>1. Intel are wise to get out while they still can.
1. I think that the point of this article is they can't without a whole slew of legal implications. And since Rambus has demonstrated themselves to be at least, if not more more, litigous than Amazon....
2. Usually when you have numbered bullet points it implies more than one item in the list.
This might be a ploy to get the "unknown" to step forward. If she presents a half decent case, and they don't come forward to defend themselves, they may be liable at a later date...
The manufacturers of every kind of product imaginable should be shaking in their boots. One of the big defenses by major firearms manufacturers is that if someone uses their product in a way not intended by them, they can't be held liable for it. If developers of FILE (I say file and not MP3) sharing programs can be held liable for the materials that these programs are transferring accross the net, then why not automakers for people using cars to kill, or gun makers for the thousands of deaths that occur every year?
Removing that little ad is easy enough if you are only working on a few. For one thing, it is easy to convert an mp3 to wav and back, and there are tons of wav editors. Second, there would probably be a pause or a break after the add, just cut out everything before that break and you have got it.
But that isn't the point. The point is to placate the RIAA. As long as they get their money, they won't really care what we do to the ad's. And since mp3's aren't really traceable, they can't tell whether or not the ad's are being cut out, so there would be no reason for the advertisers to pull their ad's. As long as it gets the RIAA off Napsters butt, I think it is a good idea.
Here is all you need to know about RAMBUS and RAM. DDR Kicks Rambus' a**! Although Rambus has a higher bus speed, it has a limited bandwith and so DDR SDRAM running at lower speeds will still transfer more data.
As far as this patent goes, I think it stinks. I definitely don't want to put Rambus in my computers. It is overpriced, and underpowered. The Tom's Hardware Benchmarks said it all.
Just kidding. I actually enjoyed the flick, it was a couple of hours of mindless entertainment, which is what I was there for in the first place. I didn't go in expecting the greatest sci-fi movie of all time, and so I wasn't disappointed. The explosion of the planet was awesome, and seeing John Travolta get mutilated was well worth the money...
I submitted what I think was a unique idea to use a netpliance in a point of sale system at a store. However, none of these types of applications were accepted. Perhaps I should have thrown in the words wireless, mp3 and car somewhere in my suggestion...
What kind of a moron sees a site like this as a threat?!? First of all, no one using it is under any illusion that the page they are viewing came from ringworld.com. I can't believe how Anal lawyers are becoming.
Second, it is a JOKE. No one gets hurt, and I can't think of any reason beyond the novelty factor to even use a site like this.
Further, afik, BofA has no proof that their site as been viewed through the dialectizer, so they have no proof of any copyright violations.
Perhaps all the people who bank at BofA should sue them for posting their corporate earnings on the web, because, 'Hey, somewhere in that figure is the $20 fee I had to pay for bouncing a check! That's a violation of my privacy.' That is how anal this C&D order is.
If you were the same Anonymous coward that complainded about Borland trying to sell you a bugfix, then you are screwy in the head to even suggest that we even support Micro$oft. That is exactly what they did with Win 98 SE. "We left a whole bunch of crap outta that last release, and a bunch of stuff didn't work right. Here, buy this 'new' edition of windows it works better." I lost whatever respect I had for Micro$oft after that.
Plus, Borlands compiler is ANSI standard, whild Micro$ofts is not. Just another example of the Redmond Giant thumbing their noses at the rest of the world.
>snip< Now eventually when everyone and their mother has broadband and has access to cheap MP3 players (or other digital sound dplayers), where will the music industry as it currently exists be? The answer is Shit Outta luck. >snip<
I disagree. I think the music industry would be right back where they started, where it is all about the music and the message. The majority of the music industry has left those early ideals behind. The movie Jerry McGuire screamed out their mantra (and societies in general), "SHOW ME THE MONEY."
In the early days of the music industry, the recording studios exploited the artists. Then they figured out that they wouldn't get many artists with them that way, so they turned to exploiting the fans. Now the fans have a way to show the music industry they won't get much money that way. I agree, that perhaps they should charge more for concerts, or perhaps hold more concerts in more venues. I know a lot of people (myself included) who have never attended a concert because they couldn't see travelling 4 hours to see some band play. But if they played a city a little closer they might have gone and payed the $60 to get in the door.
Further, I think it is rediculous to try and make up money for the video in cd sales. When I buy a cd, I am not buying a freaking video, and I don't expect to pay for it!!!! The video should pay for itself through other means, leasing it to the music video tv stations or something like that.
Another option that the recording industry should look at is creating their own mp3 dowload program similar to napster, and use advertising to subsidize it. If they could get as big a fan base as napster now has, they could charge a premium price for ad banners on their program!! They just need a little imagination.
Ethical treatment of employees is only a small part of the big picture in Business Ethics.
I personally believe that a company has an ethical obligation to give something back to the global community, whether or not it is advantageous financially to them. So many times companies simply look at the bottom line and say "how can this help us," or "how do we benefit," instead of "how can we make the world a better place." It doesn't have to be something monumental, like solving world hunger, but it does have to be something!
