Let me elaborate a bit on why your thought process is so backwards.
A lot of people seem to have no sense of morality when speaking of spammers... They aren't any worse than anyone else working in the ad industry. They still have rights as human beings
This is the statement which I consider to be flawed, in a way. While in my followup, I stated 'They are still human...', their actions of unauthorized, invasive software installations and intrusive ads foster a sense of ill will against them. Not only that, unauthorized installation of software on computer assets that they do not own is and/or can be considered a criminal tresspass (ie: I believe a law exists concerning this, and if not, should). It doesn't really matter how they got the opportunity to make the tresspass, the very fact that they did it makes them amoral with respect to the rights of others.
Well I wouldn't blame the adware people as much as the people who make a faulty operating system prone to exploits.
You say this why? Do you hope to wave a hand over things and say that adware people are good people, that you'd want them watching your back in a dark alley? And what's this about placing blame on the makers of the operating system? While certainly they are worthy of disdain as well for being incapable of producing a quality product, that doesn't 'make better' the actions of adware people when they break the law.
Possibly the maker of the automobile, granted, and deffinately the fault of the person driving it (if they have prior knowledge of their automobile being unrealiable and possibly unsafe).
Apples and oranges. Again, you try to turn away responsibility for the actions of adware 'professionals' that break the law. It doesn't matter to you that there is not a single operating system in existance today that doesn't have some flaw, some vulnerability, both discovered and undiscovered, that would allow adware people to install nefarious software. Is that to say that, just because I know this, that I am at fault for everything that happens to my computer, even when I take every precaution I can to avoid it? In my professional field, it is unfortunately a necessary evil that I work with the technology that is vulnerable. It is even my responsibility to fix it when it breaks. However, that still does not 'make it right' for adware people to exhibit such immoral behavior with others.
The "spammers" have the ability to advertise using faults in the windows operating system, therefore they will... They would be foolish not to.
Businesses have the ability to use cheap labor using slavery, therefor they will... They would be foolish not to.
While obviously, my revision of the statement is not true, it was at one point in time. Did that make it any more ok for them, to relegate people to the status of property for their own gain? Or perhaps did that act simply prove to everyone that they had no morals when it came to human rights, and perhaps didn't deserve as many rights as they seemed to enjoy. Taking advantage of a fault or flaw in order to push or sell your wares is a prime example of business ethics in action, or a lack there of. Ethically, an honest business WOULD NOT take advantage of something they could reasonably determine to be wrong, even if it may 'cost them sales'. All it takes is this. Would spammers enjoy having people send them 100-150+ messages a day about offers they don't want? Do they take similar steps to shelter their own email addresses from the public at large so that they don't suffer this? If they are unwilling to endure what they are pushing, what they are doing is unethical.
Oh, spammers and adware people that break the law are certainly still people, and still deserve some basic human rights. That doesn't mean anyone has to like them. That doesn't mean that people have to allow it to continue. As I recall, they don't let criminals participate in the Olympic games. If a spammer abuses the law and/or breaks it, he should most certianly have his ability to participate in them stripped. Competition in the Olympics isn't a basic human right. It's a privilage.
Well, thanks for trying, anyways. Nothing you've said points towards a valid reason why such methods of advertising aren't illegal, immoral, or socially deviant behavior.
I think you're confusing fault and responsibility with invitation and authorization. That's ok, as it makes it easier to make an argument. How exactally is your example supposed to mean it is 'ok' for spammers to usurp your computer so that they can deliver ads against your consent?
An open gate is not an invitation to tresspass. An open front door is not an invitation to steal from a house. A sexy woman dressed in flashy clothing is not begging to be raped. Use of a buggy or exploitable operating system is not an invitation to have invasive or unauthorized applications installed upon it.
Please understand these things. Use of a vulnerable operating system does not grant anyone any more rights than they would have had if you were using an unbreakable system. Come back next time, ok?
They still have rights as human beings, but they do not have the right to intrude upon my life in my home in ways that I do not approve of. 'Drive-by Download/Installs' on computers I own is, and should be considered, an invasion of privacy and a tresspass into your home. Only if I knowingly and willingly acknowledge and agree to have said ad software installed upon my machine is it in any way respectable, and even then, if I opt out, say 'no more', they damn well better honor my request.
