iSuppli almost universally over-estimates component costs for devices with very high volume or very new components. Personally I'd be surprised if it cost Apple more than $250 to produce these things including shipment to the retailers.
The embedded space is where Linux is most widely accepted but with the (harmless in reality) anti-Tivoization clauses in the GPLv3, and the amazing levels of FUD that IP lawyers are dumping on CTOs everywhere to get more billable hours, embedded device makers are getting more and more scared of anything GPL. If the kernel goes GPLv3, Linux will lose a majority of that market whether the worries are well-founded or not. If Sun plays it's cards right (there's a first time for everything), they could pick up a lot of that market.
I don't think the summary is misleading at all. The implication is that free software writers are less likely to notice when their code is used in violation of the license when the violation occurs in a Windows application instead of in an application written for an OS such an author is more likely to use him/herself.
Since they love to use Tivo as an example, let's run with that. Isn't Tivo's (the company, not the device) use of Linux simply distributing single-purpose boxes that are run by it?
Preventing a company like Tivo from distributing GPLv3 software on a closed device doesn't increase the freedom of the software. It doesn't even have anything to do with the freedom of the software. It's an attempt to impose openness on the hardware irregardless of whether the code itself is free. So not only is it a restriction on what you can do with the code, it's not even intended as a way to keep the code itself free, but to impose restrictions on others in exchange for a limited license.
There are many other reasons that such a clause is counterproductive as well as making the license less free. Companies will either get around the clause by allowing the installation of modified versions of the GPLd portion of the product without allowing the closed portion to continue functioning if the user performs such an "upgrade" (section 6 specifically allows this), or they'll switch to either a more-free or proprietary solution.
Er... That second point was supposed to specify that it was second place in monthly sales, but I seem to have managed to lose that bit when I added the links. Clearly it has a long way to go to get to second place in overall sales.
I'm not sure that power companies even consider point of use generation a threat. When you consider that the majority of the systems being proposed are either fractional capacity, or only produce power during certain time of the day (in other words, they augment the grid, not replace it), I doubt they're too worried. They'll just increase their transmission fees to keep their profits level.
Not only that, but even with the unproven advances in solar power, it's still more efficient to do central generation, and it's the only practical option for places with high population density and for most industry. They'll just have to transition from coal and natural gas to something cleaner.
[Insert country name here]'s products are hit or miss to. That's why most people judge product quality on reviews and the reputation of the individual maker rather than the region in which they are manufactured.
Now if you have political reasons for not giving business to a particular country or government, that's another story, and is perfectly respectable.
There's a lot of Vista hate right now. If Microsoft was smart, they'd just release DX10 for XP and hope they get Vista ironed out by SP1 and DX11 and catch the gamers on the next upgrade cycle. If they don't, they're just giving more ammunition to the "anyone but Microsoft" camp.
I love how it has become commonplace and well accepted to place anybody who makes an argument against something as a "hater" or to throw them in the group with a bunch of extremists. Just because there are people who hate Microsoft out there, and will use "anything but" simply to avoid Microsoft software doesn't mean that everybody who raises serious issues about something like Vista is one of them. The people complaining that Vista won't display certain content on their perfectly capable monitor simply because it doesn't support HDCP while every other operating system continues to work fine aren't "haters" or extremists. They're right. The same goes for people who complain about driver and application incompatibilities. Let's face it, unless you run really recent hardware, and mainstream apps, the Vista experience is pretty poor right now. It doesn't take any knowledge of the FUD spread by the platform nazis to realize it either.
They don't have to bribe anybody. As soon as enough people start taking advantage of the "rebates" (tax credits, wealth redistribution, whatever you want to call it), they'll either go away, or be offset by an equally large tax burden. They're supposed to be short term to get usage up enough to bring about economies of scale. If all goes to plan you'll save more money by waiting and buying cheaper more reliable panels in the future than getting a credit now.
The same thing was true about the "first" Sony "rootkit". It didn't "root" your machine. It just used the same techniques that actual rootkits use to hide itself from the user. Add a little anti-sony bias, and a lack of technical understanding, stir, and you get a headline like we see here.
That's fine when the only thing that got damaged was the laptop. When there is a serious amount of property damage, are you really going to wait for the outcome of a lawsuit to, say, rebuild your home?
If it were me, I'd file a claim with my insurance company, and then let them go after Dell/Sony/Whoever. The whole point of having insurance is to insulate you from the expense (both monetary and temporal) of dealing with unfortunate mishaps like this.
