I have news for you: a Stephen King novel costs $7 for paperback and $15+ for hardcover. $1-$3 is a helluva lot cheaper (per book) and I don't think you have to be cheap to think so. If you lose $1, who cares? It's not like I spent $7-$15 for one of his books that I thought was great and later found out sucked -- when that happens I have no recourse, I just lost the $7-$15.
The internet should represent a way to get an even-cheaper-than-paperback novel. You buy a paperback because you're not sure if it's a long-term purchase -- you'll buy the hardcover if it's REALLY good. You should be able to buy an "ebook" (or whatever you call it) for about $1-$3 and you pay more for a paperback ($5-$7) or even more for a hardcover.
Would I try/buy music this way? Sure, as long as I can listen or try it before deciding I want it and as long as the low-permanence of digital media is compensated to me in the price (i.e. the hard drive crashes and I lose my books plus it's cheaper for you to publish so I shouldn't have to pay much).
I agree with you about publishing companies having a use, but not your reasons:
Distribution: This is one of the big ones. A good publisher can get your book into every Borders and Barne's & Noble across the country, as well as Amazon. [snip]
Uh-uh, sorry -- this argument is made irrelevent by the web itself. By yourself you can do the internet equivalent of "getting your book on the shelf" by putting up a site with your novel, but who's going to find it? Well, go buy a net self-marketing software for $100 and you CAN get yourself ranked higher than the publishers themselves -- the web/internet levels the playing field. I'm not saying publishers can't provide internet marketing services -- I'm just saying they'd better or they're due for a Napster-like rude awakening.
Do the publishers even help market your book so people even know about it or does that cost extra? It doesn't really do much good to get your book on the shelf so it can collect dust. Hmm, lots of similarities here -- you're starting to convince me publishing companies have less use than I thought.
Editing: Editing is a hard job, and underrated. [snip] If you want to publish your own book, you need to find and pay an editor or two. That's a big chunk of upfront money.
This is true except for one thing: how easy is it for me -- a nobody in publishing -- to get a book published? How long would it take? My only real alternative is to publish it Stephen King's way on the web. I don't think I could afford to pay an editor (only from the sound of what you're saying) and I don't think I'd want to if I was experimenting with career alternatives. In the end, if you have a good product the worst that would happen is that your work would be called good or OK but unpolished.
Market Research: If you're writing for money [snip], you should have an idea of how big your market is. [snip]
Market Research: all I can say is, the biggest reason (IMHO) we have so many sh*tty products on the market and have lost so many worthy products is Market Research. It may work fine for you, but I KNOW we are missing a lot of products because "market research" says there is no market or not a significant one.
I wonder what "market research" said about the first personal computer ideas? Probably something along the lines of a Dell exec who said, "Who would want a computer in their HOME???"
Don't forget about simultaneously formatting that floppy disk, too!!
You didn't, by chance, have an Amiga at some time in your life, did you?
(Disclaimer: I'm a former/current Amiga user and this is meant to be a jab at Amiga advocates who have always pointed out how the Amiga is superior because it could download a file, play a game, AND format a floppy all at the same time... so don't moderate me down for throwing in a little off-topic humor)
This is a good example of the perpetuation of a relatively old internet "cliche" -- the "adolescent internet guru" vs. the "old fart luddite".
Bullshit.
If you still believe this in the year 2000, you are delusioned. Severely. The "old farts" are running the brick-and-mortar institutions that are either kicking the e-tailer's asses or buying them out. How can this be if they are run by stupid "old fart luddites"?
Oh yeah, and look at the brain-drain of employees running from crashing internet start-ups to work at more solid electronics companies or even "old economy" companies. Yeah, if you believe the cliche at the top of this post, you probably thought that XYZ start-up with the 17-23 year old founder was going to skyrocket.
Sorry, but the reality is that age doesn't matter. I know 50 year-old company CEO's/Presidents who are more 'net-savvy than many e-commerce consultants they talk to. If you're intelligent and "have the right stuff" it doesn't matter what your age is, you will rise above your competitors every time.
Uum, present the facts, please? Where in Napster's mission statement does it say their product is primarily for illegal uses? Nowhere. What facts do you have to support your statement that the majority of transactions using Napster are illegal (hence making it "primarily used for copyright infringement")?? None.
From my actual use of Napster, I don't see any requirements in the software that would stop me from using it for legal purposes or force me to use it for illegal purposes. What we're talking about here is a product that is capable of a wide range of uses and is being attacked because of users who use it for illegal purposes.
And anyone who's actually used the internet for a decade or more (like me) can tell you that all of this illegal activity took place in the past using FTP software, web browsers, telnet, archie, gopher, etc. This is different because Napster makes it easier??? Bullshit!!! What's so difficult about using a search engine to find warez sites with links to servers using the above protocols to download software, music, etc.??? You can download Office 2000 from a webserver, for shit's sake!!!!
I always amaze people at how fast I can find hacker/cracker sites with all kinds of tools and illegal materials just using a search engine. What's next if the RIAA wins this, the software association suing search engines for facilitating software piracy?
You simply can't deny the fact that independents and other musicians truly want hundreds or thousands of users to trade their music because free advertising is still advertising. Period.
That's complete B.S. Any major publication has a sizable law staff and they would make sure whether they can get away with it or not or change the story so they could -- it has nothing to do with a bigger media outlet laughing off someone because they have more money. If MOSR *can* get away with it legally, but don't want to hire the law staff, then too bad -- that's life in the USA. (freedom is sometimes limited by legal prowess)
If MOSR had hired a lawyer in the first place, then this may have never happened... or maybe they have a lawyer and they decided it's just not worth it. OR, maybe we should just stop speculating from our comfortable outside positions and ASK them? That'd be a novel alternative to just talking about it...
