I don't understand the impetus behind removing all tactile controls from a portable audio player.
I don't know about the iPod Touch, but the iPhone would vibrate slightly and briefly when you touched a button to give tactile feedback. That's not quite the same as feeling where the button is before you press it, but it's a lot better than nothing.
When they stop making changes and start introducing only gradual improvements (like when the video iPod simply came out in a model with more storage) that's the time to go grab it. Based on their past performance though, I'd suggest waiting until then.
Interestingly, this is almost identical to what people say about Microsoft's upgrades to Windows and/or Office.
Or any other computer company about any other computer product, come to that.
All you've pointed out is that Apple isn't immune to imperfections. Anyone who takes on "early adopter" status accepts a certain amount of risk, regardless of what company.
iPod Touch: touch screen, WiFi, web browsing, widescreen video, third-party apps (well, theoretically). versus: iPod Classic: none of that, but ten times the storage capacity.
Nasty choice you've left people with there, Apple.
For a device that seems to play video well (and made for it) 8/16 GB doesn't seem like enough. Especially since the "ipod classic" comes in 80/160GB flavors at the same price point( with a small not so good for video screen).
Agreed. I'm assuming they were going for a price point, because the extra thickness/weight of a hard drive inside an iPod Touch (iTouch? tPod?) would be a small price to pay for increasing storage tenfold. Note that you can now buy a new iPod for about $80, $150, $200, $250, $300, $350, or $400, depending on what you want from it.
Apple's not going to make it easy for Skype to work with an iPod Touch, thanks to the cellphone deal -- or else they'd have done it already with iChat software. OTOH, keep in mind WiFi isn't nearly as ubiquitous as cellphone towers. Yet.
All in all, I consider the iPod Touch to be just as drool-worthy as the iPhone ($200 price drop? Suck it, early adopters), but I still wouldn't buy one until the second or third iteration of the hardware. There's so much the technology is begging to achieve, if only their corporate partners would allow it.
While they're at it, they should build mobile phone capabilities into the thing as well. Then they'd have something!
Look, for the last time: the iPod is a dedicated music player. If you want a mobile phone, you're better off buying a device devoted exclusively to phone-like functionality.
Well, the problem with marijuana is that not only do a large proportion of people in this country not have any problem with attempting to enforce their stunted versions of morality upon the general population, but that those nanny-state proponents generally do not have the mental capacity to understand the actual issues involved, whether those issues are corporate welfare/pork sponsorship of Cannabis criminalization, the costs to our society for attempting the subsequent "War On Drugs", the incredible loss of revenue and resources due to our inability to legally grow Cannabis sativa, or other problems that result from these misguided policies, such as the suffering inflicted upon those whose use of marijuana (and while we're at it, we may as well include Papaver somniferum) whose greatly reduce the physical pains of dealing with chronic disease.
I don't know if you noticed, but typing a period actually requires FEWER keystrokes than another conjunction.
I think Pages has been and is misrepresented as a word processor. It's really a page-design and layout tool. Rather than "Apple's word processor" I think of it as "Indesign lite".
IIRC, part of the redesign of Pages in iWork '08 was to give it a more word-processey mode you could toggle.
Agrees on the "Indesign lite", but neither I nor my wife have ever had cause to use it that way.
It was a success, not because of L. Frank Baum's story, but because of its wonderful performers, wonderful music, wonderful art direction, and interesting script
It became a success. Originally, at the box office, The Wizard of Oz was a flop. Being rerun on television year after year in the pre-cable TV days was what made it into the beloved classic is is today.
FLAC: This codec, favored by Grateful Dead tape traders, stands for Free Lossless Audio Code. It reduces storage space by 30 percent to 50 percent, but without compression. A full audio CD can be burned from the file, unlike from MP3s.
That's "Free Lossless Audio Codec", not "Code".
If reducing storage space by 30-50% isn't "compression", what is? I do not think that word means what you think it means....
And it's news to me that you can't burn a full audio CD from a playlist of MP3s. It may not be exactly the same CD bit-for-bit, but it's still an audio CD.
Someone's not doing his research, and his editor deserves to know it.
I don't think many people here doubt it's legitimacy; J&J is a large corporation with a lot of well-informed lawyers, after all.
