but you also have to position, align, and affix the sensor bar
You can't be serious? I put it on top of the TV and aligned it with the top edge. It's a 30 second job. And most of that is pulling the paper off the double sided sticky tape.
Adding memory to the slot by the battery doesn't invalidate your warranty, particularly since it tells you had to add the memory in the owner's manual.
And by the way, I already added it. I got the G.Skill 1G from Newegg. They make the same chip in two versions, one claims to be Macbook Pro compatible, and it's $3 more, although I suspect there is no difference at all. These days I tend to look at Newegg first, because their shipping is so reasonable and their prices are usually extremely competitive.
What I've found is that going from 1G->2G doesn't increase normal operations, but makes running virtual machines a lot faster. Keeping with the same theme, if I need more memory in a year or so, the cost of the 2G memory will have dropped significantly over today's prices.
I'm going to try experimenting with using the MBP as a virtual synthesizer, and I suspect I'll need as much memory as I can put into the box.
Get the space you need now, and if you can hold out for a year, replace it with a bigger drive then. I'm sure I'll run out of space on the 120G drive, but not for a while. When I really do need the extra space, I'll buy it.
I just got a MBP with 1G, because you can upgrade the memory for $80 to 2G if you buy from a 3rd party, which is half the price of Apple's memory.
If you don't like it, you don't like it. You can easily recoup most, if not all, of your money by reselling. They're still hard to get, the price is low. If you put it on "buy it now" on ebay for $200, you'll have it sold within the hour.
"Wii sports are just lacking the depth to really hold my attention"
Wii sports was a demonstration disc thrown into the box for free. It was intended to show consumers and developers the proper way to use and develop for the Wii.
Of course it lacks depth. There is no depth. But you get what you pay for. In this case, you get a whole lot more.
1) DRM is bad 2) It hurts the market 3) Doggone it, let's get rid of it!
But then they say....
4) But we're not going to get rid of it 5) We're hoping the government will force us to get rid of it?
I may not be as bright as some of you guys around here, but this doesn't make any sense.
They really seem to be saying:
1) DRM *THE WAY WE'VE DONE IT* is bad. 2) No way will we get rid of it, we'd rather have bad DRM than none. We need to be able to resell Elvis tracks every 5 years to the same consumer. 3) What we're hoping for is the government mandates a technical solution, since Apple has really screwed us up, and we don't seem to be able to work together to come up with a viable solution on our own.
Seriously, if you're the government, isn't it reasonable to say "Gee, selling music to consumers is not a core function of government. You guys figure it out. We've already given you eternal copyrights and the FBI to enforce it, what else do you need?". But I guess that won't happen.
Exactly. Amazon will invoke a sense of fair play, not because they care about right or wrong in the sense you or I do, it's simply a way to get more money from you.
It's like when you're sick of a job and you threaten to leave, and the boss says "let me talk to upper management, I think we'll do better, just come in and work this weekend and we'll try to do something, blah blah, blah". Your boss is only placating you hoping you won't quit, get a problem taken care of and basically shuts you up for another week/month/year/whatever. It has nothing to do with fairness. Your boss doesn't care about you. They might even hate you, appearances to the contrary.
People can be fairly sociopathic when it suits them. They'll tell you you're handsome, a great lover, witty, well-dressed, intelligent, strong, whatever it takes to manipulate you into doing what needs to be done. It's a basic human interaction.
Amazon knows that by doing this, they'll appeal to a sense of fair play and lets say they get 1/2 of the people to pay more. Well, that's great, because it's more money for them! And some people will send it back. Not so good, probably can't sell those if they've been opened, but at least I can get scrap value for them. Or sell them used behind a fake used seller on their own site... "Hardly used! 100% satisfaction!". And a few will challenge the charge. Oh well, that's the way it goes. Cost of doing business. Amazon won't be thinking "Oh gee, that person was not fair!". There is no "amazon". There is Jeff Bezos and the managers and they look at profits, losses, and cashflow. Other than that, you're a sheep to be shorn.
