I don't know the details for Netflix, but I've heard the scoop from other negotiations for video rights. Netflix probably had no choice in this. The studios are incredibly suspicious of digital content because they are afraid it will lead to more piracy. They are also incredibly retarded technically. My guess is that the Windows DRM stuff is a non-negotiable studio mandate.
I have heard this directly from Netflix. At least one Netflix rep has told me straight out that the movie studios require Windows DRM and therefore they cannot provide a Mac or Linux player.
What they do not explain, however, is why they have to charge me the same as they do Windows users. The solution is simple: if you can't offer a feature to your entire userbase, let them opt out.
I might consider a free Netflix box compensation. Or just let me opt out and give me some money back for the feature I can't use (this is preferable because I don't like DRM either). I will not pay for Windows nor the Netflix box, because then I'd be paying a hefty sum to use a feature that they let their other customers can use for free, and that's a ridiculous thing to require your customers to do IMHO.
This is not an either-or. Removing profiles would not have brought instant watching for Mac/Linux users. So why not let users have an EXTREMELY valuable feature that desire it?
What makes you think I was arguing against bringing back profiles? On the contrary, I am (still) arguing for Mac/Linux Instant Watching.
Also, I personally believe the 2% number was a lowball to try and make it seem like no-one would be affected.
Almost certainly, as is the Mac and Linux marketshare (people cherry-pick numbers from a variety of sources to suit the needs of their argument).
The problem for Netflix is even if the actual number was somewhat low, it was their core and most vocal supporters that were affected. You do not get fanatically loyal customers without also getting hugely disproportionate blowback when you betray the trust of those customers. Then they will go out of their way to work against you... would Netflix really want 2% of the users that are in large part responsible for growth to talk many, many people into switching to Blockbuster? Because that's what they were looking at.
Right. For example, because they refuse to either give me some money back for features I can't use and they won't give me, I went from 3-at-a-time to 2, and am now down at 2-per-month, the lowest possible one. If things go unchanged, I will certainly be quitting them altogether for Blockbuster or another vendor.
If anything, this underscores how important it is that Mac and Linux users vote with their wallets and not cave and use Wine/VMware/Parallels to run Windows. If we stand up, we will be heard, just as the "1-2%" were here.
I think Netflix was starting to see cancellations go up, and new accounts drop off - and that scared them mightily. As it should.
Is Netflix doomed to write their own multi-platform media player to get Win/Mac/Linux support in there, with some form of DRM companies will accept? Sounds like a LOT more work than keeping a feature (Profiles) they already have.
well, clearly that is one option. The other is to just charge me less money since I can't use the feature
So they'll bring back a feature that is used by "1-2 percent" (http://blogs.reuters.com/fanfare/2008/06/25/netflix-courts-heartbreak-with-end-of-profiles) of their customers. But they won't provide "instant watching" to Mac and Linux users (5-10% of the global userbase, let alone the tech-savvy Netflix base), rather they'll charge the same price for fewer features?
FAIL. You may now no longer claim that Linux or Mac marketshare is negligible.
From what I can tell, it's in the works. Fortunately, it looks like the eeepc 901 has the Intel Link 5150 wireless chipset (http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/02/hands-on-with-atom-based-eee-pc-901/), and the latest info (Nov. 2007) indicates that Intel has been helping make 802.11n changes happen. (http://lwn.net/Articles/258591/) So things are hopeful.
HTH.
When I buy computers in general, I buy it with the smallest drive and least amount of RAM possible. I know I'm going to upgrade anyway, but the prices the OEMs charge for RAM upgrades and larger drives is ridiculous. Buying with the intent of upgrading is a nice way to save some money if you have the skill and confidence to open it up. The RAM is upgradable (and you don't have a choice in how much it comes with; that's fixed at 1GB for the 900), but the SSD is not upgradeable (except for, I think, the 8GB 710). Therefore, the doubled SSD size (I suspect the 4GB will be a restore device, like the 0.5GB of the "4GB" 710 that I own, where I only really have 3.5GB to use) is really quite important. I had to shoehorn things a bit to get all the stuff I wanted out of the Ubuntu repos (which is admittedly quite a bit; I'm pleasantly surprised how much can actually fit onto 3.5GB), including and especially getting an SD card to put projects on.
So although you can and probably will upgrade the hard drive in a standard PC, the SSD size in the EEE is very important.