What surprises me is that they didn't work a mutually agreeable solution instead of a lawsuit. Legal or not, a lawsuit against the American Red Cross for using a red cross is a public relations disaster for any corporation. Granted:
"The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York, marked the breakdown of months of behind-the-scenes negotiations and prompted an angry response from the Red Cross.... The company also said that it had offered to engage in third-party mediation to resolve the dispute, but that the Red Cross declined."
...and I'm glad the article states this. But nevertheless, J&J is going to look like greedy slobs no matter how objective the article is.
Unless everyone you work for and with does the same, I doubt it. There are a few things a file-translator just can't quite nail when you're importing someone else's stuff. (I know Apple's got built-in exporters to Office, but I've learned not to put 100% faith in those either.)
Further complicating matters is that we don't have spaceships that can instantly take us anywhere in the universe, and according to the laws of physics as we know them, it's likely that other intelligent beings don't either. Maybe they have travelled lifetimes and they just haven't run across us yet.
I'm still trying to decide if this is even likely to happen.
For example, why don't we work on visiting the Moon or asteroids or other planets that are rich in minerals we need, mine them, and ship them back to Earth? Of course, it's because it's not practical to do so -- the money/energy consumed by shipping them to Earth vastly outweighs what we'd gain by having them.
Shipping people around the universe poses the same problem. To make it practical, you either need to bring a small group back (which you really can't do across light-years) or send a large colony one-way. To do THAT, you need to be fairly certain they've got a good place to land, and completely certain they've got a comfortable ship to ride in. A ship large enough to carry an entire colony AND provide the food, oxygen, and sanity they'll need on the way would probably mean hollowing out an asteroid.
It's not a question of technology to send people across the stars, nearly as much as it is a question of making the trip worthwhile. I don't think there's any technology in existence according to the known laws of physics that could motivate any life-form to colonize other planets while their home planet was still habitable.
There's better places to get the content, so why bother cracking it?
Because that's the whole point of this thread, remember?
It's the convenience, stupid
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
1) It only takes ONE person to "crack" and copy music, a movie, etc. and make it available to all the average Joes.
"Available" is a relative term.
For your average iPod-buying Joe, it's easier to find a desirable song by buying a CD on the way home or to search and download it from the iTunes Store, than it is to find a reliable and spyware-free Gnutella client, search for the song, eliminate all the junk matches, find one that's good quality, and download it.
I like using the iTunes Store to download singles because it's MUCH more reliable and usable than browsing for free MP3s, as long as the iTunes Store actually carries said singles. It's also much, much faster at downloading movies.
For the non-geek, legal DRMed media files are generally easier to find, easier to download, faster to play, and usually have their metadata tagged properly too. The only downsides are that you can't give it away to your friends and it costs more. But like Linux, cracked multimedia files are only free if your time is worth nothing.
It's a faster and straightforward way for geneticists to identify junk DNA in our chromosomes, because it sounds much more like top-40 music.
Similarly, DNA for coding the human brain will sound like NPR; for muscles, Jock Jams; for reproductive organs... well, you get the idea.
Interestingly, the first DNA sample they plugged into this technology was Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's. They found out that his chromosomes, in fact, sound remarkably like the Spice Girls being played at 78 rpm. Strange but true.
But of course, what you're buying is the legal rights to access the thing, not the thing itself. I can't buy a lake -- how do I intend to control what rain falls into it, or where the water flows out of it? -- but I can (and should, in any capitalist economy) be able to buy the right to boat on it, stock it with fish, swim in it, plant trees around it, and keep other individuals and businesses from emptying or polluting it.
Buying the right to use a portion of the EM spectrum is, fundamentally, no different than buying the right to control land, bodies of water, airspace, etc. It's only foolish if you look at it literally.
Slashdot Mirror
*still trying to figure out how this is newsworthy*
The submitter was clearly hoping to get a wealth of Monty Python posts out of this headline.
I don't understand the impetus behind removing all tactile controls from a portable audio player.
I don't know about the iPod Touch, but the iPhone would vibrate slightly and briefly when you touched a button to give tactile feedback. That's not quite the same as feeling where the button is before you press it, but it's a lot better than nothing.
When they stop making changes and start introducing only gradual improvements (like when the video iPod simply came out in a model with more storage) that's the time to go grab it. Based on their past performance though, I'd suggest waiting until then.
