buy your OS, for less, and choose which applications you want to use?
You could choose to buy the Microsoft Plus media and productivity pack, or not.
Think about it. If you are on a decent net connection today, you can get good applications that do all of those things for free, or at the very least for low cost.
The whole thing depends on the power of the default. Most users either don't know they can choose, or don't bother because the bundled things are there.
Because they are intergrated to a degree that makes life difficult for those who actually want to choose, third party suppliers of these applications have a very hard time providing any value proposition to their prospective customers.
This hurts the industry because:
- There is little incentive to really develop these applications due to lack of potential return on investment.
- The bundled stuff presents a nice target for those who would write viruses and such.
- Perfectly useable hardware becomes useless simply because the bundled and intergrated packages demand it, not because it no longer does the job.
- Open file formats lose their value. Why use them if everyone has the bundled stuff? When it comes to software as a service (read rentalware) closed formats promote user dependance and thus artifical value. This is wrong.
Nobody should have to continue to pay for the ability to perform basic computing tasks when the technology needed to perform these tasks is mature and freely avaliable for the most part.
So, wouldn't it be nice to just be able to buy XP, assuming you want XP, standalone? If you build your own machine, you can get your own applications. If you buy from someone, they could pack in a nice value add with a custom bundle. If you are in charge of a bunch of machines, you could build your own corporate edition bundle and stick with it unitl you have reason to change, not when a service pack, or OS revision forces you do do so...
Anyone with that much money in the bank can damn well afford to produce products that actually are best in class. They are number one right now, but clearly do not deserve to stay there when we know there are better and cheaper ways to do things.
So rather than change the entire Internet, why not consider carefully what you do online. We spend our young lives dealing with conflict resolution only to get online and regress back to age two. Sheesh, why do people do this?
This guy is acting the fool. Before ebay, nobody heard of him and whatever reputation he has was of little consequence to anyone but the locals in his area.
After the ebay transaction, a few more people get to know him but are very likely not to care. Sure you can bring up the google thing, but I think that is far less important than this guy makes it out to be. So, he quits ebay, or changes id, or some combination of the two along with a short explanation about his side of the story. Wait a while and it all goes away.
After seeing this would you seriously consider that minor exchange to be an issue? I would not because I understand how the Internet works and would consider the matter accordingly like any sane adult would.
Now he files suit and makes the front page of/. Sure, this is a smart move because now everyone knows and will pass judgement far more easily. Kind of hard to undo that one now isn't it?
Would you hire him now?
It is not reasonable to change the workings of the Internet just to make it easier for people like this to exist online because they are the problem, not the structure of the Internet.
Put another way, this is a people problem, not an Internet problem. When you have large groups interacting this will happen and everyone knows it.
This guy should have considered some advice before doing anything rash over something as minor as an ebay negative feedback. If he had, the obvious consequences would likely have resulted in some other course of action than this lawsuit...
framework first. I don't care what they fight over so long as my rights are not reduced in the process.
Most of the big fish want to be able to continue to make the decisions outside the law. Without some hard ground rules we are screwed...
I see digitalconsumer.org is there, so maybe there is some balance.
This is also exactly why RIAA backed off as well. They realize that they cannot realistically take away our rights through a lobby, so they punt and go to plan B.
"Let me put it this way: If MS were really capable of that, Linux would be unheard of. The real reason you're afraid of MS is because you listen to too many stories and 'what if' scenarios."
I don't fear MS, I just don't like their vision and I don't like the way they choose to do business, so I vote with my feet. You know it works the same for me no matter what industry is involved. There are banks I will not do business with, and people I will not buy food from also.
"I'm not trying to be insulting, but I am being honest. I don't think your fears are rational or justified. Lots of things about MS have been blown out of proportion to ridiculous levels, and you're willing to risk damaging the gaming industry because of it."
Thanks for being honest. In that post, I did blow things out of proportion. Guilty as charged.
I am not sure how not buying an X box will harm the gaming industry however. The gaming industry is healthy right now because people have choices. For me an X box is not one of those because I do not want to support a vision that does not align well with what I would like to see happen.
Man, the Robocop thing was low...:P
Your assumption that people are not stupid is noble and one that I share. However, many people are uninformed and that is a problem. Kind of hard to make good choices when you do not understand the nature and potential impact of your options.
If people were actually aware of the issues in computing today, we would *never* have the DMCA and other painful laws. Same goes for the current settlement agreement in force with MS right now. Maybe we would have these things, but they would have a lot better balance than they do right now.
So, what does that have to do with Xbox?
I get to make my views known through these basic means:
1. Indirectly through common vote. I get to help choose people who I believe might act, in my behalf in my best interests.
2. I get to let those elected know how their decisions affect me.
3. With my feet! Why provide economic support to those that are not acting in your best interests? This one comes down to choices. Sometimes they are not worth making.
Example: I do purchase DVD media because I like movies. I don't purchase subscription programming because I am not given the choice to purchase on a per channel basis. For now, I enjoy the theatre, but when they start with the commercials, I will likely not go because I pay enough that ads should not be part of the experience. (I will make a point of letting them know why however.)