(I can say the above with first-hand knowledge dealing with Apple's lawyers, too!)
Sorry for replying to my own post, but I wanted to add that MacOS Rumors is decrying this as absolute nonsense... which, from my past experience reading MacOS Rumors speculation and from their past track record, absolutely convinces me that the Drudge report is right at least in the fact that the companies in question are talking about it.
I don't think there is any other rumors site that has a worse track record than MOSR has which is why I stopped reading them (something like 90-95% of their predictions over the past 2 years have been utterly wrong) -- the whole site seems like a work of fiction.
Just out of curiosity, have you seen the director's cut? It sounds like it's quite different (although not like the book as you described it) and you may like it better since you liked the book. But, I think the point is that it's *based* on the book so it doesn't have to be a book on film. Books often don't translate well to film.
The reality is that this story is, in all likelihood, probably true. They probably are secretly talking about merging two or more of these companies... but, does that mean it'll happen? Hell, no.
I'm a big Apple fan and have been for 9 years. Anybody remember the Sun buyout rumor a few years ago? The IBM one? Is everybody forgetting that we recently found out that not only were those rumors completely true, but that they were ready to go ahead with the Sun buyout except they couldn't quite agree on a price??? I've worked for a $100 million Silicon Valley electronics company for 9 years and we recently completed a merger -- surprised all of us except for just a few. I didn't even know that we were in secret talks with companies for a couple of years.
The point is that just because some insider says they are in merger talks doesn't mean you jump to the conclusion that there's going to be a merger. It's very common here in the Valley to periodically entertain mergers and acquisitions because it's very much seen as a way to stay competitive -- NOT a big deal. (if you do it right, like we did, absolutely nothing changes in the companies except that they become financially tied together)
I've been using computers since the C64 days, I'm not some windows pup that just hoped on yesterday.
Well, since I've been a computer user since the Commodore PET days, I guess I'm one up on you.:-) But seriously, you shouldn't have a problem using Quicktime on Windows unless there's some other problem already. We use Quicktime on all our PC's here at work (a couple of dozen) and rarely, if ever, have a problem.
Thanks for the great reference to this book and its availibility online -- I agree with most, if not all of it (I was only able to read the chapters you referenced and a few others). I didn't know about the book or about Peter McWilliams, but I'm glad you pointed it out here.
Second:
You are almost completely wrong in your conclusions from this book.
We Americans are free -- as free as we can be without infringing upon the freedom of others. I hate to use a hackneyed expression, but go to other countries to really see why so many people flock to America. Clue -- it's generally pretty bad out there.
America is not a *true* Democracy, it is a representative Republic -- if you didn't learn that in history or government classes in your high school, then I feel sorry about the education you received. In a true Democracy each and every citizen would vote on every THING, which obviously doesn't happen. In a representative Republic every citizen votes local representatives into office who, in turn, vote on every THING. To keep it short, I won't go into it any further than that.
And lastly, I agree with what was said in the book which is NOT that the government is slowly *destroying* our freedoms, but that many of the freedoms we were guaranteed over 220 years ago have been slowly fought for and won over those years. The book specifically quotes John Adams at one point as saying he laughs when people talk about freedom to speak, write, etc. and that hopefully we'll have them after several hundred years. Freedoms are not freely given (even in America), BUT our Constitution and Bill of Rights provide a nearly indestructible framework to GET the freedoms the government may try to deny.
I don't know about the accuracy of all the statistics given about hemp, but I started feeling like I was being preached to by a typical free-drug-use proponent. Reading other parts of the book balanced it out.
I personally believe that the war on drugs is a huge waste of money and that the legal drugs we regularly take could be thrown in with the illegal drugs -- caffeine, alcohol, tobacco, and other over-the-counter or prescription drugs are all drugs. Period. I've personally had only caffeine and alcohol drugs because I chose not to risk using other drugs without sufficient information. It's easy to see objectively when you have kids how they try to make things black and white and "simple" but the fact that they are all drugs is the only black and white fact.
As a kid I was intelligent or mature enough to know that the drug education I had was propaganda and it was made simple to make it easy for us to make a socially correct decision. It's up to us parents to make sure our kids have as much balanced information as we think they personally can handle. In the end we make our own decisions and no amount of government laws can stop that -- hence the uniquely American belief that the power of a government comes from the people.
I agree 100%, but like I said in another post, if the FTC has to make them at least put the fine print there so you can make sense out of it then they should make them do it, because a lot of retailers just post $0 and no explanation.
Also (offtopic), on Sunny Delight -- I'm glad I'm not the only parent who sees through this marketing B.S. and reads the nutrition label! I couldn't believe it when I read the label on a Sunny Delight bottle before (our kids like it so my wife used to think it was just another orange juice and bought it for them) -- it's laughable how close it is to Kool-aid and people think it's good for their kids!
Same thing with those Lunchables "meal-packs". Products like these are worse than junk food because their makers/distributors try to pass them off as "just as good as" real food or orange juice when simply reading the *government* required nutrition label refutes advertising. But how many people actually read those labels even some of the time?
I totally agree, but the best parts of the "extras" are usually (but not always) the trailers, the behind-the-scenes features, and director/actor commentary. Everything else is usually garbage or, at best, fluff. The trailer is good to give people a synopsis if they've never heard of the movie (like when I find an older movie I want to show to the kids) or know little about it. The behind the scenes stuff is often fun to watch, but maybe that's because I think seeing exactly how they did something is interesting.
And the director/actor commentary can be cool in the same way (insider comments) -- a great example of this is the movie "Escape from New York". If you've ever seen the laserdisc or DVD of this one, the actor/director commentary is actually better than the movie itself (I liked the movie, but there were a quite a few very funny stories and comments that pointed out stuff I didn't see or didn't know).
