for the developer just to change the price? So Apple has to create a whole separate tier of apps and have the developer do extra work because you didn't want DRM even though you didn't pay for the app. I see it's all about you.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    23. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Where does virtualization (in the VirtualBox or VMware or Parallels sense) come into it? Wine is just a set of libraries that are binary-compatible with applications made for Windows. An app to run theoretical DRM-free iOS apps on something else would be little different from Wine to run Windows apps on Linux or Mac OS X.

      Hello? We are talking about mobile apps right? While they might run some virtualization, you want Apple to institute some sort of system that lets you run apps on systems they don't support just because you don't like DRM? In all your posts why does it seem you complain about how Apple doesn't serve your wishes and desires even thought they are both impractical and minuscule? In other words, Apple does not exist to make the ecosystem and devices you want. They exist to sell to the average consumer. If you don't like the choices Apple offers, Apple is not stopping you from choosing alternatives.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    24. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by tepples · · Score: 1

      The record labels placed on DRM on music which the user could get DRM free.

      And Apple places DRM on ports of classic PC games whose original versions the user could get DRM-free from GOG.

      Can you run an OS X app on a iOS device? No.

      Can you run a Mac OS X app on a Mac OS X device? Not necessarily. Lion doesn't have Rosetta to run apps designed for Cheetah through Tiger. And Tim only knows what 10.8 (Snow Lion?) might drop.

    25. Re:When will movies and apps become DRM-free? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Can you run a Mac OS X app on a Mac OS X device? Not necessarily. Lion doesn't have Rosetta to run apps designed for Cheetah through Tiger. And Tim only knows what 10.8 (Snow Lion?) might drop.

      Now you're trying to shoe-horn backwards compatibility on different hardware into the argument where it doesn't belong. Can you run any DOS game on Windows 7? Complaining just to complain.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  14. Late arrival spoiler by tepples · · Score: 1

    And all these older seasons shown on Amazon Prime are probably going to be spoiled by Netflix's advertisements for the new season.

  15. Exclusivity - what the price hike is paying for by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Netfix surely could have gotten the content cheaper if it was non-exclusive. The price hike everyone was griping about isn't being spent (entirely) on bringing more content to Netflix subscribers. Part of it is being spent on keeping content away from subscribers of other content delivery services, i.e. exclusivity. You're happy to pay more to help Netflix shut out its competitors, right?

    Note: I'm not arguing about whether or not Netfix is a good deal for the price. I'm arguing against exclusivity as a matter of principle -- it's an abuse of customers to make them pay more in order to make the market less competitive (which ultimately hurts consumers).

    1. Re:Exclusivity - what the price hike is paying for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe Arrested Development would still be dead if Netflix didn't pay enough to be the exclusive distributor.

    2. Re:Exclusivity - what the price hike is paying for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I'm arguing against exclusivity as a matter of principle -- it's an abuse of customers to make them pay more in order to make the market less competitive (which ultimately hurts consumers).

      Businesses have principles? This reminds me of a friend of mine who recently told me that business exist to serve customers, not make a profit. I sat in shock for a moment, wondering how anyone could think that. You actually bring up a great counterpoint to his assertion, in that the exclusivity is merely a means to increase profits, and in no way serves the customer.

      You're right, exclusivity is terrible for consumers. But the only way you're going to eliminate it is if you can prove that Netflix is a monopoly, and exclusivity is an abuse of anti-competitive behaviour of a monopoly.

    3. Re:Exclusivity - what the price hike is paying for by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Maybe, or maybe it's an exclusive because no one else wanted it. No one was exactly racing to pick up the show until now.

    4. Re:Exclusivity - what the price hike is paying for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the dawn of television, TV shows were available exclusively on the network on which they aired. Syndicated TV shows often air exclusively on one channel per market. Most movies are available exclusively in movie theaters for a limited time.

      Are you opposed to those forms of exclusively-distributed content? Is this much different?