4. Through speech. I can let others know why I do what I do. They may not know what I know, they might know something I don't. Either way the conversation will bring both of us closer to understanding what our best choices are. This type of discussion is not happening enough when it comes to technology issues these days. (BTW my parent post did not help #4 very well at all...)
Letting companies understand why you do not choose to be part of the business plan is an important part of the process. We need marketing to understand that they have made contact, but are not getting anywhere because the model does not fit, not because they have not made enough offers, or bought enough business.
It comes down to being informed and making those everyday choices. My ranting aside, how can doing these things harm an industry? Doing these things with good intent should actually help industries smart enough to respond accordingly.
If said industry continues to maintain a state of decline because people are doing those things I mentioned above, doesn't it deserve it?
but I am still not going to buy an Xbox. For that matter I won't get a CE Pda, cell phone either.
Sure, it's childish, but I really don't care. It is not about how good the machine is, it is about principle.
Anyone that lets *one* company be the source for a large number of things in their life is a fool plain and simple.
Why do you think business likes more than one source? It's so that source does not screw them over when things get tough. That is what happens to us when we are stupid enough to limit our choices.
This applies to everyone, like it or not.
Someday in the future, you might use your MS PC to send e-mail through your MS ISP that contains a picture encoded with your MS codec to your friend who better be using a MS capable machine in order to see anything you wrote or produced.
Later that day you are interested in their thoughts, so you call on your MS phone on your way to work, where you use more MS products and services. You wind down at the end of the day with a game or two, maybe some pay per view media with your MS entertainment console.
Your bank is intergrated with your MS computer so the fat MS bill comes out at just the right time each month.
Now lets say most of us do this. Who is in control of our lives and choices? What incentive would MS have to act in our best interests?
I have always wondered about this, but never bothered enough to look it up.
I own a radio with a bandwidth adjustment and another that is stereo. When there was programming that was worth listening to, it was very listenable.
So it is a rolloff then. Too bad about the recievers today. With all the advances, you would think giving AM just a bit of attention would not cost very much at all...
KSKD and KINK fm here both used to do some pretty nice things.
KSKD had regular taglines such as: "Adult programming for adults, no clipped songs, no talk over, and Dolby FM for the best listening experience" --I really miss that. They would play 4 songs with nice 2 second gaps between them, then a short DJ piece with song title and artist along with short bits of commentary, then commercials.
Once a day, they would broadcast the Dolby Alignment signal for two minutes. They actually assumed that people enjoyed their radio and would be willing to make some use of it. Hmmph!
Kink used to do late evening recording sessions. Every once in a while, they would play something imported or rare and count down the record button. 4, 3, 2, 1... Then stay quiet for 3 to 5 tracks.
Damn Clear Channel... Making a nation of morons one listener at a time.
I own a radio that has a bandwidth control on it. Many stations broadcast outside the 5Khz range. Not sure if they are supposed to, but they do anyway. Hmmm..
For interesting evidence of this, get a radio that has a true analog tuner on it. Find the very center of the station, then mis-tune just a bit one way or the other. You will hear things that should not be there given a sharp 5Khz clip. I think this is more of a rolloff than anything else.
Am stereo has qualities that FM stereo does not. I am not saying it is better, just different. FM sound is either good or it is not. Fuzz, and sharp bursts of noise are common when listening to FM in many areas.
With AM you get different tradeoffs. There is never fuzz. You do get crackles and pops, more so at night. Fringe area reception just brings up the noise floor until the programming is gone. Multi-Station reception is a problem at night, but rare during the day.
Again, not better just different. Another way to explain this is to compare vinyl with cassette. Tapes will drop out or degrade, but almost never pop or crackle. Am Stereo is like this in some ways. Am is like tape where FM is more like vinyl.
Am radios today are horrible. They do not have the correct response curve. This is likely because the programming no longer demands it and this is a shame really.
If you ever get the chance to listen to an actual AM radio like the old stand up tube ones, do it. You will be surprised when all the elements that make for good AM reproduction come together.
AM sounds bad today because we do not have any audio equipement that can actually do the band justice.
We had an AM station here in Portland called 970 The Beat. They broadcast a great mix of 80's and 90's techno and alternative. Lots of people listened even though most of them heard a mono signal. (I managed to find an AM Stereo radio for my car just for this station.) They were on the radio for about 4 years. They had a lot of young listeners. On AM!
Sombody found out these folks actually were getting some numbers in terms of audience. Guess what? They were moved to FM and promptly flopped after the programming was changed to your typical FM fare. Sombody thought the listeners would just move to FM because of the name.
They should have realized the programming was the attraction. The DJ's basically got to play what they wanted. People liked that.
Today, AM Stereo is all but dead. It was killed by those who thought that people would not bother to listen, that FM was too attractive.
They are wrong. If you put good programming on the AM band, people will listen --if you add stereo, more of them will listen.
The problem with AM is programming and the silly dual AM Stereo battle that made recievers expensive, not the limits of the medium.
