The notion that record labels should share in advertising revenue from keyword searches is to confuse the ownership of intellectual property with the concept of "adjacent space".
Adjacent space is frequently sold at a premium in multiple mediums, from supermarket shelf-space, to tradeshow booth-placement, to partial-page magazine advertising. Wherever a premium brand is located, the neighboring advertising- or product-space increases in value. If a record store puts Sarah Q. Smith's album on a shelf next to Madonna's new album, the record store is effectively using Madonna to promote the sale of Sara Q. Smith. But this is very different from capitalizing on Madonna's intellectual property. This is capitalizing on *Madonna's market*, which is something Madonna does not own, control or have rights to.
Likewise Google's use of adjacent space, ie: space neighboring Madonna's relevant links, is Google's own affair. It is Google's effort to target Madonna's market -- which is as old a phenomenon as the outdoor marketplace.
The entertainment industry needs to get a reality check on the scope and limits of IP.
Oh I forgot, the corrolary to the rule is, if anyone points out the Golden Rules of Slashdot, just write something irrelevant and condescending (anything, it doesn't matter).
Just assume that the guy you're responding to is a dweeb. After all, they're all dweebs on Slashdot. No, not you... all the other guys.
Just make yourself feel smart. And don't worry how it makes you look. Its all about you.
Apparently some of you have forgotten the Golden Rules of Slashdot.
Here they are:
Rule 1: If you're discussing a problem with Windows:
Blame the monopolistic, capitalist monstrosity which is the root cause of this problem. If Microsoft weren't a bunch of money-grubbing, back-stabbing pigs your problem would never have occured.
Rule 2: If you're discussing a problem with OSX:
It isn't Apple's fault. Maybe its your fault. Or maybe its that third party software you're using. Most likely your problem is the result of incompatibilities with MS Office (see rule 1). Apple doesn't make mistakes. Apple loves you.
Rule 3: If you're discussing a problem with Linux:
Agree that there *is* a problem. Then state that the hardworking heroes of the opensource community are hard at work making this problem go away. The message has to be that "We're on it". Remember, one shining day in the future these problems won't plague our people any more. It doesn't matter that your system is losing data, we proudly wear the banner of responsibility in this matter, and we are slavishly addressing your problem.
Any questions?...apparently there was some confusion.
For those who modded me offtopic: Chill. My post was completely "On topic".
The story is about sending 165 text messages per second. There have already been a half-dozen posts pointing out how expensive it would be to send 165 text messages per second. A few others have pointed out that their thumbs can't type that fast.
Google's SMS interface overcomes both those barriers, and is potentially a dangerous tool for disrupting phone service.
God I hate overzealous modders. Chill. Talk about "disrupting traffic"....
Let's not forget that there are plenty of "niche" games that survive via downloads, the shareware model, or downloadable client. EVE Online is a perfect example of a niche game that is distributed primarily (I admit I have no numbers to back this up, so I could easily be wrong) to the best of my knowlege through a freely downloadable client.
IMHO Shareware is still the most successful strategy. I downloaded (and later bought) demos of DOOM, Duke Nuke'm, Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft, etc. Of course most of those were available through traditional retail channels, but they also predated broadband. The reality is that if I could have commercially-downloaded the full games I would have.
True. It *does* say though that Yoda preferred to live in close proximity to the site where the dark jedi was killed because the powerful dark-side energy cancelled out Yoda's light-side energy rendering Yoda "invisible" to the emperor. So we know 'why' Yoda lived on Dagobah.
True geeks know (as later related by Timothy Zahn) that Yoda actually arrived on Dagobah in pursuit of a dark jedi clone -- whom he fought, and wasted underneath a certain large tree. That tree retained powerful "echoes of evil" for years afterwards, and was later used by Yoda to test the resolve of his young padawan "Luke" (in Episode V).
My theory? This apparent contradiction in plotlines may have been why Lucas cut the scene of Yoda peacefully arriving on Dagobah.
Ok... before we set about the task of removing your Xbox from your ass, let's address your very-alarmed, very-panicky comment.
What was "stupid"?
A comparison of profitability: One is profitable (Nintendo Gamecube). One is not (Xbox)
A comparison of capability: One has the best anti-aliasing I've seen (Nintendo Gamecube). One has poor anti-aliasing (Xbox)
Step back for a second. Go outside. Have a smoke. Settle down.