But, I do agree, if the special features are holding up a DVD version, get the frickin' movie out on DVD and then later put out the collector's edition with extra features. I think there are still a lot of people in the industry who think there aren't enough people who'll buy a DVD if it's just a digital version of the VHS movie, but that's just not true anymore since DVD is so much better (except maybe on a 13" TV) and its well on it's way to taking over from VHS as the standard.
Sorry, but maybe I can't quite understand what you're saying:
I'm not talking about classifying movies into age groups, I'm talking about being an adult and realizing that you don't see things the same as an adult as you did when you were a kid. I saw the original Star Wars at LEAST 60-80 times between the movie theater and HBO when I was a kid, but I sure couldn't do that now and watching it is just not the same now.
First of all, lighten up!?! I really think the guy has an ego problem and if you don't then that's your opinion, but saying that I think someone has an ego problem is NOT "undeservedly bashing" him. You could say I undeservedly bashed the special effects in his movie, but that's your opinion. All I can say is I really admired the guy a LOT until I saw several Episode I interviews in a row (on the E1 VHS tape of all places -- what he can't see how egotistical he appears?) where he really came off as an egotistical creep. I'm not saying any one of us wouldn't have the same problem if we had his kind of success, but that doesn't mean it's OK.
Also, I'm not a movie maker, but I know a good movie when I see it and Episode I was a good movie. Why do you think I'm jealous of Lucas??? Because he has a digital copy of E1 and I DON'T???????!? Well, fuck YEAH, I'm jealous of that -- that's most of the point of my post!
My main point in my light attack on Lucas is that he seems to think he's a little more important than he really is and he also seems to think that his movies are a little more important/popular than they obviously are. Where I said he's envious of and trying to outdo Pixar were mostly just spoofing on one of his FAILURES (yes, you heard right, he FAILED at something). (if you couldn't tell, that was a spoof, too -- you seem to be humor-impaired on this subject)
I mean, I love all the Star Wars movies he did and admire the hell out of him for writing and directing them, but how can YOU say he's right for telling the millions of us gung-ho DVD owners that we need to hang on to our crappy VCR's for another 10 fuckin' years??? I can see the Titanic-method of putting it out a year after the VHS version so you can continue to rake in the money, but when asked why he's waiting 10 years he just says he "ain't gonna do it". Ego? Yes! Arrogant?? Yes!! Or maybe he appears that way because he's pissed at constantly defending his own decisions to annoying fans... like... you?
I mean simply rationally explaining why he decided to make his decades-long *movie* (note: I'm a fan of his movies and not necessarily him -- I don't childishly idolize people) fans wait and wait for a *decent* quality version of his great movies would have avoided the egotistical "artiste" effect. All I was thinking at the end of the interviews was that I've been a long-time fan, but I don't own any of his movies because of this (hey, maybe I'm being childish in "demanding" DVD versions of his movies, but I think producing movies of the same quality as virtually everyone else today is not too much to ask).
Oh and notice they did NOT moderate me down -- maybe I'm not being so unfair and have some right to free speech? I am an adult U.S. citizen, after all...
This is absolutely justified. We buy computers on a daily basis here at work and often need a quick e-Machines buy from a local place. It's ridiculous how some places actually post the after-ISP-ripoff-rebate price ($0) instead of making it plain as day. One local super-store (I won't name names) makes it almost impossible to tell what the real price is so you can compare apples to apples because they use so many different rebates depending on the computer brand. But it's impossible because there should be fine print, and there's nothing!!
So, you end up standing there looking everywhere (I'm talking about looking for several minutes) for some explanation of why this computer is $0. Sometimes there's a "*" and sometimes not, but either way (at this particular store anyway, and I don't think they're unique) there's no fine print to be found. With some machines like the e-Machines they already have 1-2 rebates from the manufacturer and then the store automatically deducts the ISP rebate which can also vary depending on who the ISP is (although it is often $400).
Anyway, if the FTC doesn't enforce this I'm sure a lot of newbie computer users will get screwed. Who the hell buys these 3-year ISP deals, anyway?
From my own experience (admittedly limited, but far from small) there are far more people who never took formal typing classes who have problems with RMS than people who have had the formal training -- the only way to avoid that is to truly hunt-and-peck (sloooow). Also, if you don't type like normal you'll always be limited in your computer use and computer communication capabilities. After helping so many people for so long with computers, I seriously think that people should learn how to type properly (read "not super-slow") if they are going to use a computer at work. Period. Basic typing classes should be more important than MS Word classes (or maybe part of MS Word classes).
There's nothing more annoying than trying to work with some dinosaur typist -- I mean, I do type over 100 words/minute, but if you can't type faster than 30 wpm, give it to someone who can or get the hell out.
Hey, let the guy do what he's gotta do -- he's under a lot of pressure! After all, he sold off Pixar because he didn't foresee digital animation's impact on the movie industry and now he's trying to emulate the best he can!;-)
Seriously though, after seeing recent interviews (especially during and after Episode I), all I can think is that this guy is REALLY damn arrogant. I can't get Episode I on DVD until WHEN? 2010??? What the HELL is wrong with you? Some of us out here don't want to keep dumping cash into decades-old technology like VHS just because you don't FEEL it's the right time or some B.S. like that. Sure, Star Wars was/is a cultural phenomenon, but your head is just a little too big for your own good.
Also, he constantly says how much better technology is now, but at the same time downplays the role of digital animation "at this point" in movies. Got a little penis envy when you look at Pixar or what? Personally, I'll go on the record as saying that our family as a whole (all 5 of us) *loved* Episode I and can't wait for Episode II. Jar-Jar was anti-hyped by people like those in this forum JUST as much as Episode I was hyped in the first place -- he was a necessary character and not just an add-in to attract kids. You couldn't simply delete him and have a complete movie!