Moot point today anyway, AM is doomed to talk and minor ethnic and worship type programming. Too bad really, I see lots of cheap bandwidth that could be filled with more original type programming instead of a dying medium...
You are either lucky because that station contained 'syndicatable' talent, or the station just happened to tow the line close enough to not get changed.
Either way good for you. The cynic in me says it will happen, it is only a matter of time though.
I have been doing this too. There is a lot of interesting programming --once you figure out when to listen.
In Portland, we have the various OPB stations that carry NPR programming plus a little local stuff and we have KBOO community radio and KBPS the local AM college station.
I have found talk radio to be interesting at times when the subject matter and host are good.
OT question: Why are there so few geek oriented talk radio programs? The younger geek will not have the time, but all of us get older. As we do, talk radio becomes more of an option. Seems that 30 or so years of geeks would produce a couple shows at least...
We have already trashed one commercial band, namely, AM, when we could have easily fixed and extended it with AM stereo. (Which has some very nice qualities BTW.)
Now are we going to give up on FM as well?
I can see a lot of advantages to the satellite radio systems particularly in rural areas where you find little or no radio. So these systems have their place. However we still need local radio. Not the clear channel kind, but real local radio.
Here in the Portland area we had a nice station in the early 80's called KSKD. They were innovative. Dolby FM (Which we all should be using today.), very low key DJ's, well defined commercial blocks, and an interesting playlist were all part of this local station. Many of my early musical tastes were formed while listening to the music played on KSKD and when they went off the air, I missed them.
Listening to the radio while on trips used to be pretty interesting. As you went from place to place, the music was different. Each city seemed to have a station or two, like KSKD, that played what they thought was cool. Their listeners became loyal because the combination of music and its presentation was not to be found elsewhere.
Companies like Clear Channel have done the public a dis-service in that they have ruined local programming in all station except community and educational ones.
So for now, satellite radio is a new medium that shines right now. But will it go the way AM and FM did?
Well, good for you! Karma is generally overrated here anyway. If you participate in a reasonable way on/. you will, in general, have good karma.
I was thinking about possible complaints against people for reproduction of articles. If it's an AC, whoops!
Since articles are owned by those that publish them and comments are owned here by those who write them, it is wrong to then repost an article here with an account.
This case has made an implied definition of 'limited time'; namely, being that 'limited' means 'until worthless' because nobody that currently has any copyrights now will let them go otherwise. So much for the public interest. Basically we can have it if we are no longer interested. (Whoopee.) Seems sort of self defeating doesn't it?
All of us are upset because this whole mess devalues the public domain. Others call this stealing and I would tend to agree with them.
Maybe this has little to do with things, but this bothers me a little:
Earlier, the cost of reproduction was higher and the means of expression were more limited. So, the cost of expression was high enough to make moving something into the public domain worthwhile because it more quickly reached a point where extracting further value from it did not justify the expense.
Today that is not as true. We can move information at a very low cost and we have a far greater means for expression as well.
Does that not extend the practical lifetime of current works? And would we not find a better definition of 'limited times' in the examination of those differences?
One further thought along these lines: The balance essentially is that we need to allow those who create the chance to profit from that work while also allowing that work to be built upon by others for new works.
Today, a creative work can last practically forever for the reasons I mentioned above.
Should we not seek a legal framework for limited times that is based on something other than just time?
I will think all of this over. Your comments about/. business cases have some definite merit. You point out some easy mistakes that I will watch for.
Since we all only have so much money, actual new revenue is small. Everyone competes for their piece of the monthly pie... I have actually bumped into this fact in my own arguments from the past, but did not give it the attention it should have gotten as you have done.
Internet access fees have stolen revenue from television in my case. I prefer to purchase media and use broadcast TV in favor of cable for some of the very reasons you identify. Did not realize exactly why though. Hmmm.
About the CD thing. I do feel audio CD media is over priced. $3 is too little and does distort the math, but $9.99 - $11.99 is not. I must come clean here. The problem for me is not so much price as it is control and quality. The consolidation of radio and music distribution companies has diluted programming choices considerably. The result is a less valuable experience which is why I feel the way I do regarding price.
People know now that there is a lot more music out there than they are currently exposed to, and they know it can be cheaper. Right or wrong, this does change the nature of things. Maybe CD media stays at $16.99, but they could offer for $10 - $20 a month for access to a wider catalog. Sure they steal some sales from themselves that could be tempered by limiting what is offered online, but the more important thing to them is the chance to steal from other sources. Music gets more important, perhaps I buy one less DVD. (Which in my case I would do.)
So, Ars then still is an interesting case to me. They are promoting themselves through Ars. Ars is the ad. Any subscription revenue will just make the selling through Ars cheaper. But you are correct in that Ars exists not because of any revenue, but for its value to its creators. It is not a matter of the profibility of Ars, but the cost of Ars as a promotional tool. (Or maybe they just like publishing cool stuff for no profit!)
Guess I had time to think enough:) It will be long though, I just can't see anyway around that. (sorry)
"but have "we" really? Firstly, by "we", I assume you mean the/. moral majority. "
I really don't mean the moral majority of/. I mean 'we', in general, the users and builders of the internet.