It is that mentality that advertisers have that seems to be skewed. Just because you're presenting a product to the buying public does not give you the right to pursue us, chase us, show us your wares when we wave you off, tell you no, or otherwise say 'take a hike'. People get irritated and agrivated when pursued like that, and see all such people in a bad light. Doubly so when the methods in which said pursuit is done is of questionable legality.
Spammers like this should not be considered 'ok' by any stretch. Unless I can tell them to piss off and they take it to heart and do it, they deserve every disdainful thing said about their morals and business practices.
Too true. Words have power, and what word you use will help determine what light that puts on the deal. If you say "Unlimited* DVD rentals at your home", you think 'yay, as many as I want', but that * refers you to some small, fine print that says "Except where you rent over 10 a month, in which case we may not ship anything more to you that month."
However, if, as you say, say the deal reads something like "Rent up to ten (10) movies a month for $20!" Now, does the deal seem quite as good to you? Sure doesn't to me. Oh, I may be getting my money's worth, but honestly, phrasing it this way clearly spells out your limits and puts your mind into a constraint.
Get a good telescope. Locate where in the Sea of Tranquility the missions were at. Point your telescope at the moon and look for signs. While a daunting mission to be sure, they left all manner of crap up there. The landing platform, the rovers, the flags. Tracks are not something you'd probably see, but you should be capable of seeing the disturbances of the landing even still. The moon does not wash away it's telltails so quickly.
Would it be fact enough if you saw it with your own 2 eyes?
While I'm going to be labeled as 'on the bandwagon to hang Microsoft', when you've been convicted of being an abusive monopoly in *2* countries/unions, frankly, I want to see them suffer like those they've made suffer. They forgot ethics when they decided to do business, perhaps it's time to remind them why ethics is a good thing by making them be on the receiving end of it for a change.
I think you have that last sentance backwards, or at least, incorrect. AMD chips run at a slower clock speed, but do more per clock cycle than the Intel chips do. While Intel chips are pushing 3GHz and faster, AMD chips are not nearly as fast, and yet remain competitive in terms of 'work done'
Not quite sure what you're talking about, but my bluetooth headset for my cellular phone can maintain pairings for up to 6 devices and autoconnect with the last one that connected to it. This limited functionality to choose is probably intentional, as it does 'autoconnect' and needs to know what to choose. Limited interface via 2 volume buttons and one multifunction button limit choices. However, a bluetooth keyboard (mini LCD display on it, perhaps?) would not be so limited and could do the same. Autoconnect to the last device, or allow for internal logic to swap pairings. The mouse would be a little more difficult, since it also suffers from a 'limited interface'.
There is a distinct difference between playing a computer game on a computer and carrying around a 12 gauge hunting for people. There is also a distinct difference in Monopoly. Now, if you get into a simulator/mockup of those scenarios.. say.. play Paintball with a realistic weapon, then carry that same weapon around hunting, you just might make the mistake.
As gaming simulators get more and more realistic, in my opinion, it becomes ever more important to keep the simulator distinct from a real life situation. Playing in a simulator builds habits that, if done long enough, become reflexes. Flight simulators for pilots and astronauts do this safely, intending to build good habits. Game simulators allow for some otherwise socially unacceptable behavior to be done in a safe manner. It would be bad for that behavior to bleed over.
I had a sudden thought when reading over this summary. Companies say that they are only patenting software/interfaces/whatever as a defensive strategy. Knowing how some justifications work ("I was only following orders." and such), I wonder how long it is before statements such as "We were defending our right to profit from our patents" become commonplace. I mean, after all, if you have something like a patent, just about everything you do in terms of litigation is 'defense' of that patent, whether you sue them or they sue you.
