So I wonder, if it would be constant or sporadic. Constant sucks. We get lower quality FM (Like there is good programming now, but that is another story...) and more ads. I'll bet this would be used to boost revenue, not improve other aspects of the service.
If it is sporadic, clever production techniques could work it in without much of an impact at all.
Can't wait for the first hack. Political ad with a link to free pr0n. Whoop! Nobody but the lawyers would be happy with that one!
Networks make their money by packaging and sometimes producing programming to get eyeballs. The greater the number of eyeballs, the more they can charge for ad placement. Ad placement is directly responsible for their bottom line.
Those same eyeball numbers also give them power over the marketing of their programming as well. Valuable shows make or break many networks. The power of the eyeball gives them leverage when it comes to buying or selling program content or placement on their network.
Right now the Cable and Sat companies basically are selling a fat pipe. Everyone gets in, but everyone also gets out as well. There are basically three tiers. Lame Basic, the basic you should have, and premium. For almost all subscribers, you have to get the first two tiers because of the sick packaging schemes.
These two factors boost the eyeball numbers for all the networks. This plus the fact that the cable companies can localize ad placement keeps ad revenue high. The more bundling they do, the better this really is for them.
Networks compete now on a fairly level playing field. The bundles make sure that all of the networks get their chance for air time. If people are allowed to choose the channels they want, then the barrier for entry becomes a lot higher for those less popular or specialized networks. They must work harder to generate interest. Because they are not part of the default channel line-up.
Nobody involved in the money chain wants this. The cable companies are best served by selling as many channels as they can. The networks want their chance at your attention to come as easily and cheaply as possible and the ad agencies want to be able to target as precisely as possible.
Per channel subscription breaks all of this. Remember the network exists to make money, not serve your interests. Nice Huh?
Bundles help smooth revenue also. The best thing you can do for your entertainment provider is to subscribe at the top tier, get your occasional bonus pay per view and never ever call them. Wall Street likes nice smooth growth and month over month revenue.
This makes their revenue model very simple. Basically all they really care about is the number of subscribers. Their marketing efforts are more or less directed at customer loyalty (Hey we have added more channels!), pay per view and or premium content (Catch the next lame fight @ 49.95 today!), or new subscriptions. (You get your first month free and our installers will make sure your dish and antenna don't work after we are finished!)
The packages build a sense of value for the whole thing and they stay focused on that. Think maga channels for few dollars -vs- sign with us and get program x.
One other very important aspect of this goes back to the eyeball number. If you have more channels than you can use, the best way to get your moneys worth is to spend a lot of time watching. You might miss something right? After all there are so many channels, there has always got to be something on.
Packages encourage casual TV use. There is something to browse and if you browse long enough, there is something interesting.
Per channel subscription takes a lot of that away. People would then become focused on the various networks more than they are now. The result of this would be more focused television use.
With both of these comes less overall use because people would become more aware of the programming and when they get the most value from it. Nobody making money wants this either.
This also would encourage more time based competition from the various networks as well.
Personally, I feel all of these things are good. Too much aimless TV viewing is bad for all of us. The problem really is there is *zero* financial incentive to provide the sort of service that lets users exercise control of their viewing experience. It is far easier to make money when the viewer has limited choices than it is when they have more choice.
BTW this is exactly why I quit using subscription programming. Take that money, and purchase programming on media. You can watch at your leisure, don't have to worry about recording and archiving so many things, and can trade with your friends for big savings. If you are tired of it, you can resell it for an even bigger savings.
Just got the first three seasons of Stargate SG1. Now if I have a free hour, I can watch one of those. In the mood at 3AM and want to share an episode with a friend? Maybe it came up at dinner or work? No problem, do it anywhere you like whenever you like.
I have little desire to stream anything because I cannot archive it. Getting my hands on plain old media is still the better value. It can be loaned, watched later when the mood arises, resold (I know they *hate* that one.), played on just about any device I have, or destroyed. All my choice all the time.
Now getting the streams at the same time the movie is in the theatre would be interesting. It would be nice to check out a movie before dropping $50 on a flop. You would not have to watch the entire thing, just sample until you know you want to go. They could even include exacly this sampling feature.
So, it is likely I will remain uninterested in this --for now.
Do I wish it would fail? Not sure really.
Even though, I am not likely to use the service, I do know plenty of people that would. They should have the choice to do so.
Problem is that boom or bust, our Internet will be changed to meet the needs of those providing these services. I think this means more lockdowns, slower access for 'non monetized' traffic, and trouble for open systems in general. Think about it, they will *NEVER* make this avaliable on an open platform because they know better. Though they could just produce a binary, but why bother. Most of the money will be in the win32 user market.
This really is just continuing evidence that we are all still in trouble. Open systems and networks will suffer because they do not generate revenue which is what this is all about right?
Well, if you take the rest of the sentence, which you left out, in context with the rest of what was written, it is not much of a stretch to understand that SCSI devices last longer in general than IDE ones.
This general idea expressed in the first paragraph nicely ties in with the part you left out; namely, ", which is a long time." Maybe that has just a little to do with why exactly you left it out, or could it be that you just knee jerked a smart ass response?
If you consider the entire first sentence, then you will come to realize that it sort of hangs at the end. You might wonder how long of a time after reading it? Well how long? Compared to what? Why so?
All three questions are answered in the first paragraph. Compared to what refers to IDE devices in a negative way. (Intended!)
Why so is answered by a little critical thought surrounding the warranty part of that paragraph combined with the cheap part of it. Why would one cut the term of their warranty? Could product failure costs have anything to do with it? Maybe, but if that fails then cheap is there to back things up. Taking the cost out of things often means cutting a few corners. Well IDE drives are cheap right? Must have cut a few corners. Maybe those that affect lifespan?
Given this, how long is pretty easy. Longer than IDE devices in general.
There you go.
If that does not do it for you, then know it's late, and I'm done with this.
Scsi is fast and reliable. Notice that the price premium gives you a warranty these days where IDE does not. (Cheap has to come from somewhere, looks like it will be the IDE drives:)
SCSI devices last forever, or until they break, which is a long time. Move them from machine to machine, OS to OS as much as you want. They are almost all cross-platform and compatable. Just can't say that for IDE in general.
SCSI is really pretty easy. Where IDE can be a mess sometimes. Want to share a CD-ROM and DISK on same controller, want speed also? Not likely to happen unless you have a higher end IDE controller, but if you are going to go to this trouble, why not just get a SCSI one and be done with it?
Your 10X more expensive is packing a lot less punch these days and it's not true anymore. If you want the very high end SCSI devices you will pay a premium, but choose one notch down and the prices are fair. 3-5x maybe, not 10x but that does include nicely supported devices.
Most of the hard work has been done for SCSI, this new standard will cost all of us who depend on IDE. I would much rather keep my investment in SCSI hardware rolling rather than start paying again for another standard that is supposed to fix the broken IDE standard I have to live with now.
So, I may just do that. You see with SCSI, I have that choice, have always had it. Given a longer term useful life, it is fair to say that SCSI has saved me money! IDE? Not!
The way I see it, the truth likely lies between both pieces of spin. I don't often engage in that sort of thing, but sometimes doing so sheds enough light in the other direction as to cause people to think about the issue a little, which was the point.
Lets just take this apart a little to see the stench inside shall we?
From the article:
Microsoft would be forced to reconsider selling the Xbox video game system in Australia
Now the spin:
Take the word 'forced', for example. Why exactly is that word in there? Who is forcing them? Is the force economic or social or some other force? Have they been given some sort of order that they must follow? How exactly does one force a large company like microsoft to do anything? What they are saying is that they are forced to decide. Forced really adds little here because it is the deciding that actually matters and that is why decide is clearly the right word choice here, not forced. Indeed.
More from the article:
, or seek changes to the law, following the acquittal in July of a Sydney man
And the spin
Now they take that little bit of momentum gained from the poor use of 'forced' above and add to it. Here they polarize the issue. When one polarizes an issue, they generally have one good choice, which is the one they want you to identify with, and that other bad choice. Simple isn't it. Just change the law and things will be good because things can either be good or bad, and none of us wants bad so lets work together for good huh? Sounds reasonable doesn't it?