"/. is a refuge where geeks can share in a mass delusion for awhile, until it inevitably proves false. The moderation helps ensure this, especially that new foe of a friend BS."
Agreed. BTW, I use the foe/friend stuff to mark people I want to read later, or whose opinion I would like to see play out for a while. This does change how/. does present the comments, but there is always logged out browsing. For me it's about 70 / 30, the majority being logged in and thus biased browsing of comments. Slippery slope to be sure. Not sure what to think of that other than I am aware and will see where it goes.
"At the peak of the bubble, about half the ads I would read on the Internet were ads for other businesses that make money selling ads. This is not a way to make money."
You make some good points here in this paragraph.
Your assessment that ad revenue is limited is correct, to me, as is your assessment of the basic problem with many internet ads today.
However, that does leave some ad revenue and it does not take into account potential revenue that could come from value adds. People want to reach others, but they want to be able to see results so they can judge worth. People also will pay for things they find of value.
Adding value to the process will get the bills paid if one works hard at it. Not very many sites on the internet do that right now and things are changing because of that.
I will agree also with your idea that the current ad revenue pool will not support all the takers right now. Sites that are not adding any real value will eventually change, or wither away as a result of this.
Not a bad thing, just a growing pain. For what it is worth, I believe an awful lot of the Internet today does not really add a lot of value. Things are going to continue to change, for the better I hope.
I am not sure of the best order to continue, so take this next bit as you must to make sense of it.
I chose ARS, Lwn, and pr0n because I see them doing things differently.
I did not include RedHat because I am not sure they are going to be a success yet, why is another long thread...
Google is also on risky ground, though I believe their general position on things is very good because they add a *lot* of value. Brin is a sharp guy. He should be able to make something of that.
Ars adds value with their informed commentary on many technical issues. They know they cannot survive on ads alone and said as much. They provide some good information along with general news and discussion. To me, this is interesting because you can get news and discussion everywhere, so that ends up being a promotional cost partially covered from general ads.
The good information though has value. Those that see that will pay because they can see worth, not because they want Ars to continue to exist or because they are altrustic. Limiting content via subscription turns many potential readers away. Indexing and formatting that content as reference material for subscribers adds value without turning away casual readers.
Lwn does a similar thing, though their approach is not as good. They make non-subscribers wait. So they don't have to work any harder, with their model, but they do turn away readers.
Ars has a better chance than Lwn does.
Not sure what to say about pr0n. Lots of people pay, maybe the nature of the content itself will continue to support that end of things. I will leave that one alone for now;)
I did not catch the story last week. (Link?) If your summary is correct, then I agree. And again, that is not a bad thing. Consider though what I said about value adds. Perhaps the content itself can be the ad given a reasonable value add to support the ongoing production of it. The technique Ars is using right now makes me wonder about the viability of that.
Same with the various authors trying the open content models.
BTW, the story about the new novel posted yesterday got me interested. I downloaded it and read some. I will likely buy his book because I enjoy reading stuff like that away from the computer. Funny thing is I would have likely skipped a review, and maybe I would have been hooked by a sample chapter. Hard choices for authors to make.
Same goes for the Neil Stevenson essay "In the Beginning was the Command Line". Purchased that one because of the online essay.
These things lead me to believe that the content can be the ad in some cases.
I find your two laws interesting.
The first seems to indicate that successful web enterprises will be those that can partner with each other and form communities of loyal readers and participants. These sort of communities are valuable from a marketing point of view. They also can be somewhat localized.
The second means fewer free Linux downloads.:( Very quickly, that also seems to be the way things are heading. Either you invest time and download and assemble your OSS software, or pay someone to do the work for you. Again, value adds can generate revenue if the value is true.
Sorry again for my long replies, know that I appreciate your part in the discussion because it has value to me. That is at the core of why I post. Good things are learned over time this way.
You make some very interesting points. I will tell you in advance that I am going to think them over for a bit before replying myself:)
And, yes we are growing way OT. Probably does not matter now as the/. masses are focused elsewhere. May as well have a conversation here as anywhere else...
Slashdot Mirror
buy your OS, for less, and choose which applications you want to use?
You could choose to buy the Microsoft Plus media and productivity pack, or not.
Think about it. If you are on a decent net connection today, you can get good applications that do all of those things for free, or at the very least for low cost.
The whole thing depends on the power of the default. Most users either don't know they can choose, or don't bother because the bundled things are there.
Because they are intergrated to a degree that makes life difficult for those who actually want to choose, third party suppliers of these applications have a very hard time providing any value proposition to their prospective customers.
This hurts the industry because:
- There is little incentive to really develop these applications due to lack of potential return on investment.
- The bundled stuff presents a nice target for those who would write viruses and such.
- Perfectly useable hardware becomes useless simply because the bundled and intergrated packages demand it, not because it no longer does the job.
- Open file formats lose their value. Why use them if everyone has the bundled stuff? When it comes to software as a service (read rentalware) closed formats promote user dependance and thus artifical value. This is wrong.