Believe me. The insurance company isn't going to foot the bill for your claim if somebody else is responsible. They'll fight the battle. And since you're paying them to do that, why would you do it yourself?
Yeah, let's be CLEAR. I mean, it can't be that the laptop drew too much current, or that the charger malfunctioned, or a thousand other things that can cause any battery to catch fire. And it's certainly not Dell's fault for not putting some safety circuitry in the system to shut down when the temperature started to go up. It's IMPERATIVE that we place blame solely on Sony even though there were likely dozens of factors, any one of which could have prevented the fire if were modified. After all Sony is the devil.
Whether or not your "trapped" depends on your ability to handle not watching TV. Perhaps you should look at why you "need to watch TV".
You've missed the point entirely.
You're trapped whether you discontinue (or never sign up for) cable company service or not. Cutting the cord and discontinuing service doesn't magically make you able to manipulate and timeshift television signal in whatever legal methods you might choose... It just means you're not watching TV. The only way it would make you not "trapped" is if not watching TV suddenly gave you more options. It doesn't it gives you less options.
Besides that "trapped" point, you're applying free market thought to a non-free market. You can't "vote with your dollars" when the market is heavily regulated. You vote with you vote in that case. It's not the cable companies that are failing us in this scenario, it's the regulators who are appointed by our elected officials. Canceling your service... even half your community canceling their service... wouldn't provoke any change. Your own example proves this.
Unfortunately the cable company have succeeded in convincing almost everybody, even some very smart people with relevant domain knowledge, that VOD, SDV, and the like can't be done any other way. There is no good reason any of these services require anything but a simple decryption module and some sort (STB vendor's choice) of access to a public packet network.
The cable company's response to the integration ban in the US is to move the entire cable box inside the cable card itself, thus leaving things exactly as they were, but smaller. It's really an embarrassment that they get away with what they do and nobody stops them, or even points out how blatantly we're getting taken for fools.
Did you actually read "TFA", or even the blog post that linked to "TFA"?
The mention of TiVo in the blog post is in reference to a previous post. The actual article (linked through the blog post) isn't about Tivo. It's about "Consumer Electronics Devices".
Both the article and the blog post assume some level of familiarity with the technology in order to fully understand them. The fact that you consider the TiVo "unique" in the context of a discussion about alternatives to the Open Cable Platform because it has a general purpose processor and runs linux clearly shows you shouldn't be butting in. Rudimentary reading comprehension would have shown you that it's not something "unique" about this class of devices, but actually the proposed standard, even if you weren't familiar with the issues involved.
At least you had the decency not to hit the "Post Anonymously" box this time though.
It's a problem with more than just HD TiVo devices. They are merely the most used CableCARD devices out there now, and are thus getting all the attention. Don't worry, unless you've got a DOCSIS chipset in your television (you almost certainly don't) your CableCARD "compliant" television is equally as hosed by SDV.
You should apologize to the the guy for making fun of his reading comprehension, since he was actually right.
In its comments to the FCC Friday, the NCTA opposed the CEA's proposal, saying it would "strip away the most exciting interactive services and features that distinguishes [sic] cable from its competitors."
Dear Cable Companies,
Features which are implemented in a set-top-box are not features of your network. You do not have some "right" to charge for features implemented in a device that is attached to your network unless that device is: A) Creating traffic on your network, and B) you charge the customer per unit traffic. Your proposal would strip away the most exciting services (the ability to pay once for things your company charges a recurring fee for) and features (the ability to skip commercials, and other crap that you haven't thought of) that distinguish the makers of competing set-top-boxes from you and each other.
Nobody with more than half a brain is fooled into thinking you have anybodies best interests but your own in mind, but the FCC's job is to look after the public's interest, not yours.
And they still own the cable cards, and in many cases have managed to charge almost as much for the card as they used to for a set top box...
Most people aren't going to pay for an off-the-shelf set top box when they still have to pay the fee to rent cablecards. People should be able to buy the cablecards too.
Except that it does. Just because some idiot on a forum couldn't figure out how to check the box at installation time to have it installed doesn't mean it doesn't have one. Windows ships with plenty of things that aren't installed by default too.
Slashdot Mirror
Spoken like a man who didn't even start to read the article.
