This is not a problem of crowdsourcing at all.
Contributors to Mozilla and Firefox don't ask for a cut of the profits/donations it receives from Google or other partnerships, and users of the browser don't get paid for using it.
The fact you get to use Wikipedia is enough, and no one forces you to contribute to the common good, or commons. If you want to participate that is a free choice.
You should not be vilified for trying to get some revenue back for open sourcing your work -- you should be congratulated for releasing it as such rather than going for the default 'commercial' model.
It appears that the further this project has gone in the development cycle, the more its 'open' credentials have been chiselled away. Lets not forget the iPlayer is a laudable initiative, but its implementation has been corrupted and mismanaged.
Would be interesting if Youtube offered a low-cost premium service to have an ad-free service on the page, and also no clutter in the pre-/post- rolls for the clips. I'm finding all the ad-litter on pages tiresome. Ad-blocker on firefox is great for this, but the video rolls are insidious.
As much as I like an alternative to DRMed files, and the 'idea' of moving over to social responsibility by having watermarked/named media, like others I'm still uneasy about the snowballing consequences if your media stash is compromised.
Exactly, iPod was expensive at the start then as it scaled the price came down, and it 'diffused' to the nano, and shuffle. Nothing to stop Apple applying the same strategy here.
They are just playing to their strengths on the high-end, and the 'wow' factor by going the full-on smartphone/tricorder route from the start.
I'm on it when it comes to Europe.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not a problem of crowdsourcing at all. Contributors to Mozilla and Firefox don't ask for a cut of the profits/donations it receives from Google or other partnerships, and users of the browser don't get paid for using it. The fact you get to use Wikipedia is enough, and no one forces you to contribute to the common good, or commons. If you want to participate that is a free choice. You should not be vilified for trying to get some revenue back for open sourcing your work -- you should be congratulated for releasing it as such rather than going for the default 'commercial' model.
It appears that the further this project has gone in the development cycle, the more its 'open' credentials have been chiselled away. Lets not forget the iPlayer is a laudable initiative, but its implementation has been corrupted and mismanaged.
Would be interesting if Youtube offered a low-cost premium service to have an ad-free service on the page, and also no clutter in the pre-/post- rolls for the clips. I'm finding all the ad-litter on pages tiresome. Ad-blocker on firefox is great for this, but the video rolls are insidious.
As much as I like an alternative to DRMed files, and the 'idea' of moving over to social responsibility by having watermarked/named media, like others I'm still uneasy about the snowballing consequences if your media stash is compromised.
Exactly, iPod was expensive at the start then as it scaled the price came down, and it 'diffused' to the nano, and shuffle. Nothing to stop Apple applying the same strategy here. They are just playing to their strengths on the high-end, and the 'wow' factor by going the full-on smartphone/tricorder route from the start. I'm on it when it comes to Europe.
Now that's what I call a decent Slashdot comment. Informative and insightful. thanks!