Nobody should have to continue to pay for the ability to perform basic computing tasks when the technology needed to perform these tasks is mature and freely avaliable for the most part.
So, wouldn't it be nice to just be able to buy XP, assuming you want XP, standalone? If you build your own machine, you can get your own applications. If you buy from someone, they could pack in a nice value add with a custom bundle. If you are in charge of a bunch of machines, you could build your own corporate edition bundle and stick with it unitl you have reason to change, not when a service pack, or OS revision forces you do do so...
because they have had enough already.
Anyone with that much money in the bank can damn well afford to produce products that actually are best in class. They are number one right now, but clearly do not deserve to stay there when we know there are better and cheaper ways to do things.
Actually I have been doing this for a while now. Kazaa is too much trouble.
Setup ssh plus a few user accounts. Swap with friends, one to one.
No different than trading tracks in the old days via analog methods. Remember ogg/mp3 is a lossy format.
They say they have over 8,000 dues paying members. This is not a lot folks.
excuse really.
I see UIDs' in the high 6 digits now on a regular basis. Just for arguments sake, lets say there are a percentage inactive for one reason or another.
That leaves easily 200,000 to 500,000 users bitching here that could each send in 5 bucks or so at a minimum.
Why not skip that next pack 'o smokes, fast food, or movie rental and just write a quick check?
It *will* matter more than you think.
So rather than change the entire Internet, why not consider carefully what you do online. We spend our young lives dealing with conflict resolution only to get online and regress back to age two. Sheesh, why do people do this?
/. Sure, this is a smart move because now everyone knows and will pass judgement far more easily. Kind of hard to undo that one now isn't it?
This guy is acting the fool. Before ebay, nobody heard of him and whatever reputation he has was of little consequence to anyone but the locals in his area.
After the ebay transaction, a few more people get to know him but are very likely not to care. Sure you can bring up the google thing, but I think that is far less important than this guy makes it out to be. So, he quits ebay, or changes id, or some combination of the two along with a short explanation about his side of the story. Wait a while and it all goes away.
After seeing this would you seriously consider that minor exchange to be an issue? I would not because I understand how the Internet works and would consider the matter accordingly like any sane adult would.
Now he files suit and makes the front page of
Would you hire him now?
It is not reasonable to change the workings of the Internet just to make it easier for people like this to exist online because they are the problem, not the structure of the Internet.
Put another way, this is a people problem, not an Internet problem. When you have large groups interacting this will happen and everyone knows it.
This guy should have considered some advice before doing anything rash over something as minor as an ebay negative feedback. If he had, the obvious consequences would likely have resulted in some other course of action than this lawsuit...
framework first. I don't care what they fight over so long as my rights are not reduced in the process.
Most of the big fish want to be able to continue to make the decisions outside the law. Without some hard ground rules we are screwed...
I see digitalconsumer.org is there, so maybe there is some balance.
This is also exactly why RIAA backed off as well. They realize that they cannot realistically take away our rights through a lobby, so they punt and go to plan B.
Contract law.
"Let me put it this way: If MS were really capable of that, Linux would be unheard of. The real reason you're afraid of MS is because you listen to too many stories and 'what if' scenarios."
:P
I don't fear MS, I just don't like their vision and I don't like the way they choose to do business, so I vote with my feet. You know it works the same for me no matter what industry is involved. There are banks I will not do business with, and people I will not buy food from also.
"I'm not trying to be insulting, but I am being honest. I don't think your fears are rational or justified. Lots of things about MS have been blown out of proportion to ridiculous levels, and you're willing to risk damaging the gaming industry because of it."
Thanks for being honest. In that post, I did blow things out of proportion. Guilty as charged.
I am not sure how not buying an X box will harm the gaming industry however. The gaming industry is healthy right now because people have choices. For me an X box is not one of those because I do not want to support a vision that does not align well with what I would like to see happen.
Man, the Robocop thing was low...
Your assumption that people are not stupid is noble and one that I share. However, many people are uninformed and that is a problem. Kind of hard to make good choices when you do not understand the nature and potential impact of your options.
If people were actually aware of the issues in computing today, we would *never* have the DMCA and other painful laws. Same goes for the current settlement agreement in force with MS right now. Maybe we would have these things, but they would have a lot better balance than they do right now.
So, what does that have to do with Xbox?
I get to make my views known through these basic means:
1. Indirectly through common vote. I get to help choose people who I believe might act, in my behalf in my best interests.
2. I get to let those elected know how their decisions affect me.
3. With my feet! Why provide economic support to those that are not acting in your best interests? This one comes down to choices. Sometimes they are not worth making.
Example: I do purchase DVD media because I like movies. I don't purchase subscription programming because I am not given the choice to purchase on a per channel basis. For now, I enjoy the theatre, but when they start with the commercials, I will likely not go because I pay enough that ads should not be part of the experience. (I will make a point of letting them know why however.)