I am the owner of an EEE 4GB galaxy black (701) (I put Ubuntu on it).
I can vouch for the presence of a VGA port, as I used it (with OpenOffice and evince) to give a presentation a few months back.
It certainly turns some heads when you go up to plug it in for your talk.:)
Also, you can fit a surprising amount of junk on a 4GB Linux main drive. I have, however, offloaded most of my documents and project source trees to the SD card.
No, it's a direct application of identical logic. Parent said:
[Nero not working on Vista] is a problem with his version of Nero, not Vista.
Seems to me that parent is stating that the problem of an app supporting an OS is the problem of the app vendor, not the OS provider. Yet, I would wager that the app vendor's lack of support of Linux would be used against Linux by said parent (generally couched in the dressing of "Linux sucks because xxx doesn't run on it!")
Therefore, I'm asking parent if he or she disagrees with applying the same logic across OSes.
There's a lot of little nice touches like that in Vista, things that I'd been waiting for in other OSes for ages.
As a Linux developer, could you enumerate these touches you'd like to see?
Thanks!
Zealots: please don't flame him/her if she/he doesn't know Linux already has stuff (e..g pulseaudio does per-app volume control)
First, are you a Microsoft employee, or a user of operating systems? I will assume for the duration that you're a user of operating systems.
I accept that WGA is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong.
Right. It gives you nothing (indeed, it causes you and/or others Windows users problems!). It's your job the capitalist system to push back against the company and make them give you what you want. If they don't, you complain and go elsewhere and they lose money.
if one accepts that there is a global piracy problem for Microsoft to deal with, how would/. people solve it?
Aside from the huge if that's looming large over your statement, I fail to see why it's the customer's problem. Microsoft's problem is balancing causing you trouble and losing your business against losing business to people breaking their copyright. Your problem is making sure the software does what you want. As you stated, WGA is "bad, bad, bad" for you, so why are you supporting it?
As an extreme example, any business would love to get money from people for doing nothing--pure profit! Their customers, on the other hand, would love to get stuff for free--pure profit! The fight between the two is what causes capitalism to succeed.
These are kernel developers, not userspace developers. Hence, userspace issues are outside the scope of their efforts. It doesn't mean that they're ignoring it; it's just not what they do.
Wikipedia has good links to tell you more about kernel and userspace, if that's your sticking point.
You're quite right. However, I am interested in running MacOS, but am prevented by Apple. This is where I'm coming from.
While you can buy a Mac and run Windows, Linux, and anything else under it, I'm not going to reward Apple for behavior (here, intentionally limiting MacOS to Macs) I find poor. The only thing preventing me from treating it like Microsoft's latest no-VM-for-you debacle is their lack of dominance in the OS space. They can be as fascistic as they want as long as there is sufficient pushback present.
Please also consider that the actions you have outlined may well lead to Apple going down the Activation Road as well if the company composition changes and/or times become desperate (or good) enough. Don't be a copyright infringer!
Good to know you wish to ban my rights on the basis of unsubstantiated (indeed, indefensible really, were you to actually know me) blanket attempts to impugn my character.
Unless you use off-site backup, you're copies are going to be just as screwed as the originals in a worst case scenario such as a flood.
I don't think this necessarily follows.
Regardless, a remote backup is always a good idea as it's certainly more likely to be safer.
Something that apparently isn't realized by many is that backups need not be physical in the case of digital media. Provided you know where to store it, shouldn't you be allowed to store a digital copy of your movies, music, and software at a remote site?
Or that you don't even have a serial number to enter, much less activation concerns?
Nope. You just have to buy a Mac. No, running it under VMware won't suffice--it has to be a Mac. Apple forbids it from running on any other hardware (or emulation or virtualization).
At least Vista will (temporarily;) run in a VM (if you have the right version anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
I have heard this directly from Netflix. At least one Netflix rep has told me straight out that the movie studios require Windows DRM and therefore they cannot provide a Mac or Linux player.
What they do not explain, however, is why they have to charge me the same as they do Windows users. The solution is simple: if you can't offer a feature to your entire userbase, let them opt out.
I might consider a free Netflix box compensation. Or just let me opt out and give me some money back for the feature I can't use (this is preferable because I don't like DRM either). I will not pay for Windows nor the Netflix box, because then I'd be paying a hefty sum to use a feature that they let their other customers can use for free, and that's a ridiculous thing to require your customers to do IMHO.