Interestingly, this is almost identical to what people say about Microsoft's upgrades to Windows and/or Office.
Or any other computer company about any other computer product, come to that.
All you've pointed out is that Apple isn't immune to imperfections. Anyone who takes on "early adopter" status accepts a certain amount of risk, regardless of what company.
Nope, no speaker. No bluetooth, either. And apparently removed some apps that the iPhone has, too.
No camera, either. That's a heck of a loss.
Guess Apple has to leave people some reason to buy an iPhone instead.
The WiFi Store only sells music, not video or games. Any ideas why?
Is the bandwidth really that slow that downloading video is impractical? And if so, why is the YouTube deal still such a big feature?
I assume Apple could add these to the WiFi Store whenever they wanted to, if the technology allowed.
And if so, they'd have a powerful weapon in their hands: an iPod that can be used (if somewhat expensively) without any PC whatsoever.
Games, video, web surfing, music, everything your average teenager uses a computer for -- well, except Flash, internet chat, homework papers.....
How many of them will start really doing mobile web browsing as a day-to-day activity?
Short answer: pretty much everybody who brings a laptop to Starbucks.
iPod Touch: touch screen, WiFi, web browsing, widescreen video, third-party apps (well, theoretically).
versus:
iPod Classic: none of that, but ten times the storage capacity.
Nasty choice you've left people with there, Apple.
For a device that seems to play video well (and made for it) 8/16 GB doesn't seem like enough. Especially since the "ipod classic" comes in 80/160GB flavors at the same price point( with a small not so good for video screen).
Agreed. I'm assuming they were going for a price point, because the extra thickness/weight of a hard drive inside an iPod Touch (iTouch? tPod?) would be a small price to pay for increasing storage tenfold. Note that you can now buy a new iPod for about $80, $150, $200, $250, $300, $350, or $400, depending on what you want from it.
Apple's not going to make it easy for Skype to work with an iPod Touch, thanks to the cellphone deal -- or else they'd have done it already with iChat software. OTOH, keep in mind WiFi isn't nearly as ubiquitous as cellphone towers. Yet.
All in all, I consider the iPod Touch to be just as drool-worthy as the iPhone ($200 price drop? Suck it, early adopters), but I still wouldn't buy one until the second or third iteration of the hardware. There's so much the technology is begging to achieve, if only their corporate partners would allow it.
While they're at it, they should build mobile phone capabilities into the thing as well. Then they'd have something!
Look, for the last time: the iPod is a dedicated music player. If you want a mobile phone, you're better off buying a device devoted exclusively to phone-like functionality.
Well, the problem with marijuana is that not only do a large proportion of people in this country not have any problem with attempting to enforce their stunted versions of morality upon the general population, but that those nanny-state proponents generally do not have the mental capacity to understand the actual issues involved, whether those issues are corporate welfare/pork sponsorship of Cannabis criminalization, the costs to our society for attempting the subsequent "War On Drugs", the incredible loss of revenue and resources due to our inability to legally grow Cannabis sativa, or other problems that result from these misguided policies, such as the suffering inflicted upon those whose use of marijuana (and while we're at it, we may as well include Papaver somniferum) whose greatly reduce the physical pains of dealing with chronic disease.
I don't know if you noticed, but typing a period actually requires FEWER keystrokes than another conjunction.
I think Pages has been and is misrepresented as a word processor. It's really a page-design and layout tool. Rather than "Apple's word processor" I think of it as "Indesign lite".
IIRC, part of the redesign of Pages in iWork '08 was to give it a more word-processey mode you could toggle.
Agrees on the "Indesign lite", but neither I nor my wife have ever had cause to use it that way.
It was a success, not because of L. Frank Baum's story, but because of its wonderful performers, wonderful music, wonderful art direction, and interesting script
It became a success. Originally, at the box office, The Wizard of Oz was a flop. Being rerun on television year after year in the pre-cable TV days was what made it into the beloved classic is is today.
That's "Free Lossless Audio Codec", not "Code".
If reducing storage space by 30-50% isn't "compression", what is? I do not think that word means what you think it means....
And it's news to me that you can't burn a full audio CD from a playlist of MP3s. It may not be exactly the same CD bit-for-bit, but it's still an audio CD.