BUT, the animation of Jar-Jar and other CGI characters was GOOD? Give me a break -- it was not so good and I've seen a better job done in movies 5 years ago, let alone now in 1999 and 2000!! The fact is that Episode I could've been a better movie for me (since I saw Episode IV when I was a little kid), but I think expectations and GROWING UP have an effect on that opinion. I think people who constantly piss & moan about Jar-Jar and other crap they hated in Episode I need to take a moment to figure out what their problem is because they're just screwing up the atmosphere for MY kids! It's like when it's Halloween and the big kids come for candy... 16-18 year-olds. They act like they are still children except they run around screwing things up for the kids.
Face it, how many adults (over 18) went with you and enjoyed Star Wars when you saw it? None in my case. I know some adults liked Episode IV, but unless you were over 18 when you saw Episode IV and now you're the same adult watching Episode I, you have to admit that your mindset is different and that probably explains how this one "sucks" so much more than the first one. A good chunk of the fun in watching Episode IV again is the nostalgia!
No kidding, following this story I found a very funny/interesting site describing itself as "the dot-com deadpool" at FuckedCompany.com.
They have literally almost 300 *recent* stories about various dot-coms and how they fucked up in some way either screwing over their customers, employees, etc. or all of the above. The antics include Hollywood Video execs emailing their subsidiary Reel.com's CEO to fire all or most of the employees and the CEO simply forwards the e-mail to all in the company, Kozmo.com requiring almost every employee to submit to a detailed background check (and 50+ employees quitting or being fired), & copies of bad customer service feedbacks to Kozmo.com.
GEE, I'm glad I stayed with my solid "old economy", more traditional Silicon Valley electronics employer -- we've been among the fastest growing companies in the USA for several years (we're an ancient 9 years old), we're merging, acquiring, going IPO, making stock option money for employees and no B.S. even close to this stuff! I guess the dot-coms are finally realizing that even "new economy" companies need some kind of business-running know-how! It's a humbling time for all of us...
In the beginning of this "story/post" by JonKatz, he talks about new media setbacks due to layoffs and "near death experiences". I call it survival of the fittest -- have you seen the number of people working at some of these places??? I mean, 150 or more people in some of these companies and what were there revenues again??? IMNSHO, they NEED to lay off about 1/3 to 1/2 of their staff because they are just-plain over-bloated!
I mean, I work at an electronics distributor/manufacturer (9 years) and we have about 75 people producing revenues of about $75 million per year. We could EASILY have 150 people, but it's just not economically feasible because we're not a Dot-Com and we have to live by real rules like, we can't hire another person because we don't have the money!!!
It's not like it's that bad any more (it was back when we had 4-20 people), but you get the point -- most of the Dot-Coms are simply being forced to live by the same rules as other companies and it's hurting. It may kill off the weak ones, but it can only be good for everyone in general -- from my own experience, I don't think they produce a better product by being so over-bloated, if anything they produce a worse product.
How many secretaries do you think are going to be given shiny new G3s and G4s to run OS X just to use MS Office?
I hate to hurt your ego, but many executive secretaries sadly have better computers than you or I do (I don't know what kind of computer you have, but I know of *many* secretaries who have G4's simply because their boss does). Hell, at one company here in the Silicon Valley, I saw a receptionist using her $5k Sun workstation and complaining that she wished she could have a Windoze PC!!! I almost smacked her on the spot, but decided to just explain to her the value of what she had and how to do what she didn't know how to do in the different OS.
Did you even read the article? They are talking about the internet as a collectively intelligent network of computers -- not just intelligent computers.
Even so, how does that compare to Terminator 2??? A military computer controlling weapons-of-mass-destruction achieves sentience and decides human beings are its primary threat? Do you seriously think that military computers close to important military weapons, etc. are hooked directly to the internet to even make this scenario even remotely possible?
Even if that were true I'd be more worried about hacker/cracker terrorists than a computer-based threat! Or how about an asteroid? Or how about lightning? Man, it's fearful people like you who make the adoption of technology so ridiculously difficult. Sure be skeptical, but don't TRY to come up with these ridiculous scenarios, use some logic.
Well, welcome to the real world! It's not always fair and sometimes people play unfairly to gain an advantage. What, do you think the media just snoops around MIT constantly looking for stories like this? MIT most likely has a good PR department (they'd be stupid not to).
Did the U of Manitoba do a press release on what they were doing? I didn't see it. Plus, this is apparently a joint corporate/university operation, so that's probably another reason we see it in the news.
Oh, and I don't mean to be cynical, but just because it happened doesn't mean you'll see it in the news -- another reality check for you.
And anyone using the BeOS in the year 2000 who has actually used it for more than a year of it's life also is very familiar with the concept "beating a dry skeleton". Um, unless you want to selectively forget how many times Be has re-invented itself and it's "products" over the past 10 frickin' years!!
The only difference is that Be hasn't gone bankrupt... yet. They had a lot of close calls, though. Oh and Be isn't afraid of fsckin' over their users and customers to keep their business afloat -- that's probably helped them to avoid bankruptcy so far.
In the end, as a former Amiga developer and former BeBox/BeOS/BeANYTHING developer, I'll gladly jump on the Amiga bandwagon if they can show they are getting their sh*t together -- at least the Amiga was a real platform with a significant user base at one time. Don't forget that Be couldn't attract people when there was no cost just to look, and I don't see any big "rush" to the Be camp now that their "product" has been desperately made "free".