I wasn't painting broad strokes about the strategic initiatives and ultimate market domination by either company. You're the one connecting dots here. I wasn't even making an "analysis" as you say. Simply pointing out 1 fact, and 1 observation from a consumer (that's me) perspective.
Now might be a good time to point out the frequently bashed Nintendo, smallest of the 3 console makers -- is profitable.
Personally (I own both a GameCube and an Xbox) I always thought there was no contest in graphics quality between the GC and the Xbox. The antialiasing on the GC *destroys* the Xbox.
Hardware geeks constantly tell me that Xbox has fantastic antialiasing capabilities, but my answer is always: Show me.
Take SSX on the the GC vs. the Xbox: the Xbox version is full of jaggies. The GC version is smooooth.
Anyway... I ramble.
The point: GC was a fantastic console, wound up 3rd in overall sales -- but from a financial perspective was a clear winner.
EVE suffers from the *wrong* kind of expansion: It expands at the bleeding edge, at the point where its most experienced players will benefit from the expansions. But the problem is that EVE is in desperate need of expansion at its earliest levels.
Simply put: EVE is boring. Its a slog. It requires an enormous amount of time to mine resources and travel between points. There is nothing approaching the immediacy of an instanced dungeon. (Yes, they try. No, it doesn't work.)
Some of the problems are fundamental. Like: "Space is boring". Ultimately space is just a big vacuum. To the developer's credit, they've made it look stunningly beautiful, but after drooling on your keyboard for the first couple hours you'll realize you're in a matter-poor environment. There aren't trees or rocks to hide behind, mountains to get a better view from, stairs to escape up, etc. The occasional floating asteroid doesn't offer much respite from the monotony of, well... nothingness.
EVE's other problems are more game oriented: The game is mind-numbingly impersonal at first. Despite a few training missions, which teach the player about the interface more than the gameplay there is little in the way of indoctrinating new players into the EVE universe. You feel like a punk. You are a punk. Don't like it? Play for another year. Don't know what to do? Consult another player. (They'll tell you to spend more time... as in weeks... on something).
The game cries out for a starter-universe. But more than that, the game cries out for more interaction. In a nutshell, "telling" your ship to dock, is not nearly as much fun as "docking" manually. "Telling" your ship to fire on another ship, isn't nearly as much fun as "Trying to hit" another ship. Granted, the game is not a videogame requiring hand-eye coordination. But in the absence of physical matter and with only scant human beings sighted here and there, an element of competitive gameplay or two might be nice for early players.
EVE has focused far too much on player retention and not enough on player acquisition.
If anything, EVE has paved the way for someone to write the next great space-based MMORPG. Its what Everquest or Dark Age of Camelot are to World of Warcraft: the predecessor that vividly paints examples of "what not to do".
And primarily "what not to do" is annoy early players.
No matter how you slice it, piracy is enormous business. Never mind the millions that KaZaa made, of the millions that are made on.ru music sites -- there are dozens of downstream businesses which benefit directly from piracy.
For example: Just because Apple makes money on iTunes (ie: legitimate music sales) they make far, far more on sales of the iPod -- which are prediated on the availability of free pirated music. iTunes keeps Apple's music initiatives legitimate, but to say that Apple hasn't benefited from piracy would be wrong.
And let's talk about storage media: How much will Seagate, iOmega, yada yada yada, benefit from storing pirated digital movies? Tons!
Piracy is huge business.
Hell, I pull out my wallet for storage and playback media far, far more than I do for music. And I don't think I'm unusual at all -- most people are the same.
Apparently if I create a web page and upload some text to it, that's not a blog. But if I use an idiot proof content-management system to "type" my web page instead of "coding" it, I'm then creating a blog.
Once you start putting pictures and links on your blog, you're making a webpage...
As far as hosting goes, anyone in China can sign up for a blogger account, and a gmail account. And figuring out how to avoid filters through alternate spellings: d*mocracy, demokrasy, dimocrassy, etc. doesn't seem all that tough.
Furthermore, wouldn't surfing with encryption enabled baffle the filters anyway?
Or is this too simplistic an assesment? What am I missing?
... but isn't the cable the difficult part about building a space elevator?
This thing is of course, pretty cool, but it seems to me to be a pretty basic mechanical device. My understanding is that developing ultra-high tension/flexibility nanofibers capable of stretching from Earth to orbit, and developing the orbital platform was what made construction of a space elevator difficult.
My two cents.
