Probably around the same time that all services and content becomes free to create and run with all their employees volunteering to keep it running without being paid.
What a horrible question. Do you honestly expect someone to run a service providing trillions of video streams and never take any money from it? How exactly is the bandwidth going to be paid for? How will the employees be paid?
Advertising is currently the only viable solution to this problem. If you think you have a better one, implement it and put Google out of business.
... and by "Google" you mean "the entire internet", since Google is just doing their best to reflect the actual popularity of websites.
NEWSFLASH, Britannica! You're lower than Wikipedia because nobody uses you. If you did more to, I don't know, actually make people [i]like your site[/i], perhaps you'd rank higher.
I'm no fan of Microsoft's business practices, but this is a really stupid decision.
How much functionality are you going to require that they take out of their operating system? Next, will they have to strip out Notepad in order to make room for competing programs? Paint? Defrag? The clock?
You shouldn't punish a company for adding features to their software. Let other programs compete on merit - Firefox is doing just fine as it is.
Almost all of those look like they're a few minutes long or more. How can you say they were using a "small snippet" without actually seeing the original video?
I'll accept this restriction as long as the same restrictions are placed upon any books and movies that contain "various degrees of profanity, racist stereotypes or derogatory language, and/or actions toward a specific group of persons."
Oh, what, you can't actually do that for other media? What makes you think you can do it for games, then?
The only thing Hollywood does is create material that can be incredibly easily copied, and copyright and the laws that surround it are all that allows them to earn anything whatsoever.
Without copyright, film releases would look like this:
1) Film company pours tons of money and time into creating a movie. 2) Movie gets leaked before it's even released. 3) Everyone can grab a perfect copy of it from anywhere they want to.
Or, alternatively:
1) Film companies stop making movies because there's no way for them to make their investment back, an incredibly large amount of people lose their jobs, and one of the major exports from the US disappears.
If films weren't copyrightable, the entire industry would come crashing down, along with a decent chunk of the US economy.
Copyright laws are abused a lot, but they do not, as you say, hurt everyone. The situation without them would be much worse.
While it's possibly true that having ads on a page help pay for and keep sites free, but as far as I know the site does not earn anything from you just looking at the ads, you need to click on them first.
Depends on the ads. Some are pay-per-click, but some are pay-per-impression.
He admits himself that it was a dumb idea. From the Kotaku article:
It is true that enclosed in my editorial is a single paragraph dedicated to "reining in the used games market." It is also true that this paragraph was shortsighted and not anywhere near as well as thought out as it could've been, especially with implications for the market and government control. I will freely admit of my own volition that I did not fully grasp the implications of what I had written until some of the comments had come in. I admit this because I have realized that the full implications of the paragraph in question are the polar opposite of my beliefs.
The world adapts to the media industry because the world likes the media industry's products and accepts the restrictions to get what they want. You may not like it, but they're free to make selling decisions as they see fit just as you're free to make buying decisions at you see fit.
They don't need to adapt if they don't want to. It's their product, and they dictate the terms that they sell it to you at. If they'll only sell it heavily-DRMed-up, then that's their choice to make. Your choice, on the other hand, is not to use those products if you don't agree with the terms.
Forget standby mode AND heaters. My electronics are not only used for entertainment, but for heat as well. When calculating the energy usage, do they take into account the fact that people like me never have to turn the heat on because my TV+Receiver+PS3 put out enough heat to heat my apartment in the winter?
The problem is that the studies are all crap. Their conclusions are always "violent video game playing and real-life violence look linked" and could as easily be explained as "violent people play violent video games" and "violent video games cause violent behavior".
Looking, however, to vilify games, they always choose to present the second viewpoint, which is why people get so frustrated with these studies.
Tell that to Google, who has consoles, arcade games, pool tables, foosball, swimming pools, and just about everything else you can imagine. They seem to be doing okay as a company.
Regarding iPhone vs Android, Android has some key advantages:
1) Multiple service providers. Not everyone wants to be locked into the one provider that Apple supports. 2) Multiple handsets. If I don't like the base iPhone, I have no other choices. Android is going to be on a wide variety of different devices. 3) Cost. If another company is developing your phone's OS, you can put less of your own resources into it and sell it for cheaper. 4) Application availability. Apple is known for rejecting apps on a whim. You can download whatever you want on an Android phone.