Slashdot Mirror
I have news for you: a Stephen King novel costs $7 for paperback and $15+ for hardcover. $1-$3 is a helluva lot cheaper (per book) and I don't think you have to be cheap to think so. If you lose $1, who cares? It's not like I spent $7-$15 for one of his books that I thought was great and later found out sucked -- when that happens I have no recourse, I just lost the $7-$15.
The internet should represent a way to get an even-cheaper-than-paperback novel. You buy a paperback because you're not sure if it's a long-term purchase -- you'll buy the hardcover if it's REALLY good. You should be able to buy an "ebook" (or whatever you call it) for about $1-$3 and you pay more for a paperback ($5-$7) or even more for a hardcover.
Would I try/buy music this way? Sure, as long as I can listen or try it before deciding I want it and as long as the low-permanence of digital media is compensated to me in the price (i.e. the hard drive crashes and I lose my books plus it's cheaper for you to publish so I shouldn't have to pay much).
Uh-uh, sorry -- this argument is made irrelevent by the web itself. By yourself you can do the internet equivalent of "getting your book on the shelf" by putting up a site with your novel, but who's going to find it? Well, go buy a net self-marketing software for $100 and you CAN get yourself ranked higher than the publishers themselves -- the web/internet levels the playing field. I'm not saying publishers can't provide internet marketing services -- I'm just saying they'd better or they're due for a Napster-like rude awakening.
Do the publishers even help market your book so people even know about it or does that cost extra? It doesn't really do much good to get your book on the shelf so it can collect dust. Hmm, lots of similarities here -- you're starting to convince me publishing companies have less use than I thought.
This is true except for one thing: how easy is it for me -- a nobody in publishing -- to get a book published? How long would it take? My only real alternative is to publish it Stephen King's way on the web. I don't think I could afford to pay an editor (only from the sound of what you're saying) and I don't think I'd want to if I was experimenting with career alternatives. In the end, if you have a good product the worst that would happen is that your work would be called good or OK but unpolished.
Market Research: all I can say is, the biggest reason (IMHO) we have so many sh*tty products on the market and have lost so many worthy products is Market Research. It may work fine for you, but I KNOW we are missing a lot of products because "market research" says there is no market or not a significant one.
I wonder what "market research" said about the first personal computer ideas? Probably something along the lines of a Dell exec who said, "Who would want a computer in their HOME???"
Don't forget about simultaneously formatting that floppy disk, too!!
... so don't moderate me down for throwing in a little off-topic humor)
You didn't, by chance, have an Amiga at some time in your life, did you?
(Disclaimer: I'm a former/current Amiga user and this is meant to be a jab at Amiga advocates who have always pointed out how the Amiga is superior because it could download a file, play a game, AND format a floppy all at the same time
This is a good example of the perpetuation of a relatively old internet "cliche" -- the "adolescent internet guru" vs. the "old fart luddite".
Bullshit.
If you still believe this in the year 2000, you are delusioned. Severely. The "old farts" are running the brick-and-mortar institutions that are either kicking the e-tailer's asses or buying them out. How can this be if they are run by stupid "old fart luddites"?
Oh yeah, and look at the brain-drain of employees running from crashing internet start-ups to work at more solid electronics companies or even "old economy" companies. Yeah, if you believe the cliche at the top of this post, you probably thought that XYZ start-up with the 17-23 year old founder was going to skyrocket.
Sorry, but the reality is that age doesn't matter. I know 50 year-old company CEO's/Presidents who are more 'net-savvy than many e-commerce consultants they talk to. If you're intelligent and "have the right stuff" it doesn't matter what your age is, you will rise above your competitors every time.
Uum, present the facts, please? Where in Napster's mission statement does it say their product is primarily for illegal uses? Nowhere. What facts do you have to support your statement that the majority of transactions using Napster are illegal (hence making it "primarily used for copyright infringement")?? None.
From my actual use of Napster, I don't see any requirements in the software that would stop me from using it for legal purposes or force me to use it for illegal purposes. What we're talking about here is a product that is capable of a wide range of uses and is being attacked because of users who use it for illegal purposes.
And anyone who's actually used the internet for a decade or more (like me) can tell you that all of this illegal activity took place in the past using FTP software, web browsers, telnet, archie, gopher, etc. This is different because Napster makes it easier??? Bullshit!!! What's so difficult about using a search engine to find warez sites with links to servers using the above protocols to download software, music, etc.??? You can download Office 2000 from a webserver, for shit's sake!!!!
I always amaze people at how fast I can find hacker/cracker sites with all kinds of tools and illegal materials just using a search engine. What's next if the RIAA wins this, the software association suing search engines for facilitating software piracy?
You simply can't deny the fact that independents and other musicians truly want hundreds or thousands of users to trade their music because free advertising is still advertising. Period.
That's complete B.S. Any major publication has a sizable law staff and they would make sure whether they can get away with it or not or change the story so they could -- it has nothing to do with a bigger media outlet laughing off someone because they have more money. If MOSR *can* get away with it legally, but don't want to hire the law staff, then too bad -- that's life in the USA. (freedom is sometimes limited by legal prowess)
... or maybe they have a lawyer and they decided it's just not worth it. OR, maybe we should just stop speculating from our comfortable outside positions and ASK them? That'd be a novel alternative to just talking about it...
If MOSR had hired a lawyer in the first place, then this may have never happened
(I can say the above with first-hand knowledge dealing with Apple's lawyers, too!)
Sorry for replying to my own post, but I wanted to add that MacOS Rumors is decrying this as absolute nonsense ... which, from my past experience reading MacOS Rumors speculation and from their past track record, absolutely convinces me that the Drudge report is right at least in the fact that the companies in question are talking about it.