4. Through speech. I can let others know why I do what I do. They may not know what I know, they might know something I don't. Either way the conversation will bring both of us closer to understanding what our best choices are. This type of discussion is not happening enough when it comes to technology issues these days. (BTW my parent post did not help #4 very well at all...)
Letting companies understand why you do not choose to be part of the business plan is an important part of the process. We need marketing to understand that they have made contact, but are not getting anywhere because the model does not fit, not because they have not made enough offers, or bought enough business.
It comes down to being informed and making those everyday choices. My ranting aside, how can doing these things harm an industry? Doing these things with good intent should actually help industries smart enough to respond accordingly.
If said industry continues to maintain a state of decline because people are doing those things I mentioned above, doesn't it deserve it?
(sorry all.)
but I am still not going to buy an Xbox. For that matter I won't get a CE Pda, cell phone either.
Sure, it's childish, but I really don't care. It is not about how good the machine is, it is about principle.
Anyone that lets *one* company be the source for a large number of things in their life is a fool plain and simple.
Why do you think business likes more than one source? It's so that source does not screw them over when things get tough. That is what happens to us when we are stupid enough to limit our choices.
This applies to everyone, like it or not.
Someday in the future, you might use your MS PC to send e-mail through your MS ISP that contains a picture encoded with your MS codec to your friend who better be using a MS capable machine in order to see anything you wrote or produced.
Later that day you are interested in their thoughts, so you call on your MS phone on your way to work, where you use more MS products and services. You wind down at the end of the day with a game or two, maybe some pay per view media with your MS entertainment console.
Your bank is intergrated with your MS computer so the fat MS bill comes out at just the right time each month.
Now lets say most of us do this. Who is in control of our lives and choices? What incentive would MS have to act in our best interests?
Exactly none.
That's why I will not ever buy an X-box...
Hey, maybe it is better not knowing. We imagine all kinds of good stuff, truth is likely to be something a lot more boring...
I am not sure morals had anything to do with it. It was liability and risk to be sure. We worked in the same building as the other company did.
Either way, I know somebody very happy right now with two machines and nice DLT backup for nothing but a little work (and smell!)
I have always wondered about this, but never bothered enough to look it up.
I own a radio with a bandwidth adjustment and another that is stereo. When there was programming that was worth listening to, it was very listenable.
So it is a rolloff then. Too bad about the recievers today. With all the advances, you would think giving AM just a bit of attention would not cost very much at all...
Funny you mention that. In Portland one station was just changed to 'the river' format. Ewwww...
in a dumpster.
A friend went back to claim them, this is what he ended up with:
2 HP Server class machines PIII 450Mhz good working condition once the cigarette ashes were removed.
1 DLT Tape backup
19 New tapes in wrapper and cleaning kit
Cables and other accessories.
The machines were used by a financial company. Everything worked and booted up. NT server loaded and ready....
We shut them down and wiped everything. Pretty scary actually, who knows what was on those machines!
That sucks doesn't it?
KSKD and KINK fm here both used to do some pretty nice things.
KSKD had regular taglines such as: "Adult programming for adults, no clipped songs, no talk over, and Dolby FM for the best listening experience" --I really miss that. They would play 4 songs with nice 2 second gaps between them, then a short DJ piece with song title and artist along with short bits of commentary, then commercials.
Once a day, they would broadcast the Dolby Alignment signal for two minutes. They actually assumed that people enjoyed their radio and would be willing to make some use of it. Hmmph!
Kink used to do late evening recording sessions. Every once in a while, they would play something imported or rare and count down the record button. 4, 3, 2, 1... Then stay quiet for 3 to 5 tracks.
Damn Clear Channel... Making a nation of morons one listener at a time.
I own a radio that has a bandwidth control on it. Many stations broadcast outside the 5Khz range. Not sure if they are supposed to, but they do anyway. Hmmm..
For interesting evidence of this, get a radio that has a true analog tuner on it. Find the very center of the station, then mis-tune just a bit one way or the other. You will hear things that should not be there given a sharp 5Khz clip. I think this is more of a rolloff than anything else.
Am stereo has qualities that FM stereo does not. I am not saying it is better, just different. FM sound is either good or it is not. Fuzz, and sharp bursts of noise are common when listening to FM in many areas.
With AM you get different tradeoffs. There is never fuzz. You do get crackles and pops, more so at night. Fringe area reception just brings up the noise floor until the programming is gone. Multi-Station reception is a problem at night, but rare during the day.
Again, not better just different. Another way to explain this is to compare vinyl with cassette. Tapes will drop out or degrade, but almost never pop or crackle. Am Stereo is like this in some ways. Am is like tape where FM is more like vinyl.
Am radios today are horrible. They do not have the correct response curve. This is likely because the programming no longer demands it and this is a shame really.
If you ever get the chance to listen to an actual AM radio like the old stand up tube ones, do it. You will be surprised when all the elements that make for good AM reproduction come together.
AM sounds bad today because we do not have any audio equipement that can actually do the band justice.
We had an AM station here in Portland called 970 The Beat. They broadcast a great mix of 80's and 90's techno and alternative. Lots of people listened even though most of them heard a mono signal. (I managed to find an AM Stereo radio for my car just for this station.) They were on the radio for about 4 years. They had a lot of young listeners. On AM!
