Where is the startup with the $400 MythTV-based solution?
I have been spending some time with Boston-area venture capitalists on some new ideas. To a capitalist they use 'Tivo' as an example of a solution with massive consumer appeal but an unprofitable business model. Even with a $13/mo. program guide subscription.
I agree with earlier posts that this business is destined to be eclipsed by the cable and satellite providers.
A MythTV product would be an awesome, more flexible solution than Tivo, but I suspect that at $400 would virtually impossible to deliver profitably. God forbid someone had an issue and required support from a salaried human:'(.
The art, methinks, in coming up with an idea that drives the notion of more flexible management of video content in a model that provides *reasonable* profitability for those producing and distributing the content and the equipment used to manage it.
While it is fashionable here to think of e.g. cable companies as 'evil' and 'controlling', that anthropomorphizes something that can be explained much more simply: they exist, as agents of their stockholders, to be profitable.
I think it could matter in two respects (I am a hiring manager and do not consider myself a school snob...)
1) A better program may be, in fact, better. Your may learn more. It may be hard to understand the benefits of a better program while immersed in one that feels adequate. Many people do not have the option of transferring to a 'better' program because of their past performance, not because they choose not to.
2) There can be a benefit immediately after you graduate if your goal is to join a large company, as they tend to focus recruiting resources on a few schools and right now it is a bit of a 'buyers market'. After your first successful (or unsuccessful) experience it will matter less.
"Ugh.. fibre along airborn telephone lines? I doubt this would be a viable solution."
Here in Massachusetts Verizon is doing exactly that with their FIOS deployment. Cable companies have done it for years. Much to expensive here to bury cables.
I'd imagine it's actually less expensive to repair a fiber than the equivalent bundle of (hundreds of) copper pairs, no?
You would also not be alright if any of those 500,000 machines were portable (pretty likely, no?. They could (and will) be infected while at home or on the road, for which an enterprise's perimeter firewall is useless. Once the machine comes back to work the worm freely propagates inside the enterprise network.
"which is a rather clear analysis of a piece of malicious spam"
I appreciate his effort but I don't see what's particularly clear about:
'I don't have a windows machine, and don't particularly want to run this and the other executable on one. If someone wants to investigate, feel free.'
One thing that *is* clear is that Windows machines that have installed the most recent patches from MS are not vulnerable. It is really necessary to abandon IE?
I am no MS apologist but I did not learn anything meaningful from this...
Slashdot Mirror
Where is the startup with the $400 MythTV-based solution?
I have been spending some time with Boston-area venture capitalists on some new ideas. To a capitalist they use 'Tivo' as an example of a solution with massive consumer appeal but an unprofitable business model. Even with a $13/mo. program guide subscription.
I agree with earlier posts that this business is destined to be eclipsed by the cable and satellite providers.
A MythTV product would be an awesome, more flexible solution than Tivo, but I suspect that at $400 would virtually impossible to deliver profitably. God forbid someone had an issue and required support from a salaried human :'(.
The art, methinks, in coming up with an idea that drives the notion of more flexible management of video content in a model that provides *reasonable* profitability for those producing and distributing the content and the equipment used to manage it.
While it is fashionable here to think of e.g. cable companies as 'evil' and 'controlling', that anthropomorphizes something that can be explained much more simply: they exist, as agents of their stockholders, to be profitable.
I think it could matter in two respects (I am a hiring manager and do not consider myself a school snob ...)
1) A better program may be, in fact, better. Your may learn more. It may be hard to understand the benefits of a better program while immersed in one that feels adequate. Many people do not have the option of transferring to a 'better' program because of their past performance, not because they choose not to.
2) There can be a benefit immediately after you graduate if your goal is to join a large company, as they tend to focus recruiting resources on a few schools and right now it is a bit of a 'buyers market'. After your first successful (or unsuccessful) experience it will matter less.
"Ugh.. fibre along airborn telephone lines?
I doubt this would be a viable solution."
Here in Massachusetts Verizon is doing exactly that with their FIOS deployment. Cable companies have done it for years. Much to expensive here to bury cables.
I'd imagine it's actually less expensive to repair a fiber than the equivalent bundle of (hundreds of) copper pairs, no?
You would also not be alright if any of those 500,000 machines were portable (pretty likely, no?. They could (and will) be infected while at home or on the road, for which an enterprise's perimeter firewall is useless. Once the machine comes back to work the worm freely propagates inside the enterprise network.
"which is a rather clear analysis of a piece of malicious spam"
...
I appreciate his effort but I don't see what's particularly clear about:
'I don't have a windows machine, and don't particularly want to run this and the other executable on one. If someone wants to investigate, feel free.'
One thing that *is* clear is that Windows machines that have installed the most recent patches from MS are not vulnerable. It is really necessary to abandon IE?
I am no MS apologist but I did not learn anything meaningful from this
It's on the box's remote control