I don't think there is any other rumors site that has a worse track record than MOSR has which is why I stopped reading them (something like 90-95% of their predictions over the past 2 years have been utterly wrong) -- the whole site seems like a work of fiction.
Just out of curiosity, have you seen the director's cut? It sounds like it's quite different (although not like the book as you described it) and you may like it better since you liked the book. But, I think the point is that it's *based* on the book so it doesn't have to be a book on film. Books often don't translate well to film.
Who said it'd be a merger? I think they're saying it'd be an acquisition.
Apple doesn't have an image as an innovator? Are fuckin' serious??? Why do you think Microsoft's OS uses a GUI that looks so much like a Mac?
Ease of use is relative -- sure Windows is easier than Linux, but who's saying that it's easier than the MacOS? No reputable people I know of...
The reality is that this story is, in all likelihood, probably true. They probably are secretly talking about merging two or more of these companies ... but, does that mean it'll happen? Hell, no.
I'm a big Apple fan and have been for 9 years. Anybody remember the Sun buyout rumor a few years ago? The IBM one? Is everybody forgetting that we recently found out that not only were those rumors completely true, but that they were ready to go ahead with the Sun buyout except they couldn't quite agree on a price??? I've worked for a $100 million Silicon Valley electronics company for 9 years and we recently completed a merger -- surprised all of us except for just a few. I didn't even know that we were in secret talks with companies for a couple of years.
The point is that just because some insider says they are in merger talks doesn't mean you jump to the conclusion that there's going to be a merger. It's very common here in the Valley to periodically entertain mergers and acquisitions because it's very much seen as a way to stay competitive -- NOT a big deal. (if you do it right, like we did, absolutely nothing changes in the companies except that they become financially tied together)
I've been using computers since the C64 days, I'm not some windows pup that just hoped on yesterday.
:-) But seriously, you shouldn't have a problem using Quicktime on Windows unless there's some other problem already. We use Quicktime on all our PC's here at work (a couple of dozen) and rarely, if ever, have a problem.
Well, since I've been a computer user since the Commodore PET days, I guess I'm one up on you.
First:
Thanks for the great reference to this book and its availibility online -- I agree with most, if not all of it (I was only able to read the chapters you referenced and a few others). I didn't know about the book or about Peter McWilliams, but I'm glad you pointed it out here.
Second:
You are almost completely wrong in your conclusions from this book.
We Americans are free -- as free as we can be without infringing upon the freedom of others. I hate to use a hackneyed expression, but go to other countries to really see why so many people flock to America. Clue -- it's generally pretty bad out there.
America is not a *true* Democracy, it is a representative Republic -- if you didn't learn that in history or government classes in your high school, then I feel sorry about the education you received. In a true Democracy each and every citizen would vote on every THING, which obviously doesn't happen. In a representative Republic every citizen votes local representatives into office who, in turn, vote on every THING. To keep it short, I won't go into it any further than that.
And lastly, I agree with what was said in the book which is NOT that the government is slowly *destroying* our freedoms, but that many of the freedoms we were guaranteed over 220 years ago have been slowly fought for and won over those years. The book specifically quotes John Adams at one point as saying he laughs when people talk about freedom to speak, write, etc. and that hopefully we'll have them after several hundred years. Freedoms are not freely given (even in America), BUT our Constitution and Bill of Rights provide a nearly indestructible framework to GET the freedoms the government may try to deny.
I don't know about the accuracy of all the statistics given about hemp, but I started feeling like I was being preached to by a typical free-drug-use proponent. Reading other parts of the book balanced it out.
I personally believe that the war on drugs is a huge waste of money and that the legal drugs we regularly take could be thrown in with the illegal drugs -- caffeine, alcohol, tobacco, and other over-the-counter or prescription drugs are all drugs. Period. I've personally had only caffeine and alcohol drugs because I chose not to risk using other drugs without sufficient information. It's easy to see objectively when you have kids how they try to make things black and white and "simple" but the fact that they are all drugs is the only black and white fact.
As a kid I was intelligent or mature enough to know that the drug education I had was propaganda and it was made simple to make it easy for us to make a socially correct decision. It's up to us parents to make sure our kids have as much balanced information as we think they personally can handle. In the end we make our own decisions and no amount of government laws can stop that -- hence the uniquely American belief that the power of a government comes from the people.
I agree 100%, but like I said in another post, if the FTC has to make them at least put the fine print there so you can make sense out of it then they should make them do it, because a lot of retailers just post $0 and no explanation.
Also (offtopic), on Sunny Delight -- I'm glad I'm not the only parent who sees through this marketing B.S. and reads the nutrition label! I couldn't believe it when I read the label on a Sunny Delight bottle before (our kids like it so my wife used to think it was just another orange juice and bought it for them) -- it's laughable how close it is to Kool-aid and people think it's good for their kids!
Same thing with those Lunchables "meal-packs". Products like these are worse than junk food because their makers/distributors try to pass them off as "just as good as" real food or orange juice when simply reading the *government* required nutrition label refutes advertising. But how many people actually read those labels even some of the time?
I totally agree, but the best parts of the "extras" are usually (but not always) the trailers, the behind-the-scenes features, and director/actor commentary. Everything else is usually garbage or, at best, fluff. The trailer is good to give people a synopsis if they've never heard of the movie (like when I find an older movie I want to show to the kids) or know little about it. The behind the scenes stuff is often fun to watch, but maybe that's because I think seeing exactly how they did something is interesting.
And the director/actor commentary can be cool in the same way (insider comments) -- a great example of this is the movie "Escape from New York". If you've ever seen the laserdisc or DVD of this one, the actor/director commentary is actually better than the movie itself (I liked the movie, but there were a quite a few very funny stories and comments that pointed out stuff I didn't see or didn't know).