It's not. They limit all the avaliable choices to exactly two. The one they want, and the one that nobody wants. Realistically there are many other options avaliable to them, but that complicates things just a little. Can't have that when you are trying to sway public opinion about complicated things. Keep it simple, that way it's easier for everyone to see your point.
More from the article:
alleged to have sold chips that modify a Sony PlayStation 2 to play imported games
And the spin:
Alleged? Where do we normally hear that word? We hear that word when we refer to someone who we think committed a crime. This is a negative word, not a positive one... ever. Can you remember the last time you heard the word 'alleged' in connection with something good? I can't.
Now that's a pretty decent piece of spin because of what comes next. What is that you ask? The actual crime! In this case it happens to be selling chips that allow people to play imported games. There is so much wrong with this I almost don't know where to start.
Playing import games is legal for one. implying that this is a crime is clearly a deception no doubt about it. None. A simple thought exercise cuts right through that one. Here is mine:
You are in Japan playing a game you find interesting. You buy it, legally mind you, and bring it home. It does not work. You are frustrated to learn that the company who was happy to sell you the game is also responsible for the fact that you cannot use it at home. What to do? Return it? Wrong answer, you see you opened it when you tried to play your legally purchased game so thats out. IMport an entire console? Too expensive, besides you have one already and are trying to be a loyal customer, but too much is too much. What's left? Several things, but the most obvious is a mod chip. Simple easy and legal.
So this linking of crime and mod chips and import games sounds a lot like drugs. Shady people sell you some thing that is in poor taste. Playing import games is in poor taste, who does that? It all adds up to making the whole thing look bad. Which it clearly is not.
From the Article:
, Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer said yesterday.
And the spin:
None of this would be worth discussing if it came from a nobody, but it came from a chief executive. Now that's somebody. Not only a chief executive, but one that runs one of the largest companies in the world. Maybe we all better think this one over because a guy like this would not just bring this up over nothing would he?
The very title conveys a certain level of creedence to this whole thing, but for a minor point. The company he runs is in the middle of the largest anti-trust litigation known. Doesn't this put just a little different light on things?
From the article:
Mr Ballmer said the decision affected Xbox's business model, which relies on subsidising the hardware console in return for a royalty on every game sold.
Now the spin:
This actually is a true statement with regard to the business model. They need to sell games, or take a loss on each console. Saying the legal decision affected that business model though is clearly false. Someone who buys an xbox who also imports a game paid for both. How does this break the model? Games are sold as are consoles. Clearly this is worded to imply that the alleged selling of chips will affect Microsofts ability to make money.
Now the truth here is, mod chips can do this, if they allow users to run other things, but in this case, the users are running the things they are supposed to be able to run anyway; namely, import games. So, Microsoft does not like mod chips because there is a possibility that they could be used in ways that could harm their business model, but they can't say that so they imply it. From the article:
Microsoft has slashed the retail price of an Xbox from $649 to $399, which resulted in increased hardware sales and more game software sold.
And the spin:
This is a fact. They have lowered their price to compete with SONY. According to them it is working, and it likely is, but this is something they choose to do. Having it mentioned here just adds to the negative connotation alrealy implied with the 'alleged' crime discussed earlier. Another point worth mention here is that SONY has been dealing with this the entire time and seems to make lots of money. Why can't Microsoft?
They have no real basis for a statement against another nations legal system just because they have to keep their price low in order to boost sales of their product. This is a pretty arrogant stand to take --if you look though the spin.
From the article:
But Sony, which saw sales of PlayStation 2 titles decline 19 per cent in the same period, still dominates, selling 28 per cent of all titles, against Xbox's 7 per cent.
And the spin:
This paints the picture of the perfect underdog. Everyone wants an xbox don't they? If these criminals are allowed to sell mod chips then some people just might not get one. They might have to settle for a SONY instead. You can carry that little piece farther if you want, it's easy.
From the article:
"Given the way the economic model works
And spin:
Note the use of the word 'the'. This is clever because it implies that there is only one economic model. What they should say here is, "Given the way our economic model works". Again subtle word use to shift blame from them to another entity; namely, the Australian legal system.
From the article:
, and that is a subsidy followed, essentially, by fees for every piece of software sold, our licence framework has to do that
And spin:
This is a complex way of saying we need some money for every game sold. Fair enough, but the alleged crime mentioned above does nothing to hinder that, so why bother with this whole affair in the first place. Is there something we are not seeing? If so, why hide it. Everyone would be a lot better off knowing what is is.
From the article:
"If there are aspects that are not allowed, it would encourage us to require a change in the legal framework. Otherwise, it wouldn't make economic sense."
And spin:
Basically they are saying here, if they cannot do what they want, then they don't want to do it at all. Sounds like the reasoning of a three year old plain and simple.
Essentially what is happening here is this.
Microsoft is saying that they want income from every xbox both from the sale of the actual box, and the games following that.
They say that a chip intended for users to play imported games hinders that in some fashion, but decline to discuss exactly what that is exactly.
So they basically throw down their gauntlet and say, either play the way we want, or we won't play at all.
What exactly is anyone supposed to realistically think about this? Should we support a change to another nations legal system because they tell us that the law there might hinder them from making the amount of money they want to make, or that the think they should be making with nothing but implications to that end?
Beat SGI up for it.... Remember the fahrenheit project. From one of the *many* press releases...
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. -- Agreeing to put aside aside differences over 3-D graphics, Silicon Graphics Inc. and Microsoft Corp. said last week that they will work together on a common set of application programming interfaces.
They forgot to say, "As long as the API is a Microsoft one."
After all this is a proposed settlement. They are pushing the envelope to get things defined before they are actually defined. They can site common practice, or that it works for most of the interested parties or some other such lame thing in an attempt to get the court to believe that the non-settlement is, in fact, working.
The holy grail for them is compliance that allows to keep the playing field closed while appearing open. Sounds crazy and circular, but that really is what this entire thing is about.
Any combination of rules that stops short of a direct order can and will be exploited to their advantage. They have size and smarts enough to know that. For them this whole thing is just an annoying process that they must work through so they can get back to real business.
I propose that this works in a similar fashion to how the whole copy protection thing works today. If you can legislate it, they can exploit it. Hah!
Nothing will change unless clear and direct action with accountability is taken...
It's all a shell game, nothing to see, move on. (Sorry Jeremy, you are right, but have no real backing.)
I don't think this is a 'maybe' at all. Disney wants to own the art of bringing classic works to new audiences. This is the core of their business.
Everything they do comes from that. Great works are great works. Given a little honesty on Disney Corporations part, I would be willing to bet that the economics of creating great works to build their business on is just a bit tougher than building on those works already created.
Sure, there are the occasional original works, but by and large, the really good stories, and I mean ones that people can identify with, are those that lie just far enough in the past that they can be used a source material while being just familiar enough that people are interested by name alone.
Everyone knows about the stories that Disney likes to retell. This is where the power is for them. Early in school you were told about Pocahontas right? So was I and everyone else that has gone to school which basically means everyone. Now think back to those early years... Do you recall any of your imaginative images of that story? I can, though not well. Now combine that imagery with your young impressionable mind and the importance and intrigue generated by your teacher.
Now forward 30 years or so and see the name again attached to a new attractive movie. You are already sold!
Disney would profit from additional works, but so would others. Right now there are almost *zero* names associated with this particular form of entertainment. Should others begin the art, the Disney name would be diluted. Given how much investment and profit is tied to that, they will do anything to prevent that from happening...
Clearly not a 'maybe' but a must! (From the Disney point of view.)
Your statement is true only if your primary concern is making the app easy for new users.
There is always a clear tradeoff between new users and experienced ones. Others have said below something along the lines of: "Just look at all the 3D apps out there now, each one of them focuses on the experienced user..." They are right. Once you understand the workflow, things are generally fast --which is the way all of these users want things to be anyway longer term.