_________
As Diddy says: Don't pull out your wallet if you ain't going to use it.
This sounds like a marketing ploy if I've ever heard one. Microsoft smells poor sales of the 360 because they've priced it (IMHO) way too high... so what do they do? Release fewer on to the market. Then they get to send out a news release (around December 1st) saying that the 360 is "totally sold out", "Extremely scarce!","Has a waiting list", etc. The press eats it up, creating millions of dollars in free advertising for Microsoft.
Then, surprise! Around December 12th they manage to find a few extra thousand units laying around and since there are waiting lists everywhere, the delay doesn't cost them a single sale.
This is about free press, marketing and stoking desire among consumers if you ask me.
Still, it might not be enough to get users to break out their wallets for a system that's priced at the price of a decent PC. Hell, once you price in controllers, the add-on hard drive, etc. You could build yourself a pretty sweet ITX machine.
While this idea might sound great at first glance, I think it speaks volumes about what kind of play balancing we can expect from this title. I played CIV III and always felt that while the historical permutations were pretty cool, the play balancing was quirky at best. The end result is that the CIV series has started to feel like a MAXIS "Sim" title, and less of an actual game. Or rather, the title is a "toy" and not a "game".
Its funny how a promise of "open source" and "modding culture" early on in a title so often means -- "We're not going to spend much time on play balancing". Morrowind was another perfect example of openness vs. gameplay. In Morrowind the emphasis on open-endedness, freedom and expandability ultimately translated into a disastrous in-game economy, weapon imbalances, impossibly overpowered characters and ultimately a play experience that depended on story-line (which was actually excellent) rather than the aspects of the game itself.
I think I'll wait before breaking out my wallet on this one.
Slashdot Mirror
The notion that record labels should share in advertising revenue from keyword searches is to confuse the ownership of intellectual property with the concept of "adjacent space".
Adjacent space is frequently sold at a premium in multiple mediums, from supermarket shelf-space, to tradeshow booth-placement, to partial-page magazine advertising. Wherever a premium brand is located, the neighboring advertising- or product-space increases in value. If a record store puts Sarah Q. Smith's album on a shelf next to Madonna's new album, the record store is effectively using Madonna to promote the sale of Sara Q. Smith. But this is very different from capitalizing on Madonna's intellectual property. This is capitalizing on *Madonna's market*, which is something Madonna does not own, control or have rights to.
Likewise Google's use of adjacent space, ie: space neighboring Madonna's relevant links, is Google's own affair. It is Google's effort to target Madonna's market -- which is as old a phenomenon as the outdoor marketplace.
The entertainment industry needs to get a reality check on the scope and limits of IP.
If a twelve year old garage-band covers the Rolling Stones,
it will have the same chord structure.
Does this system account for the thousands of elusive variables
that make a particular track "rock"?
Those who analyze art, music or literature too deeply, usually
do so because they don't get it.
No, I'm trying to tell you that Apple is too. And so is everyone.
There are 3 principal OS's that all have problems. We just assign
different levels of blame and resonsibility to those problems.
Oh I forgot, the corrolary to the rule is, if anyone points out the Golden Rules of Slashdot,
just write something irrelevant and condescending (anything, it doesn't matter).
Just assume that the guy you're responding to is a dweeb. After all, they're all dweebs on Slashdot. No, not you... all the other guys.
Just make yourself feel smart. And don't worry how it makes you look. Its all about you.
Nimrod.
Apparently some of you have forgotten the Golden Rules of Slashdot.
Here they are:
Rule 1: If you're discussing a problem with Windows:
Blame the monopolistic, capitalist monstrosity which is the root cause of this problem. If Microsoft weren't a bunch of money-grubbing, back-stabbing pigs your problem would never have occured.
Rule 2: If you're discussing a problem with OSX:
It isn't Apple's fault. Maybe its your fault. Or maybe its that third party software you're using. Most likely your problem is the result of incompatibilities with MS Office (see rule 1). Apple doesn't make mistakes. Apple loves you.
Rule 3: If you're discussing a problem with Linux:
Agree that there *is* a problem. Then state that the hardworking heroes of the opensource community are hard at work making this problem go away. The message has to be that "We're on it". Remember, one shining day in the future these problems won't plague our people any more. It doesn't matter that your system is losing data, we proudly wear the banner of responsibility in this matter, and we are slavishly addressing your problem.
Any questions?