Users do care about openness, not necessarily because it's openness, but rather for the things that it allows.
Of course it's useful to track that information down to a specific person. One example: Say you put milk on sale for $2/gallon. Are the people who are buying milk this week new customers, or are they the same old people who have been visiting your store? Tracking information like that is insanely useful.
Put it in technical terms - in website logs, would you rather just have an overview of traffic data (you received 10,000 visits today), or do you actually want to see each request, where it came from, what pages that person accessed in which order, and the stats of that user's browser? The high-level data is useful, but the specific data is even more so.
Yahoo is primarily a content company nowadays. Sure, people use their search, but their other products are the popular ones. If the advertising deal were to go through and become stronger, Google would no longer be a competitor but then a partner. Both companies would have an incentive to work harder with each other, and both would benefit. It's win-win.
Or they could take the other direction and use the new money coming in to step up development on their own competing products and try to make them actually competitive.
This deal is good for Yahoo because it opens up options. More funding + more options = good.
Keep in mind that those organizations didn't donate that money, those organizations' employees did. Google did not donate $420,000 to Obama, Googlers did.
A paranoid person might think that the whole reason for Google releasing Android is so that it can get a bullet-proof correlation between a person's online and real life identities...
The far, far more likely explanation is that they see mobile internet as a huge front and they don't want to be left out if someone else takes over it. It doesn't have anything to do with associating identities, Google just wants people to use their search and click on their ads on phones as well as computers.
My entire point, if you read my last sentence, was that there's no one solution to everything. No type of software is inherently better than any other type, they all have their good and bad points.
That will compete? Maybe. That will compete well? That's another story. Photoshop is still worlds better than GIMP. There's still no real competition for AutoCAD. How are those open source games doing against their commercial counterparts?
Thinking that open source is naturally better than closed source is just as foolish as thinking closed source is naturally better than open source.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably around the same time that all services and content becomes free to create and run with all their employees volunteering to keep it running without being paid.
What a horrible question. Do you honestly expect someone to run a service providing trillions of video streams and never take any money from it? How exactly is the bandwidth going to be paid for? How will the employees be paid?
Advertising is currently the only viable solution to this problem. If you think you have a better one, implement it and put Google out of business.
... and by "Google" you mean "the entire internet", since Google is just doing their best to reflect the actual popularity of websites.
NEWSFLASH, Britannica! You're lower than Wikipedia because nobody uses you. If you did more to, I don't know, actually make people [i]like your site[/i], perhaps you'd rank higher.
I'm no fan of Microsoft's business practices, but this is a really stupid decision.
How much functionality are you going to require that they take out of their operating system? Next, will they have to strip out Notepad in order to make room for competing programs? Paint? Defrag? The clock?
You shouldn't punish a company for adding features to their software. Let other programs compete on merit - Firefox is doing just fine as it is.
Almost all of those look like they're a few minutes long or more. How can you say they were using a "small snippet" without actually seeing the original video?
I'll accept this restriction as long as the same restrictions are placed upon any books and movies that contain "various degrees of profanity, racist stereotypes or derogatory language, and/or actions toward a specific group of persons."
Oh, what, you can't actually do that for other media? What makes you think you can do it for games, then?
You have to be joking.
The only thing Hollywood does is create material that can be incredibly easily copied, and copyright and the laws that surround it are all that allows them to earn anything whatsoever.
Without copyright, film releases would look like this:
1) Film company pours tons of money and time into creating a movie.
2) Movie gets leaked before it's even released.
3) Everyone can grab a perfect copy of it from anywhere they want to.
Or, alternatively:
1) Film companies stop making movies because there's no way for them to make their investment back, an incredibly large amount of people lose their jobs, and one of the major exports from the US disappears.
If films weren't copyrightable, the entire industry would come crashing down, along with a decent chunk of the US economy.
Copyright laws are abused a lot, but they do not, as you say, hurt everyone. The situation without them would be much worse.
I bet asdf@asdf.com thought he had a really cool email address ... for about a day.
While it's possibly true that having ads on a page help pay for and keep sites free, but as far as I know the site does not earn anything from you just looking at the ads, you need to click on them first.
Depends on the ads. Some are pay-per-click, but some are pay-per-impression.
Then obviously not enough people care about the issue to stop buying the games.
