It's not as good as the PS3. The interface is slower, they push adds to any empty box, the controllers require more motion to use. i.e. fingers need to move farther
Well the interface is subjective, the PS3 is bland and sparsely populated, but naturally some people prefer that sort of simplicity over the colorful and more interactive XBox dashboard. I prefer the XBox controller because the your thumbs fit into the top of the thumbsticks (they are concave and your thumb is convex) as opposed to the PS3 ones and the PS3 triggers curve the wrong way (back towards you as opposed to away from you).
and it's ridiculous to have an ongoing cost to play a game you bought.
Well that's a bit disingenuous, by that you mean the online multiplayer aspect. I agree with you but it's not as though that statement applies to everything.
Maybe you should consider that there is something about the iPad that people actually prefer to the netbooks.
I don't know why you're bothering, you know the answer you are going to get will be something along the lines of: They're just sheeple and they like the shiny hipster products.
lol...please stop embarrassing yourself, you look like more of an idiot with every post. I think Apple are anti-competitive, frivolous litigants but of course you don't want to hear that, all you want to hear is that they are patent trolls and that will help you sleep at night...pathetic.
You said, and I quote: "just suing over use of patents isn't 'patent trolling', so Apple isn't a patent troll." Which is a non sequitur, pure and simple, popularly known as a logical fallacy.
Rubbish, read the whole quote: Well a 'patent troll' is an entity that just holds patents and sues people that actually use the without licensing them but doesn't actually use them themselves, just suing over use of patents isn't 'patent trolling', so Apple isn't a patent troll.
Given that Apple doesn't fit the description of a patent troll - as described in the first half of the sentence - the obvious and logical conclusion is that they are not a patent troll.
First, your premise may well be false, but whether it is true or false, your purported conclusion does not follow from it. Your use of the word "just" in no way changes the sense of the perfectly simple English sentence you wrote, in spite of how you might want to spin that.
And you only quoted half of because you either failed at reading comprehension or you have an irrational hatred that you seek to satisfy. The fact is they do not fit that definition, frivolous litigators? I believe so. Exploiting lack of labour regulation in overseas countries? Again, yes i would say so, especially since they make so much profit on their devices.
In any case, Apple is a dispicable organization [macgasm.net] that seems determined to become even more so
I wouldn't argue with that, their working conditions seem terrible particularly given the profits they make and they continue with ridiculously frivolous lawsuits like the one against samsung regarding design patents, but the fact is that they are not a patent troll and do not fit the definition of such, but of course you can't comprehend that because you don't know what a patent troll is.
By the way, it would seem that you lack courage
Speaking of non-sequitur, you using the name Daniel Phillips does not in any way shape or form mean that is your real name.
I'm not about to say Apple are great, they are far from it and most certainly should be leading the industry given their market position, many of their lawsuits appear frivolous and anti-competitive but I'm also not going to say they are a patent troll because that is factually false. You however don't seem to care about facts, you just want to call apple any name you possibly can.
My quoting in no way changed the sense of your post. And would you please try to keep a civil tongue in your mouth. You might consider posting under your real name as well, if you have the courage.
Your quoting missed the crucial part, either intentionally or just a failure at reading comprehension: "just suing over use of patents isn't 'patent trolling', so Apple isn't a patent troll"
The reality is that i stated the fact that there is more to being a 'patent troll' than simply filing a patent suit, just doing that does not make anyone a 'patent troll'. Your responses confirm you either have no understanding whatsoever of the term 'patent troll' (especially given you have not responded with what you understand the definition to be) or that you initially failed at reading comprehension and now for some reason don't want to admit it.
But go ahead and detail exactly how noting such a fact would make me an 'apologist' or 'fanboi' or 'spin doctor' and what you believe such things to be, you're probably wrong given your obvious lack on understanding of the term 'patent troll'. Also perhaps point out how there being more to being a 'patent troll' than just suing someone over patents is a logical fallacy, naturally omitting the 'just' from the beginning of the quoted passage may lead you to that conclusion, but that's your failure, not mine, the post is perfectly accurate.