However, there are inherent difficulties in defining ethical behavior. Who dictates what is ethical? Which ethical theory do we use? And, since the lifeblood of a company is it's revenue, how do we keep the need for cash from overriding the ethical compass of the company?
As far as the ethical behavior of software and hardware companies, I think many of them stopped thinking ethically a long time ago. This is not to say that they are unethical, but that the revenue issues have blinded them to their ethical responsibilites. They aren't looking for opportunites to give back to the global community, rather they are looking for ways to line their pockets with a little more green.
First of all, Apple doesn't own the codec, Sorensen Vision right here in Logan Utah does. Now the really interesting thing is, the codec is developed on linux/unix machines cross platform. Why they don't release the codec, even in binary format, is beyond me. Even if we simply had a library we could link to, that would be something!!!
Looks like netpliance is learning to two step like the big dogs....
This is twice now that they have said one thing and done another, in as many weeks...
Really though, both sides of this issue need to look at the facts.
First: We all know their business model. No, they aren't making money on the hardware, they could, but that isn't what they want. In my opinion, their business model is a little sneaky, but that is neither here nor there. But, it isn't their business model that was being complained about. It was the fact that Netpliance billed the guy for a service he did not agree to. It sounded to me like his brother would be getting service himself, on his own credit card, so in no way was this guy working against their business model. Further, if you don't want the service, don't buy the box. Simple as that.
Second: Although they aren't making money on the hardware, don't think for a second that they are losing hundreds of dollars. The type of display (size and resolution) is the same type of display they have been putting on laptops for at least 3 years. The rest of the hardware is not top quality stuff either. By my estimation (and I am not an expert, but this is the way I see it) the box isn't costing them more than $250 - $300, and that may be a little high. As has been stated, many of the hackers here would be willing to pay at least that much for one of these.
Third: Netpliance and their supporters need to realize that their business model is a little shaky. With DSL and cable becoming more prevalent, these types of systems will lose their novelty quickly when the endusers find that without modification, they are stuck at 56 k/s. Hell, for $30 - $40 a month these people could browse at more than twice the speed. I don't imagine that even those not technologically inclined will use the service for more than one year. That is only about $250, so they won't be making that much money on the service.
Bottom line (sorry so long in coming), sure, netpliance has the right to make money. But they are looking at the internet service like it is a cash cow, and it isn't. They could make more just selling the hardware for a little above cost. Perhaps it is time for a little modification to their business model.
...And yet another corporation proves that it can speak out of both sides of its mouth!!!! Way to butter us up and then slap us down. I find it interesting that a company that professes "Netpliance believes in open source development" can turn around and say "Modification of the i- opener in any way is in violation of our terms and conditions." Contrary to popular corporate belief, a company can make money and support fully the open source movement. But not by moves like this. If you are going to say you support open source, then truly support it. These "unauthorized modifications" gave your product some major notoriety. I had never heard of the I-opener until I read about the modifications that could be made to allow it to really run an os. I personally wouldn't buy one, even to modify it, but my relatives are consultants, and they considered mentioning the I-opener to their clients to use in Kiosks. However, since Netpliance is showing how they truly feel about open source, well.... I guess that I will just have to suggest another alternative. If you guys had just raised the price of the I-opener even $100, that could have made up for the supposed loss of revenue incurred by people not using the service. You could have even had people sign a contract to agreeing to use the service, but no...
Slashdot Mirror
1. I think that the point of this article is they can't without a whole slew of legal implications. And since Rambus has demonstrated themselves to be at least, if not more more, litigous than Amazon....
2. Usually when you have numbered bullet points it implies more than one item in the list.
3. I just put this here for looks...
This might be a ploy to get the "unknown" to step forward. If she presents a half decent case, and they don't come forward to defend themselves, they may be liable at a later date...
I thought that was the desired result...
The manufacturers of every kind of product imaginable should be shaking in their boots. One of the big defenses by major firearms manufacturers is that if someone uses their product in a way not intended by them, they can't be held liable for it. If developers of FILE (I say file and not MP3) sharing programs can be held liable for the materials that these programs are transferring accross the net, then why not automakers for people using cars to kill, or gun makers for the thousands of deaths that occur every year?
Amen brother!!
But that isn't the point. The point is to placate the RIAA. As long as they get their money, they won't really care what we do to the ad's. And since mp3's aren't really traceable, they can't tell whether or not the ad's are being cut out, so there would be no reason for the advertisers to pull their ad's. As long as it gets the RIAA off Napsters butt, I think it is a good idea.
As far as this patent goes, I think it stinks. I definitely don't want to put Rambus in my computers. It is overpriced, and underpowered. The Tom's Hardware Benchmarks said it all.
How about an application to allow e-dogs to sniff eachothers butts?
Just kidding. I actually enjoyed the flick, it was a couple of hours of mindless entertainment, which is what I was there for in the first place. I didn't go in expecting the greatest sci-fi movie of all time, and so I wasn't disappointed. The explosion of the planet was awesome, and seeing John Travolta get mutilated was well worth the money...