"We wouldn't have to put up with DRM if it weren't for pirates"
I'm not so sure. CD's are lacking any sort of copy protection or DRM, as were LPs before them.
The legislation to support DRM was put in place primarily with the DMCA which predates any sort of file sharing on a large scale. My guess is DRM was put in place primarily because of the *fear* of unauthorized file sharing, not from any losses.
But even if what you're saying is true, what do you propose? If people didn't commit crimes, we wouldn't need the police. If people at healthy, our health care costs would be lower. If people paid more attention on the roads we wouldn't need all those safety features in cars, etc etc.
But none of those things are true. The record companies can go one of two ways.... they either tighten down restriction on copying even more, or they remove it, lower prices, and go for higher volumes; at least change what they're doing somehow. It will be interesting to see what path they go down and if they fail or succeed.
"Creating fake "artitst" who are really just spokesmodels in videos for a recorded product tied in with cobranded products like so much anime breakfast cereal."
But think about all the boy singing acts in the 50's/60's such as Fabian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_%28entertaine r%29) These were modestly talented singers who were pushed by the record companies to be stars and sell records to pubescent girls. Or in the 60's all the girl singing groups that came out. Or closer to the present, Brittany (et al).
The phenomenon is not new.
The recording industry has always been sleazy. Always some scheme they're hatching, always trying to get copyright law changed to make them more money, from the time they were selling sheet music, piano rolls, edison cylinders, 78's... always something. But I think post WW2 a lot of actual music guys hooked up with the record companies and along with the manufactured acts there was some genuinely good music that achieved a good following throughout the 50's and 60's.
But the music guys all left the business and what we have now is a bunch of accountants who figured out it's cheaper to push Brittany for 3 albums rather than develop young *talent*.
I mean, how many groups now disappear after 3 albums? And why is that? The record companies don't want to develop these acts because they're less profitable than the 3-album phenomenon. American Idol is the perfect example of what's wrong with the music business. It's not that the people aren't talented singers, but it fits the model that they want to spend a few months auditioning, pick a winner, and then make a hit record or 3 and then they'll be gone forever. It's okay though because next year's TV show will pick the next "star".
Do you think Van Morrison could become popular in 2007? I doubt it. I don't think James Brown could make it big in 2007. If the record companies had their way, the beatles would've had 3 albums, and then on with the Stones, 3 records, and then... I dunno... the cowsills.
But music has a way of renewing itself, with or without the record company's help.
When Disco crapified popular music, Punk music rose up to push it out, almost like a body manufactures white blood cells to destroy an infection. When 80's AOR became predictable, Grunge rose up to push it out. We're about due for another musical correction. We can only hope.
Mostly because it's impossible to find the latest gadgets locally, even if you live in a major city in the U.S.
And even then, it's not the sales tax that drives people away, it's the fact that the stores that have cutting edge gadgets are often boutique sellers that charge a significant premium over "regular" retailers.
For example, it's pretty difficult for most people to buy an Apple computer locally (defined as 45 minutes away or less), or BluRay recorder for your PC, or anything from Bose, or a Palm LifeDrive, Canon DSLR or pretty much anything else that is new and expensive.
If price and selection were the same, people would probably pay the additional 5% sales tax to buy it locally. But the price difference between internet and local is often 25-50%.
"Buying military grade weapons at walmart on a whim"
Well, you can't do that, either on a whim or with a lot of thought beforehand. Those things aren't for sale in this country.
"or lowering health care costs and taking care of people's health"
I think the right way to solve this is more complex than "single payer, government gives health care" that a lot of people want to want. I think every Democratic idea on this has been to toe the party line and is therefore a non-starter.
"education and repaying the insane debt we're in thanks to the republicans?"
Yeah, Bush is a lousy president, but the Democrats have gone right along making the deficit and debt worse. Those lousy IP laws like DMCA and others? They've got bipartisan support in Washington. So the issues you raise are the fault of both parties.