Sombody found out these folks actually were getting some numbers in terms of audience. Guess what? They were moved to FM and promptly flopped after the programming was changed to your typical FM fare. Sombody thought the listeners would just move to FM because of the name.
They should have realized the programming was the attraction. The DJ's basically got to play what they wanted. People liked that.
Today, AM Stereo is all but dead. It was killed by those who thought that people would not bother to listen, that FM was too attractive.
They are wrong. If you put good programming on the AM band, people will listen --if you add stereo, more of them will listen.
The problem with AM is programming and the silly dual AM Stereo battle that made recievers expensive, not the limits of the medium.
Moot point today anyway, AM is doomed to talk and minor ethnic and worship type programming. Too bad really, I see lots of cheap bandwidth that could be filled with more original type programming instead of a dying medium...
You are either lucky because that station contained 'syndicatable' talent, or the station just happened to tow the line close enough to not get changed.
Either way good for you. The cynic in me says it will happen, it is only a matter of time though.
I have been doing this too. There is a lot of interesting programming --once you figure out when to listen.
In Portland, we have the various OPB stations that carry NPR programming plus a little local stuff and we have KBOO community radio and KBPS the local AM college station.
I have found talk radio to be interesting at times when the subject matter and host are good.
OT question: Why are there so few geek oriented talk radio programs? The younger geek will not have the time, but all of us get older. As we do, talk radio becomes more of an option. Seems that 30 or so years of geeks would produce a couple shows at least...
We have already trashed one commercial band, namely, AM, when we could have easily fixed and extended it with AM stereo. (Which has some very nice qualities BTW.)
Now are we going to give up on FM as well?
I can see a lot of advantages to the satellite radio systems particularly in rural areas where you find little or no radio. So these systems have their place. However we still need local radio. Not the clear channel kind, but real local radio.
Here in the Portland area we had a nice station in the early 80's called KSKD. They were innovative. Dolby FM (Which we all should be using today.), very low key DJ's, well defined commercial blocks, and an interesting playlist were all part of this local station. Many of my early musical tastes were formed while listening to the music played on KSKD and when they went off the air, I missed them.
Listening to the radio while on trips used to be pretty interesting. As you went from place to place, the music was different. Each city seemed to have a station or two, like KSKD, that played what they thought was cool. Their listeners became loyal because the combination of music and its presentation was not to be found elsewhere.
Companies like Clear Channel have done the public a dis-service in that they have ruined local programming in all station except community and educational ones.
So for now, satellite radio is a new medium that shines right now. But will it go the way AM and FM did?
Well, good for you! Karma is generally overrated here anyway. If you participate in a reasonable way on /. you will, in general, have good karma.
I was thinking about possible complaints against people for reproduction of articles. If it's an AC, whoops!
Since articles are owned by those that publish them and comments are owned here by those who write them, it is wrong to then repost an article here with an account.
My twisted logic anyway...
to ask another question?
This case has made an implied definition of 'limited time'; namely, being that 'limited' means 'until worthless' because nobody that currently has any copyrights now will let them go otherwise. So much for the public interest. Basically we can have it if we are no longer interested. (Whoopee.) Seems sort of self defeating doesn't it?
All of us are upset because this whole mess devalues the public domain. Others call this stealing and I would tend to agree with them.
Maybe this has little to do with things, but this bothers me a little:
Earlier, the cost of reproduction was higher and the means of expression were more limited. So, the cost of expression was high enough to make moving something into the public domain worthwhile because it more quickly reached a point where extracting further value from it did not justify the expense.
Today that is not as true. We can move information at a very low cost and we have a far greater means for expression as well.
Does that not extend the practical lifetime of current works? And would we not find a better definition of 'limited times' in the examination of those differences?
One further thought along these lines: The balance essentially is that we need to allow those who create the chance to profit from that work while also allowing that work to be built upon by others for new works.
Today, a creative work can last practically forever for the reasons I mentioned above.
Should we not seek a legal framework for limited times that is based on something other than just time?
Just post the text anonymous. No karma gift, no problem....
Ok,
/. business cases have some definite merit. You point out some easy mistakes that I will watch for.
I will think all of this over. Your comments about
Since we all only have so much money, actual new revenue is small. Everyone competes for their piece of the monthly pie... I have actually bumped into this fact in my own arguments from the past, but did not give it the attention it should have gotten as you have done.
Internet access fees have stolen revenue from television in my case. I prefer to purchase media and use broadcast TV in favor of cable for some of the very reasons you identify. Did not realize exactly why though. Hmmm.
About the CD thing. I do feel audio CD media is over priced. $3 is too little and does distort the math, but $9.99 - $11.99 is not. I must come clean here. The problem for me is not so much price as it is control and quality. The consolidation of radio and music distribution companies has diluted programming choices considerably. The result is a less valuable experience which is why I feel the way I do regarding price.