----------
judge a man by his wallet
For those who modded me offtopic: Chill. My post was completely "On topic".
The story is about sending 165 text messages per second. There have already been a half-dozen posts pointing out how expensive it would be to send 165 text messages per second. A few others have pointed out that their thumbs can't type that fast.
Google's SMS interface overcomes both those barriers, and is potentially a dangerous tool for disrupting phone service.
God I hate overzealous modders. Chill. Talk about "disrupting traffic"....
Most people don't know that you can send text messages for free through Google's text messaging service.
... hello? ...hello?
http://toolbar.google.com/send/sms/index.php
Now all you need is a perl script and
-------------
judge a man by his wallet
Do they know how *hard* these record labels are trying to make ends meet?
_________
Judge a Man by His Wallet
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Except... wait! There *is* a story here: Slashdot Editors have finally been surpassed by a room full of chimps!
Dear Zonk,
One doesn't "pep up" Windows with applications. Windows is an "Operating System".
OpenOffice and Gimp are "Applications".
Nothing is being added to the functionality of the "Operating System" with the addition of these common apps.
Although I do love the concept of "pepping up" Mac OSX with Microsoft Office.
xo
Popo
Fer crying out loud, its not only a repost, its *still* up on the
Get it together CmdrTaco!
Let's not forget that there are plenty of "niche" games that survive via downloads, the shareware model, or downloadable client. EVE Online is a perfect example of a niche game that is distributed primarily (I admit I have no numbers to back this up, so I could easily be wrong) to the best of my knowlege through a freely downloadable client.
IMHO Shareware is still the most successful strategy. I downloaded (and later bought) demos of DOOM, Duke Nuke'm, Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft, etc. Of course most of those were available through traditional retail channels, but they also predated broadband. The reality is that if I could have commercially-downloaded the full games I would have.
True. It *does* say though that Yoda preferred to live in close proximity to the site where the dark jedi was killed because the powerful dark-side energy cancelled out Yoda's light-side energy rendering Yoda "invisible" to the emperor. So we know 'why' Yoda lived on Dagobah.
True geeks know (as later related by Timothy Zahn) that Yoda actually arrived on Dagobah
in pursuit of a dark jedi clone -- whom he fought, and wasted underneath a certain large
tree. That tree retained powerful "echoes of evil" for years afterwards,
and was later used by Yoda to test the resolve of his young padawan "Luke" (in
Episode V).
My theory? This apparent contradiction in plotlines may have been why Lucas
cut the scene of Yoda peacefully arriving on Dagobah.
__________
Judge a man by his wallet
Ok... before we set about the task of removing your Xbox from your ass, let's address your very-alarmed, very-panicky comment.
What was "stupid"?
A comparison of profitability: One is profitable (Nintendo Gamecube). One is not (Xbox)
A comparison of capability: One has the best anti-aliasing I've seen (Nintendo Gamecube). One has poor anti-aliasing (Xbox)
Step back for a second. Go outside. Have a smoke. Settle down.
I wasn't painting broad strokes about the strategic initiatives and ultimate market domination by either company. You're the one connecting dots here. I wasn't even making an "analysis" as you say. Simply pointing out 1 fact, and 1 observation from a consumer (that's me) perspective.
Chill Joe, Chill.
Now might be a good time to point out the frequently bashed Nintendo, smallest of the 3 console makers -- is profitable.
Personally (I own both a GameCube and an Xbox) I always thought there was no contest in graphics quality between the GC and the Xbox. The antialiasing on the GC *destroys* the Xbox.
Hardware geeks constantly tell me that Xbox has fantastic antialiasing capabilities, but my answer is always: Show me.
Take SSX on the the GC vs. the Xbox: the Xbox version is full of jaggies. The GC version is smooooth.
Anyway
The point: GC was a fantastic console, wound up 3rd in overall sales -- but from a financial perspective was a clear winner.
EVE suffers from the *wrong* kind of expansion: It expands at the bleeding edge, at the point where its most experienced players will benefit from the expansions. But the problem is that EVE is in desperate need of expansion at its earliest levels.
... as in weeks... on something).
Simply put: EVE is boring. Its a slog. It requires an enormous amount of time to mine resources and travel between points. There is nothing approaching the immediacy of an instanced dungeon. (Yes, they try. No, it doesn't work.)