Wrong, your words "suing over use of patents isn't 'patent trolling', so Apple isn't a patent troll" qualify you nicely under both "apologist" and "spin doctor".
Fail again douchebag, selective quoting won't save you, nice try though.
Never mind the blatant logical fallacy.
Selective quoting will do that to you.
But i'm curious, what's your definition of a 'patent troll'?
I agree with you about the definition about patent troll, I wanted to refer to the strategy of using the patents to hamper the innovation or squeeze some additional money from their competitors.
I know there's no real way to say 'they've made enough' off a particular innovation, but you'd think they wouldn't need to be squeezing that money out of their competitors given their market position and financial situation. In fact competing and doing so well in the market without suing your competitors would certainly make them look good, and only respond to patent lawsuits with cross-licensing agreements.
About their image, most customers (sadly) don't care about the conditions and incidents at the factories, because it doesn't affect them; they want their device as cheap as possible, even if it means looking away from the company manufacturing practices. I hope more people would be concerned about this, but only a minority won't change anything.
Only according to Apple apologists, fanbois, and spin doctors.
Well given that i am none of those that disproves your theory, too bad for you. It also demonstrates that you ignorantly think that anyone that sues over patents is a 'patent troll', so you fail again.
Why does Apple need to do this so badly? I understand that U$ 5 for every Motorola/Samsung Android phone/tablet is a hefty sum of money, but this hurts their image. specially for their customers, as it *could* be interpreted as having a difficult competing with Android. I'm very disappointed that they are going the same way as other patent trolls:(
Well a 'patent troll' is an entity that just holds patents and sues people that actually use the without licensing them but doesn't actually use them themselves, just suing over use of patents isn't 'patent trolling', so Apple isn't a patent troll. And wrt hurting their image for their customers, if the conditions and incidents at the factories that build their products don't turn off their customers i hardly think suing their competitors for using their innovations (which is of course how they'll spin it regardless of your point of view) is going to.
So some manufacturers will end up paying Apple and Microsoft per device sold ? That's crazy.
That's pretty much the way it goes, everyone licenses patents from everyone else, for example Microsoft licenses a lot of patents from OpenWave and Apple licenses patents from Lodsys.
The fraud is the failure to deliver the reasonable service at reasonable prices that the cablecos (and telcos) promised when the government granted them their monopolies.
And exactly what do you define this reasonable service to be and what do you define the reasonable price to be?
In other words, it's not "their product." It's a service that they are only able to provide because they took right-of-way from our property to lay the lines, and they owe us that service as recompense.
No, they don't owe you that service, what would be in it for them if compensation for laying the lines was the provision of the service which is the sole purpose for laying the lines anyway? The lines are there and any cable provider can use them, there is a cost involved in maintenance, monitoring, etc... so that will be factored in.
I think if they came right out and had to decode that and say "we reserve the right to let random vandals come in and snoop all your data and you won't have any legal recourse" they'd lose a lot of customers.
So you're suggesting they had no security and they just 'let random vandals come in'? That's clearly not what happened. And realistically if you're storing that sort of data you don't just plonk it on any service and hope for the best, you go for a service that offers insurance and some added security.
So if this is binding and enforceable, (which should always be questioned, you can put just about anything in your TOS) that means if they are incompetent retards and let your hosted server get hacked through their back door to your hosted machine they won't be liable for anything beyond the monthly fees you paid them while being hacked?
Yes, in which case people storing valuable data will go with a service designed for that sort of thing, probably at a higher price to cover insurance and added security costs.
Can you please stop lumping christianity in with Islam? Christians do not believe in suicide let alone suicide bombing or killing of innocents.
Muslims probably don't either, it's just some of them interpret their religion that way, just like plenty of Christians have committed suicide and killed innocent people. You can say any kind of doctrine is intended to send particular message, others will often disagree, it is completely open to interpretation so using religion as a basis to justify anything is fundamentally flawed.
Yes, and I explicitly asked what compromise you can think of for the people. If you think about it, there are none. There are none possible except a stupid "honor" engagement of not screwing up? I mean, the people doesn't make compromises except the one necessary for their own survival, unless these compromises were forced down their throat by a forceful regime. Give me *one* example in history where any population made a compromise that didn't involve their very existence? It will not happen. You may wish it will, but it won't.