If by "gets up", you mean "nominated", then what you're suggesting is not possible. Both candidates are Democrats, therefore at most one of your two choices will be running in November 2008.
I think it's highly likely that neither Hillary or Obama will be nominated by the Democrats.
With the Series 2 & 3 Tivo's, copying files wirelessly is painful. With Wired Ethernet, the difference is substantial and it becomes realistic to watch a show on one Tivo that's been recorded on another Tivo in real time.
Still? Hardly anybody ever did. I have it because when we built my house 10 years ago, I spent a day wiring the house with ethernet.
Now, those of us who have it, use it and love it... because in terms of speed, it's a lot faster than wireless. My wife was VPN'ing into work last week on her laptop and she was complaining about how slow it was. I have multiple access points that cover the house, so there are almost no dead spots. She was connected with 802.11g, and was getting an excellent signal.
So we got a long cord and connected her to the wired jacks, and the speed increase was dramatic.
If you're surfing the internet, the speed increase is real, but not important. But if you're doing more than that, wireless just doesn't cut it.
"An E520 upgraded to these specs is $1229. While it _does_ lack some features the iMac has, on the flipside you have a machine with infinitely more expandability."
I have two comments about this:
1) First, most people never open their machines. To my family, when I visit, they ask for help with their PC to upgrade RAM or hard disk or something, and when I open the case, it's the equivalent to them of taking apart their dishwasher. A job for a professional!
[This is not what I do... I bought a Dell 3 years ago and the only thing that's left is the original MB and case at this point. Some things I've replaced multiple times. I recognize this is not cost-effective, but it does let me stay reasonably current for about $200-300 every 6 months. Plus I like to tinker.]
2) On the flip side, your argument is exactly why I buy Mac laptops. Laptops are by definition not expandable whether we're talking Macs or PCs (beyond RAM and HD). I just bought a Mac Book Pro and if you build a comparable Dell, the Mac is about the same or cheaper, which echoes your point.
You've got to admit, Apple may be boxed into 5-10% of the market, but they've managed to hold onto this share competing directly with Microsoft for 20 years and they've developed exactly the same reputation in computers as BMW does with cars.
Isn't it funny that as people who love technology, we're faced with Vista that has really awful drivers support, obnoxious licensing, exists as a way to force a unified DRM model on all users, and yet we all sit around and say "Well, I guess I'll eventually repurchase everything, seeing as how Windows has to win out".
I'll paraphrase a joke.
A old Unix hacker was sitting around and he prayed to god... he said "Dear God, I don't like Windows Vista. It's everything I don't like, the vendor has a bad attitude, it's expensive, it's proprietary, and the DRM is taking away freedoms that I believe are my right. Won't you please send me an OS that can take over from Microsoft?"
And he prayed and prayed, but after a few months he said "well, I need a new computer, and god won't answer my prayers, so I'll buy that new Vista powered laptop"
And so the old hacker eventually died.
He came before God in heaven, and he said "God, I prayed for deliverance from Windows Vista, and you didn't listen, so I ended up buying Vista, and it became the dominant OS on earth"
And god laughed and said "You idiot, I sent you Red Hat, I sent you Ubuntu, I sent you Mac OS X and a whole host of other options but you wouldn't take them"
Well, it's not dead, and based on the number of organizations involved in the advertiser-based model, there's still a lot of money to be made.
But you can make a compelling case that the current system offers a chance to discover shows you don't know about. Are you willing to spend $2 on a new TV show that no one has never seen? Probably not. Because good TV shows are pretty rare. They come out with bunches every year and most fail because they're lousy. The pay per download scenario doesn't solve that problem.
Also, some of us just like to channel surf. Just graze a few minutes here and there. If something is interesting, we stay, otherwise we go.
Specialty channels like HGTV probably can't exist with pay per view. None of the shows individually is very compelling, but the package of shows makes it compelling ( this is the issue with satellite radio, by the way, but that's a different story).