I submitted what I think was a unique idea to use a netpliance in a point of sale system at a store. However, none of these types of applications were accepted. Perhaps I should have thrown in the words wireless, mp3 and car somewhere in my suggestion...
Second, it is a JOKE. No one gets hurt, and I can't think of any reason beyond the novelty factor to even use a site like this.
Further, afik, BofA has no proof that their site as been viewed through the dialectizer, so they have no proof of any copyright violations.
Perhaps all the people who bank at BofA should sue them for posting their corporate earnings on the web, because, 'Hey, somewhere in that figure is the $20 fee I had to pay for bouncing a check! That's a violation of my privacy.' That is how anal this C&D order is.
Plus, Borlands compiler is ANSI standard, whild Micro$ofts is not. Just another example of the Redmond Giant thumbing their noses at the rest of the world.
Now eventually when everyone and their mother has broadband and has access to cheap MP3 players (or other digital sound dplayers), where will the music industry as it currently exists be? The answer is Shit Outta luck.
>snip<
I disagree. I think the music industry would be right back where they started, where it is all about the music and the message. The majority of the music industry has left those early ideals behind. The movie Jerry McGuire screamed out their mantra (and societies in general), "SHOW ME THE MONEY."
In the early days of the music industry, the recording studios exploited the artists. Then they figured out that they wouldn't get many artists with them that way, so they turned to exploiting the fans. Now the fans have a way to show the music industry they won't get much money that way. I agree, that perhaps they should charge more for concerts, or perhaps hold more concerts in more venues. I know a lot of people (myself included) who have never attended a concert because they couldn't see travelling 4 hours to see some band play. But if they played a city a little closer they might have gone and payed the $60 to get in the door.
Further, I think it is rediculous to try and make up money for the video in cd sales. When I buy a cd, I am not buying a freaking video, and I don't expect to pay for it!!!! The video should pay for itself through other means, leasing it to the music video tv stations or something like that.
Another option that the recording industry should look at is creating their own mp3 dowload program similar to napster, and use advertising to subsidize it. If they could get as big a fan base as napster now has, they could charge a premium price for ad banners on their program!! They just need a little imagination.
I personally believe that a company has an ethical obligation to give something back to the global community, whether or not it is advantageous financially to them. So many times companies simply look at the bottom line and say "how can this help us," or "how do we benefit," instead of "how can we make the world a better place." It doesn't have to be something monumental, like solving world hunger, but it does have to be something!
However, there are inherent difficulties in defining ethical behavior. Who dictates what is ethical? Which ethical theory do we use? And, since the lifeblood of a company is it's revenue, how do we keep the need for cash from overriding the ethical compass of the company?
As far as the ethical behavior of software and hardware companies, I think many of them stopped thinking ethically a long time ago. This is not to say that they are unethical, but that the revenue issues have blinded them to their ethical responsibilites. They aren't looking for opportunites to give back to the global community, rather they are looking for ways to line their pockets with a little more green.
First of all, Apple doesn't own the codec, Sorensen Vision right here in Logan Utah does. Now the really interesting thing is, the codec is developed on linux/unix machines cross platform. Why they don't release the codec, even in binary format, is beyond me. Even if we simply had a library we could link to, that would be something!!!
This is twice now that they have said one thing and done another, in as many weeks...
Really though, both sides of this issue need to look at the facts.
First: We all know their business model. No, they aren't making money on the hardware, they could, but that isn't what they want. In my opinion, their business model is a little sneaky, but that is neither here nor there. But, it isn't their business model that was being complained about. It was the fact that Netpliance billed the guy for a service he did not agree to. It sounded to me like his brother would be getting service himself, on his own credit card, so in no way was this guy working against their business model. Further, if you don't want the service, don't buy the box. Simple as that.
Second: Although they aren't making money on the hardware, don't think for a second that they are losing hundreds of dollars. The type of display (size and resolution) is the same type of display they have been putting on laptops for at least 3 years. The rest of the hardware is not top quality stuff either. By my estimation (and I am not an expert, but this is the way I see it) the box isn't costing them more than $250 - $300, and that may be a little high. As has been stated, many of the hackers here would be willing to pay at least that much for one of these.
Third: Netpliance and their supporters need to realize that their business model is a little shaky. With DSL and cable becoming more prevalent, these types of systems will lose their novelty quickly when the endusers find that without modification, they are stuck at 56 k/s. Hell, for $30 - $40 a month these people could browse at more than twice the speed. I don't imagine that even those not technologically inclined will use the service for more than one year. That is only about $250, so they won't be making that much money on the service.
Bottom line (sorry so long in coming), sure, netpliance has the right to make money. But they are looking at the internet service like it is a cash cow, and it isn't. They could make more just selling the hardware for a little above cost. Perhaps it is time for a little modification to their business model.
With friends like Netpliance, who needs enemies.