There are plenty of examples of people making compromises for convenience sake or a better user experience, look at the iphone/ipad, it's very closed, you are extremely limited on what you can do with it but people will make that compromise because the user experience is so good.
So tell me: Did the music industry just crumble in 2009? Remember, that is the year all DRM was off (iTunes, Amazon music, etc, all serve non-DRM files since then - and some before then.) No. It did not crumble.
The music and movie industries are *very* different, just look at the differences in cost to create these things and where that money goes.
The problem with you people is that you equate "no DRM" with "zero revenue for Hollywoood".
No, if you think that's what i'm saying then you clearly don't understand my argument at all.
It is simply not true. Less revenue, maybe, but is that bad? Did you see the last paycheck of Tom Cruise? Come on. There's fat out there that can get trimmed.
Of course there is, and hollywood needs to let go of that, but do you really see them doing that? Interestingly you suggest that removal of DRM will likely reduce revenue but then you follow that by saying there is no evidence to suggest that DRM will reduce piracy, so why would they experience reduced revenues?
And no, there is no indication whatsoever that piracy will kill Hollywood.
Of course not, but do you want to try and convince them of that?
There is no evidence for that matter that DRM will reduce piracy.
There is no evidence that DRM won't reduce piracy either.
The internet is killing distributors, because it renders their job obsolete, but not the artists/producers/etc, which are the persons that matter really here.
Naturally, it's a more convenient distribution method.
It does work !!!! Why do you say it doesn't work?
Oh yeah it works great, current DRM isn't a PITA at all...what planet are you on?
Are music artists starving? Is Hollywood dead? What is wrong? Can't you see what's out there? Hollywood keep pushing the dumbest movies one after the other and they wonder why their revenues are falling! There is a worldwide crisis and they accuse piracy of their dropped revenue! Every bad thing that happens to them is due to "piracy" if you listen to them. Can't there be other reasons? They are panicking over something that A) will not kill them B) is inevitable. They are the one pushing the idea that piracy is the death of them. Point me to the first bit of evidence that this is true and I will reconsider my opinion.
Things are the way they are
Thanks captain redundant, i don't think your post needs any more padding.
and yes, the Internet enabled everyone to do piracy. And that's the way it is. Period. When the automobile came over and threatened carriage builders and horse breeders, did anyone try to fight it?
Of course not, and obviously the situation is not analogous given the existence of copyright and how that applies in this situation and not your car/horse scenario.
Of course, most of piracy is about convenience, not price. And for DRM, the point is, it will always get in the way.
Clearly, Microsoft and Apple don't care about professional users, so I guess I'll have no choice but to jump ship to a Linux distro, despite the administrative hassles that entails. It's about time, really. I'm just sick of Windows, sick of OS X, and absolutely DETEST iOS. It's the triumph of lazy consumption over intelligent creation.
What's the problem? Most professional users just want the OS to be out of the way so you can use your applications, current modern OSes hardly impede that. You don't have to use their extra features an integration just because they are there. I'm not sure what you are going to find so much more difficult or so much less efficient here, even if for some reason there is no way to boot straight to desktop it's only one click away, or you put your applications right there on that start page.
I'm not a fan of that aesthetic on the desktop at all but so long as i can quickly get to the applications i need - which i can - it's no problem, no need to spend time playing around on the start screen.
I said desktop on ARM -- the desktop on 32/64-bit will work with existing applications just fine. The point was that "desktop" is not available as an option on the new platforms for any serious development (e.g. porting Photoshop or LibreOffice to ARM); you are relegated to using Metro and the WinRT APIs which are not designed for creating complex applications.
You can use any APIs you want, you can use native code as well, you could use Qt, for example, if you wanted to.
Using WOA “out of the box” will feel just like using Windows 8 on x86/64......You will have access to the intrinsic capabilities of Windows, from the new Start screen and Metro style apps and Internet Explorer, to peripherals, and if you wish, the Windows desktop with tools like Windows File Explorer and desktop Internet Explorer. Building Windows 8
Windows consumer OSs (NT, 2000, 2008 are server OSs) seem to go through a pattern of "Good Windows, Bad Windows": 95=good, ME=bad, XP=good, Vista=bad, 7=good, 8=bad.