I think it's more correct to say that there are more options are available and the market will become stratified to support lots of choices. If people lose interest in the channel surfing model, then that model will go away. If new shows can't get started because nobody wants to pay for an untested download, then that will tend to hurt the pay per download model.
When people say "more mature" in the context of video games, is that a code word for "more violent"?
I'm not criticizing, but "more mature" always seems like a double-speak phrase. Like, if someone describes me as "more mature", that's a way of saying I'm old.
The irony is, that most people using the word "mature" when describing video games are generally under 21.
"The studios and copyright/patent holders would not permit high-def without oppressive DRM."
We don't know that, nor will we ever know.
I'm sure they said they would do this. On the other hand, the car salesman said he wouldn't take a penny under $18,000 for the car, but 2 minutes later, he managed to sell it for $16,000. He appeared to be lying.
My guess it the RIAA/MPAA were lying too. Content doesn't exist for artistic expression. It's the raw material to make money. It's the equivalent of the beef used to make hamburgers.
So if Windows/Apple refused to put massive DRM into their products, these companies would be reduced to selling this stuff to people who sit in their living room and listen to music. People haven't done that for 30 years, and probably won't ever again. How many movies are sold/rented to people who watch them on laptops?
Ask yourself this, and be honest, if Hi-Def HD-DVD/BluRay was not available for the PC, would most people be satisfied with DVDs? And if most people are buying/renting DVDs, how does the next generation of media emerge? Not all new media succeeds (a.k.a. Elcaset).
I think the person earlier had it right... Microsoft made DRM the central reason for Vista because their target market is not you or me, it was the media companies and the promise that the MS platform is more DRM friendly than anything else before it. I don't know of any person who asked for that. I know a lot of big media companies asked for it.
Slashdot Mirror
but you also have to position, align, and affix the sensor bar
You can't be serious? I put it on top of the TV and aligned it with the top edge. It's a 30 second job. And most of that is pulling the paper off the double sided sticky tape.
Adding memory to the slot by the battery doesn't invalidate your warranty, particularly since it tells you had to add the memory in the owner's manual.
And by the way, I already added it. I got the G.Skill 1G from Newegg. They make the same chip in two versions, one claims to be Macbook Pro compatible, and it's $3 more, although I suspect there is no difference at all. These days I tend to look at Newegg first, because their shipping is so reasonable and their prices are usually extremely competitive.
What I've found is that going from 1G->2G doesn't increase normal operations, but makes running virtual machines a lot faster. Keeping with the same theme, if I need more memory in a year or so, the cost of the 2G memory will have dropped significantly over today's prices.
I'm going to try experimenting with using the MBP as a virtual synthesizer, and I suspect I'll need as much memory as I can put into the box.
because 'DRM increases not decreases consumer value', such as by enabling people to rent content at a lower price than ownership
That's like being happy you got into a car accident because you met a nice nurse at the hospital.
Get the space you need now, and if you can hold out for a year, replace it with a bigger drive then. I'm sure I'll run out of space on the 120G drive, but not for a while. When I really do need the extra space, I'll buy it.
I just got a MBP with 1G, because you can upgrade the memory for $80 to 2G if you buy from a 3rd party, which is half the price of Apple's memory.
Sell it on ebay. You'll get at least $200.
If you don't like it, you don't like it. You can easily recoup most, if not all, of your money by reselling. They're still hard to get, the price is low. If you put it on "buy it now" on ebay for $200, you'll have it sold within the hour.
"Wii sports are just lacking the depth to really hold my attention"
Wii sports was a demonstration disc thrown into the box for free. It was intended to show consumers and developers the proper way to use and develop for the Wii.
Of course it lacks depth. There is no depth. But you get what you pay for. In this case, you get a whole lot more.
So record company execs are saying:
1) DRM is bad
2) It hurts the market
3) Doggone it, let's get rid of it!
But then they say....
4) But we're not going to get rid of it
5) We're hoping the government will force us to get rid of it?
I may not be as bright as some of you guys around here, but this doesn't make any sense.