Of course the weapons were supposed to be moved. It said so right in the article. It's just that the warheads were supposed to be removed beforehand.
iSuppli almost universally over-estimates component costs for devices with very high volume or very new components. Personally I'd be surprised if it cost Apple more than $250 to produce these things including shipment to the retailers.
The embedded space is where Linux is most widely accepted but with the (harmless in reality) anti-Tivoization clauses in the GPLv3, and the amazing levels of FUD that IP lawyers are dumping on CTOs everywhere to get more billable hours, embedded device makers are getting more and more scared of anything GPL. If the kernel goes GPLv3, Linux will lose a majority of that market whether the worries are well-founded or not. If Sun plays it's cards right (there's a first time for everything), they could pick up a lot of that market.
I don't think the summary is misleading at all. The implication is that free software writers are less likely to notice when their code is used in violation of the license when the violation occurs in a Windows application instead of in an application written for an OS such an author is more likely to use him/herself.
Is distribution no longer a form of use?
Since they love to use Tivo as an example, let's run with that. Isn't Tivo's (the company, not the device) use of Linux simply distributing single-purpose boxes that are run by it?
Preventing a company like Tivo from distributing GPLv3 software on a closed device doesn't increase the freedom of the software. It doesn't even have anything to do with the freedom of the software. It's an attempt to impose openness on the hardware irregardless of whether the code itself is free. So not only is it a restriction on what you can do with the code, it's not even intended as a way to keep the code itself free, but to impose restrictions on others in exchange for a limited license.
There are many other reasons that such a clause is counterproductive as well as making the license less free. Companies will either get around the clause by allowing the installation of modified versions of the GPLd portion of the product without allowing the closed portion to continue functioning if the user performs such an "upgrade" (section 6 specifically allows this), or they'll switch to either a more-free or proprietary solution.
The more restrictions you put on the use of code the less free it is.
Period.
Er... That second point was supposed to specify that it was second place in monthly sales, but I seem to have managed to lose that bit when I added the links. Clearly it has a long way to go to get to second place in overall sales.
This summary has some interesting spin.
To me there are really two interesting things that happened with recent sales numbers:
First: The Wii took the over the overall marketshare lead for this generation.
Second: The PS3 almost pulled even in July in the US, but pulled ahead of the 360 into second place by almost 2x if you take worldwide sales into account.
I'm not sure that power companies even consider point of use generation a threat. When you consider that the majority of the systems being proposed are either fractional capacity, or only produce power during certain time of the day (in other words, they augment the grid, not replace it), I doubt they're too worried. They'll just increase their transmission fees to keep their profits level.
Not only that, but even with the unproven advances in solar power, it's still more efficient to do central generation, and it's the only practical option for places with high population density and for most industry. They'll just have to transition from coal and natural gas to something cleaner.
[Insert country name here]'s products are hit or miss to. That's why most people judge product quality on reviews and the reputation of the individual maker rather than the region in which they are manufactured.
Now if you have political reasons for not giving business to a particular country or government, that's another story, and is perfectly respectable.
I love how it has become commonplace and well accepted to place anybody who makes an argument against something as a "hater" or to throw them in the group with a bunch of extremists. Just because there are people who hate Microsoft out there, and will use "anything but" simply to avoid Microsoft software doesn't mean that everybody who raises serious issues about something like Vista is one of them. The people complaining that Vista won't display certain content on their perfectly capable monitor simply because it doesn't support HDCP while every other operating system continues to work fine aren't "haters" or extremists. They're right. The same goes for people who complain about driver and application incompatibilities. Let's face it, unless you run really recent hardware, and mainstream apps, the Vista experience is pretty poor right now. It doesn't take any knowledge of the FUD spread by the platform nazis to realize it either.
They don't have to bribe anybody. As soon as enough people start taking advantage of the "rebates" (tax credits, wealth redistribution, whatever you want to call it), they'll either go away, or be offset by an equally large tax burden. They're supposed to be short term to get usage up enough to bring about economies of scale. If all goes to plan you'll save more money by waiting and buying cheaper more reliable panels in the future than getting a credit now.
The same thing was true about the "first" Sony "rootkit". It didn't "root" your machine. It just used the same techniques that actual rootkits use to hide itself from the user. Add a little anti-sony bias, and a lack of technical understanding, stir, and you get a headline like we see here.
That's fine when the only thing that got damaged was the laptop. When there is a serious amount of property damage, are you really going to wait for the outcome of a lawsuit to, say, rebuild your home?