Forcing people to do anything (and that is what compulsory means) is pretty much a bad thing. Oh, you claim that "Nobody's forcing you to do anything." and then turn around and state that something you create as a private work, if given to you, suddenly becomes publishable and YOU, not the person that created it, has the right to decide how it is to be treated, even though it is supposedly the content creator that gets paid for it. Brilliant. Do you even hear the words that you're saying, or are you just trolling for responses? I'm starting to think the latter, because I have yet to figure out a single shread of logic that follows through your entire proposal.
Be that as it may, what about the situation where the employee knows they're leaving, but the employer knows they're not. SOP for technical employees then becomes "Resign a day or two ahead of when you want to quit. That way, you get to work up til the end, and get a 2 week bonus". It may be 'sensible' to manage risk like that, but it is severely rude to respond to someone's polite and respectable statement of intentions with (the equivilent of) 'Get out now.'
This a seriously misinformed and badly thought out point you're making. Why broadband to read email and shop at Amazon? Because the response is quicker, because one might just want to download things like Drivers for your computer, get support for your workstation, download free software. Because many many websites use a plethora of graphics on them and browsing at dialup is a painfully slow process. And, best of all, because ISP's sell it. Broadband is NOT limited to the downloading of copyright restricted materials. It's like saying, why own a car if you can walk to work? Because in some situations, it's better/faster/easier/more efficient to own a car.
And, no, while it's a technicality, you're talking about ending copyright violations, not 'piracy'. You're talking about the addition of Yet Another Tax that does not serve the public interest. See, what taxes there are already go to fund the public interest. An Army is in the public's interest, to defend our freedoms. Roads are in the public interest, because they foster safe and efficient travel. Parks and Libraries and any number of other public services are there For The Public, and they are in the public's interest. Imposing a tax on broadband access because there are people violating copyright is not in the public's interest, it's in the interest of the content creators. For that reason, I am one who would oppose such a thing.
What it sounds to me like is that you want a great number of musical selections available to you for a fixed price, unlimited and all you can make use of. Unfortunately, it won't work out well that way. Who gets to decide who gets what share of the pot? What about songs downloaded outside metering software? If there should be no songs like that, who gets the authority to monitor all data traffic to your computer to verify and check? If there is no form of metering, the most pathetic artist gets as much as the most popular, destroying the whole notion of capitalism and removing the incentive for good artists to present their works for download.
Agreed. Having read the bulk of the article, I find a lot of claims and assumptions of the work stated without proof or even Common Sense reasoning. A few examples...
It attempts to enforce an absolute value advantage where none exists and eventually prohibits mutually beneficial exchanges.
If you increase enforcement, the courts will ease the penalties because judges will see the law as unfair based on the volume of cases they see.
I'm curious what absolute value advantage is attempting to be enforced by the DMCA. Prohibition was an attempt to legislate morality, to remove a cause of crime, and failed to do so. I suppose I can see a similar case in the DMCA, but copyright is not morality, it is purely a legal right granted to content creators. Additionally, how does the DMCA prohibit mutually beneficial exchanges? It prevents you from breaking encryption in order to get at the underlying data in it's raw format. However, those people willing to pay and be approved for licensing of the decryption methods make the products that allow us to use this content. The only thing you are, in theory, denied is the raw data that is used to compile the movie. You are not denied access to view the movie, given an appropriate device to decode and display it, nor are you denied from purchasing the encrypted disk.
The latter quote makes me laugh, though. How many murder cases would it take for judges to see that laws against murder are unfair? The law generally dictates the range of penalties allowed to the courts to decide, and few courts seem willing to judge the validity or constitutionality of laws when dealing with a case. However, I doubt very seriously that the simple number of cases will really influence the penalties handed out.
There is a lot of talk in this article, and a lot of references to Prohibition as a mirror for the current situation. My view on copyright withstanding, this article makes a very poor case of proving why these kinds of laws are doomed to fail.
'perception that they are anticonsumer' helps to explain drops in sales and poor performance in the marketplace. The customers see the organization as hating them and feel less inclined to buy goods and services from them. I know that when someone acts like I'm a criminal from the word go, my interest in funding their continued existance falls through the floor.