98? better than 95, that breaks the pattern straight away. And NT & 2000 were not server OSes, they had Server-branded versions though.
Metro UI is default in dev preview, and pretty sure it will be in final retail. Your desktop is still there yes, its just a tile now, that you have to press, and wait for your desktop to load, which makes a lot of sense. Who wants to start up their PC and use it to actually work?
It's kind of like what Apple did with LaunchPad, only that Microsoft has done it the wrong way around. On tablets sure Metro should be the default but on mouse/keyboard setups the Desktop should be the default.
You dismiss the internet as a game changer when it comes to communication? I don't know what to tell you really. See my answer above.
No, i'm saying copyright infringement occurred perfectly well before the internet and continues to exist outside of the internet and in those areas it's not as though your communications are being tapped to prevent copyright infringement.
Yes. We all have information that we want to stay private. So we don't publish these data. Because we don't want others to know what it is.
No, because you only want some people to know what it is, those people you authorize.
You were the one talking about a compromise on both parties.
And it was in reference to the copyright holders and their customers, not DRM and privacy.
That was just small talk or do you have something in mind? If it is just smalltalk, please tell me know so I don't spend any more energy. If it is not, please tell us your ideas.
I don't have the answer, but you'd have to be a monumental fool to think that hollywood will continue to spend billions creating entertainment works and release them freely in the hopes that people will just pay for them even though they don't have to. It doesn't take a genius to see that this is going to require a compromise on both sides, hopefully the general populace will reject current DRM as unworkable and hollywood will come up with a less inconvenient solution more fitting to the concept of a person having a license to the content rather than a device.
You are completely missing my point, by almost a thousand miles. I'm not talking about something I wish, or something I think is "moral" or something I think is OK. I'm talking about the way it is. What I describe in my posts are the way things work right now, and I'm trying to explain how and why they are this way. What you're talking about however is an hypothetical world where publishers and the public would reach an "understanding" with mutual "compromises".
Of course, why would i dispute the facts of the way things are? Why would i even bother having a discussion on that? I'm saying the way forward is not to just keep doing what everyone is doing now because i think we can both agree that it does not work and is a problem for both the content producers and their customers.
But you refuse to tell us what these compromises are or how things could work.
Where did i refuse? I openly admitted i don't know how to implement such a system, just that the obvious failures of the current system need to change as does the unwillingness of either side to compromise, clearly if both sides don't co-operate there won't be a workable solution.
Yes. If they try very hard and are not completely incompetent about it (note that this is very unlikely) they may get some DRM that "work", meaning some DRM that doesn't get in the way of the consumer. This will be a pain for all the middlemen involved - DVD players, TV manufacturers etc. And it will accomplish *nothing* in regard of piracy. Nothing. It cannot by it's very definition.
If it doesn't get in the way of the user then user's won't care about it, you're suggestion that this will do nothing for piracy means you believe piracy is simply based on cost, which it is not. If it doesn't get in the way of the user then the user wouldn't get a better experience out of pirated material like they do now, that would reduce piracy because in many cases it's a matter of convenience rather than cost.
So yes, we're fighting this because it is a monumental waste of energy and time, but most of all, it will remove liberties that were acquired with the people's blood. And all that for nothing.
What liberties? By what absurd extrapolation is the existence of DRM the death of privacy?
Clearly we are in agreement that the current system does not work, I'm suggesting both sides are going to need to compromise in some way to reach a solution, do you disagree with that?
Slashdot Mirror
It's not as good as the PS3. The interface is slower, they push adds to any empty box, the controllers require more motion to use. i.e. fingers need to move farther
Well the interface is subjective, the PS3 is bland and sparsely populated, but naturally some people prefer that sort of simplicity over the colorful and more interactive XBox dashboard. I prefer the XBox controller because the your thumbs fit into the top of the thumbsticks (they are concave and your thumb is convex) as opposed to the PS3 ones and the PS3 triggers curve the wrong way (back towards you as opposed to away from you).
and it's ridiculous to have an ongoing cost to play a game you bought.