Thank you for confirming my point. Objective analysis not required. Prejudicial judgments are always better around here.
Why bother having insurance then?
If it were me, I'd file a claim with my insurance company, and then let them go after Dell/Sony/Whoever. The whole point of having insurance is to insulate you from the expense (both monetary and temporal) of dealing with unfortunate mishaps like this.
Believe me. The insurance company isn't going to foot the bill for your claim if somebody else is responsible. They'll fight the battle. And since you're paying them to do that, why would you do it yourself?
Yeah, let's be CLEAR. I mean, it can't be that the laptop drew too much current, or that the charger malfunctioned, or a thousand other things that can cause any battery to catch fire. And it's certainly not Dell's fault for not putting some safety circuitry in the system to shut down when the temperature started to go up. It's IMPERATIVE that we place blame solely on Sony even though there were likely dozens of factors, any one of which could have prevented the fire if were modified. After all Sony is the devil.
You've missed the point entirely.
You're trapped whether you discontinue (or never sign up for) cable company service or not. Cutting the cord and discontinuing service doesn't magically make you able to manipulate and timeshift television signal in whatever legal methods you might choose... It just means you're not watching TV. The only way it would make you not "trapped" is if not watching TV suddenly gave you more options. It doesn't it gives you less options.
Besides that "trapped" point, you're applying free market thought to a non-free market. You can't "vote with your dollars" when the market is heavily regulated. You vote with you vote in that case. It's not the cable companies that are failing us in this scenario, it's the regulators who are appointed by our elected officials. Canceling your service... even half your community canceling their service... wouldn't provoke any change. Your own example proves this.
You've basically hit the nail on the head.
Unfortunately the cable company have succeeded in convincing almost everybody, even some very smart people with relevant domain knowledge, that VOD, SDV, and the like can't be done any other way. There is no good reason any of these services require anything but a simple decryption module and some sort (STB vendor's choice) of access to a public packet network.
The cable company's response to the integration ban in the US is to move the entire cable box inside the cable card itself, thus leaving things exactly as they were, but smaller. It's really an embarrassment that they get away with what they do and nobody stops them, or even points out how blatantly we're getting taken for fools.
Did you actually read "TFA", or even the blog post that linked to "TFA"?
The mention of TiVo in the blog post is in reference to a previous post. The actual article (linked through the blog post) isn't about Tivo. It's about "Consumer Electronics Devices".
Both the article and the blog post assume some level of familiarity with the technology in order to fully understand them. The fact that you consider the TiVo "unique" in the context of a discussion about alternatives to the Open Cable Platform because it has a general purpose processor and runs linux clearly shows you shouldn't be butting in. Rudimentary reading comprehension would have shown you that it's not something "unique" about this class of devices, but actually the proposed standard, even if you weren't familiar with the issues involved.
At least you had the decency not to hit the "Post Anonymously" box this time though.
Since when do CableCARDs allow you to steal cable? They need to be activated and receive keys from the network before they can decode the programming.
It's a problem with more than just HD TiVo devices. They are merely the most used CableCARD devices out there now, and are thus getting all the attention. Don't worry, unless you've got a DOCSIS chipset in your television (you almost certainly don't) your CableCARD "compliant" television is equally as hosed by SDV.
You should apologize to the the guy for making fun of his reading comprehension, since he was actually right.
Dear Cable Companies,
Features which are implemented in a set-top-box are not features of your network. You do not have some "right" to charge for features implemented in a device that is attached to your network unless that device is: A) Creating traffic on your network, and B) you charge the customer per unit traffic. Your proposal would strip away the most exciting services (the ability to pay once for things your company charges a recurring fee for) and features (the ability to skip commercials, and other crap that you haven't thought of) that distinguish the makers of competing set-top-boxes from you and each other.
Nobody with more than half a brain is fooled into thinking you have anybodies best interests but your own in mind, but the FCC's job is to look after the public's interest, not yours.
Love,
Your reluctant, but trapped, customers
And they still own the cable cards, and in many cases have managed to charge almost as much for the card as they used to for a set top box...
Most people aren't going to pay for an off-the-shelf set top box when they still have to pay the fee to rent cablecards. People should be able to buy the cablecards too.
Except that it does. Just because some idiot on a forum couldn't figure out how to check the box at installation time to have it installed doesn't mean it doesn't have one. Windows ships with plenty of things that aren't installed by default too.