In terms of element #4, it doesn't matter if you tell people not to buy it and they don't buy it and don't pirate it. Sony and the other labels do not comprehend market feedback very well, it seems. If sales drop, it must be pirating. If we can't figure out where the pirating is happening, it must be underground where we can't find it. We need more DRM! They seem to consider us criminals no matter what feedback we give with our wallets. And, what are we left with at the end of the day? A lot of memories of our culture, but once we're dead, our children won't know because we didn't buy any of the things we actually liked.
Steam is a major pain in the arse when it comes to playing a game. The enforced updates frequently mean that clients get out of sync with servers (that don't patch as often as clients are forced to, lagging the update by 6-12 hours or so). The required 'spotcheck' with the authentication server means that, if for some assinine reason, the login servers are down but the play servers are up, you CANNOT play. It agrivates the hell out of me, even though I tolerate it. If all games were like this, I'd probably say fuck'm all and not play. Pleanty of other things one can do that won't be bogged down with these kinds of hoops.
That's right, because all motivation to buy another product of the same type is simply because of the age of the product you have, not the advancements and new features they can offer you with even more advanced technology. I mean, already pushing the boundries of my (not-iPod) MP3 player's hard drive has no effect on me wanting to buy the next largest size, or wait for Hitachi to provide us with working 100+ gig 1.5" HDD's for MP3 players.
Seriously, I know there's a rationale for allowing products to age, but deliberately making a product in a particular way so it will age and people will be forced into a continous 'upgrade cycle' really isn't the way to endear yourselves to your customers. Innovation and Making Things Even Better are far better ways. Your customers feel much happier about shelling out even more money to you when they feel they're getting something of increasing quality/capacity.
Ringtone based off current popular music? $2.50 That same popular music bought off iTunes? $.99
You judge.
(Note: I do not know a current price for ringtones. I do not buy them. I cheat and upload them to my phone myself:) Screw paying money (and sometimes, a subscription!) for someone to dump the same file I can to the phone for a ringtone. Offer me ringtones I want on there (like, sound effects, not songs), and maybe I'd reconsider. Probably not, though.)
Some times, debit cards wind up being backed just like a credit card is, with any transactions being disputable just the same. Now, while there is the whole issue of them pulling money from your account directly, it actually worked to my benefit once, when my debit card was stolen. I believe the thief charged gas to it, to ensure it was working, and then tried to go buy a TV or something. As I had all of $40 in my account, paying for gas worked, but the larger purchase failed. Of course, nowadays, they'd actually honor that and dick you around with overdrafts.
Fiction is where we explore ideas that may or may not happen in the world we know it. It is a way to stir imagination and share ideas. Does it mean that it will? No. However, it could.
Use of movies (fictional or otherwise) as proof is bad and shouldn't be done (unless it directly relates to said movie). Use of movies as ideas for what might happen is certainly a valid use of them.
I personally forsee this as a failure of concept, merging media players and phones into one. My reason for it? By using a phone for a media player, especially as your primary player, you take your much touted 100+ hours of standby time on your phone and drag it down significantly. To add to that, the carriers seem to be scared of phones that run at their full capabilities (as in Verizon and the vx8100, which is sold with the bluetooth and cable dial up networking disabled dispite its potential). This can also be seen with the Sony Treo, where the capacity to link up to an 802.11 network is crippled, to prevent customers from using VoIP and saving minutes for when they really need them. I suppose they forsee a slow loss of much advertised services like 'Get it Now!' and the ilk, charging subscriptions for a program installed on your phone.
My thoughts:
- What happens if you want to listen to your music and talk on the phone at once, as is the case when driving on the highway? - Will the phones lose a significant amount of stand-by power in driving all these new features? That in itself will count against it.
Frankly, I'd be far more into seeing Bluetooth used more often, as potential links between car stereos and phones/media players. I think that might be far more workable than conjoining so many devices into an 'all in one'
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, spammers and adware people that break the law are certainly still people, and still deserve some basic human rights. That doesn't mean anyone has to like them. That doesn't mean that people have to allow it to continue. As I recall, they don't let criminals participate in the Olympic games. If a spammer abuses the law and/or breaks it, he should most certianly have his ability to participate in them stripped. Competition in the Olympics isn't a basic human right. It's a privilage.