Some of the problems are fundamental. Like: "Space is boring". Ultimately space is just a big vacuum. To the developer's credit, they've made it look stunningly beautiful, but after drooling on your keyboard for the first couple hours you'll realize you're in a matter-poor environment. There aren't trees or rocks to hide behind, mountains to get a better view from, stairs to escape up, etc. The occasional floating asteroid doesn't offer much respite from the monotony of, well... nothingness.
EVE's other problems are more game oriented: The game is mind-numbingly impersonal at first. Despite a few training missions, which teach the player about the interface more than the gameplay there is little in the way of indoctrinating new players into the EVE universe. You feel like a punk. You are a punk. Don't like it? Play for another year. Don't know what to do? Consult another player. (They'll tell you to spend more time
The game cries out for a starter-universe. But more than that, the game cries out for more interaction. In a nutshell, "telling" your ship to dock, is not nearly as much fun as "docking" manually. "Telling" your ship to fire on another ship, isn't nearly as much fun as "Trying to hit" another ship. Granted, the game is not a videogame requiring hand-eye coordination. But in the absence of physical matter and with only scant human beings sighted here and there, an element of competitive gameplay or two might be nice for early players.
EVE has focused far too much on player retention and not enough on player acquisition.
If anything, EVE has paved the way for someone to write the next great space-based MMORPG. Its what Everquest or Dark Age of Camelot are to World of Warcraft: the predecessor that vividly paints examples of "what not to do".
And primarily "what not to do" is annoy early players.
For example: Just because Apple makes money on iTunes (ie: legitimate music sales) they make far, far more on sales of the iPod -- which are prediated on the availability of free pirated music. iTunes keeps Apple's music initiatives legitimate, but to say that Apple hasn't benefited from piracy would be wrong.
And let's talk about storage media: How much will Seagate, iOmega, yada yada yada, benefit from storing pirated digital movies? Tons!
Piracy is huge business.
Hell, I pull out my wallet for storage and playback media far, far more than I do for music. And I don't think I'm unusual at all -- most people are the same.
(I *know* you know what Vivid is).
Let's face it: Americans pull out their wallet for the format with the best pr0n.
Apparently if I create a web page and upload some text to it, that's not a blog. But if I use an idiot proof content-management system to "type" my web page instead of "coding" it, I'm then creating a blog.
Once you start putting pictures and links on your blog, you're making a webpage...
Furthermore, wouldn't surfing with encryption enabled baffle the filters anyway?
Or is this too simplistic an assesment? What am I missing?
 
__________________
shameless googlebomb: wallet
This thing is of course, pretty cool, but it seems to me to be a pretty basic mechanical device. My understanding is that developing ultra-high tension/flexibility nanofibers capable of stretching from Earth to orbit, and developing the orbital platform was what made construction of a space elevator difficult.
My two cents.
_________
As Diddy says: Don't pull out your wallet if you ain't going to use it.
This sounds like a marketing ploy if I've ever heard one. Microsoft smells poor sales of the 360 because they've priced it (IMHO) way too high... so what do they do? Release fewer on to the market. Then they get to send out a news release (around December 1st) saying that the 360 is "totally sold out", "Extremely scarce!","Has a waiting list", etc. The press eats it up, creating millions of dollars in free advertising for Microsoft.
Then, surprise! Around December 12th they manage to find a few extra thousand units laying around and since there are waiting lists everywhere, the delay doesn't cost them a single sale.
This is about free press, marketing and stoking desire among consumers if you ask me.
Still, it might not be enough to get users to break out their wallets for a system that's priced at the price of a decent PC. Hell, once you price in controllers, the add-on hard drive, etc. You could build yourself a pretty sweet ITX machine.
My 2 cents.
Its funny how a promise of "open source" and "modding culture" early on in a title so often means -- "We're not going to spend much time on play balancing". Morrowind was another perfect example of openness vs. gameplay. In Morrowind the emphasis on open-endedness, freedom and expandability ultimately translated into a disastrous in-game economy, weapon imbalances, impossibly overpowered characters and ultimately a play experience that depended on story-line (which was actually excellent) rather than the aspects of the game itself.
I think I'll wait before breaking out my wallet on this one.
To say that Guild Wars is "hot on the heels" of competitor Worlds of Warcraft is being very, very generous to Guild Wars.
First off, in terms of numbers of players: No. They're not. The numbers aren't close.
But much, much more importantly: Guild Wars charges no monthly fee. Even if the numbers were equal, WoW would still own Guild Wars on revenue.