Someone's not doing his research, and his editor deserves to know it.
What surprises me is that they didn't work a mutually agreeable solution instead of a lawsuit. Legal or not, a lawsuit against the American Red Cross for using a red cross is a public relations disaster for any corporation. Granted:...and I'm glad the article states this. But nevertheless, J&J is going to look like greedy slobs no matter how objective the article is.
Bring back the white or I'm not allowed to upgrade... :(
That sort of racist talk can get you banned, y'know.
Finally, I can get rid of Office.
Unless everyone you work for and with does the same, I doubt it. There are a few things a file-translator just can't quite nail when you're importing someone else's stuff. (I know Apple's got built-in exporters to Office, but I've learned not to put 100% faith in those either.)
Perhaps the author is confusing Procedural Programming with Procedural Generation?
He is (and he's the submitter, of course), and he amended a note to the bottom of the article saying so.
It's still bloody hard to read, though.
Further complicating matters is that we don't have spaceships that can instantly take us anywhere in the universe, and according to the laws of physics as we know them, it's likely that other intelligent beings don't either. Maybe they have travelled lifetimes and they just haven't run across us yet.
I'm still trying to decide if this is even likely to happen.
For example, why don't we work on visiting the Moon or asteroids or other planets that are rich in minerals we need, mine them, and ship them back to Earth? Of course, it's because it's not practical to do so -- the money/energy consumed by shipping them to Earth vastly outweighs what we'd gain by having them.
Shipping people around the universe poses the same problem. To make it practical, you either need to bring a small group back (which you really can't do across light-years) or send a large colony one-way. To do THAT, you need to be fairly certain they've got a good place to land, and completely certain they've got a comfortable ship to ride in. A ship large enough to carry an entire colony AND provide the food, oxygen, and sanity they'll need on the way would probably mean hollowing out an asteroid.
It's not a question of technology to send people across the stars, nearly as much as it is a question of making the trip worthwhile. I don't think there's any technology in existence according to the known laws of physics that could motivate any life-form to colonize other planets while their home planet was still habitable.
There's better places to get the content, so why bother cracking it?
Because that's the whole point of this thread, remember?
1) It only takes ONE person to "crack" and copy music, a movie, etc. and make it available to all the average Joes.
"Available" is a relative term.
For your average iPod-buying Joe, it's easier to find a desirable song by buying a CD on the way home or to search and download it from the iTunes Store, than it is to find a reliable and spyware-free Gnutella client, search for the song, eliminate all the junk matches, find one that's good quality, and download it.
I like using the iTunes Store to download singles because it's MUCH more reliable and usable than browsing for free MP3s, as long as the iTunes Store actually carries said singles. It's also much, much faster at downloading movies.
For the non-geek, legal DRMed media files are generally easier to find, easier to download, faster to play, and usually have their metadata tagged properly too. The only downsides are that you can't give it away to your friends and it costs more. But like Linux, cracked multimedia files are only free if your time is worth nothing.
It's a faster and straightforward way for geneticists to identify junk DNA in our chromosomes, because it sounds much more like top-40 music.
Similarly, DNA for coding the human brain will sound like NPR; for muscles, Jock Jams; for reproductive organs... well, you get the idea.
Interestingly, the first DNA sample they plugged into this technology was Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's. They found out that his chromosomes, in fact, sound remarkably like the Spice Girls being played at 78 rpm. Strange but true.
No idea, but Mary Doria Russell tried it out in Children of God as well.
But of course, what you're buying is the legal rights to access the thing, not the thing itself. I can't buy a lake -- how do I intend to control what rain falls into it, or where the water flows out of it? -- but I can (and should, in any capitalist economy) be able to buy the right to boat on it, stock it with fish, swim in it, plant trees around it, and keep other individuals and businesses from emptying or polluting it.
Buying the right to use a portion of the EM spectrum is, fundamentally, no different than buying the right to control land, bodies of water, airspace, etc. It's only foolish if you look at it literally.
where does a robot that walks on water succeed over an autonomous boat?
Well, for starters, an autonomous boat can't walk on land.
We've all seen bosses raise minions from the dead, summon them, or whatnot. But how many of them use a pencil?
Meh, it's been done.