    5. Re:Exclusivity - what the price hike is paying for by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Hold on. The point of exclusivity is to draw more customers to your service. If you're drawing more customers, that's more revenue. If you have more revenue, you can use that to pay for the exclusivity. If you're not expecting to make enough from new customers to pay for the exclusivity deal, then making the deal doesn't make economic sense for your business. There's absolutely no reason to raise rates on existing customers to pay for an exclusivity deal.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Exclusivity - what the price hike is paying for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points. Moreover, they may have a surplus and use it to buy more things. They key for netflix is that if they have more subscribers the users win. If they have less, everyone loses. In the cases of vudu, if they have more users, I gain nothing and just validate a model of charging 14 or more to see a movie many times in a drm format that I may not use tomorrow, and just validating this model. The only other company that gets my sympathy (but that I don't use) is hulu.

    7. Re:Exclusivity - what the price hike is paying for by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 1

      Businesses have principles?

      I didn't say that. I dislike businesses doing exclusive deals because it is a way to extract greater profits from consumers by creating an artificial monopoly. It's my principles that I was referring to, not the principles of the businesses involved. Of course, my opinion (and hopefully that of people who understand my point) of a business is lowered when I see them doing such things.

    8. Re:Exclusivity - what the price hike is paying for by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 1

      The point of exclusivity is to draw more customers to your service.

      That may be one point of it, but it is not the only one. Before I provide some other reasons for doing exclusive deals, I have to say a quick word about competition. When there truly is competition, prices of services are driven down to the cost of providing them (including a normal return on investment capital) -- above that point, a competitor can increase its profits by undercutting the others. When you have a monopoly (or oligopoly where companies elect not to compete), companies will set prices to extract the maximum total profit from consumers. That's why text messages cost so much in the U.S. when providing the service costs so little -- price is based on what people are willing to pay, rather than on what it costs to provide the service.

      So, other reasons for Netflix to seek exclusivity:

      1) They now have a monopoly on the TV show Arrested Development, which means they have a greater ability to increase prices for their service. If someone loves Arrested Development more than life itself, they have to pay whatever Netflix chooses to charge, because there is no other (legal) way for them to see the show. Instead of drawing more customers to Netflix, Netflix may actually find that they achieve a higher total profit by raising the price to a point where they end up with fewer customers but a much higher profit per customer. Fewer consumers get the benefit of seeing Arrested Development, those that do see it pay more than they otherwise would have, and Netflix makes more money -- all consumers are worse off and Netflix is better off, made possible by a monopoly.

      2) By doing many such exclusive deals, Netflix may be able to starve competing services of content to a point where they cannot stay in business. If Netflix is successful at doing so, it goes from having a monopoly on a few shows to having a monopoly on digital video delivery in general, giving them much greater power to increase prices down the road.

      If you're not expecting to make enough from new customers to pay for the exclusivity deal, then making the deal doesn't make economic sense for your business.

      It makes economic sense to do the deal if it will, as part of their overall strategy (i.e. the deal cannot be considered in isolation, but must also take into account the non-linear impact of doing many such deals and driving competitors under), lead to greater total profits in the long term. Such profits may come from adding subscribers at the current price, as you assert, or they may come from positioning themselves to extract much more money from each subscriber via monopoly pricing, or from a combination of the two.

      There's absolutely no reason to raise rates on existing customers to pay for an exclusivity deal.

      They just raised rates on subscribers by 60% a few months ago (if you kept the same DVD + streaming service that you had before, rather than switching to a reduced service). Since then, this is the second exclusive deal that they've announced (this was the first). Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not.

    9. Re:Exclusivity - what the price hike is paying for by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 1

      If they put out a statement saying it is exclusive, it means the studio signed a contract saying that they won't (for some period of time) license it to anyone else. It's not just a matter of the studio saying "We're offering it to anyone that wants to pay, but Netflix is the only one that has stepped forward so far." They are contractually prohibited from licensing it to anyone else that comes along and makes an offer. The studio would be crazy to forgo that opportunity without getting something in return.

  16. Bleh. by X3J11 · · Score: 1

    Farscape was better.

    Of course, I already own both that and Firefly on DVD, so the whole streaming thing is moot for me.

    As it is, I am not a fan of streaming media from the net. My ISP (Rogers) charges a not inconsiderable amount for a, in my opinion, pitiable bandwidth quota. Their overage charge is even worse. I would rather purchase the physical media and watch whenever I please, as often as I please.

    1. Re:Bleh. by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      A simple file has all of the advantages of streaming media and none of the downsides. When it also represents the cheaper option, it really makes no sense to shun physical media.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Bleh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think people are missing the point. Netflix is paying for continued production of AD episodes. Netflix already had AD available for streaming. For 6-12 months now.

