Because no one person is being paid millions of dollars. Plus, movies have multiple stops to make money where as games do not. Just looking at box office sales doesn't tell the whole picture.
CES = test tube experiments shown in broad daylight. They may never hit the market. Remember how 105" LCDs have been shown since 2005? When's the last time you saw one of those at your local Best Buy?
Granted, practical applications of technology often do make it to market, but stuff is usually years away from being widespread. The show is more about what "could be" and attracting other companies as clients, not end-consumer oogling for "what's shipping this year".
I'm going to sum up Google's strategy by reusing a phrase that Leo Laporte came up with: "Google sells things for 'less than free' to the consumer." And the thing is, at some point in time, they're going to cross the line and get hauled in front of the FTC/FCC for some silly deal.
For example, take the recent product release of Google Maps Navigation. It costs nothing. The operating system it runs on costs nothing. Heck, Google was advertising Android products on it's page FOR FREE (and considering how many webpage views google.com gets, that really is worth a LOT of dough). And Google really doesn't care. Because it wants to mine information from you. About how people move from point A to point B. About traffic patterns. About food choices. About relationships between one store and another.
For example, if you knew that 20% of people who go to store X in a mall eventually go to store Y in a mall, it would behoove the owner of store Y to pay a TON of money to Google to advertise to people that are actually IN store X. Notice, I didn't say people who often go to store X, but actually IN store X. Since that person is already out and about, it would make for extremely effective advertising the likes this world has never seen.
As such, everyone thinks of Google as a search company, which is extremely foolish. They are an advertising company that uses search as a means to an end. Sure, it's their most successful product, but they don't want it to be their ONLY product. And when you start seeing a plethora of devices running Android which directly ties into all of Google's services, that's when you should start to get "scared".
Wow, tax & spend? What is this 1992-2000 when the government was fiscally responsible?!?!
In the new millenium, the government is all SPEND SPEND SPEND. You best check yo'self!
Despite the addition of two words, there is a HUGE difference between these two statements:
"I am going to kill you" - theoretically can be said in jest
and
"I am going to kill you on Monday" - very scary, as setting a date implies much more than joking.
And yeah, after Virginia Tech, school administrators would rather not be caught as "ignoring warning signs" even though stuff like this goes on all the time and only hindsight is 20/20 as to the real problem makers.
The important thing to realize is that Microsoft has actually REMOVED functionality from a banned console. It cannot be used as an extender for Windows Media Center. What is to stop them from crippling your device completely if they feel like it?
While Microsoft doesn't have to let you use their service (a separate issue all together), I've never seen a company allowed to cripple your hardware after you've purchased it, no matter what you've done.
I don't think you read the article because it addressed that very point. They were days away from a public announcement and they had some units ready to go for the press and then this shit gets pulled on him.
You can't know something has peaked or bottomed out until way after the fact. It's like having a sign of relief when in the eye of a hurricane or ignoring the possibility of aftershocks from earthquakes.
If an app is "over-priced" at a $1, then I think the App Store has done you a disservice in terms of the REAL value of hard work.
If you think it's too expensive, and yet you still want it, I think it stands to reason that while you may not want to pay as much as they are asking for, it certainly shouldn't be free. And anyone who complains about $1 apps needs to re-evaluate their budget. If you feel even a $1 app is too much, DON'T BUY IT. But that doesn't entitle you to "trial periods", where you will have a sudden epiphany that an app is of value to you. For more expensive apps (in general, not just the app store), there are often trial versions to evaluate whether it's right for you or not. If you've never written a line of code in your life, you have absolutely NO idea how much hard work goes into an app you might think is "simple" or "not worth a dollar".
Ditto. Even the crappier looking iPhone apps are FAR more pleasing to the eye than some of the best Android apps because there's a standardized UI that just about every iPhone app must use (creating your own UI for iPhone apps is often discouraged in the iPhone developer docs unless it's a game).
Most people have spent so much time with iPod earbuds that they've killed their hearing, and that's why they can't tell the difference between formats. Besides, I think most audiophiles would agree that it's file format + speakers/headphones that make a difference.