Well, thanks for trying, anyways. Nothing you've said points towards a valid reason why such methods of advertising aren't illegal, immoral, or socially deviant behavior.
I think you're confusing fault and responsibility with invitation and authorization. That's ok, as it makes it easier to make an argument. How exactally is your example supposed to mean it is 'ok' for spammers to usurp your computer so that they can deliver ads against your consent?
An open gate is not an invitation to tresspass. An open front door is not an invitation to steal from a house. A sexy woman dressed in flashy clothing is not begging to be raped. Use of a buggy or exploitable operating system is not an invitation to have invasive or unauthorized applications installed upon it.
Please understand these things. Use of a vulnerable operating system does not grant anyone any more rights than they would have had if you were using an unbreakable system. Come back next time, ok?
They still have rights as human beings, but they do not have the right to intrude upon my life in my home in ways that I do not approve of. 'Drive-by Download/Installs' on computers I own is, and should be considered, an invasion of privacy and a tresspass into your home. Only if I knowingly and willingly acknowledge and agree to have said ad software installed upon my machine is it in any way respectable, and even then, if I opt out, say 'no more', they damn well better honor my request.
It is that mentality that advertisers have that seems to be skewed. Just because you're presenting a product to the buying public does not give you the right to pursue us, chase us, show us your wares when we wave you off, tell you no, or otherwise say 'take a hike'. People get irritated and agrivated when pursued like that, and see all such people in a bad light. Doubly so when the methods in which said pursuit is done is of questionable legality.
Spammers like this should not be considered 'ok' by any stretch. Unless I can tell them to piss off and they take it to heart and do it, they deserve every disdainful thing said about their morals and business practices.
Too true. Words have power, and what word you use will help determine what light that puts on the deal. If you say "Unlimited* DVD rentals at your home", you think 'yay, as many as I want', but that * refers you to some small, fine print that says "Except where you rent over 10 a month, in which case we may not ship anything more to you that month."
However, if, as you say, say the deal reads something like "Rent up to ten (10) movies a month for $20!" Now, does the deal seem quite as good to you? Sure doesn't to me. Oh, I may be getting my money's worth, but honestly, phrasing it this way clearly spells out your limits and puts your mind into a constraint.
Get a good telescope. Locate where in the Sea of Tranquility the missions were at. Point your telescope at the moon and look for signs. While a daunting mission to be sure, they left all manner of crap up there. The landing platform, the rovers, the flags. Tracks are not something you'd probably see, but you should be capable of seeing the disturbances of the landing even still. The moon does not wash away it's telltails so quickly.
Would it be fact enough if you saw it with your own 2 eyes?
While I'm going to be labeled as 'on the bandwagon to hang Microsoft', when you've been convicted of being an abusive monopoly in *2* countries/unions, frankly, I want to see them suffer like those they've made suffer. They forgot ethics when they decided to do business, perhaps it's time to remind them why ethics is a good thing by making them be on the receiving end of it for a change.
In what realm of education would you place Evolution if not in life sciences?
I think you have that last sentance backwards, or at least, incorrect. AMD chips run at a slower clock speed, but do more per clock cycle than the Intel chips do. While Intel chips are pushing 3GHz and faster, AMD chips are not nearly as fast, and yet remain competitive in terms of 'work done'
Not quite sure what you're talking about, but my bluetooth headset for my cellular phone can maintain pairings for up to 6 devices and autoconnect with the last one that connected to it. This limited functionality to choose is probably intentional, as it does 'autoconnect' and needs to know what to choose. Limited interface via 2 volume buttons and one multifunction button limit choices. However, a bluetooth keyboard (mini LCD display on it, perhaps?) would not be so limited and could do the same. Autoconnect to the last device, or allow for internal logic to swap pairings. The mouse would be a little more difficult, since it also suffers from a 'limited interface'.
There is a distinct difference between playing a computer game on a computer and carrying around a 12 gauge hunting for people. There is also a distinct difference in Monopoly. Now, if you get into a simulator/mockup of those scenarios.. say.. play Paintball with a realistic weapon, then carry that same weapon around hunting, you just might make the mistake.
