Apple TV, from all the reports I've read, sounds spectacularly weak. I don't expect it to ever succeed.
That's because you're thinking it should be a PVR, and it's not. Apple could easily build in that functionality, and IMO probably wants to--but Apple doesn't want to step on the toes of those media providers hosted by the iTunes Store.
Basically, they can offer old TV for sale on iTunes or record new TV via PVR software, but not both. Not without the blessings of those media companies, anyway, and that's not very likely right now.
The biggest problem I have with this new device is that it's only going to work with iTunes. I want to have a media distribution box (preferrably linux) streaming audio, video, and pictures to my tv and stereo.
While I agree on geek principles, I don't see how a keyboardless box like the iTV would be able to connect to any streaming software source the user might have, at least not without a lot of PC-end configuration. That sort of thing completely trumps Apple's ease-of-use principle, which is practically the First Commandment of their business.
On the other hand, iTunes is free, and Quicktime supports plugins and can handle just about any codec you want (disclaimer: I'm a Mac user and I know firsthand that there's plenty of things VLC plays better). So for the average user there's little to complain about, and for the non-average geek there's better ways to do what iTV does without buying iTV at all.
Why should I waste my bandwidth on distributing Apple's movies and music for them?
Assuming Apple would implement such a thing, I'm pretty sure it would be voluntary. After all, all current file-sharing software makes it optional to share your downloads with others--on the other hand, others have the option of not sharing with you under those circumstances.
The problem was that Sun controled it too much, so it was pre-destined to never become ubiquitous. If they GPL'd it from the get go, it would have been a shoe-in, game over, touchdown, and go home.
I'm not sure I follow your logic. Flash is pretty much ubiquitous, and it's not GPL'ed. Although other applications can and do read and write Flash files, Macromedia always kept a lock on the feature set. They just understood better what people WANTED to do with "applets" and restricted Flash to that, while Java was more universal and consequently slower to execute.
The Texas 'Silver' Star 1984
- notice SILVER is in quotes as my last name is Silver and I asked that it be that way. - I also asked that it be listed as anonamous - but will take credit here.
Sure, why not, since nobody else is.
Breakdancing 1972
If you're trying to take credit for inventing this entire style, lots of luck to you.
In "Nobody's Baby" (2001) with Skeet Ulrich & Gary Oldman - Oldman and one of the main characters dance "The Slide" while the credits run at the end of the film. In "The Replacements" (2000) with Keanu Reeves - the football team dances "The Slide" in jail and again on the football field . No one asked permission to use my choreography and they dance the shortened 18 step incorrect version. The only film that has actually used the correct choreography was "The Super" (1991) when the tenants invite Joe Pechi to join their house party.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but would the fact that he hasn't raised the issue of copyright at any time since 1991 invalidate any claims he's trying to press today?
Say you have a reasonably sizeable music collection, several hundred albums. Are you really suggesting that it's reasonable to buy several spindles of blank cds and spend weeks manually burning and reripping (with fidelity loss) your entire collection?
Are you really suggesting it's reasonable to buy that much music from the iTunes Store all at one time? 'Cause most people just buy a few songs or albums per day, max.
Some small African or southeast Asian country with a weakened economy just needs to officially change their name to, say, Xxeveron.
Once that's official, they're entitled to a *.xx domain name and can sell it to the online pornographers at $50 a pop. Granted it's only two Xs instead of three, but it's still a win-win situation for everyone.
When I was in college I had a professor who doubted that prizes in science bring about any new inventions or discoveries that wouldn't have been made anyway.
Did you ask him if he'd have ever written his thesis if a degree hadn't been attached to its success?
Re:Not so much that you need an iPod to listen
on
Norway Outlaws iTunes
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's not so much that you need an iPod to enjoy your itunes purchases, but that you are locked into future hardware purchases from Apple
Unless you listen to them on your computer instead. PC or Mac, iTunes supports them both.
Or... here's a concept... burn them to an audio CD and enjoy them on your portable CD player! Wow, who knew!
In fact, with any of a number of wireless-to-stereo devices, you can beam iTunes FairPlay music directly to your stereo, no hard media required.
So there you go--three completely different ways to enjoy your iTunes purchases, at least one of which is completely portable, and none of which require purchasing an iPod.
True, of course, but iTMS really highlights the problem.
Oh, come on. This has been plainly visible since stores started selling online at all. It's not like very many Americans are lining up to buy Japanese music that's not available overseas, but Terry Pratchett fans in the US were complaining for years about the way his novels were available exclusively in the UK for months before that got changed.
(BTW, it's just iTS now.)
Back when the way of selling music was to press it to a record (or other physical medium) and sell it in a shop, it made sense to have different distribution deals for different countries.
Physical media have never had anything to do with it. It's entirely to do with international licensing agreements and international laws, and the way a culture of piracy dictates how the same CD or DVD can be sold for wildly different prices in different countries.
The article does make a good point, though. If a label is willing to let its music out on eMusic without DRM, and even willing to let Apple have it for iTunes without DRM, then why does Apple not post it on iTunes without FairPlay?
Because nobody's made a big enough noise about it, I suppose. There still aren't enough popular artists on eMusic for this to be a major issue for people.
Alternatively, consider that Apple would still be selling the music in AAC format, which it claims gives better quality in smaller file sizes than MP3. So buyers from the iTunes Store would still be shut out from listening to the music on other players.
It would be nice of Apple to license FairPlay to other hardware makers, especially since I can't see it putting a huge dent in iPod sales anyway. But I'm not sure this lawsuit has a compelling chance of making it happen. As long as the same music can be easily bought in other places, it's not a monopoly.