But, I do agree, if the special features are holding up a DVD version, get the frickin' movie out on DVD and then later put out the collector's edition with extra features. I think there are still a lot of people in the industry who think there aren't enough people who'll buy a DVD if it's just a digital version of the VHS movie, but that's just not true anymore since DVD is so much better (except maybe on a 13" TV) and its well on it's way to taking over from VHS as the standard.
Sorry, but maybe I can't quite understand what you're saying:
I'm not talking about classifying movies into age groups, I'm talking about being an adult and realizing that you don't see things the same as an adult as you did when you were a kid. I saw the original Star Wars at LEAST 60-80 times between the movie theater and HBO when I was a kid, but I sure couldn't do that now and watching it is just not the same now.
Put away childish things...
First of all, lighten up!?! I really think the guy has an ego problem and if you don't then that's your opinion, but saying that I think someone has an ego problem is NOT "undeservedly bashing" him. You could say I undeservedly bashed the special effects in his movie, but that's your opinion. All I can say is I really admired the guy a LOT until I saw several Episode I interviews in a row (on the E1 VHS tape of all places -- what he can't see how egotistical he appears?) where he really came off as an egotistical creep. I'm not saying any one of us wouldn't have the same problem if we had his kind of success, but that doesn't mean it's OK.
... like ... you?
Also, I'm not a movie maker, but I know a good movie when I see it and Episode I was a good movie. Why do you think I'm jealous of Lucas??? Because he has a digital copy of E1 and I DON'T???????!? Well, fuck YEAH, I'm jealous of that -- that's most of the point of my post!
My main point in my light attack on Lucas is that he seems to think he's a little more important than he really is and he also seems to think that his movies are a little more important/popular than they obviously are. Where I said he's envious of and trying to outdo Pixar were mostly just spoofing on one of his FAILURES (yes, you heard right, he FAILED at something). (if you couldn't tell, that was a spoof, too -- you seem to be humor-impaired on this subject)
I mean, I love all the Star Wars movies he did and admire the hell out of him for writing and directing them, but how can YOU say he's right for telling the millions of us gung-ho DVD owners that we need to hang on to our crappy VCR's for another 10 fuckin' years??? I can see the Titanic-method of putting it out a year after the VHS version so you can continue to rake in the money, but when asked why he's waiting 10 years he just says he "ain't gonna do it". Ego? Yes! Arrogant?? Yes!! Or maybe he appears that way because he's pissed at constantly defending his own decisions to annoying fans
I mean simply rationally explaining why he decided to make his decades-long *movie* (note: I'm a fan of his movies and not necessarily him -- I don't childishly idolize people) fans wait and wait for a *decent* quality version of his great movies would have avoided the egotistical "artiste" effect. All I was thinking at the end of the interviews was that I've been a long-time fan, but I don't own any of his movies because of this (hey, maybe I'm being childish in "demanding" DVD versions of his movies, but I think producing movies of the same quality as virtually everyone else today is not too much to ask).
Oh and notice they did NOT moderate me down -- maybe I'm not being so unfair and have some right to free speech? I am an adult U.S. citizen, after all...
This is absolutely justified. We buy computers on a daily basis here at work and often need a quick e-Machines buy from a local place. It's ridiculous how some places actually post the after-ISP-ripoff-rebate price ($0) instead of making it plain as day. One local super-store (I won't name names) makes it almost impossible to tell what the real price is so you can compare apples to apples because they use so many different rebates depending on the computer brand. But it's impossible because there should be fine print, and there's nothing!!
So, you end up standing there looking everywhere (I'm talking about looking for several minutes) for some explanation of why this computer is $0. Sometimes there's a "*" and sometimes not, but either way (at this particular store anyway, and I don't think they're unique) there's no fine print to be found. With some machines like the e-Machines they already have 1-2 rebates from the manufacturer and then the store automatically deducts the ISP rebate which can also vary depending on who the ISP is (although it is often $400).
Anyway, if the FTC doesn't enforce this I'm sure a lot of newbie computer users will get screwed. Who the hell buys these 3-year ISP deals, anyway?
From my own experience (admittedly limited, but far from small) there are far more people who never took formal typing classes who have problems with RMS than people who have had the formal training -- the only way to avoid that is to truly hunt-and-peck (sloooow). Also, if you don't type like normal you'll always be limited in your computer use and computer communication capabilities. After helping so many people for so long with computers, I seriously think that people should learn how to type properly (read "not super-slow") if they are going to use a computer at work. Period. Basic typing classes should be more important than MS Word classes (or maybe part of MS Word classes).
There's nothing more annoying than trying to work with some dinosaur typist -- I mean, I do type over 100 words/minute, but if you can't type faster than 30 wpm, give it to someone who can or get the hell out.
Hey, let the guy do what he's gotta do -- he's under a lot of pressure! After all, he sold off Pixar because he didn't foresee digital animation's impact on the movie industry and now he's trying to emulate the best he can! ;-)
... 16-18 year-olds. They act like they are still children except they run around screwing things up for the kids.
Seriously though, after seeing recent interviews (especially during and after Episode I), all I can think is that this guy is REALLY damn arrogant. I can't get Episode I on DVD until WHEN? 2010??? What the HELL is wrong with you? Some of us out here don't want to keep dumping cash into decades-old technology like VHS just because you don't FEEL it's the right time or some B.S. like that. Sure, Star Wars was/is a cultural phenomenon, but your head is just a little too big for your own good.