As gaming simulators get more and more realistic, in my opinion, it becomes ever more important to keep the simulator distinct from a real life situation. Playing in a simulator builds habits that, if done long enough, become reflexes. Flight simulators for pilots and astronauts do this safely, intending to build good habits. Game simulators allow for some otherwise socially unacceptable behavior to be done in a safe manner. It would be bad for that behavior to bleed over.
I had a sudden thought when reading over this summary. Companies say that they are only patenting software/interfaces/whatever as a defensive strategy. Knowing how some justifications work ("I was only following orders." and such), I wonder how long it is before statements such as "We were defending our right to profit from our patents" become commonplace. I mean, after all, if you have something like a patent, just about everything you do in terms of litigation is 'defense' of that patent, whether you sue them or they sue you.
Forcing people to do anything (and that is what compulsory means) is pretty much a bad thing. Oh, you claim that " Nobody's forcing you to do anything. " and then turn around and state that something you create as a private work, if given to you, suddenly becomes publishable and YOU, not the person that created it, has the right to decide how it is to be treated, even though it is supposedly the content creator that gets paid for it. Brilliant. Do you even hear the words that you're saying, or are you just trolling for responses? I'm starting to think the latter, because I have yet to figure out a single shread of logic that follows through your entire proposal.
Be that as it may, what about the situation where the employee knows they're leaving, but the employer knows they're not. SOP for technical employees then becomes "Resign a day or two ahead of when you want to quit. That way, you get to work up til the end, and get a 2 week bonus". It may be 'sensible' to manage risk like that, but it is severely rude to respond to someone's polite and respectable statement of intentions with (the equivilent of) 'Get out now.'
And, no, while it's a technicality, you're talking about ending copyright violations, not 'piracy'. You're talking about the addition of Yet Another Tax that does not serve the public interest. See, what taxes there are already go to fund the public interest. An Army is in the public's interest, to defend our freedoms. Roads are in the public interest, because they foster safe and efficient travel. Parks and Libraries and any number of other public services are there For The Public, and they are in the public's interest. Imposing a tax on broadband access because there are people violating copyright is not in the public's interest, it's in the interest of the content creators. For that reason, I am one who would oppose such a thing.
What it sounds to me like is that you want a great number of musical selections available to you for a fixed price, unlimited and all you can make use of. Unfortunately, it won't work out well that way. Who gets to decide who gets what share of the pot? What about songs downloaded outside metering software? If there should be no songs like that, who gets the authority to monitor all data traffic to your computer to verify and check? If there is no form of metering, the most pathetic artist gets as much as the most popular, destroying the whole notion of capitalism and removing the incentive for good artists to present their works for download.
Poorly thought out reasoning.
I'm curious what absolute value advantage is attempting to be enforced by the DMCA. Prohibition was an attempt to legislate morality, to remove a cause of crime, and failed to do so. I suppose I can see a similar case in the DMCA, but copyright is not morality, it is purely a legal right granted to content creators. Additionally, how does the DMCA prohibit mutually beneficial exchanges? It prevents you from breaking encryption in order to get at the underlying data in it's raw format. However, those people willing to pay and be approved for licensing of the decryption methods make the products that allow us to use this content. The only thing you are, in theory, denied is the raw data that is used to compile the movie. You are not denied access to view the movie, given an appropriate device to decode and display it, nor are you denied from purchasing the encrypted disk.
The latter quote makes me laugh, though. How many murder cases would it take for judges to see that laws against murder are unfair? The law generally dictates the range of penalties allowed to the courts to decide, and few courts seem willing to judge the validity or constitutionality of laws when dealing with a case. However, I doubt very seriously that the simple number of cases will really influence the penalties handed out.
There is a lot of talk in this article, and a lot of references to Prohibition as a mirror for the current situation. My view on copyright withstanding, this article makes a very poor case of proving why these kinds of laws are doomed to fail.