Well that's a bit disingenuous, by that you mean the online multiplayer aspect. I agree with you but it's not as though that statement applies to everything.
And I have an Xbox, ps3, and a wii
I don't have a Wii.
Maybe you should consider that there is something about the iPad that people actually prefer to the netbooks.
I don't know why you're bothering, you know the answer you are going to get will be something along the lines of:
They're just sheeple and they like the shiny hipster products.
As do your slimeball Apple astroturfer friends.
lol...please stop embarrassing yourself, you look like more of an idiot with every post. I think Apple are anti-competitive, frivolous litigants but of course you don't want to hear that, all you want to hear is that they are patent trolls and that will help you sleep at night...pathetic.
You said, and I quote: "just suing over use of patents isn't 'patent trolling', so Apple isn't a patent troll." Which is a non sequitur, pure and simple, popularly known as a logical fallacy.
Rubbish, read the whole quote:
Well a 'patent troll' is an entity that just holds patents and sues people that actually use the without licensing them but doesn't actually use them themselves, just suing over use of patents isn't 'patent trolling', so Apple isn't a patent troll.
Given that Apple doesn't fit the description of a patent troll - as described in the first half of the sentence - the obvious and logical conclusion is that they are not a patent troll.
First, your premise may well be false, but whether it is true or false, your purported conclusion does not follow from it. Your use of the word "just" in no way changes the sense of the perfectly simple English sentence you wrote, in spite of how you might want to spin that.
And you only quoted half of because you either failed at reading comprehension or you have an irrational hatred that you seek to satisfy. The fact is they do not fit that definition, frivolous litigators? I believe so. Exploiting lack of labour regulation in overseas countries? Again, yes i would say so, especially since they make so much profit on their devices.
In any case, Apple is a dispicable organization [macgasm.net] that seems determined to become even more so
I wouldn't argue with that, their working conditions seem terrible particularly given the profits they make and they continue with ridiculously frivolous lawsuits like the one against samsung regarding design patents, but the fact is that they are not a patent troll and do not fit the definition of such, but of course you can't comprehend that because you don't know what a patent troll is.
By the way, it would seem that you lack courage
Speaking of non-sequitur, you using the name Daniel Phillips does not in any way shape or form mean that is your real name.
I'm not about to say Apple are great, they are far from it and most certainly should be leading the industry given their market position, many of their lawsuits appear frivolous and anti-competitive but I'm also not going to say they are a patent troll because that is factually false. You however don't seem to care about facts, you just want to call apple any name you possibly can.
My quoting in no way changed the sense of your post. And would you please try to keep a civil tongue in your mouth. You might consider posting under your real name as well, if you have the courage.
Your quoting missed the crucial part, either intentionally or just a failure at reading comprehension:
"just suing over use of patents isn't 'patent trolling', so Apple isn't a patent troll"
The reality is that i stated the fact that there is more to being a 'patent troll' than simply filing a patent suit, just doing that does not make anyone a 'patent troll'. Your responses confirm you either have no understanding whatsoever of the term 'patent troll' (especially given you have not responded with what you understand the definition to be) or that you initially failed at reading comprehension and now for some reason don't want to admit it.
But go ahead and detail exactly how noting such a fact would make me an 'apologist' or 'fanboi' or 'spin doctor' and what you believe such things to be, you're probably wrong given your obvious lack on understanding of the term 'patent troll'.
Also perhaps point out how there being more to being a 'patent troll' than just suing someone over patents is a logical fallacy, naturally omitting the 'just' from the beginning of the quoted passage may lead you to that conclusion, but that's your failure, not mine, the post is perfectly accurate.
Wrong, your words "suing over use of patents isn't 'patent trolling', so Apple isn't a patent troll" qualify you nicely under both "apologist" and "spin doctor".
Fail again douchebag, selective quoting won't save you, nice try though.
Never mind the blatant logical fallacy.
Selective quoting will do that to you.
But i'm curious, what's your definition of a 'patent troll'?
I agree with you about the definition about patent troll, I wanted to refer to the strategy of using the patents to hamper the innovation or squeeze some additional money from their competitors.