Interestingly, the MCAD market (for Engineers, not entertaiment or styling) is making this mistake. All the major apps are converting their custom U.I. to one that works for new users. Each and every one of them loses their productivity as a result. Each of them are fighting with their user base. Blender will have the same problem.
One solution is to make *good* documentation with lots of use cases. The Blender folks have done a fair job of this.
The bottom line here is that complex tasks are complex. The software can only go so far to make performing the task easier. Any 3D app that has a very easy UI, also suffers from the inability to do the little complex things that make the app worth using anyway.
Why spend time building the perfect UI, when new feature creep from the fast evolving 3D market will slowly erode your interface anyway.
Personally, I feel the Blender UI is a little out there. It could be a little more standard, but that effort is probably not worth the time. Adding good things to Blender will likely motivate new users to make use of the package given its price and capability.
I decided that I was going to create a viewer for CAD models using OpenGL. Take my home page link to see what the end result was.
You should set some realistic goals early on. I have read some good comments about planning. --Do this, they are telling you the right thing to do!
I wrote the core of what I thought would be capable of becoming the viewer. Turns out that I was right, but I ended up with a viewer that will need heavy rework before it can be built upon. It actually works well and does the job it needs to do, but not in an elegant and extendable way. Better planning and research, on my part, would have helped out a lot. Of course, now I can comment on such things because I see the value --even if it was the hard way:)
Take that plan and break it into a couple of realistic initial projects that both accomplish something and contribute to your end goal.
I also read a couple of comments to the effect of "If you are asking on./ you likely do not have the ability to complete the project." --Ignore these. If you have the time and interest, you will have a lot of fun and learn things that would be hard to do otherwise. This is worth doing IMHO.
After putting my early revision of the viewer up on sourceforge, I have recieved comments and e-mail from people wanting to help me code better (thanks Thierry!) and from people letting me know how they use the program. One person, after some conversation, went through the code line by line with suggestions and advice that helped me improve the program quite a bit. This whole experience was good for me.
I have some general comments about this sort of program as well based on a few years AE experience with them. (I have worked with MAYA, ProEngineer, I-DEAS, StudioTools.) Watching users learn and use these tools has shown me a lot. Spend some time with these users and watch them work. Consider what is done well and what could use improvement. This will help your planning more than you know.
Go with OpenGL as the foundation for your display. It will keep your project cross platform. OpenGL is mature and very well documented so leverage that.
Think long and hard about your interface. What actions will one need to accomplish at a particular time? Think about different workflows and allow for them. Some users like to free form draw, others draw then size then draw --that sort of thing is important. Consider MAYA, it presents both methods at all times.
Part of the overall success of MAYA also lies in the fact that it is as much of a platform as it is an authoring tool. I believe this is key for this type of application. Since you really do not know how people will create with your tool, allow for that in the core design.
Think about the command structure as well. Lets say you have a function that will sweep a curve along a path. (Which is a very common function.) Instead of creating many sweep commands, build one that handles sweeps in general. Every package gets feature creep, make sure yours puts it off as long as possible.
Most of the programs I mentioned above have good workflow built in that is ruined by lots of odd commands that fill gaps in the feature set that a well developed core command set would have addressed if they better understood how people would be doing things.
Get copies of these and learn them enough to understand how things are accomplished and build from there. Many of the common mistakes have already been made for you, take advantage of that.
Build upon some of the more documented file formats out there. Your project will be used more if it is data friendly. While you are at it, make your file format a smart one. Document it well and be sure it can grow with your project in a sensable way. Given all the inexpensive storage today, do not be afraid to store lots of smart data that is easy to work from.
The most difficult part of this project is likely to be the geometry kernel. There are kernels out there that you can build upon. Most of these have many man years invested in them. You would be wise to do your homework here and take advantage of one of these. This will also help greatly with the data elements I mentioned earlier. ACIS, Parasolid, Hoops and others like them are what you should be looking for.
Invest a lot of time in good graphical feedback to the user when you get to that point. If things are modal, indicate that mode onscreen in a way that does not distract from the task at hand. Things like direction, spatial location, surface normals, control points and such should all be distinct and clear for easy manupulation.
Go have a bunch of fun, learn stuff, live to tell the tale. --Remember to go outside once in a while though!
Right now the Illegal activities are the killer app, there is no doubt about that.
Does this mean that P2P has little use? No! We are all caught up with the illegal use, that good uses are getting the short end of things right now.
P2P can and will prove to be a good distribution model for those smart enough to use it. Given the right business model, the word of mouth nature of P2P can be a good thing.
Some companies are starting to get the picture about P2P and what it can mean to business. Consider PTC. Long time big software company selling high-end tools. They see P2P as the next killer app for engineers using their products. What do they do instead of litigation? They provide P2P to their users as a nice value add. Built the technology right in where users can make good effective use of it. This helps them keep the price of their product within a range that supports their business while enabling their users to get more use out of the software they use.
Soon everyone of their users will be able to host their own conference server and invite anyone they choose to share their data in an interactive and secure way. This whole thing is likely to save a lot of time and travel costs. This clearly is a good use of P2P.
Right now this model demonstrates how P2P can add considerable value to a pay software model. Lets add a little more thinking the P2P way. Lets say that a loyal user of the software wants to collaborate with another user. What's to say that they can't just get the software from them on a trial basis? Have any idea how hard it is to get people to look at your MCAD software? Damn tough these days. Why not let your users work for you a little? Let the software run while connected to the paying user and not others. Maybe prevent the paying users from sharing with others while someone is license sharing.
Soon the paying user will grow tired of sharing, and the other user having had a good experience just might be interested in a quote. This would save a *lot* in paid sales people who tend to travel a lot, ask for margins and eat a lot of lunches.... Just a P2P thought.
It is funny to me to see smart, creative business people using P2P ideas, instant messaging and other cool internet technologies to get their work done faster. These same smart people use the internet to lower the cost of distributing their product saving their users time and effort in the process. Not exactly in the way I described above though.
Meanwhile, on the other side of things, I laugh as I also watch the media companies work harder and harder at sticking their heads farther up their ass hoping they can just litigate the whole thing away.
I say that P2P will always be here. Some say that it needs to be stopped. They also say that the only realistic way to do that is to hobble all of our machines so that we can't actually do it.
Given that P2P could very easily be out-marketed, shifting the burden to the entire IT industry and its users is nothing more than a crime. --Just as plain and simple as Jack would put it himself.
Please explain to me how stealing our right to create with machines we are supposed to own is any less of a theft than P2P downloading is today. Consider in your answer the fact that P2P is shown to help sales. Also consider the cost the theft of our rights will have on future generations who find themselves beholden to a select few who make all their technology decisions for them. Who exactly will those decisions benefit
One more thing about the marketing. Nobody is better at it than the media companies right now. Why they don't just bend that marketing engine toward sales via the net is beyond me. With the right investment and a little thought, using Kazaa could be old hat in as little as a year. Why fight what you can easily marginalize?
My own kids have made pretty good use of Kazaa yet they still buy CD media. Why do they do this? Its because of that powerful marketing engine. They are tuned to it and want to be a part of it. Burning a CD of content that you got from your friend does not do that today. Maybe burning a CD with custom content that comes with your paid download would, shouldn't they at least try before trashing all of our rights?
The bottom line here really is about the business model and there really is no hiding that fact. The media companies want to continue to be in control of all distribution when it is becoming increasingly clear that they don't have to be. They don't want to compete and never will and they are fools for it.
The amount of money spent on the lobbying efforts, lawyers and other foolish ventures that will generate little return unless they are a complete succcess could be spent on efforts that will generate real returns in as little as a year.
How? Hire me.
I am not kidding, if it is money that they think they need, then we should help them get it, but preserve our rights for the longer term in the process...
Other post with same subject can either be ignored, or read, your choice. It is reproduced below.
I do not fit this mold.
I actually *want* to pay to download music. The labels made a big mistake when they rejected the Napster proposal.
Downloading software I don't own used to be a big deal, but only because I wanted to learn about it before wasting my money. I have never made a dime off of software I did not own. Today, getting demo copies of things is a lot easier. This also makes OSS tools attractive to me because I don'e have to worry so much about the license.