They really seem to be saying:
1) DRM *THE WAY WE'VE DONE IT* is bad.
2) No way will we get rid of it, we'd rather have bad DRM than none. We need to be able to resell Elvis tracks every 5 years to the same consumer.
3) What we're hoping for is the government mandates a technical solution, since Apple has really screwed us up, and we don't seem to be able to work together to come up with a viable solution on our own.
Seriously, if you're the government, isn't it reasonable to say "Gee, selling music to consumers is not a core function of government. You guys figure it out. We've already given you eternal copyrights and the FBI to enforce it, what else do you need?". But I guess that won't happen.
Exactly. Amazon will invoke a sense of fair play, not because they care about right or wrong in the sense you or I do, it's simply a way to get more money from you.
It's like when you're sick of a job and you threaten to leave, and the boss says "let me talk to upper management, I think we'll do better, just come in and work this weekend and we'll try to do something, blah blah, blah". Your boss is only placating you hoping you won't quit, get a problem taken care of and basically shuts you up for another week/month/year/whatever. It has nothing to do with fairness. Your boss doesn't care about you. They might even hate you, appearances to the contrary.
People can be fairly sociopathic when it suits them. They'll tell you you're handsome, a great lover, witty, well-dressed, intelligent, strong, whatever it takes to manipulate you into doing what needs to be done. It's a basic human interaction.
Amazon knows that by doing this, they'll appeal to a sense of fair play and lets say they get 1/2 of the people to pay more. Well, that's great, because it's more money for them! And some people will send it back. Not so good, probably can't sell those if they've been opened, but at least I can get scrap value for them. Or sell them used behind a fake used seller on their own site... "Hardly used! 100% satisfaction!". And a few will challenge the charge. Oh well, that's the way it goes. Cost of doing business. Amazon won't be thinking "Oh gee, that person was not fair!". There is no "amazon". There is Jeff Bezos and the managers and they look at profits, losses, and cashflow. Other than that, you're a sheep to be shorn.
"We wouldn't have to put up with DRM if it weren't for pirates"
I'm not so sure. CD's are lacking any sort of copy protection or DRM, as were LPs before them.
The legislation to support DRM was put in place primarily with the DMCA which predates any sort of file sharing on a large scale. My guess is DRM was put in place primarily because of the *fear* of unauthorized file sharing, not from any losses.
But even if what you're saying is true, what do you propose? If people didn't commit crimes, we wouldn't need the police. If people at healthy, our health care costs would be lower. If people paid more attention on the roads we wouldn't need all those safety features in cars, etc etc.
But none of those things are true. The record companies can go one of two ways.... they either tighten down restriction on copying even more, or they remove it, lower prices, and go for higher volumes; at least change what they're doing somehow. It will be interesting to see what path they go down and if they fail or succeed.
"Creating fake "artitst" who are really just spokesmodels in videos for a recorded product tied in with cobranded products like so much anime breakfast cereal."
e r%29) These were modestly talented singers who were pushed by the record companies to be stars and sell records to pubescent girls. Or in the 60's all the girl singing groups that came out. Or closer to the present, Brittany (et al).
But think about all the boy singing acts in the 50's/60's such as Fabian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_%28entertain
The phenomenon is not new.
The recording industry has always been sleazy. Always some scheme they're hatching, always trying to get copyright law changed to make them more money, from the time they were selling sheet music, piano rolls, edison cylinders, 78's... always something. But I think post WW2 a lot of actual music guys hooked up with the record companies and along with the manufactured acts there was some genuinely good music that achieved a good following throughout the 50's and 60's.
But the music guys all left the business and what we have now is a bunch of accountants who figured out it's cheaper to push Brittany for 3 albums rather than develop young *talent*.
I mean, how many groups now disappear after 3 albums? And why is that? The record companies don't want to develop these acts because they're less profitable than the 3-album phenomenon. American Idol is the perfect example of what's wrong with the music business. It's not that the people aren't talented singers, but it fits the model that they want to spend a few months auditioning, pick a winner, and then make a hit record or 3 and then they'll be gone forever. It's okay though because next year's TV show will pick the next "star".