Also, he constantly says how much better technology is now, but at the same time downplays the role of digital animation "at this point" in movies. Got a little penis envy when you look at Pixar or what? Personally, I'll go on the record as saying that our family as a whole (all 5 of us) *loved* Episode I and can't wait for Episode II. Jar-Jar was anti-hyped by people like those in this forum JUST as much as Episode I was hyped in the first place -- he was a necessary character and not just an add-in to attract kids. You couldn't simply delete him and have a complete movie!
BUT, the animation of Jar-Jar and other CGI characters was GOOD? Give me a break -- it was not so good and I've seen a better job done in movies 5 years ago, let alone now in 1999 and 2000!! The fact is that Episode I could've been a better movie for me (since I saw Episode IV when I was a little kid), but I think expectations and GROWING UP have an effect on that opinion. I think people who constantly piss & moan about Jar-Jar and other crap they hated in Episode I need to take a moment to figure out what their problem is because they're just screwing up the atmosphere for MY kids! It's like when it's Halloween and the big kids come for candy
Face it, how many adults (over 18) went with you and enjoyed Star Wars when you saw it? None in my case. I know some adults liked Episode IV, but unless you were over 18 when you saw Episode IV and now you're the same adult watching Episode I, you have to admit that your mindset is different and that probably explains how this one "sucks" so much more than the first one. A good chunk of the fun in watching Episode IV again is the nostalgia!
Grow up and move on...
No kidding, following this story I found a very funny/interesting site describing itself as "the dot-com deadpool" at FuckedCompany.com.
They have literally almost 300 *recent* stories about various dot-coms and how they fucked up in some way either screwing over their customers, employees, etc. or all of the above. The antics include Hollywood Video execs emailing their subsidiary Reel.com's CEO to fire all or most of the employees and the CEO simply forwards the e-mail to all in the company, Kozmo.com requiring almost every employee to submit to a detailed background check (and 50+ employees quitting or being fired), & copies of bad customer service feedbacks to Kozmo.com.
GEE, I'm glad I stayed with my solid "old economy", more traditional Silicon Valley electronics employer -- we've been among the fastest growing companies in the USA for several years (we're an ancient 9 years old), we're merging, acquiring, going IPO, making stock option money for employees and no B.S. even close to this stuff! I guess the dot-coms are finally realizing that even "new economy" companies need some kind of business-running know-how! It's a humbling time for all of us...
In the beginning of this "story/post" by JonKatz, he talks about new media setbacks due to layoffs and "near death experiences". I call it survival of the fittest -- have you seen the number of people working at some of these places??? I mean, 150 or more people in some of these companies and what were there revenues again??? IMNSHO, they NEED to lay off about 1/3 to 1/2 of their staff because they are just-plain over-bloated!
I mean, I work at an electronics distributor/manufacturer (9 years) and we have about 75 people producing revenues of about $75 million per year. We could EASILY have 150 people, but it's just not economically feasible because we're not a Dot-Com and we have to live by real rules like, we can't hire another person because we don't have the money!!!
It's not like it's that bad any more (it was back when we had 4-20 people), but you get the point -- most of the Dot-Coms are simply being forced to live by the same rules as other companies and it's hurting. It may kill off the weak ones, but it can only be good for everyone in general -- from my own experience, I don't think they produce a better product by being so over-bloated, if anything they produce a worse product.
How many secretaries do you think are going to be given shiny new G3s and G4s to run OS X just to use MS Office?
I hate to hurt your ego, but many executive secretaries sadly have better computers than you or I do (I don't know what kind of computer you have, but I know of *many* secretaries who have G4's simply because their boss does). Hell, at one company here in the Silicon Valley, I saw a receptionist using her $5k Sun workstation and complaining that she wished she could have a Windoze PC!!! I almost smacked her on the spot, but decided to just explain to her the value of what she had and how to do what she didn't know how to do in the different OS.
Uum, no -- what the hell are you talking about?
Did you even read the article? They are talking about the internet as a collectively intelligent network of computers -- not just intelligent computers.
Even so, how does that compare to Terminator 2??? A military computer controlling weapons-of-mass-destruction achieves sentience and decides human beings are its primary threat? Do you seriously think that military computers close to important military weapons, etc. are hooked directly to the internet to even make this scenario even remotely possible?
Even if that were true I'd be more worried about hacker/cracker terrorists than a computer-based threat! Or how about an asteroid? Or how about lightning? Man, it's fearful people like you who make the adoption of technology so ridiculously difficult. Sure be skeptical, but don't TRY to come up with these ridiculous scenarios, use some logic.
Well, welcome to the real world! It's not always fair and sometimes people play unfairly to gain an advantage. What, do you think the media just snoops around MIT constantly looking for stories like this? MIT most likely has a good PR department (they'd be stupid not to).
Did the U of Manitoba do a press release on what they were doing? I didn't see it. Plus, this is apparently a joint corporate/university operation, so that's probably another reason we see it in the news.
Oh, and I don't mean to be cynical, but just because it happened doesn't mean you'll see it in the news -- another reality check for you.
And anyone using the BeOS in the year 2000 who has actually used it for more than a year of it's life also is very familiar with the concept "beating a dry skeleton". Um, unless you want to selectively forget how many times Be has re-invented itself and it's "products" over the past 10 frickin' years!!
... yet. They had a lot of close calls, though. Oh and Be isn't afraid of fsckin' over their users and customers to keep their business afloat -- that's probably helped them to avoid bankruptcy so far.
The only difference is that Be hasn't gone bankrupt
In the end, as a former Amiga developer and former BeBox/BeOS/BeANYTHING developer, I'll gladly jump on the Amiga bandwagon if they can show they are getting their sh*t together -- at least the Amiga was a real platform with a significant user base at one time. Don't forget that Be couldn't attract people when there was no cost just to look, and I don't see any big "rush" to the Be camp now that their "product" has been desperately made "free".
Talk about beating a dry skeleton...