I want unencumbered computers because:
I believe I have the right to do what I wish with the hardware I own. Same for media. This has been true my whole life and people made lots of money, why can't this continue?
I want Peer to Peer because it is a great technology that we have not yet fully explored. It has a lot of potential for those who want to explore distribution methods that are *not* beholden to the corporations. I pay for hardware, in some cases software, and bandwidth, why is it wrong to use the two to benefit me?
As for old business models, yep, they are old. I was taught that in this society, you either adapt or die. If you are not improving your business process, then be sure your competetors are. The media industries are not adapting, they are litigating...
So, I agree that something needs to be done because, in the case of music right now, things are clearly wrong, but I am not greedy, just wary of losing my rights.
Rights are funny things in that they are very hard to obtain, but very easy to give away.
Remember, not everyone here believes everything said.
I agree with this. I heard something I did not expect along these lines during a long drive that supports our shared view pretty well.
The Clark Howard show was on one of the local AM stations and during the monologue portion he had some interesting things to say about the free market and its effects on the record labels. This show is a conservative tight wad type of show. Saving all your money, doing the right things, watching for fraud and that sort of thing. Not my usual fare, but here is what was said during this particular show.
1. Downloading is stealing. (I don't totally agree, but given the next few points, it was not a bad position to take -- the reasons why have been hashed here many times... so on to mumber two.)
2. CD media is too expensive.
He basically said that the Movie companies were doing things right. They have many different price points with lots of value adds in their offerings. The music companies don't. People today are basically accepting the $12 - $25 average price of a DVD. This combined with the overall hassle of making copies makes selling DVD media viable even though copies can be made. Even if copies become easier to make in the future, there will be little incentive to make copies because the pricing is very closely aligned with what people expect to pay.
Given this and the relative value of music compared to movies, he indicated that reasonable pricing for music would lie in the single digit range. Really good CD $9.99 average $7.99 others less. Until this happens, there will be motivation for people to seek alternatives.
3. The music companies are their own problem.
The arguments presented were interesting as well. He argued that a free market will act to correct a monopoly abusing its position. He cited several examples of this including the low cost of CD production and questionable value with few good tracks and few extras... etc. He also argued that Peer to Peer, though it is stealing, is acting in a way that benefits us, and that it needs to happen! Hmmm.
Basically, his opinion was that if your product price is too high, then there will come to exist a sort of vacuum between your set product price, and the actual acceptable price as determined by society in general. Eventually something will fill this gap. In the case of music, this is Peer to Peer.
4. Get it while you can.
I found this opinion interesting as well. Even though Peer to Peer is a grey activity with regard to music downloads, there are many interesting legal uses of the technology. By continuing to support Peer to Peer, we are exercising our ability to force the music companies to make a correction that they would not otherwise make.
In the end, CD prices will fall which will greatly close the gap between the price asked and the price accepted.
Given this material was aired on a fairly conservative AM talk station, I was impressed by its overall balance. It supports your point of view pretty well.
Sorry about the title of my other reply. I did make one like that, but it was a while ago on another thread.
Anonymous losers ignored (in this case)
I got a mail last night from slash with that subject in there. Also could not access my account last night either. Hmmm.....
Re:OT: Its effect not affect.
on
Microsoft Buys Rare
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I agree with you for the most part, but I must say that Perfect Dark is a great game. Frame rate could have been quicker, but that was just because they pushed the N64 hard.
I keep an N64 around just for that one to be played in multi-player mode once in a while.
A year ago, I would likely have agreed. Much has changed since then.
I have Mandrake 8.2 running here at home. My wife and I use it for watching DVD media, listening to Mp3 files, word processing, spreadsheets, basic scheduling and general Internet usage. (Web e-mail and such.) I am very technical, but she is not. Linux works nicely in this respect. We have different logins, mine is customized to the hilt and setup for more than basic computing, hers is clean and easy to use. The nice thing is, with Linux, it is easy to keep things that way.
Guess what? This machine works fine! Heck, it is not even that nice of a machine. E-machine (ewww..), Matrox G400 video, 500 mhz PIII, 192Mb ram and some HD are not much these days. I can get another machine and do the same thing for just the cost of Closed Software licenses alone! That has got to be good for the consumer.
The only configuration I needed to do with this machine that did not work easily with the GUI is the DVD setup. Ogle is great, but due to some lame law decisions in the US, I have to get this somewhere else. If this were not the case, I know Mandrake would have intergrated this program in with the others. It is likely that, given the freedom to include DVD support, I would have had to do almost nothing to begin really using my machine.
Now I know not everyone can do this yet because of the time it might take to learn how to set things up properly, but each revision of the various distributions seems to reduce the need for this by quite a bit. One more iteration and things will work very nicely for most of what we need to do day to day.
Soon we will be able to buy a very nice workstation ready to handle all day to day computing tasks for the price of that other OS. Now with all that extra money laying around, don't you think that people will be interested in buying some additional products since they got such a deal on their base computer? I do, particularly when they realize they are spending their money for new things, not the same things over and over again each year.
A large chunk of the problem has very little to do with the performance of the Open Source / Free Software whatever method of development, it has to do with lawyers profiting off of the fear that some companies have for their withering business models.
So right now I would agree with the Times, Linux is good for consumers, not all consumers mind you, but an increasing number of them.
So really, I don't think for a minute that the editors of the Times are stupid. Like it or not, a lot of thought goes into the production of the Times; otherwise it would not have the name that it does today.
They see what I see; namely, that Linux is ready now and improving at a very nice clip. We are seeing Linux leave the early adopter stage about to enter the early majority. This is a great time because all the really good stuff happens now. Applications are being ported, new ones in process are showing up now, early ones are maturing to a very usable state.
I work in the MCAD field. Did you know that Pro Engineer is coming to Linux next year? That is major software supported by not one, but two large companies, PTC and HP/Compaq. These types don't port unless there is demand. I would say that the Times has it just about right at the moment.
How is the whole thing supposed to progress if it does not get some press at the key time? I believe that time is now. I just don't think the Times are that far off --I could be wrong, but I hope not.
If they get to poison the networks, then that means that they are using the networks --just as we are.
I wonder what would happen if some ordinary user did the same things? Right or wrong?
Dealing with the problem this way is far better than using the law because it is hard to define the law in a way that makes good sense for everyone long term particularly when we don't yet know how P2P could benefit us all.
Besides, they can place any number of promotional information into their files just as easily as they can garbage and they should. Why not? They might even be able to write off more of the expense.
What the media companies need is good marketing. They are the content source. (for now) All they need to do is add value in ways that leverage the network effect that P2P offers and they *will* make money.
Anyway, the result of this is likely not all bad because file sharing will get somewhat marginalized, we all preview before we download large files and everyone is reasonably happy and free to use the net in creative ways.
SSH, Pine, VNC, anonymous web services--choose whatever gets through the firewall, and keep your mail yours.
If you are on your employers time and equipment expect this sort of thing. Too bad for them, that they cannot have it both ways. Either they allow open communication or not...
If you have not tried it you need to. Give it an honest 10 minutes then crank the bitrates for a little speed.
It allows you to feed it training files in order to better guess what you might be inclined to express. This has interesting applications aside from alternative input methods. Seeing many choices at once put me into sort of an eerie creative process.
For some interesting results, throw a little short fiction or other creative text at the program, then let your mind wander a bit while using the interface... You may find yourself creating some interesting sentences.
I found that it had some side effects on me after using it for 20 minutes or so. When I went back to normal reading, I expected to see words move --wierd.
Anyway, this is creative software that is worth a few minutes of play time.
Slashdot Mirror
So I wonder, if it would be constant or sporadic. Constant sucks. We get lower quality FM (Like there is good programming now, but that is another story...) and more ads. I'll bet this would be used to boost revenue, not improve other aspects of the service.
If it is sporadic, clever production techniques could work it in without much of an impact at all.
Can't wait for the first hack. Political ad with a link to free pr0n. Whoop! Nobody but the lawyers would be happy with that one!