      Unless I'm missing something, and Farscape production has resumed. Because that would be awesome, as Farscape is indeed the better show.

  17. Waaaah Waaaah Waaaah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yeah, but they'll probably stream all the Firefly episodes out of order. That's what ruined it. (whine whine whine). God, those Firefly whiners just won't die, no matter how many bullets you put in them.

  18. Firefly, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    No Just You.

    1. Re:Firefly, anyone? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      Well, him and me - and actually most geeks I know. But like many things in our geeky lives, the resurrection of Firefly is pure fantasy. Everybody involved was actually talented and now has a flourishing career, probably making more money than they ever did in 2002-3. And they're all a whole lot older. It's just not gonna happen. But this doesn't change the fact that the cancellation of Firefly happened when the show was consistently excellent. It's no wonder that it's the go-to example of the unjustly cancelled show. So many people say this and it's become almost a cliche, but doesn't make it any less true.

  19. Yeah. by warrax_666 · · Score: 1

    Never mind that rampant objectification, it's the fucking spelling of her name that really gets my goat.

    --
    HAND.
  20. HBO / show / MAX / Stars is the better way to go by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    More people can them then streaming. But why not move the show to FX or some other channel?

  21. and you can get less time by shoplifting movies an by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and you can get less time by shoplifting movies and games from the store.

  22. WTF is Arrested Development? by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 0

    Is sounds like an insecticide they use on cockroaches that prevents them from reaching puberty and, therefore, unable to breed.

    1. Re:WTF is Arrested Development? by Surt · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a fox tv series that aired in the US a few years back. Among people who watched it, it was exceptionally well regarded, but it suffered and died from two problems:

      1) Jumping in was hard, because there were a lot of self-referential jokes from earlier episodes.
      2) It got consistently stuck in terrible time-slots, and this was before Nielsen figured out how to deal with people using dvrs.

      If you're a nerd and enjoy comedy series, I'd highly recommend it. In my opinion it's the best comedy series ever on tv, and the only one that I've watched the entirety of more than 3 times.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:WTF is Arrested Development? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      In my opinion it's the best comedy series ever on tv

      Seconded. Although, by the third season, the show all but collapses under all its self-reference.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    3. Re:WTF is Arrested Development? by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Again not even one bit of meaningful information. So typical.

  23. Cult? by kogut · · Score: 2

    Can a 4-year-long series with established talent be considered "cult?"

    1. Re:Cult? by kimvette · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes - Fox did everything they could to sabotage the show, including but not limited to musical timeslots. airing shows out of order, placing it in timeslots where it would be preempted by sports or political speeches, and so on. They went out of their way to kill the show, justifying their cancelling it due to low ratings which were due in large part to the musical timeslots and preempting and delaying of broadcast, and yet it STILL became an astounding success upon DVD release and reruns on cable networks have been strong as well. So yes, it enjoys a cult following.

      I'd like to see "No Ordinary Family" and "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" be continued as well. Also, Firefly, I would second, providing the writers pretend "Serenity" never happened (It was a really shitty ending and we never did learn much about Shepherd's backstory and why at times he enjoyed a VIP get out of jail free card) and just pick up where the series originally left off.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  24. A shot across the bows by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    The studios bankroll, they do not create. If the creative types jump ship to streamers, the traditional companies have nothing to offer. Damnatraiggt the should be scared.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:A shot across the bows by j-beda · · Score: 1

      On a per-viewer basis - TV creators get very little revenue. If they can find a way to get similar levels of income from non-broadcast TV distribution, then we will see more of this in the future. Maybe broadcast TV will end up just showing old re-runs of programming first released in some other format.

  25. Bitfrost by tepples · · Score: 1

    Apple doesn't want other distribution networks for applications on their mobile devices because they are worried about quality

    "Quality" is nebulous. There are bad movies on the iTunes Store; why should apps be any different?

    development practices that will limit future improvements

    If by such "development practices" you mean use of private APIs, then have the executable loader fail if it detects the name of any such private API in the list of symbols that the executable imports.

    and malware tarnishing the brand.

