...before reading the comments here. I do agree that high quality streams in an open format (not Windoze specific, DRM maybe OK) to any number of convenient devices (computer, stereo, portable, car) would probably also earn my money. But anyway, here's my email:
Hi, Just wanted to let you know that I applaud your launch of the Rhapsody service but that it still falls short of what I'd need to see to subscribe. I'd be willing to pay more, say $24.95 a month or so with a 1-yr contract, for:
1) Cutting edge compression - high quality MP4s ideally, as MP3 really does not provide a good quality/size ratio in comparison and MP4 is not platform specific. 2) Full access to the files for offline use, burning, or transfer (*NO* restrictions). 3) Request lists, especially for classical music (I understand there are licensing issues but I'm fairly sure your audiophile clientele would be willing to pay more for a great selection of classical and jazz music, ie, not just "Mozart for Dummies" type stuff;)
The benefits for the customer (me) are obvious: 1) It would still be much easier to simply download tracks than to find compression software, type in the track information, and rip/compress the tracks myself. 2) Searching and sampling music would be much more convenient than at most stores. 3) My entire music library would be instantly accessible and more easily transferred to other media.
I hope that Rhapsody does well but I'll wait for a more flexible service, even if it costs more, before I give up the free services that work nearly as well (I miss the old Audio Galaxy, of course!).
Thanks for your time,
-Jeremy Black Pittsburgh Symphony
Re:Is this really a good thing?
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 1
Yes, this is really a good thing.
Having the government regulate an out-of-control industry is often best for the consumer. Take steam-boats, for instance. Operators of steam-boats in the mid 1800's were constantly 'innovating' their products by pushing the pressure of their boilers higher and higher (to make the ship engines faster and more powerful). In the process, literally dozens of people died from boiler explosions every week. The casualties of Microsoft's 'innovations' may not as clearly defined as so many new tombstones, but the role of the government remains the same: to make sure that consumers are protected when their knowledge is imperfect.
Steam-boat operators went to great lengths to promote the safety of their products and hide tragedies when they occurred. M$ goes to great lengths to repeat the word 'innovation' as much as possible while, from the Conclusions of Law:
Internet Explorer is not demonstrably the current "best of breed" Web browser, nor is it likely to be so at any time in the immediate future.
Microsoft fails to advance any legitimate business objectives that actually explain the full extent of this significant exclusionary impact.
Microsoft itself engendered, or at least countenanced, instability and inconsistency by permitting Microsoft-friendly modifications to the desktop and boot sequence...
the full extent of Microsoft's exclusionary initiatives in the IAP channel can only be explained by the desire to hinder competition on the merits in the relevant market.
Microsoft's actions did not even benefit Microsoft in the short run... [if they] would thus diminish the [competing] applications barrier to entry.
and best,
There is no evidence that Microsoft tried - or even considered trying - to prevent its anticompetitive campaign from achieving overkill. Under these circumstances, it is fair to presume that the wrongdoer intended "the probable consequences of its acts."
Hiding the fact that your neighbors are getting blown apart is somewhat more difficult than hiding that certain 'innovations' are actually ploys to stifle competition, but it comes down to the same things: consumer knowledge (or the lack there-of), the difference between knowing what new features will improve productivity and being told which 'innovations' will, and having a powerful body, in both these cases the government, work for the people who cannot be expected to know, or are being purposefully denied, some or all of the facts. Cheers, -Jeremy Black
Slashdot Mirror
...before reading the comments here. I do agree that high quality streams in an open format (not Windoze specific, DRM maybe OK) to any number of convenient devices (computer, stereo, portable, car) would probably also earn my money. But anyway, here's my email:
;)
Hi,
Just wanted to let you know that I applaud your launch of the Rhapsody service but that it still falls short of what I'd need to see to subscribe. I'd be willing to pay more, say $24.95 a month or so with a 1-yr contract, for:
1) Cutting edge compression - high quality MP4s ideally, as MP3 really does not provide a good quality/size ratio in comparison and MP4 is not platform specific.
2) Full access to the files for offline use, burning, or transfer (*NO* restrictions).
3) Request lists, especially for classical music (I understand there are licensing issues but I'm fairly sure your audiophile clientele would be willing to pay more for a great selection of classical and jazz music, ie, not just "Mozart for Dummies" type stuff
The benefits for the customer (me) are obvious:
1) It would still be much easier to simply download tracks than to find compression software, type in the track information, and rip/compress the tracks myself.
2) Searching and sampling music would be much more convenient than at most stores.
3) My entire music library would be instantly accessible and more easily transferred to other media.
I hope that Rhapsody does well but I'll wait for a more flexible service, even if it costs more, before I give up the free services that work nearly as well (I miss the old Audio Galaxy, of course!).
Thanks for your time,
-Jeremy Black
Pittsburgh Symphony
Having the government regulate an out-of-control industry is often best for the consumer. Take steam-boats, for instance. Operators of steam-boats in the mid 1800's were constantly 'innovating' their products by pushing the pressure of their boilers higher and higher (to make the ship engines faster and more powerful). In the process, literally dozens of people died from boiler explosions every week. The casualties of Microsoft's 'innovations' may not as clearly defined as so many new tombstones, but the role of the government remains the same: to make sure that consumers are protected when their knowledge is imperfect.
Steam-boat operators went to great lengths to promote the safety of their products and hide tragedies when they occurred. M$ goes to great lengths to repeat the word 'innovation' as much as possible while, from the Conclusions of Law:
- Internet Explorer is not demonstrably the current "best of breed" Web browser, nor is it likely to be so at any time in the immediate future.
- Microsoft fails to advance any legitimate business objectives that actually explain the full extent of this significant exclusionary impact.
- Microsoft itself engendered, or at least countenanced, instability and inconsistency by permitting Microsoft-friendly modifications to the desktop and boot sequence...
- the full extent of Microsoft's exclusionary initiatives in the IAP channel can only be explained by the desire to hinder competition on the merits in the relevant market.
- Microsoft's actions did not even benefit Microsoft in the short run... [if they] would thus diminish the [competing] applications barrier to entry.
and best,- There is no evidence that Microsoft tried - or even considered trying - to prevent its anticompetitive campaign from achieving overkill. Under these circumstances, it is fair to presume that the wrongdoer intended "the probable consequences of its acts."
Hiding the fact that your neighbors are getting blown apart is somewhat more difficult than hiding that certain 'innovations' are actually ploys to stifle competition, but it comes down to the same things: consumer knowledge (or the lack there-of), the difference between knowing what new features will improve productivity and being told which 'innovations' will, and having a powerful body, in both these cases the government, work for the people who cannot be expected to know, or are being purposefully denied, some or all of the facts. Cheers, -Jeremy Black