Radio is limited to about 16 Khz on FM. Most of us can easily hear that. So they up the noise floor a little to make room for ads?
Does this mean we get fewer audio ads in trade for the lower quality?
Pipe your radio through lame, output through sound card, information gone all done!
They depend on the package model. This is why:
Networks make their money by packaging and sometimes producing programming to get eyeballs. The greater the number of eyeballs, the more they can charge for ad placement. Ad placement is directly responsible for their bottom line.
Those same eyeball numbers also give them power over the marketing of their programming as well. Valuable shows make or break many networks. The power of the eyeball gives them leverage when it comes to buying or selling program content or placement on their network.
Right now the Cable and Sat companies basically are selling a fat pipe. Everyone gets in, but everyone also gets out as well. There are basically three tiers. Lame Basic, the basic you should have, and premium. For almost all subscribers, you have to get the first two tiers because of the sick packaging schemes.
These two factors boost the eyeball numbers for all the networks. This plus the fact that the cable companies can localize ad placement keeps ad revenue high. The more bundling they do, the better this really is for them.
Networks compete now on a fairly level playing field. The bundles make sure that all of the networks get their chance for air time. If people are allowed to choose the channels they want, then the barrier for entry becomes a lot higher for those less popular or specialized networks. They must work harder to generate interest. Because they are not part of the default channel line-up.
Nobody involved in the money chain wants this. The cable companies are best served by selling as many channels as they can. The networks want their chance at your attention to come as easily and cheaply as possible and the ad agencies want to be able to target as precisely as possible.
Per channel subscription breaks all of this. Remember the network exists to make money, not serve your interests. Nice Huh?
Bundles help smooth revenue also. The best thing you can do for your entertainment provider is to subscribe at the top tier, get your occasional bonus pay per view and never ever call them. Wall Street likes nice smooth growth and month over month revenue.
This makes their revenue model very simple. Basically all they really care about is the number of subscribers. Their marketing efforts are more or less directed at customer loyalty (Hey we have added more channels!), pay per view and or premium content (Catch the next lame fight @ 49.95 today!), or new subscriptions. (You get your first month free and our installers will make sure your dish and antenna don't work after we are finished!)
The packages build a sense of value for the whole thing and they stay focused on that. Think maga channels for few dollars -vs- sign with us and get program x.
One other very important aspect of this goes back to the eyeball number. If you have more channels than you can use, the best way to get your moneys worth is to spend a lot of time watching. You might miss something right? After all there are so many channels, there has always got to be something on.
Packages encourage casual TV use. There is something to browse and if you browse long enough, there is something interesting.
Per channel subscription takes a lot of that away. People would then become focused on the various networks more than they are now. The result of this would be more focused television use.
With both of these comes less overall use because people would become more aware of the programming and when they get the most value from it. Nobody making money wants this either.
This also would encourage more time based competition from the various networks as well.
Personally, I feel all of these things are good. Too much aimless TV viewing is bad for all of us. The problem really is there is *zero* financial incentive to provide the sort of service that lets users exercise control of their viewing experience. It is far easier to make money when the viewer has limited choices than it is when they have more choice.
BTW this is exactly why I quit using subscription programming. Take that money, and purchase programming on media. You can watch at your leisure, don't have to worry about recording and archiving so many things, and can trade with your friends for big savings. If you are tired of it, you can resell it for an even bigger savings.
Just got the first three seasons of Stargate SG1. Now if I have a free hour, I can watch one of those. In the mood at 3AM and want to share an episode with a friend? Maybe it came up at dinner or work? No problem, do it anywhere you like whenever you like.
There is *no* sure revenue, There is no sure revenue.
When will these companies learn? We don't want to pay to compute, we want to purchase useful computing tools. That's where the innovation comes from.
The day this works is the day the computer industry stagnates....
I have little desire to stream anything because I cannot archive it. Getting my hands on plain old media is still the better value. It can be loaned, watched later when the mood arises, resold (I know they *hate* that one.), played on just about any device I have, or destroyed. All my choice all the time.
Now getting the streams at the same time the movie is in the theatre would be interesting. It would be nice to check out a movie before dropping $50 on a flop. You would not have to watch the entire thing, just sample until you know you want to go. They could even include exacly this sampling feature.
So, it is likely I will remain uninterested in this --for now.
Do I wish it would fail? Not sure really.
Even though, I am not likely to use the service, I do know plenty of people that would. They should have the choice to do so.
Problem is that boom or bust, our Internet will be changed to meet the needs of those providing these services. I think this means more lockdowns, slower access for 'non monetized' traffic, and trouble for open systems in general. Think about it, they will *NEVER* make this avaliable on an open platform because they know better. Though they could just produce a binary, but why bother. Most of the money will be in the win32 user market.
This really is just continuing evidence that we are all still in trouble. Open systems and networks will suffer because they do not generate revenue which is what this is all about right?
Something to keep an eye on though.
You know there is *always* someone....
Well, if you take the rest of the sentence, which you left out, in context with the rest of what was written, it is not much of a stretch to understand that SCSI devices last longer in general than IDE ones.
This general idea expressed in the first paragraph nicely ties in with the part you left out; namely, ", which is a long time." Maybe that has just a little to do with why exactly you left it out, or could it be that you just knee jerked a smart ass response?
If you consider the entire first sentence, then you will come to realize that it sort of hangs at the end. You might wonder how long of a time after reading it? Well how long? Compared to what? Why so?
All three questions are answered in the first paragraph. Compared to what refers to IDE devices in a negative way. (Intended!)
Why so is answered by a little critical thought surrounding the warranty part of that paragraph combined with the cheap part of it. Why would one cut the term of their warranty? Could product failure costs have anything to do with it? Maybe, but if that fails then cheap is there to back things up. Taking the cost out of things often means cutting a few corners. Well IDE drives are cheap right? Must have cut a few corners. Maybe those that affect lifespan?
Given this, how long is pretty easy. Longer than IDE devices in general.
There you go.
If that does not do it for you, then know it's late, and I'm done with this.
Now you have seen three!
:)
Scsi is fast and reliable. Notice that the price premium gives you a warranty these days where IDE does not. (Cheap has to come from somewhere, looks like it will be the IDE drives
SCSI devices last forever, or until they break, which is a long time. Move them from machine to machine, OS to OS as much as you want. They are almost all cross-platform and compatable. Just can't say that for IDE in general.
SCSI is really pretty easy. Where IDE can be a mess sometimes. Want to share a CD-ROM and DISK on same controller, want speed also? Not likely to happen unless you have a higher end IDE controller, but if you are going to go to this trouble, why not just get a SCSI one and be done with it?
Your 10X more expensive is packing a lot less punch these days and it's not true anymore. If you want the very high end SCSI devices you will pay a premium, but choose one notch down and the prices are fair. 3-5x maybe, not 10x but that does include nicely supported devices.
Most of the hard work has been done for SCSI, this new standard will cost all of us who depend on IDE. I would much rather keep my investment in SCSI hardware rolling rather than start paying again for another standard that is supposed to fix the broken IDE standard I have to live with now.
So, I may just do that. You see with SCSI, I have that choice, have always had it. Given a longer term useful life, it is fair to say that SCSI has saved me money! IDE? Not!
Yes it is.
The way I see it, the truth likely lies between both pieces of spin. I don't often engage in that sort of thing, but sometimes doing so sheds enough light in the other direction as to cause people to think about the issue a little, which was the point.
Lets just take this apart a little to see the stench inside shall we?
From the article:
Microsoft would be forced to reconsider selling the Xbox video game system in Australia
Now the spin:
Take the word 'forced', for example. Why exactly is that word in there? Who is forcing them? Is the force economic or social or some other force? Have they been given some sort of order that they must follow? How exactly does one force a large company like microsoft to do anything?
What they are saying is that they are forced to decide. Forced really adds little here because it is the deciding that actually matters and that is why decide is clearly the right word choice here, not forced. Indeed.