'perception that they are anticonsumer' helps to explain drops in sales and poor performance in the marketplace. The customers see the organization as hating them and feel less inclined to buy goods and services from them. I know that when someone acts like I'm a criminal from the word go, my interest in funding their continued existance falls through the floor.
In terms of element #4, it doesn't matter if you tell people not to buy it and they don't buy it and don't pirate it. Sony and the other labels do not comprehend market feedback very well, it seems. If sales drop, it must be pirating. If we can't figure out where the pirating is happening, it must be underground where we can't find it. We need more DRM! They seem to consider us criminals no matter what feedback we give with our wallets. And, what are we left with at the end of the day? A lot of memories of our culture, but once we're dead, our children won't know because we didn't buy any of the things we actually liked.
Steam is a major pain in the arse when it comes to playing a game. The enforced updates frequently mean that clients get out of sync with servers (that don't patch as often as clients are forced to, lagging the update by 6-12 hours or so). The required 'spotcheck' with the authentication server means that, if for some assinine reason, the login servers are down but the play servers are up, you CANNOT play. It agrivates the hell out of me, even though I tolerate it. If all games were like this, I'd probably say fuck'm all and not play. Pleanty of other things one can do that won't be bogged down with these kinds of hoops.
That's right, because all motivation to buy another product of the same type is simply because of the age of the product you have, not the advancements and new features they can offer you with even more advanced technology. I mean, already pushing the boundries of my (not-iPod) MP3 player's hard drive has no effect on me wanting to buy the next largest size, or wait for Hitachi to provide us with working 100+ gig 1.5" HDD's for MP3 players.
Seriously, I know there's a rationale for allowing products to age, but deliberately making a product in a particular way so it will age and people will be forced into a continous 'upgrade cycle' really isn't the way to endear yourselves to your customers. Innovation and Making Things Even Better are far better ways. Your customers feel much happier about shelling out even more money to you when they feel they're getting something of increasing quality/capacity.
Ringtone based off current popular music? $2.50
:) Screw paying money (and sometimes, a subscription!) for someone to dump the same file I can to the phone for a ringtone. Offer me ringtones I want on there (like, sound effects, not songs), and maybe I'd reconsider. Probably not, though.)
That same popular music bought off iTunes? $.99
You judge.
(Note: I do not know a current price for ringtones. I do not buy them. I cheat and upload them to my phone myself
Some times, debit cards wind up being backed just like a credit card is, with any transactions being disputable just the same. Now, while there is the whole issue of them pulling money from your account directly, it actually worked to my benefit once, when my debit card was stolen. I believe the thief charged gas to it, to ensure it was working, and then tried to go buy a TV or something. As I had all of $40 in my account, paying for gas worked, but the larger purchase failed. Of course, nowadays, they'd actually honor that and dick you around with overdrafts.
All depends on the bank, I guess.
Fiction is where we explore ideas that may or may not happen in the world we know it. It is a way to stir imagination and share ideas. Does it mean that it will? No. However, it could.
Use of movies (fictional or otherwise) as proof is bad and shouldn't be done (unless it directly relates to said movie). Use of movies as ideas for what might happen is certainly a valid use of them.
I personally forsee this as a failure of concept, merging media players and phones into one. My reason for it? By using a phone for a media player, especially as your primary player, you take your much touted 100+ hours of standby time on your phone and drag it down significantly. To add to that, the carriers seem to be scared of phones that run at their full capabilities (as in Verizon and the vx8100, which is sold with the bluetooth and cable dial up networking disabled dispite its potential). This can also be seen with the Sony Treo, where the capacity to link up to an 802.11 network is crippled, to prevent customers from using VoIP and saving minutes for when they really need them. I suppose they forsee a slow loss of much advertised services like 'Get it Now!' and the ilk, charging subscriptions for a program installed on your phone.
My thoughts:
- What happens if you want to listen to your music and talk on the phone at once, as is the case when driving on the highway?
- Will the phones lose a significant amount of stand-by power in driving all these new features? That in itself will count against it.
Frankly, I'd be far more into seeing Bluetooth used more often, as potential links between car stereos and phones/media players. I think that might be far more workable than conjoining so many devices into an 'all in one'