Do you think Van Morrison could become popular in 2007? I doubt it. I don't think James Brown could make it big in 2007. If the record companies had their way, the beatles would've had 3 albums, and then on with the Stones, 3 records, and then... I dunno... the cowsills.
But music has a way of renewing itself, with or without the record company's help.
When Disco crapified popular music, Punk music rose up to push it out, almost like a body manufactures white blood cells to destroy an infection. When 80's AOR became predictable, Grunge rose up to push it out. We're about due for another musical correction. We can only hope.
"What kind of tax do you suggest then?"
Lower.
"Nobody talks about buying it locally."
Mostly because it's impossible to find the latest gadgets locally, even if you live in a major city in the U.S.
And even then, it's not the sales tax that drives people away, it's the fact that the stores that have cutting edge gadgets are often boutique sellers that charge a significant premium over "regular" retailers.
For example, it's pretty difficult for most people to buy an Apple computer locally (defined as 45 minutes away or less), or BluRay recorder for your PC, or anything from Bose, or a Palm LifeDrive, Canon DSLR or pretty much anything else that is new and expensive.
If price and selection were the same, people would probably pay the additional 5% sales tax to buy it locally. But the price difference between internet and local is often 25-50%.
"Buying military grade weapons at walmart on a whim"
Well, you can't do that, either on a whim or with a lot of thought beforehand. Those things aren't for sale in this country.
"or lowering health care costs and taking care of people's health"
I think the right way to solve this is more complex than "single payer, government gives health care" that a lot of people want to want. I think every Democratic idea on this has been to toe the party line and is therefore a non-starter.
"education and repaying the insane debt we're in thanks to the republicans?"
Yeah, Bush is a lousy president, but the Democrats have gone right along making the deficit and debt worse. Those lousy IP laws like DMCA and others? They've got bipartisan support in Washington. So the issues you raise are the fault of both parties.
If by "gets up", you mean "nominated", then what you're suggesting is not possible. Both candidates are Democrats, therefore at most one of your two choices will be running in November 2008.
I think it's highly likely that neither Hillary or Obama will be nominated by the Democrats.
Florida is so weird that at www.fark.com, Florida stories have their own section.
I didn't hear about that. Is there a link?
How many bombs did he make? Or did he get any to explode?
Yes, I meant both good and bad.
With the Series 2 & 3 Tivo's, copying files wirelessly is painful. With Wired Ethernet, the difference is substantial and it becomes realistic to watch a show on one Tivo that's been recorded on another Tivo in real time.
"Who still uses wired ethernet in their house?"
Still? Hardly anybody ever did. I have it because when we built my house 10 years ago, I spent a day wiring the house with ethernet.
Now, those of us who have it, use it and love it... because in terms of speed, it's a lot faster than wireless. My wife was VPN'ing into work last week on her laptop and she was complaining about how slow it was. I have multiple access points that cover the house, so there are almost no dead spots. She was connected with 802.11g, and was getting an excellent signal.
So we got a long cord and connected her to the wired jacks, and the speed increase was dramatic.
If you're surfing the internet, the speed increase is real, but not important. But if you're doing more than that, wireless just doesn't cut it.
"An E520 upgraded to these specs is $1229. While it _does_ lack some features the iMac has, on the flipside you have a machine with infinitely more expandability."
I have two comments about this:
1) First, most people never open their machines. To my family, when I visit, they ask for help with their PC to upgrade RAM or hard disk or something, and when I open the case, it's the equivalent to them of taking apart their dishwasher. A job for a professional!
[This is not what I do... I bought a Dell 3 years ago and the only thing that's left is the original MB and case at this point. Some things I've replaced multiple times. I recognize this is not cost-effective, but it does let me stay reasonably current for about $200-300 every 6 months. Plus I like to tinker.]