    Malware can be dealt with by applying sandbox policies similar to those of OLPC Bitfrost to unapproved applications.

    1. Re:Bitfrost by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 1

      Apple doesn't want other distribution networks for applications on their mobile devices because they are worried about quality

      "Quality" is nebulous. There are bad movies on the iTunes Store; why should apps be any different?

      Because when a movie is bad, people don't blame Apple or the quality of the iPhone. When an app is poor quality it can kill the battery life of the device and people do blame the phone maker. Android developers at Google said this was their #1 problem and it is the reason why they are investing so much money into trying to make new technologies to make it easier to find out what is killing your battery life and warn users of "bad" apps.

      development practices that will limit future improvements

      If by such "development practices" you mean use of private APIs, then have the executable loader fail if it detects the name of any such private API in the list of symbols that the executable imports.

      By development practices, I mean they don't want developers on their platform tied to tools from a company that has little incentive to rapidly implement features they put into new versions of hardware and the OS. They already had similar problems on their desktop platform where they implemented things like spellchecking for any apps that use text, but end users had no access to them because the dev tools did not support the new features (cross platform tools focused on Windows that had no complementary feature). The last thing Apple wants is to be making rapid improvements to the OS designed to facilitate better apps (which in turn sell more hardware) and have no payout because most developers chose tools that did not bother updating to take advantage of the new OS improvements.

      and malware tarnishing the brand.

      Malware can be dealt with by applying sandbox policies similar to those of OLPC Bitfrost to unapproved applications.

      Umm, you do know they guy who made Bitfrost is now working for Apple on the sandboxing Apple uses in iPhones and OS X, right? The point is, appropriate sandboxing based upon signatures and ACLs. I'm a huge advocate for a more open and inclusive repository and sandboxing strategy, but no one has built it yet in a way that works for real users, lets hope someone does innovate instead of copying Apple's model as MS is.

    2. Re:Bitfrost by tepples · · Score: 1

      Android developers at Google said this was their #1 problem and it is the reason why they are investing so much money into trying to make new technologies to make it easier to find out what is killing your battery life and warn users of "bad" apps.

      OS-level battery monitoring in my opinion is the correct solution, as opposed to imposing censorship on application distribution.

      Umm, you do know they guy who made Bitfrost is now working for Apple on the sandboxing Apple uses in iPhones and OS X, right?

      Just because it's from the same person doesn't mean it implements the same policy. From the Bitfrost page: "we wish to have the ability to execute generally untrusted code, while severely limiting its ability to inflict harm to the system." The iOS environment explicitly denies "the ability to execute generally untrusted code" by design.

  26. International, again by fa2k · · Score: 1

    Sorry for bringing up the whole international thing, but we usually get these shows in Europe less than a year after they aired in the US (don't know exactly for comedy shows, but for things like Prison Break it was usually a few months). I wonder how this will play out for the Netflix content, I can only hope they allow others to show it after a while. Also, how hard is it to pirate a netflix stream?

  27. Firefly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I LOVE FIREFLY!

    Arrested Development, I dont even watch

    Firefly however, I'd even consider GETTING Netflix if it was the exclusive source of Firefly!!

  28. I thought Apple made a pretty good technical case by Brannon · · Score: 1

    for not sharing their DRM protocol. The short story is that they were obligated via contract with the record companies to prevent unauthorized breaking or cracking of their protocol (or to roll out fixes quickly in the case of breakage). All DRM security is based on some secrets; secrets they would have to divulge to the third parties for them to implement their protocol. Apple didn't feel like they could meet their contractual obligations if they let a dozen different vendors have access to those secrets.

    A far better approach would be to drop DRM entirely (which is what they said at the time)--and that's exactly what Apple was eventually successful in convincing the record companies to do. Why would they have done that if they were so desperate to preserve the lockin from having proprietary DRM?

    In case you haven't noticed, Apple isn't still doing pretty well with the music thing even though they've been DRM-free for several years now--that kinda shoots the whole 'lockin' argument down, doesn't it?

  29. Information: The more you have... by camperdave · · Score: 1

    I want every CD, every DVD, and every TV show available to me digitally. That's what we all want.