I know there's no real way to say 'they've made enough' off a particular innovation, but you'd think they wouldn't need to be squeezing that money out of their competitors given their market position and financial situation. In fact competing and doing so well in the market without suing your competitors would certainly make them look good, and only respond to patent lawsuits with cross-licensing agreements.
About their image, most customers (sadly) don't care about the conditions and incidents at the factories, because it doesn't affect them; they want their device as cheap as possible, even if it means looking away from the company manufacturing practices. I hope more people would be concerned about this, but only a minority won't change anything.
Agree.
Only according to Apple apologists, fanbois, and spin doctors.
Well given that i am none of those that disproves your theory, too bad for you. It also demonstrates that you ignorantly think that anyone that sues over patents is a 'patent troll', so you fail again.
Why does Apple need to do this so badly? I understand that U$ 5 for every Motorola/Samsung Android phone/tablet is a hefty sum of money, but this hurts their image. specially for their customers, as it *could* be interpreted as having a difficult competing with Android. I'm very disappointed that they are going the same way as other patent trolls :(
Well a 'patent troll' is an entity that just holds patents and sues people that actually use the without licensing them but doesn't actually use them themselves, just suing over use of patents isn't 'patent trolling', so Apple isn't a patent troll. And wrt hurting their image for their customers, if the conditions and incidents at the factories that build their products don't turn off their customers i hardly think suing their competitors for using their innovations (which is of course how they'll spin it regardless of your point of view) is going to.
So some manufacturers will end up paying Apple and Microsoft per device sold ? That's crazy.
That's pretty much the way it goes, everyone licenses patents from everyone else, for example Microsoft licenses a lot of patents from OpenWave and Apple licenses patents from Lodsys.
The answer to both of those questions is that telecoms are/should be regulated like any other utility.
So you're accusing them of fraud and defining this as a failure to meet obligations that you can't specify...not a very compelling argument.
The fraud is the failure to deliver the reasonable service at reasonable prices that the cablecos (and telcos) promised when the government granted them their monopolies.
And exactly what do you define this reasonable service to be and what do you define the reasonable price to be?
In other words, it's not "their product." It's a service that they are only able to provide because they took right-of-way from our property to lay the lines, and they owe us that service as recompense.
No, they don't owe you that service, what would be in it for them if compensation for laying the lines was the provision of the service which is the sole purpose for laying the lines anyway? The lines are there and any cable provider can use them, there is a cost involved in maintenance, monitoring, etc... so that will be factored in.
The year of the linux desktop arrived over a decade ago.
What year was the year of the linux desktop?
there's a constant barrage of ads screaming that she's ugly and dumb and girls are wimpy.
For example?
I seem to recall seeing the opposite, that blokes are lazy, bumbling idiots that need the help of a woman just to get through the day.
I think if they came right out and had to decode that and say "we reserve the right to let random vandals come in and snoop all your data and you won't have any legal recourse" they'd lose a lot of customers.
So you're suggesting they had no security and they just 'let random vandals come in'? That's clearly not what happened.
And realistically if you're storing that sort of data you don't just plonk it on any service and hope for the best, you go for a service that offers insurance and some added security.
So if this is binding and enforceable, (which should always be questioned, you can put just about anything in your TOS) that means if they are incompetent retards and let your hosted server get hacked through their back door to your hosted machine they won't be liable for anything beyond the monthly fees you paid them while being hacked?
Yes, in which case people storing valuable data will go with a service designed for that sort of thing, probably at a higher price to cover insurance and added security costs.
Can you please stop lumping christianity in with Islam? Christians do not believe in suicide let alone suicide bombing or killing of innocents.
Muslims probably don't either, it's just some of them interpret their religion that way, just like plenty of Christians have committed suicide and killed innocent people. You can say any kind of doctrine is intended to send particular message, others will often disagree, it is completely open to interpretation so using religion as a basis to justify anything is fundamentally flawed.