(or if not instant watching, then at least give us a chunk of money back every month for features we can't and they won't let us use)
What makes you think I was arguing against bringing back profiles? On the contrary, I am (still) arguing for Mac/Linux Instant Watching.
Almost certainly, as is the Mac and Linux marketshare (people cherry-pick numbers from a variety of sources to suit the needs of their argument).
Right. For example, because they refuse to either give me some money back for features I can't use and they won't give me, I went from 3-at-a-time to 2, and am now down at 2-per-month, the lowest possible one. If things go unchanged, I will certainly be quitting them altogether for Blockbuster or another vendor.
If anything, this underscores how important it is that Mac and Linux users vote with their wallets and not cave and use Wine/VMware/Parallels to run Windows. If we stand up, we will be heard, just as the "1-2%" were here.
Quite. Vote with your wallets, people!
well, clearly that is one option. The other is to just charge me less money since I can't use the feature
FAIL. You may now no longer claim that Linux or Mac marketshare is negligible.
From what I can tell, it's in the works. Fortunately, it looks like the eeepc 901 has the Intel Link 5150 wireless chipset (http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/02/hands-on-with-atom-based-eee-pc-901/), and the latest info (Nov. 2007) indicates that Intel has been helping make 802.11n changes happen. (http://lwn.net/Articles/258591/) So things are hopeful. HTH.
Plus you get double the SSD storage (16GB vs 8GB). :)
After a full 10-hour day slung over your shoulder it sure feels heavy.
So put it on a CD and charge 'em some money! Heck, because they're being so generous, you can even throw in the source code for *free*!
Weeks. Several weeks ago. Sheesh.
I am the owner of an EEE 4GB galaxy black (701) (I put Ubuntu on it). I can vouch for the presence of a VGA port, as I used it (with OpenOffice and evince) to give a presentation a few months back. It certainly turns some heads when you go up to plug it in for your talk. :)
Also, you can fit a surprising amount of junk on a 4GB Linux main drive. I have, however, offloaded most of my documents and project source trees to the SD card.
Therefore, I'm asking parent if he or she disagrees with applying the same logic across OSes.
As an extreme example, any business would love to get money from people for doing nothing--pure profit! Their customers, on the other hand, would love to get stuff for free--pure profit! The fight between the two is what causes capitalism to succeed.
So, what you're saying is that, if you and the collective market paint themselves into a corner, they paint themselves into a corner?
I dunno about you, but when I've painted myself into a corner, the first thing I do is to stop painting.
These are kernel developers, not userspace developers. Hence, userspace issues are outside the scope of their efforts. It doesn't mean that they're ignoring it; it's just not what they do.
Wikipedia has good links to tell you more about kernel and userspace, if that's your sticking point.
Sorry, I was being overly harsh. I apologize.
The point stands, however. I am not using backups to justify breaking my side of the copyright bargain, despite your baseless accusation.
Would you like to have a second attempt to address my actual post instead of launching off into tangential land?
You're quite right. However, I am interested in running MacOS, but am prevented by Apple. This is where I'm coming from.
While you can buy a Mac and run Windows, Linux, and anything else under it, I'm not going to reward Apple for behavior (here, intentionally limiting MacOS to Macs) I find poor. The only thing preventing me from treating it like Microsoft's latest no-VM-for-you debacle is their lack of dominance in the OS space. They can be as fascistic as they want as long as there is sufficient pushback present.
Please also consider that the actions you have outlined may well lead to Apple going down the Activation Road as well if the company composition changes and/or times become desperate (or good) enough. Don't be a copyright infringer!
I fail to see your point. Care to be more precise?
Good to know you wish to ban my rights on the basis of unsubstantiated (indeed, indefensible really, were you to actually know me) blanket attempts to impugn my character.
You are a vile, wretched creature indeed.
I don't think this necessarily follows.
Regardless, a remote backup is always a good idea as it's certainly more likely to be safer.
Something that apparently isn't realized by many is that backups need not be physical in the case of digital media. Provided you know where to store it, shouldn't you be allowed to store a digital copy of your movies, music, and software at a remote site?
At least Vista will (temporarily ;) run in a VM (if you have the right version anyway).
Glass houses and stones, my friend.