    In the early days of Bulletin Board Systems, operators of these services discovered a principle regarding the relationship between information (content) and clientele: Information has a negative supply/demand curve. With regular stuff, like cars and dental floss, the more there is, the smaller the demand. With information, the more you have, the more clients you will have. The principle holds up in websites today, as well. Do you think Slashdot would have as many readers if they only posted one story a day? If you are within walking distance of two book stores, you go to the bigger book store because they have a bigger selection. (The caveat to this is that the smaller book store may have a selection focus that aligns with your tastes.)

    The same thing applies to media such as music, and video. The bigger the collection available to the customer, the more customers it will attract. That's why people get aerials instead of using bunny ears, subscribe to cable instead of using aerials. They are willing to buy more. That is why download sites exist. They have bigger collections than any brick and mortar store.

    So why don't the media companies apply this principle? Why are they stuck with the mentality that scarceness brings bigger profits?

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  30. The 30% cut on the monthly sub by tepples · · Score: 1

    Anybody who wants to sell DRM'd media is welcome to do so using their own app

    For one thing, this isn't true for the click-wheel iPods, which can't run apps except for a select few major-label games. For another, I seem to remember Apple wanting the 30% cut on the monthly subscription.

    1. Re:The 30% cut on the monthly sub by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

      For one thing, this isn't true for the click-wheel iPods,

      The only non-iOS iPod that can play video that is currently being sold is the Classic. How many companies really care about targeting those?

      For another, I seem to remember Apple wanting the 30% cut on the monthly subscription.

      You're free to sell media on your own website using your own payment processing system and Apple gets nothing.

    2. Re:The 30% cut on the monthly sub by tepples · · Score: 1

      You're free to sell media on your own website using your own payment processing system and Apple gets nothing.

      At one time, Apple announced that it require that if an application on the App Store requires a subscription to use, then it must also make subscriptions available through In-App Purchasing at a price no higher than elsewhere. It backed down on this in June. But what were Apple's motives for setting forth this policy in the first place?

    3. Re:The 30% cut on the monthly sub by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

      At one time, Apple announced that it require that if an application on the App Store requires a subscription to use, then it must also make subscriptions available through In-App Purchasing at a price no higher than elsewhere. It backed down on this in June. But what were Apple's motives for setting forth this policy in the first place?

      Let's engage in a thought experiment....

      Let's say SEGA made a Genesis emulator free for Sony's and Microsoft's online site.

      Then let's say they allowed you to purchase games for the emulator within the app. Would Sony or MS allow that to happen?

  31. Netflix DRM is now a bigger target by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

    The advent of exclusive content on Netflix will be a major incentive for hackers to try to break their DRM. Until now, no one has really cared about it because anyone who wants the content in a freely usable format can get it easier by ripping the relevant DVD/Blu-Ray, or in the case of TV shows by using a hacked Tivo to capture the transport stream. Because of that, no one thought it was worth hacking Netflix DRM when all they would get is lower quality versions of what they could already get elsewhere. Things have now changed. I bet the first workable hack comes out less than a month after the first exclusive episode airs.

    1. Re:Netflix DRM is now a bigger target by captjc · · Score: 1

      Most people never watched the show until it went to DVD, I think most people can wait until this mini-series comes to DVD, which it probably will if only to drum up more hype for the movie. Then again, I do love watching the constant pissing matches between DRM makers and DRM crackers. It is a bit like watching the old Wile E Coyote and Road Runner cartoons.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
  32. Incorrect, application protection not as you think by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    If iOS applications were DRM-free, someone could fork GNUstep to make a binary-compatible operating environment in the tradition of Wine. The reason such an environment hasn't been built in the three years that the App Store has been running is because of the DRM.

    Can you describe technically why this would be the case, at all?

    Because an placation bundle is NOT encrypted. The DRM is simply a signing file that allows the DEVICE to verify the application is from a trusted source. It is inert, and would do nothing whatsoever to stop someone from using a WINE like approach to write something that would run applications... it would have full access to the binaries and all resources in the application without any changes to the application bundle whatsoever.

    What a WINE approach would have issues with is getting files from the app store to begin with... but once downloaded people can (and do!) do anything they want with them.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  33. Re:Sarah Connor Chronicles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Convoluted plot told at a snails pace. Not even Summer Glau made it watchable.

  34. Re:That sucks for netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't wish AD on my worst enemies either; that would truly be a waste of such a fantastic show.