Yes, and I explicitly asked what compromise you can think of for the people. If you think about it, there are none. There are none possible except a stupid "honor" engagement of not screwing up? I mean, the people doesn't make compromises except the one necessary for their own survival, unless these compromises were forced down their throat by a forceful regime. Give me *one* example in history where any population made a compromise that didn't involve their very existence? It will not happen. You may wish it will, but it won't.
There are plenty of examples of people making compromises for convenience sake or a better user experience, look at the iphone/ipad, it's very closed, you are extremely limited on what you can do with it but people will make that compromise because the user experience is so good.
So tell me: Did the music industry just crumble in 2009? Remember, that is the year all DRM was off (iTunes, Amazon music, etc, all serve non-DRM files since then - and some before then.) No. It did not crumble.
The music and movie industries are *very* different, just look at the differences in cost to create these things and where that money goes.
The problem with you people is that you equate "no DRM" with "zero revenue for Hollywoood".
No, if you think that's what i'm saying then you clearly don't understand my argument at all.
It is simply not true. Less revenue, maybe, but is that bad? Did you see the last paycheck of Tom Cruise? Come on. There's fat out there that can get trimmed.
Of course there is, and hollywood needs to let go of that, but do you really see them doing that? Interestingly you suggest that removal of DRM will likely reduce revenue but then you follow that by saying there is no evidence to suggest that DRM will reduce piracy, so why would they experience reduced revenues?
And no, there is no indication whatsoever that piracy will kill Hollywood.
Of course not, but do you want to try and convince them of that?
There is no evidence for that matter that DRM will reduce piracy.
There is no evidence that DRM won't reduce piracy either.
The internet is killing distributors, because it renders their job obsolete, but not the artists/producers/etc, which are the persons that matter really here.
Naturally, it's a more convenient distribution method.
It does work !!!! Why do you say it doesn't work?
Oh yeah it works great, current DRM isn't a PITA at all...what planet are you on? Are music artists starving? Is Hollywood dead? What is wrong? Can't you see what's out there? Hollywood keep pushing the dumbest movies one after the other and they wonder why their revenues are falling! There is a worldwide crisis and they accuse piracy of their dropped revenue! Every bad thing that happens to them is due to "piracy" if you listen to them. Can't there be other reasons? They are panicking over something that A) will not kill them B) is inevitable. They are the one pushing the idea that piracy is the death of them. Point me to the first bit of evidence that this is true and I will reconsider my opinion.
Things are the way they are
Thanks captain redundant, i don't think your post needs any more padding.
and yes, the Internet enabled everyone to do piracy. And that's the way it is. Period. When the automobile came over and threatened carriage builders and horse breeders, did anyone try to fight it?
Of course not, and obviously the situation is not analogous given the existence of copyright and how that applies in this situation and not your car/horse scenario.
Of course, most of piracy is about convenience, not price. And for DRM, the point is, it will always get in the way.
Clearly, Microsoft and Apple don't care about professional users, so I guess I'll have no choice but to jump ship to a Linux distro, despite the administrative hassles that entails. It's about time, really. I'm just sick of Windows, sick of OS X, and absolutely DETEST iOS. It's the triumph of lazy consumption over intelligent creation.
What's the problem? Most professional users just want the OS to be out of the way so you can use your applications, current modern OSes hardly impede that. You don't have to use their extra features an integration just because they are there. I'm not sure what you are going to find so much more difficult or so much less efficient here, even if for some reason there is no way to boot straight to desktop it's only one click away, or you put your applications right there on that start page.
I'm not a fan of that aesthetic on the desktop at all but so long as i can quickly get to the applications i need - which i can - it's no problem, no need to spend time playing around on the start screen.
I said desktop on ARM -- the desktop on 32/64-bit will work with existing applications just fine. The point was that "desktop" is not available as an option on the new platforms for any serious development (e.g. porting Photoshop or LibreOffice to ARM); you are relegated to using Metro and the WinRT APIs which are not designed for creating complex applications.
You can use any APIs you want, you can use native code as well, you could use Qt, for example, if you wanted to.
Using WOA “out of the box” will feel just like using Windows 8 on x86/64... ...You will have access to the intrinsic capabilities of Windows, from the new Start screen and Metro style apps and Internet Explorer, to peripherals, and if you wish, the Windows desktop with tools like Windows File Explorer and desktop Internet Explorer.