More from the article:
, or seek changes to the law, following the acquittal in July of a Sydney man
And the spin
Now they take that little bit of momentum gained from the poor use of 'forced' above and add to it. Here they polarize the issue. When one polarizes an issue, they generally have one good choice, which is the one they want you to identify with, and that other bad choice. Simple isn't it. Just change the law and things will be good because things can either be good or bad, and none of us wants bad so lets work together for good huh? Sounds reasonable doesn't it?
It's not. They limit all the avaliable choices to exactly two. The one they want, and the one that nobody wants. Realistically there are many other options avaliable to them, but that complicates things just a little. Can't have that when you are trying to sway public opinion about complicated things. Keep it simple, that way it's easier for everyone to see your point.
More from the article:
alleged to have sold chips that modify a Sony PlayStation 2 to play imported games
And the spin:
Alleged? Where do we normally hear that word? We hear that word when we refer to someone who we think committed a crime. This is a negative word, not a positive one... ever. Can you remember the last time you heard the word 'alleged' in connection with something good? I can't.
Now that's a pretty decent piece of spin because of what comes next. What is that you ask? The actual crime! In this case it happens to be selling chips that allow people to play imported games. There is so much wrong with this I almost don't know where to start.
Playing import games is legal for one. implying that this is a crime is clearly a deception no doubt about it. None. A simple thought exercise cuts right through that one. Here is mine:
You are in Japan playing a game you find interesting. You buy it, legally mind you, and bring it home. It does not work. You are frustrated to learn that the company who was happy to sell you the game is also responsible for the fact that you cannot use it at home. What to do? Return it? Wrong answer, you see you opened it when you tried to play your legally purchased game so thats out. IMport an entire console? Too expensive, besides you have one already and are trying to be a loyal customer, but too much is too much. What's left? Several things, but the most obvious is a mod chip. Simple easy and legal.
So this linking of crime and mod chips and import games sounds a lot like drugs. Shady people sell you some thing that is in poor taste. Playing import games is in poor taste, who does that? It all adds up to making the whole thing look bad. Which it clearly is not.
From the Article:
, Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer said yesterday.
And the spin:
None of this would be worth discussing if it came from a nobody, but it came from a chief executive. Now that's somebody. Not only a chief executive, but one that runs one of the largest companies in the world. Maybe we all better think this one over because a guy like this would not just bring this up over nothing would he?
The very title conveys a certain level of creedence to this whole thing, but for a minor point. The company he runs is in the middle of the largest anti-trust litigation known. Doesn't this put just a little different light on things?
From the article:
Mr Ballmer said the decision affected Xbox's business model, which relies on subsidising the hardware console in return for a royalty on every game sold.
Now the spin:
This actually is a true statement with regard to the business model. They need to sell games, or take a loss on each console. Saying the legal decision affected that business model though is clearly false. Someone who buys an xbox who also imports a game paid for both. How does this break the model? Games are sold as are consoles. Clearly this is worded to imply that the alleged selling of chips will affect Microsofts ability to make money.
Now the truth here is, mod chips can do this, if they allow users to run other things, but in this case, the users are running the things they are supposed to be able to run anyway; namely, import games. So, Microsoft does not like mod chips because there is a possibility that they could be used in ways that could harm their business model, but they can't say that so they imply it.
From the article:
Microsoft has slashed the retail price of an Xbox from $649 to $399, which resulted in increased hardware sales and more game software sold.
And the spin:
This is a fact. They have lowered their price to compete with SONY. According to them it is working, and it likely is, but this is something they choose to do. Having it mentioned here just adds to the negative connotation alrealy implied with the 'alleged' crime discussed earlier. Another point worth mention here is that SONY has been dealing with this the entire time and seems to make lots of money. Why can't Microsoft?
They have no real basis for a statement against another nations legal system just because they have to keep their price low in order to boost sales of their product. This is a pretty arrogant stand to take --if you look though the spin.
From the article:
But Sony, which saw sales of PlayStation 2 titles decline 19 per cent in the same period, still dominates, selling 28 per cent of all titles, against Xbox's 7 per cent.
And the spin:
This paints the picture of the perfect underdog. Everyone wants an xbox don't they? If these criminals are allowed to sell mod chips then some people just might not get one. They might have to settle for a SONY instead. You can carry that little piece farther if you want, it's easy.
From the article:
"Given the way the economic model works
And spin:
Note the use of the word 'the'. This is clever because it implies that there is only one economic model. What they should say here is, "Given the way our economic model works". Again subtle word use to shift blame from them to another entity; namely, the Australian legal system.
From the article:
, and that is a subsidy followed, essentially, by fees for every piece of software sold, our licence framework has to do that
And spin:
This is a complex way of saying we need some money for every game sold. Fair enough, but the alleged crime mentioned above does nothing to hinder that, so why bother with this whole affair in the first place. Is there something we are not seeing? If so, why hide it. Everyone would be a lot better off knowing what is is.
From the article:
"If there are aspects that are not allowed, it would encourage us to require a change in the legal framework. Otherwise, it wouldn't make economic sense."
And spin:
Basically they are saying here, if they cannot do what they want, then they don't want to do it at all. Sounds like the reasoning of a three year old plain and simple.
Essentially what is happening here is this.
Microsoft is saying that they want income from every xbox both from the sale of the actual box, and the games following that.
They say that a chip intended for users to play imported games hinders that in some fashion, but decline to discuss exactly what that is exactly.
So they basically throw down their gauntlet and say, either play the way we want, or we won't play at all.
What exactly is anyone supposed to realistically think about this? Should we support a change to another nations legal system because they tell us that the law there might hinder them from making the amount of money they want to make, or that the think they should be making with nothing but implications to that end?
Spin Indeed.
Beat SGI up for it.... Remember the fahrenheit project. From one of the *many* press releases...
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. -- Agreeing to put aside aside differences over 3-D graphics, Silicon Graphics Inc. and Microsoft Corp. said last week that they will work together on a common set of application programming interfaces.
They forgot to say, "As long as the API is a Microsoft one."
After all this is a proposed settlement. They are pushing the envelope to get things defined before they are actually defined. They can site common practice, or that it works for most of the interested parties or some other such lame thing in an attempt to get the court to believe that the non-settlement is, in fact, working.
The holy grail for them is compliance that allows to keep the playing field closed while appearing open. Sounds crazy and circular, but that really is what this entire thing is about.
Any combination of rules that stops short of a direct order can and will be exploited to their advantage. They have size and smarts enough to know that. For them this whole thing is just an annoying process that they must work through so they can get back to real business.
I propose that this works in a similar fashion to how the whole copy protection thing works today. If you can legislate it, they can exploit it. Hah!
Nothing will change unless clear and direct action with accountability is taken...
It's all a shell game, nothing to see, move on. (Sorry Jeremy, you are right, but have no real backing.)
I don't think this is a 'maybe' at all. Disney wants to own the art of bringing classic works to new audiences. This is the core of their business.
Everything they do comes from that. Great works are great works. Given a little honesty on Disney Corporations part, I would be willing to bet that the economics of creating great works to build their business on is just a bit tougher than building on those works already created.
Sure, there are the occasional original works, but by and large, the really good stories, and I mean ones that people can identify with, are those that lie just far enough in the past that they can be used a source material while being just familiar enough that people are interested by name alone.
Everyone knows about the stories that Disney likes to retell. This is where the power is for them. Early in school you were told about Pocahontas right? So was I and everyone else that has gone to school which basically means everyone. Now think back to those early years... Do you recall any of your imaginative images of that story? I can, though not well. Now combine that imagery with your young impressionable mind and the importance and intrigue generated by your teacher.
Now forward 30 years or so and see the name again attached to a new attractive movie. You are already sold!
Disney would profit from additional works, but so would others. Right now there are almost *zero* names associated with this particular form of entertainment. Should others begin the art, the Disney name would be diluted. Given how much investment and profit is tied to that, they will do anything to prevent that from happening...
Clearly not a 'maybe' but a must! (From the Disney point of view.)
Your statement is true only if your primary concern is making the app easy for new users.
There is always a clear tradeoff between new users and experienced ones. Others have said below something along the lines of: "Just look at all the 3D apps out there now, each one of them focuses on the experienced user..." They are right. Once you understand the workflow, things are generally fast --which is the way all of these users want things to be anyway longer term.