  35. Looks like I blue myself for nothing. by wildstoo · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah, the guy in the $4000 suit is holding the elevator for the guy who doesn't make that in 3 months... COME ON!"

  36. I don't want no part of your tightass country club by wildstoo · · Score: 1

    It ain't easy being white,
    It ain't easy being brown,
    All this pressure to be bright,
    I got childrens all over town!

  37. Season 3 by Builder · · Score: 1

    Seasons 1 and 2 were brilliant. Having not seen the show in the UK, I laughed a lot during these.

    By half way through season 3, I understood why it had been cancelled. Man that was dire!

    1. Re:Season 3 by caitsith01 · · Score: 2

      Seasons 1 and 2 were brilliant. Having not seen the show in the UK, I laughed a lot during these.

      By half way through season 3, I understood why it had been cancelled. Man that was dire!

      The British stuff in season 3 was pretty average, but pretty much every other aspect of it was brilliant.

      Like:

      - Tobias' hair plugs
      - George Sr talking at the "scared straight" tent
      - George Sr being under house arrest and wanting to go back to prison
      - the surrogate
      - Gob and Steve Holt

      Etc etc...

      --
      Read Pynchon.
  38. Not News by CodingHero · · Score: 0

    Arrested Development has been available streaming on Netflix for quite some time; I'd say at least 6 months.

    1. Re:Not News by CodingHero · · Score: 1

      Nevermind. Read TFA.

  39. Arrested Development by snsh · · Score: 1

    The most over-rated under-rated show on televion.

  40. Sarah Conner Cronicles by droidsURlooking4 · · Score: 0

    please. Also V (not Fox) would be good.

  41. Apple is suing makers of alternatives by tepples · · Score: 1

    If you don't like the choices Apple offers, Apple is not stopping you from choosing alternatives.

    Yes it is. Google apple android lawsuit .

    1. Re:Apple is suing makers of alternatives by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      So tell me where Apple has stopped you from buying any Android device. They have blocked particular Samsung models because they believe Samsung copied their design. But not all Samsung models. They have sued other manufacturers dor patents but tell me how you couldn't still buy Android from them. Please enlighten me.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Apple is suing makers of alternatives by x6060 · · Score: 1

      If they could, they would. Also you are correct, they copied their design... its a rectangle with rounded corners and buttons......

  42. Re:I thought Apple made a pretty good technical ca by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    The one thing that is somewhat speculative is how much benefit iTunes is to Apple. Any here on Slashdot seem to think that Apple makes a killing. They are people who can't or won't read a balance sheet and can't multiply. According to the last quarterly Apple had revenue of $1.2B on iPod accessories, music, movies, apps, books and other content. While that seems a lot, that is before Apple gives their 70% cut to someone else. Apple only took in at most $400M in revenue. Remember that is revenue not profit. Apple then has to pay for the infrastructure like all the servers, bandwidth, credit card fees, etc. How much does infrastructure cost? I don't know but an infrastructure that serves up millions of songs, hundreds of thousands of apps and thousands of movies and books to hundreds of millions of users can't be cheap.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  43. DOSBox by tepples · · Score: 1

    Can you run any DOS game on Windows 7?

    Yes, in the third-party emulator DOSBox or in the XP Mode virtual machine that comes with Windows 7 Pro. Taking Rosetta out of Lion is like shipping Windows with an included copy of DOSBox and then taking DOSBox out of the next Windows.

    1. Re:DOSBox by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Sigh. Running an emulator in Windows 7 to run DOS is not running DOS in Windows 7. Changing the conditions just so you have something to complain about. You do realize Apple doesn't exist just for you, right?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:DOSBox by tepples · · Score: 1

      You do realize Apple doesn't exist just for you, right?

      Nor do I exist just for Apple. I choose other brands.

    3. Re:DOSBox by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      So you admit that you complain about Apple just to complain about them.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:DOSBox by tepples · · Score: 1

      I consider it more "sharing with people why I chose another brand".

    5. Re:DOSBox by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      In all your post, you complain Apple just to complain about them. You don't seem to mention that you made another choice. Most of them involve you devising complex scenarios to try to justify your complaint. Like your ridiculous comaint that a Mac is $200 more expensive than a PC because you want to run Windows on it.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.