Building Windows 8
Windows consumer OSs (NT, 2000, 2008 are server OSs) seem to go through a pattern of "Good Windows, Bad Windows": 95=good, ME=bad, XP=good, Vista=bad, 7=good, 8=bad.
98? better than 95, that breaks the pattern straight away.
And NT & 2000 were not server OSes, they had Server-branded versions though.
The iPad isn't for "real work", now Metro isn't for using to "actually work". By that metric alone, I'd expect Windows 8 to be a smashing success.
I'd hazard a guess that a like-minded vocal minority said the same thing about the GUI many years ago too.
Metro UI is default in dev preview, and pretty sure it will be in final retail. Your desktop is still there yes, its just a tile now, that you have to press, and wait for your desktop to load, which makes a lot of sense. Who wants to start up their PC and use it to actually work?
It's kind of like what Apple did with LaunchPad, only that Microsoft has done it the wrong way around. On tablets sure Metro should be the default but on mouse/keyboard setups the Desktop should be the default.
You dismiss the internet as a game changer when it comes to communication? I don't know what to tell you really. See my answer above.
No, i'm saying copyright infringement occurred perfectly well before the internet and continues to exist outside of the internet and in those areas it's not as though your communications are being tapped to prevent copyright infringement.
Yes. We all have information that we want to stay private. So we don't publish these data. Because we don't want others to know what it is.
No, because you only want some people to know what it is, those people you authorize.
You were the one talking about a compromise on both parties.
And it was in reference to the copyright holders and their customers, not DRM and privacy.
That was just small talk or do you have something in mind? If it is just smalltalk, please tell me know so I don't spend any more energy. If it is not, please tell us your ideas.
I don't have the answer, but you'd have to be a monumental fool to think that hollywood will continue to spend billions creating entertainment works and release them freely in the hopes that people will just pay for them even though they don't have to. It doesn't take a genius to see that this is going to require a compromise on both sides, hopefully the general populace will reject current DRM as unworkable and hollywood will come up with a less inconvenient solution more fitting to the concept of a person having a license to the content rather than a device.
You are completely missing my point, by almost a thousand miles. I'm not talking about something I wish, or something I think is "moral" or something I think is OK. I'm talking about the way it is. What I describe in my posts are the way things work right now, and I'm trying to explain how and why they are this way. What you're talking about however is an hypothetical world where publishers and the public would reach an "understanding" with mutual "compromises".
Of course, why would i dispute the facts of the way things are? Why would i even bother having a discussion on that? I'm saying the way forward is not to just keep doing what everyone is doing now because i think we can both agree that it does not work and is a problem for both the content producers and their customers.
But you refuse to tell us what these compromises are or how things could work.
Where did i refuse? I openly admitted i don't know how to implement such a system, just that the obvious failures of the current system need to change as does the unwillingness of either side to compromise, clearly if both sides don't co-operate there won't be a workable solution.
Yes. If they try very hard and are not completely incompetent about it (note that this is very unlikely) they may get some DRM that "work", meaning some DRM that doesn't get in the way of the consumer. This will be a pain for all the middlemen involved - DVD players, TV manufacturers etc. And it will accomplish *nothing* in regard of piracy. Nothing. It cannot by it's very definition.
If it doesn't get in the way of the user then user's won't care about it, you're suggestion that this will do nothing for piracy means you believe piracy is simply based on cost, which it is not. If it doesn't get in the way of the user then the user wouldn't get a better experience out of pirated material like they do now, that would reduce piracy because in many cases it's a matter of convenience rather than cost.
So yes, we're fighting this because it is a monumental waste of energy and time, but most of all, it will remove liberties that were acquired with the people's blood. And all that for nothing.
What liberties? By what absurd extrapolation is the existence of DRM the death of privacy?
Clearly we are in agreement that the current system does not work, I'm suggesting both sides are going to need to compromise in some way to reach a solution, do you disagree with that?
then wtf is the point of this story? lawyers so incompetent they sued in the wrong court.
Hasn't this lawsuit already been dismissed by said courts?