Interestingly, the MCAD market (for Engineers, not entertaiment or styling) is making this mistake. All the major apps are converting their custom U.I. to one that works for new users. Each and every one of them loses their productivity as a result. Each of them are fighting with their user base. Blender will have the same problem.
One solution is to make *good* documentation with lots of use cases. The Blender folks have done a fair job of this.
The bottom line here is that complex tasks are complex. The software can only go so far to make performing the task easier. Any 3D app that has a very easy UI, also suffers from the inability to do the little complex things that make the app worth using anyway.
Why spend time building the perfect UI, when new feature creep from the fast evolving 3D market will slowly erode your interface anyway.
Personally, I feel the Blender UI is a little out there. It could be a little more standard, but that effort is probably not worth the time. Adding good things to Blender will likely motivate new users to make use of the package given its price and capability.
I decided that I was going to create a viewer for CAD models using OpenGL. Take my home page link to see what the end result was.
:)
./ you likely do not have the ability to complete the project." --Ignore these. If you have the time and interest, you will have a lot of fun and learn things that would be hard to do otherwise. This is worth doing IMHO.
You should set some realistic goals early on. I have read some good comments about planning. --Do this, they are telling you the right thing to do!
I wrote the core of what I thought would be capable of becoming the viewer. Turns out that I was right, but I ended up with a viewer that will need heavy rework before it can be built upon. It actually works well and does the job it needs to do, but not in an elegant and extendable way. Better planning and research, on my part, would have helped out a lot. Of course, now I can comment on such things because I see the value --even if it was the hard way
Take that plan and break it into a couple of realistic initial projects that both accomplish something and contribute to your end goal.
I also read a couple of comments to the effect of "If you are asking on
After putting my early revision of the viewer up on sourceforge, I have recieved comments and e-mail from people wanting to help me code better (thanks Thierry!) and from people letting me know how they use the program. One person, after some conversation, went through the code line by line with suggestions and advice that helped me improve the program quite a bit. This whole experience was good for me.
I have some general comments about this sort of program as well based on a few years AE experience with them. (I have worked with MAYA, ProEngineer, I-DEAS, StudioTools.) Watching users learn and use these tools has shown me a lot. Spend some time with these users and watch them work. Consider what is done well and what could use improvement. This will help your planning more than you know.
Go with OpenGL as the foundation for your display. It will keep your project cross platform. OpenGL is mature and very well documented so leverage that.
Think long and hard about your interface. What actions will one need to accomplish at a particular time? Think about different workflows and allow for them. Some users like to free form draw, others draw then size then draw --that sort of thing is important. Consider MAYA, it presents both methods at all times.
Part of the overall success of MAYA also lies in the fact that it is as much of a platform as it is an authoring tool. I believe this is key for this type of application. Since you really do not know how people will create with your tool, allow for that in the core design.
Think about the command structure as well. Lets say you have a function that will sweep a curve along a path. (Which is a very common function.) Instead of creating many sweep commands, build one that handles sweeps in general. Every package gets feature creep, make sure yours puts it off as long as possible.
Most of the programs I mentioned above have good workflow built in that is ruined by lots of odd commands that fill gaps in the feature set that a well developed core command set would have addressed if they better understood how people would be doing things.
Get copies of these and learn them enough to understand how things are accomplished and build from there. Many of the common mistakes have already been made for you, take advantage of that.
Build upon some of the more documented file formats out there. Your project will be used more if it is data friendly. While you are at it, make your file format a smart one. Document it well and be sure it can grow with your project in a sensable way. Given all the inexpensive storage today, do not be afraid to store lots of smart data that is easy to work from.
The most difficult part of this project is likely to be the geometry kernel. There are kernels out there that you can build upon. Most of these have many man years invested in them. You would be wise to do your homework here and take advantage of one of these. This will also help greatly with the data elements I mentioned earlier. ACIS, Parasolid, Hoops and others like them are what you should be looking for.
Invest a lot of time in good graphical feedback to the user when you get to that point. If things are modal, indicate that mode onscreen in a way that does not distract from the task at hand. Things like direction, spatial location, surface normals, control points and such should all be distinct and clear for easy manupulation.
Go have a bunch of fun, learn stuff, live to tell the tale. --Remember to go outside once in a while though!
Right now the Illegal activities are the killer app, there is no doubt about that.
Does this mean that P2P has little use? No! We are all caught up with the illegal use, that good uses are getting the short end of things right now.
P2P can and will prove to be a good distribution model for those smart enough to use it. Given the right business model, the word of mouth nature of P2P can be a good thing.
Some companies are starting to get the picture about P2P and what it can mean to business. Consider PTC. Long time big software company selling high-end tools. They see P2P as the next killer app for engineers using their products. What do they do instead of litigation? They provide P2P to their users as a nice value add. Built the technology right in where users can make good effective use of it. This helps them keep the price of their product within a range that supports their business while enabling their users to get more use out of the software they use.
Soon everyone of their users will be able to host their own conference server and invite anyone they choose to share their data in an interactive and secure way. This whole thing is likely to save a lot of time and travel costs. This clearly is a good use of P2P.
Right now this model demonstrates how P2P can add considerable value to a pay software model. Lets add a little more thinking the P2P way. Lets say that a loyal user of the software wants to collaborate with another user. What's to say that they can't just get the software from them on a trial basis? Have any idea how hard it is to get people to look at your MCAD software? Damn tough these days. Why not let your users work for you a little? Let the software run while connected to the paying user and not others. Maybe prevent the paying users from sharing with others while someone is license sharing.
Soon the paying user will grow tired of sharing, and the other user having had a good experience just might be interested in a quote. This would save a *lot* in paid sales people who tend to travel a lot, ask for margins and eat a lot of lunches.... Just a P2P thought.
It is funny to me to see smart, creative business people using P2P ideas, instant messaging and other cool internet technologies to get their work done faster. These same smart people use the internet to lower the cost of distributing their product saving their users time and effort in the process. Not exactly in the way I described above though.
Meanwhile, on the other side of things, I laugh as I also watch the media companies work harder and harder at sticking their heads farther up their ass hoping they can just litigate the whole thing away.
I say that P2P will always be here. Some say that it needs to be stopped. They also say that the only realistic way to do that is to hobble all of our machines so that we can't actually do it.
Given that P2P could very easily be out-marketed, shifting the burden to the entire IT industry and its users is nothing more than a crime. --Just as plain and simple as Jack would put it himself.
Please explain to me how stealing our right to create with machines we are supposed to own is any less of a theft than P2P downloading is today. Consider in your answer the fact that P2P is shown to help sales. Also consider the cost the theft of our rights will have on future generations who find themselves beholden to a select few who make all their technology decisions for them. Who exactly will those decisions benefit
One more thing about the marketing. Nobody is better at it than the media companies right now. Why they don't just bend that marketing engine toward sales via the net is beyond me. With the right investment and a little thought, using Kazaa could be old hat in as little as a year. Why fight what you can easily marginalize?
My own kids have made pretty good use of Kazaa yet they still buy CD media. Why do they do this? Its because of that powerful marketing engine. They are tuned to it and want to be a part of it. Burning a CD of content that you got from your friend does not do that today. Maybe burning a CD with custom content that comes with your paid download would, shouldn't they at least try before trashing all of our rights?
The bottom line here really is about the business model and there really is no hiding that fact. The media companies want to continue to be in control of all distribution when it is becoming increasingly clear that they don't have to be. They don't want to compete and never will and they are fools for it.
The amount of money spent on the lobbying efforts, lawyers and other foolish ventures that will generate little return unless they are a complete succcess could be spent on efforts that will generate real returns in as little as a year.
How? Hire me.
I am not kidding, if it is money that they think they need, then we should help them get it, but preserve our rights for the longer term in the process...
Forgot to log in! (damn)
Other post with same subject can either be ignored, or read, your choice. It is reproduced below.
I do not fit this mold.
I actually *want* to pay to download music. The labels made a big mistake when they rejected the Napster proposal.