People know now that there is a lot more music out there than they are currently exposed to, and they know it can be cheaper. Right or wrong, this does change the nature of things. Maybe CD media stays at $16.99, but they could offer for $10 - $20 a month for access to a wider catalog. Sure they steal some sales from themselves that could be tempered by limiting what is offered online, but the more important thing to them is the chance to steal from other sources. Music gets more important, perhaps I buy one less DVD. (Which in my case I would do.)
So, Ars then still is an interesting case to me. They are promoting themselves through Ars. Ars is the ad. Any subscription revenue will just make the selling through Ars cheaper. But you are correct in that Ars exists not because of any revenue, but for its value to its creators. It is not a matter of the profibility of Ars, but the cost of Ars as a promotional tool. (Or maybe they just like publishing cool stuff for no profit!)
This has been a good thread.
Guess I had time to think enough :) It will be long though, I just can't see anyway around that. (sorry)
/. moral majority. "
/. I mean 'we', in general, the users and builders of the internet.
/. does present the comments, but there is always logged out browsing. For me it's about 70 / 30, the majority being logged in and thus biased browsing of comments. Slippery slope to be sure. Not sure what to think of that other than I am aware and will see where it goes.
;)
:( Very quickly, that also seems to be the way things are heading. Either you invest time and download and assemble your OSS software, or pay someone to do the work for you. Again, value adds can generate revenue if the value is true.
"but have "we" really? Firstly, by "we", I assume you mean the
I really don't mean the moral majority of
"/. is a refuge where geeks can share in a mass delusion for awhile, until it inevitably proves false. The moderation helps ensure this, especially that new foe of a friend BS."
Agreed. BTW, I use the foe/friend stuff to mark people I want to read later, or whose opinion I would like to see play out for a while. This does change how
"At the peak of the bubble, about half the ads I would read on the Internet were ads for other businesses that make money selling ads. This is not a way to make money."
You make some good points here in this paragraph.
Your assessment that ad revenue is limited is correct, to me, as is your assessment of the basic problem with many internet ads today.
However, that does leave some ad revenue and it does not take into account potential revenue that could come from value adds. People want to reach others, but they want to be able to see results so they can judge worth. People also will pay for things they find of value.
Adding value to the process will get the bills paid if one works hard at it. Not very many sites on the internet do that right now and things are changing because of that.
I will agree also with your idea that the current ad revenue pool will not support all the takers right now. Sites that are not adding any real value will eventually change, or wither away as a result of this.
Not a bad thing, just a growing pain. For what it is worth, I believe an awful lot of the Internet today does not really add a lot of value. Things are going to continue to change, for the better I hope.
I am not sure of the best order to continue, so take this next bit as you must to make sense of it.
I chose ARS, Lwn, and pr0n because I see them doing things differently.
I did not include RedHat because I am not sure they are going to be a success yet, why is another long thread...
Google is also on risky ground, though I believe their general position on things is very good because they add a *lot* of value. Brin is a sharp guy. He should be able to make something of that.
Ars adds value with their informed commentary on many technical issues. They know they cannot survive on ads alone and said as much. They provide some good information along with general news and discussion. To me, this is interesting because you can get news and discussion everywhere, so that ends up being a promotional cost partially covered from general ads.
The good information though has value. Those that see that will pay because they can see worth, not because they want Ars to continue to exist or because they are altrustic. Limiting content via subscription turns many potential readers away. Indexing and formatting that content as reference material for subscribers adds value without turning away casual readers.
Lwn does a similar thing, though their approach is not as good. They make non-subscribers wait. So they don't have to work any harder, with their model, but they do turn away readers.
Ars has a better chance than Lwn does.
Not sure what to say about pr0n. Lots of people pay, maybe the nature of the content itself will continue to support that end of things. I will leave that one alone for now
I did not catch the story last week. (Link?) If your summary is correct, then I agree. And again, that is not a bad thing. Consider though what I said about value adds. Perhaps the content itself can be the ad given a reasonable value add to support the ongoing production of it. The technique Ars is using right now makes me wonder about the viability of that.
Same with the various authors trying the open content models.
BTW, the story about the new novel posted yesterday got me interested. I downloaded it and read some. I will likely buy his book because I enjoy reading stuff like that away from the computer. Funny thing is I would have likely skipped a review, and maybe I would have been hooked by a sample chapter. Hard choices for authors to make.
Same goes for the Neil Stevenson essay "In the Beginning was the Command Line". Purchased that one because of the online essay.
These things lead me to believe that the content can be the ad in some cases.
I find your two laws interesting.
The first seems to indicate that successful web enterprises will be those that can partner with each other and form communities of loyal readers and participants. These sort of communities are valuable from a marketing point of view. They also can be somewhat localized.
The second means fewer free Linux downloads.
Sorry again for my long replies, know that I appreciate your part in the discussion because it has value to me. That is at the core of why I post. Good things are learned over time this way.
You make some very interesting points. I will tell you in advance that I am going to think them over for a bit before replying myself :)
/. masses are focused elsewhere. May as well have a conversation here as anywhere else...
And, yes we are growing way OT. Probably does not matter now as the