He admits himself that it was a dumb idea. From the Kotaku article:
It is true that enclosed in my editorial is a single paragraph dedicated to "reining in the used games market." It is also true that this paragraph was shortsighted and not anywhere near as well as thought out as it could've been, especially with implications for the market and government control. I will freely admit of my own volition that I did not fully grasp the implications of what I had written until some of the comments had come in. I admit this because I have realized that the full implications of the paragraph in question are the polar opposite of my beliefs.
Much like in the bible, you should be writing it 'Him'.
The world adapts to the media industry because the world likes the media industry's products and accepts the restrictions to get what they want. You may not like it, but they're free to make selling decisions as they see fit just as you're free to make buying decisions at you see fit.
They don't need to adapt if they don't want to. It's their product, and they dictate the terms that they sell it to you at. If they'll only sell it heavily-DRMed-up, then that's their choice to make. Your choice, on the other hand, is not to use those products if you don't agree with the terms.
Forget standby mode AND heaters. My electronics are not only used for entertainment, but for heat as well. When calculating the energy usage, do they take into account the fact that people like me never have to turn the heat on because my TV+Receiver+PS3 put out enough heat to heat my apartment in the winter?
Oh my god. You just made me realize...
Christianity is the original viral marketing.
The problem is that the studies are all crap. Their conclusions are always "violent video game playing and real-life violence look linked" and could as easily be explained as "violent people play violent video games" and "violent video games cause violent behavior".
Looking, however, to vilify games, they always choose to present the second viewpoint, which is why people get so frustrated with these studies.
There is - perjury. The problem is that nobody pursues it.
Tell that to Google, who has consoles, arcade games, pool tables, foosball, swimming pools, and just about everything else you can imagine. They seem to be doing okay as a company.
You mean like Pain, Calling All Cars, Flow, Warhawk, Echochrome, Everyday Shooter, the Pixeljunk games, Super Stardust HD, etc. etc. etc.?
Regarding iPhone vs Android, Android has some key advantages:
1) Multiple service providers. Not everyone wants to be locked into the one provider that Apple supports.
2) Multiple handsets. If I don't like the base iPhone, I have no other choices. Android is going to be on a wide variety of different devices.
3) Cost. If another company is developing your phone's OS, you can put less of your own resources into it and sell it for cheaper.
4) Application availability. Apple is known for rejecting apps on a whim. You can download whatever you want on an Android phone.
Users do care about openness, not necessarily because it's openness, but rather for the things that it allows.
Of course it's useful to track that information down to a specific person. One example: Say you put milk on sale for $2/gallon. Are the people who are buying milk this week new customers, or are they the same old people who have been visiting your store? Tracking information like that is insanely useful.
Put it in technical terms - in website logs, would you rather just have an overview of traffic data (you received 10,000 visits today), or do you actually want to see each request, where it came from, what pages that person accessed in which order, and the stats of that user's browser? The high-level data is useful, but the specific data is even more so.
Yahoo is primarily a content company nowadays. Sure, people use their search, but their other products are the popular ones. If the advertising deal were to go through and become stronger, Google would no longer be a competitor but then a partner. Both companies would have an incentive to work harder with each other, and both would benefit. It's win-win.
Or they could take the other direction and use the new money coming in to step up development on their own competing products and try to make them actually competitive.
This deal is good for Yahoo because it opens up options. More funding + more options = good.
Keep in mind that those organizations didn't donate that money, those organizations' employees did. Google did not donate $420,000 to Obama, Googlers did.
This is an important distinction.
A paranoid person might think that the whole reason for Google releasing Android is so that it can get a bullet-proof correlation between a person's online and real life identities...
The far, far more likely explanation is that they see mobile internet as a huge front and they don't want to be left out if someone else takes over it. It doesn't have anything to do with associating identities, Google just wants people to use their search and click on their ads on phones as well as computers.
My entire point, if you read my last sentence, was that there's no one solution to everything. No type of software is inherently better than any other type, they all have their good and bad points.
That will compete? Maybe. That will compete well? That's another story. Photoshop is still worlds better than GIMP. There's still no real competition for AutoCAD. How are those open source games doing against their commercial counterparts?
Thinking that open source is naturally better than closed source is just as foolish as thinking closed source is naturally better than open source.