Downloading software I don't own used to be a big deal, but only because I wanted to learn about it before wasting my money. I have never made a dime off of software I did not own. Today, getting demo copies of things is a lot easier. This also makes OSS tools attractive to me because I don'e have to worry so much about the license.
I want unencumbered computers because:
I believe I have the right to do what I wish with the hardware I own. Same for media. This has been true my whole life and people made lots of money, why can't this continue?
I want Peer to Peer because it is a great technology that we have not yet fully explored. It has a lot of potential for those who want to explore distribution methods that are *not* beholden to the corporations. I pay for hardware, in some cases software, and bandwidth, why is it wrong to use the two to benefit me?
As for old business models, yep, they are old. I was taught that in this society, you either adapt or die. If you are not improving your business process, then be sure your competetors are. The media industries are not adapting, they are litigating...
So, I agree that something needs to be done because, in the case of music right now, things are clearly wrong, but I am not greedy, just wary of losing my rights.
Rights are funny things in that they are very hard to obtain, but very easy to give away.
Remember, not everyone here believes everything said.
Well, they should not be making the heat anyway, but this does sound like and interesting approach. I'll have to take a look.
Thanks!
I agree on the performance issue; however, there is one other distinction. Heat. All that extra hardware uses a lot of extra power.
A pure RISC chip will generate less heat than a CISC / RISC hybrid.
Maybe someday we will actually have quiet and fast computers....
I agree with this. I heard something I did not expect along these lines during a long drive that supports our shared view pretty well.
The Clark Howard show was on one of the local AM stations and during the monologue portion he had some interesting things to say about the free market and its effects on the record labels. This show is a conservative tight wad type of show. Saving all your money, doing the right things, watching for fraud and that sort of thing. Not my usual fare, but here is what was said during this particular show.
1. Downloading is stealing. (I don't totally agree, but given the next few points, it was not a bad position to take -- the reasons why have been hashed here many times... so on to mumber two.)
2. CD media is too expensive.
He basically said that the Movie companies were doing things right. They have many different price points with lots of value adds in their offerings. The music companies don't. People today are basically accepting the $12 - $25 average price of a DVD. This combined with the overall hassle of making copies makes selling DVD media viable even though copies can be made. Even if copies become easier to make in the future, there will be little incentive to make copies because the pricing is very closely aligned with what people expect to pay.
Given this and the relative value of music compared to movies, he indicated that reasonable pricing for music would lie in the single digit range. Really good CD $9.99 average $7.99 others less. Until this happens, there will be motivation for people to seek alternatives.
3. The music companies are their own problem.
The arguments presented were interesting as well.
He argued that a free market will act to correct a monopoly abusing its position. He cited several examples of this including the low cost of CD production and questionable value with few good tracks and few extras... etc. He also argued that Peer to Peer, though it is stealing, is acting in a way that benefits us, and that it needs to happen! Hmmm.
Basically, his opinion was that if your product price is too high, then there will come to exist a sort of vacuum between your set product price, and the actual acceptable price as determined by society in general. Eventually something will fill this gap. In the case of music, this is Peer to Peer.
4. Get it while you can.
I found this opinion interesting as well. Even though Peer to Peer is a grey activity with regard to music downloads, there are many interesting legal uses of the technology. By continuing to support Peer to Peer, we are exercising our ability to force the music companies to make a correction that they would not otherwise make.
In the end, CD prices will fall which will greatly close the gap between the price asked and the price accepted.
Given this material was aired on a fairly conservative AM talk station, I was impressed by its overall balance. It supports your point of view pretty well.
Sorry about the title of my other reply. I did make one like that, but it was a while ago on another thread.
Anonymous losers ignored (in this case)
I got a mail last night from slash with that subject in there. Also could not access my account last night either. Hmmm.....
I agree with you for the most part, but I must say that Perfect Dark is a great game. Frame rate could have been quicker, but that was just because they pushed the N64 hard.
I keep an N64 around just for that one to be played in multi-player mode once in a while.
A year ago, I would likely have agreed. Much has changed since then.
I have Mandrake 8.2 running here at home. My wife and I use it for watching DVD media, listening to Mp3 files, word processing, spreadsheets, basic scheduling and general Internet usage. (Web e-mail and such.) I am very technical, but she is not. Linux works nicely in this respect. We have different logins, mine is customized to the hilt and setup for more than basic computing, hers is clean and easy to use. The nice thing is, with Linux, it is easy to keep things that way.
Guess what? This machine works fine! Heck, it is not even that nice of a machine. E-machine (ewww..), Matrox G400 video, 500 mhz PIII, 192Mb ram and some HD are not much these days. I can get another machine and do the same thing for just the cost of Closed Software licenses alone! That has got to be good for the consumer.
The only configuration I needed to do with this machine that did not work easily with the GUI is the DVD setup. Ogle is great, but due to some lame law decisions in the US, I have to get this somewhere else. If this were not the case, I know Mandrake would have intergrated this program in with the others. It is likely that, given the freedom to include DVD support, I would have had to do almost nothing to begin really using my machine.
Now I know not everyone can do this yet because of the time it might take to learn how to set things up properly, but each revision of the various distributions seems to reduce the need for this by quite a bit. One more iteration and things will work very nicely for most of what we need to do day to day.
Soon we will be able to buy a very nice workstation ready to handle all day to day computing tasks for the price of that other OS. Now with all that extra money laying around, don't you think that people will be interested in buying some additional products since they got such a deal on their base computer? I do, particularly when they realize they are spending their money for new things, not the same things over and over again each year.
A large chunk of the problem has very little to do with the performance of the Open Source / Free Software whatever method of development, it has to do with lawyers profiting off of the fear that some companies have for their withering business models.
So right now I would agree with the Times, Linux is good for consumers, not all consumers mind you, but an increasing number of them.
So really, I don't think for a minute that the editors of the Times are stupid. Like it or not, a lot of thought goes into the production of the Times; otherwise it would not have the name that it does today.
They see what I see; namely, that Linux is ready now and improving at a very nice clip. We are seeing Linux leave the early adopter stage about to enter the early majority. This is a great time because all the really good stuff happens now. Applications are being ported, new ones in process are showing up now, early ones are maturing to a very usable state.
I work in the MCAD field. Did you know that Pro Engineer is coming to Linux next year? That is major software supported by not one, but two large companies, PTC and HP/Compaq. These types don't port unless there is demand. I would say that the Times has it just about right at the moment.
How is the whole thing supposed to progress if it does not get some press at the key time? I believe that time is now. I just don't think the Times are that far off --I could be wrong, but I hope not.
If they get to poison the networks, then that means that they are using the networks --just as we are.
I wonder what would happen if some ordinary user did the same things? Right or wrong?
Dealing with the problem this way is far better than using the law because it is hard to define the law in a way that makes good sense for everyone long term particularly when we don't yet know how P2P could benefit us all.
Besides, they can place any number of promotional information into their files just as easily as they can garbage and they should. Why not? They might even be able to write off more of the expense.
What the media companies need is good marketing. They are the content source. (for now) All they need to do is add value in ways that leverage the network effect that P2P offers and they *will* make money.
Anyway, the result of this is likely not all bad because file sharing will get somewhat marginalized, we all preview before we download large files and everyone is reasonably happy and free to use the net in creative ways.
SSH, Pine, VNC, anonymous web services--choose whatever gets through the firewall, and keep your mail yours.
If you are on your employers time and equipment expect this sort of thing. Too bad for them, that they cannot have it both ways. Either they allow open communication or not...
If you have not tried it you need to. Give it an honest 10 minutes then crank the bitrates for a little speed.
It allows you to feed it training files in order to better guess what you might be inclined to express. This has interesting applications aside from alternative input methods. Seeing many choices at once put me into sort of an eerie creative process.
For some interesting results, throw a little short fiction or other creative text at the program, then let your mind wander a bit while using the interface... You may find yourself creating some interesting sentences.
I found that it had some side effects on me after using it for 20 minutes or so. When I went back to normal reading, I expected to see words move --wierd.
Anyway, this is creative software that is worth a few minutes of play time.