Now, I'm not saying that everything should be in FLAC and you should blow your budget on $500 headphones, since most people probably won't be able to tell the difference, however, I consider it just an accomplishment if people can enjoy their music without the person next to them being able to clearly hear it because they've jacked the volume up to insane levels(a sign of poor earbud fit). That's all I really care about.
Probably sucks up too much power. I'd rather have a low profile Radeon HD 5650 or 5670 for my HTPC since it supports Dolby Digital TrueHD and DTS HD Master Audio bitstreaming.
Upgrading from one OS to another, regardless of the platform can always lead to problems down the road. This includes Windows, OS X, and Linux. It is impossible to test every possible upgrade scenario to find all the bugs.
SImply put, an upgrade install is there for the less informed and/or lazy. It isn't the best way to get a new OS, and the fact that neither OS X or Windows support upgrading from versions more than the immediate previous one (Leopard and XP respectively) just goes to prove that it's not worth their time supporting such an upgrade path.
Digital downloads need to be loads cheaper because of the following reasons. They can't be:
1) Borrowed
2) Rented
3) Returned
which means that if someone wants to buy a game, they have to get it straight from the publisher. Plus, our broadband infrastructure isn't really equipped to download GBs of data as the primary way of purchasing games. And then you have to factor in the cost of bandwidth that we'll probably pay for in one way or another and you begin to see that the real benefits are only for the publisher and not for consumers.
I'll stick with discs, thank you very much!
The best way to challenge the iPhone is to not bill your phone as "the iPhone killer". Just let the phone do what it does best and people will eventually notice.
Slashdot Mirror
Main reason for my buying the card is part of HTPC with HD bitstreaming.
Because no one person is being paid millions of dollars. Plus, movies have multiple stops to make money where as games do not. Just looking at box office sales doesn't tell the whole picture.
CES = test tube experiments shown in broad daylight. They may never hit the market. Remember how 105" LCDs have been shown since 2005? When's the last time you saw one of those at your local Best Buy? Granted, practical applications of technology often do make it to market, but stuff is usually years away from being widespread. The show is more about what "could be" and attracting other companies as clients, not end-consumer oogling for "what's shipping this year".
I'm going to sum up Google's strategy by reusing a phrase that Leo Laporte came up with: "Google sells things for 'less than free' to the consumer." And the thing is, at some point in time, they're going to cross the line and get hauled in front of the FTC/FCC for some silly deal.
For example, take the recent product release of Google Maps Navigation. It costs nothing. The operating system it runs on costs nothing. Heck, Google was advertising Android products on it's page FOR FREE (and considering how many webpage views google.com gets, that really is worth a LOT of dough). And Google really doesn't care. Because it wants to mine information from you. About how people move from point A to point B. About traffic patterns. About food choices. About relationships between one store and another.
For example, if you knew that 20% of people who go to store X in a mall eventually go to store Y in a mall, it would behoove the owner of store Y to pay a TON of money to Google to advertise to people that are actually IN store X. Notice, I didn't say people who often go to store X, but actually IN store X. Since that person is already out and about, it would make for extremely effective advertising the likes this world has never seen.
As such, everyone thinks of Google as a search company, which is extremely foolish. They are an advertising company that uses search as a means to an end. Sure, it's their most successful product, but they don't want it to be their ONLY product. And when you start seeing a plethora of devices running Android which directly ties into all of Google's services, that's when you should start to get "scared".
Wow, tax & spend? What is this 1992-2000 when the government was fiscally responsible?!?! In the new millenium, the government is all SPEND SPEND SPEND. You best check yo'self!
Despite the addition of two words, there is a HUGE difference between these two statements:
"I am going to kill you" - theoretically can be said in jest
and
"I am going to kill you on Monday" - very scary, as setting a date implies much more than joking.
And yeah, after Virginia Tech, school administrators would rather not be caught as "ignoring warning signs" even though stuff like this goes on all the time and only hindsight is 20/20 as to the real problem makers.
Backing up data from my computer to my NAS. What else would people be doing?