2) On the flip side, your argument is exactly why I buy Mac laptops. Laptops are by definition not expandable whether we're talking Macs or PCs (beyond RAM and HD). I just bought a Mac Book Pro and if you build a comparable Dell, the Mac is about the same or cheaper, which echoes your point.
You've got to admit, Apple may be boxed into 5-10% of the market, but they've managed to hold onto this share competing directly with Microsoft for 20 years and they've developed exactly the same reputation in computers as BMW does with cars.
Isn't it funny that as people who love technology, we're faced with Vista that has really awful drivers support, obnoxious licensing, exists as a way to force a unified DRM model on all users, and yet we all sit around and say "Well, I guess I'll eventually repurchase everything, seeing as how Windows has to win out".
I'll paraphrase a joke.
A old Unix hacker was sitting around and he prayed to god... he said "Dear God, I don't like Windows Vista. It's everything I don't like, the vendor has a bad attitude, it's expensive, it's proprietary, and the DRM is taking away freedoms that I believe are my right. Won't you please send me an OS that can take over from Microsoft?"
And he prayed and prayed, but after a few months he said "well, I need a new computer, and god won't answer my prayers, so I'll buy that new Vista powered laptop"
And so the old hacker eventually died.
He came before God in heaven, and he said "God, I prayed for deliverance from Windows Vista, and you didn't listen, so I ended up buying Vista, and it became the dominant OS on earth"
And god laughed and said "You idiot, I sent you Red Hat, I sent you Ubuntu, I sent you Mac OS X and a whole host of other options but you wouldn't take them"
Something to think about.
"This model is dead"
Well, it's not dead, and based on the number of organizations involved in the advertiser-based model, there's still a lot of money to be made.
But you can make a compelling case that the current system offers a chance to discover shows you don't know about. Are you willing to spend $2 on a new TV show that no one has never seen? Probably not. Because good TV shows are pretty rare. They come out with bunches every year and most fail because they're lousy. The pay per download scenario doesn't solve that problem.
Also, some of us just like to channel surf. Just graze a few minutes here and there. If something is interesting, we stay, otherwise we go.
Specialty channels like HGTV probably can't exist with pay per view. None of the shows individually is very compelling, but the package of shows makes it compelling ( this is the issue with satellite radio, by the way, but that's a different story).
I think it's more correct to say that there are more options are available and the market will become stratified to support lots of choices. If people lose interest in the channel surfing model, then that model will go away. If new shows can't get started because nobody wants to pay for an untested download, then that will tend to hurt the pay per download model.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
When people say "more mature" in the context of video games, is that a code word for "more violent"?
I'm not criticizing, but "more mature" always seems like a double-speak phrase. Like, if someone describes me as "more mature", that's a way of saying I'm old.
The irony is, that most people using the word "mature" when describing video games are generally under 21.
They use Google maps to do a mash-up. It's a very clever site.
"The studios and copyright/patent holders would not permit high-def without oppressive DRM."
We don't know that, nor will we ever know.
I'm sure they said they would do this. On the other hand, the car salesman said he wouldn't take a penny under $18,000 for the car, but 2 minutes later, he managed to sell it for $16,000. He appeared to be lying.
My guess it the RIAA/MPAA were lying too. Content doesn't exist for artistic expression. It's the raw material to make money. It's the equivalent of the beef used to make hamburgers.
So if Windows/Apple refused to put massive DRM into their products, these companies would be reduced to selling this stuff to people who sit in their living room and listen to music. People haven't done that for 30 years, and probably won't ever again. How many movies are sold/rented to people who watch them on laptops?
Ask yourself this, and be honest, if Hi-Def HD-DVD/BluRay was not available for the PC, would most people be satisfied with DVDs? And if most people are buying/renting DVDs, how does the next generation of media emerge? Not all new media succeeds (a.k.a. Elcaset).
I think the person earlier had it right... Microsoft made DRM the central reason for Vista because their target market is not you or me, it was the media companies and the promise that the MS platform is more DRM friendly than anything else before it. I don't know of any person who asked for that. I know a lot of big media companies asked for it.