Let me shorten that for you: If you're a parent, don't leave your child home alone. Thank you.
They also can't act as Windows Media Center extender, which means it's LOST functionality, compared to a 360 that will never connect to the Internet.
The important thing to realize is that Microsoft has actually REMOVED functionality from a banned console. It cannot be used as an extender for Windows Media Center. What is to stop them from crippling your device completely if they feel like it? While Microsoft doesn't have to let you use their service (a separate issue all together), I've never seen a company allowed to cripple your hardware after you've purchased it, no matter what you've done.
Add-ins help do what Windows Media Center doesn't do natively. I mean, My Movies 3 is probably the best thing since sliced bread for playing movies.
I don't think you read the article because it addressed that very point. They were days away from a public announcement and they had some units ready to go for the press and then this shit gets pulled on him.
You can't know something has peaked or bottomed out until way after the fact. It's like having a sign of relief when in the eye of a hurricane or ignoring the possibility of aftershocks from earthquakes.
If an app is "over-priced" at a $1, then I think the App Store has done you a disservice in terms of the REAL value of hard work. If you think it's too expensive, and yet you still want it, I think it stands to reason that while you may not want to pay as much as they are asking for, it certainly shouldn't be free. And anyone who complains about $1 apps needs to re-evaluate their budget. If you feel even a $1 app is too much, DON'T BUY IT. But that doesn't entitle you to "trial periods", where you will have a sudden epiphany that an app is of value to you. For more expensive apps (in general, not just the app store), there are often trial versions to evaluate whether it's right for you or not. If you've never written a line of code in your life, you have absolutely NO idea how much hard work goes into an app you might think is "simple" or "not worth a dollar".
Ditto. Even the crappier looking iPhone apps are FAR more pleasing to the eye than some of the best Android apps because there's a standardized UI that just about every iPhone app must use (creating your own UI for iPhone apps is often discouraged in the iPhone developer docs unless it's a game).
Most people have spent so much time with iPod earbuds that they've killed their hearing, and that's why they can't tell the difference between formats. Besides, I think most audiophiles would agree that it's file format + speakers/headphones that make a difference.
Now, I'm not saying that everything should be in FLAC and you should blow your budget on $500 headphones, since most people probably won't be able to tell the difference, however, I consider it just an accomplishment if people can enjoy their music without the person next to them being able to clearly hear it because they've jacked the volume up to insane levels(a sign of poor earbud fit). That's all I really care about.
Iono, maybe because your eyes are closer to that "smaller screen"?
Probably sucks up too much power. I'd rather have a low profile Radeon HD 5650 or 5670 for my HTPC since it supports Dolby Digital TrueHD and DTS HD Master Audio bitstreaming.
I think Cuban just stole Jason Calcanus idea.
The hardware is definitely there. The API stack will come later.
Upgrading from one OS to another, regardless of the platform can always lead to problems down the road. This includes Windows, OS X, and Linux. It is impossible to test every possible upgrade scenario to find all the bugs. SImply put, an upgrade install is there for the less informed and/or lazy. It isn't the best way to get a new OS, and the fact that neither OS X or Windows support upgrading from versions more than the immediate previous one (Leopard and XP respectively) just goes to prove that it's not worth their time supporting such an upgrade path.
Digital downloads need to be loads cheaper because of the following reasons. They can't be: 1) Borrowed 2) Rented 3) Returned which means that if someone wants to buy a game, they have to get it straight from the publisher. Plus, our broadband infrastructure isn't really equipped to download GBs of data as the primary way of purchasing games. And then you have to factor in the cost of bandwidth that we'll probably pay for in one way or another and you begin to see that the real benefits are only for the publisher and not for consumers. I'll stick with discs, thank you very much!
If you have data that's so important that you don't want the Chinese or NSA looking at it, send it by snail mail on a disk!
What doesn't make sense is why would happy people with a working computer go to a computer repair shop? Got you there, didn't I!
The best way to challenge the iPhone is to not bill your phone as "the iPhone killer". Just let the phone do what it does best and people will eventually notice.