What's really sad is that Shaye is such typical Hollywood; he actually believes an ego-driven pissing contest is more important than creating good work, and paying artists what the contract specifies.
When you're the guy with the money, instead of the guy creating the art... yeah, that is more important.
The first rule of Hollywood is simple: they're there to MAKE MONEY. Hollywood always has been about making money, not making great art. People who want to tell a great story on a shoestring budget write novels. People who want to make billion-dollar special effects blockbusters go to Hollywood, where they expect a return on their billion-dollar investment, because there, motion pictures are a billion-dollar business, not a billion-dollar creative grant.
Anyone who complains about Hollywood producers trying to make, and keep, all the money they can needs to wake up. Nobody is going to be completely honest and reasonable with anybody else when hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple TV, from all the reports I've read, sounds spectacularly weak. I don't expect it to ever succeed.
That's because you're thinking it should be a PVR, and it's not. Apple could easily build in that functionality, and IMO probably wants to--but Apple doesn't want to step on the toes of those media providers hosted by the iTunes Store.
Basically, they can offer old TV for sale on iTunes or record new TV via PVR software, but not both. Not without the blessings of those media companies, anyway, and that's not very likely right now.
The biggest problem I have with this new device is that it's only going to work with iTunes. I want to have a media distribution box (preferrably linux) streaming audio, video, and pictures to my tv and stereo.
While I agree on geek principles, I don't see how a keyboardless box like the iTV would be able to connect to any streaming software source the user might have, at least not without a lot of PC-end configuration. That sort of thing completely trumps Apple's ease-of-use principle, which is practically the First Commandment of their business.
On the other hand, iTunes is free, and Quicktime supports plugins and can handle just about any codec you want (disclaimer: I'm a Mac user and I know firsthand that there's plenty of things VLC plays better). So for the average user there's little to complain about, and for the non-average geek there's better ways to do what iTV does without buying iTV at all.
Why should I waste my bandwidth on distributing Apple's movies and music for them?
Assuming Apple would implement such a thing, I'm pretty sure it would be voluntary. After all, all current file-sharing software makes it optional to share your downloads with others--on the other hand, others have the option of not sharing with you under those circumstances.
The problem was that Sun controled it too much, so it was pre-destined to never become ubiquitous. If they GPL'd it from the get go, it would have been a shoe-in, game over, touchdown, and go home.
I'm not sure I follow your logic. Flash is pretty much ubiquitous, and it's not GPL'ed. Although other applications can and do read and write Flash files, Macromedia always kept a lock on the feature set. They just understood better what people WANTED to do with "applets" and restricted Flash to that, while Java was more universal and consequently slower to execute.
Yeah, but Microsoft's been busy all that time getting a major OS upgrade together, while Apple... um... well... ok, nevermind.
...only outlaws will have viruses.
Hey, I actually like the sound of that.
Say you have a reasonably sizeable music collection, several hundred albums. Are you really suggesting that it's reasonable to buy several spindles of blank cds and spend weeks manually burning and reripping (with fidelity loss) your entire collection?
Are you really suggesting it's reasonable to buy that much music from the iTunes Store all at one time? 'Cause most people just buy a few songs or albums per day, max.
From July 2006: TiVo to Measure Ad-Skipping
so in fact diamond is adamantium.
Diamond is a metal?
Sounds like someone needs to brush up on their corporatespeak.
Sounds more like a conversation with Strong Bad to me.
anthropomorphic climate change
Is that, like, the incarnate god of Greenhouse gasses or something?
Some small African or southeast Asian country with a weakened economy just needs to officially change their name to, say, Xxeveron.
Once that's official, they're entitled to a *.xx domain name and can sell it to the online pornographers at $50 a pop. Granted it's only two Xs instead of three, but it's still a win-win situation for everyone.
When I was in college I had a professor who doubted that prizes in science bring about any new inventions or discoveries that wouldn't have been made anyway.
Did you ask him if he'd have ever written his thesis if a degree hadn't been attached to its success?
It's not so much that you need an iPod to enjoy your itunes purchases, but that you are locked into future hardware purchases from Apple
Unless you listen to them on your computer instead. PC or Mac, iTunes supports them both.
Or... here's a concept... burn them to an audio CD and enjoy them on your portable CD player! Wow, who knew!
In fact, with any of a number of wireless-to-stereo devices, you can beam iTunes FairPlay music directly to your stereo, no hard media required.
So there you go--three completely different ways to enjoy your iTunes purchases, at least one of which is completely portable, and none of which require purchasing an iPod.
I think it's a load. People have the right to be stupid.
Well, you know what they say... when stupidity is outlawed, only outlaws will be stupid.
True, of course, but iTMS really highlights the problem.
Oh, come on. This has been plainly visible since stores started selling online at all. It's not like very many Americans are lining up to buy Japanese music that's not available overseas, but Terry Pratchett fans in the US were complaining for years about the way his novels were available exclusively in the UK for months before that got changed.
(BTW, it's just iTS now.)
Back when the way of selling music was to press it to a record (or other physical medium) and sell it in a shop, it made sense to have different distribution deals for different countries.
Physical media have never had anything to do with it. It's entirely to do with international licensing agreements and international laws, and the way a culture of piracy dictates how the same CD or DVD can be sold for wildly different prices in different countries.
Once you've gone EVDO, HSDPA, or even UMTS, you'll never go back to EDGE/GPRS.
Doesn't really roll off the tongue, does it?
Not to mention the self-serving way they charge you for iLife separately, but just give it to you installed if you buy a new Mac. Greedy jerks.
So your logic is, if someone has a history of acting like a selfish jerk, you should just let them get away with it, because "that's what they do"?
No, just that no one should be surprised, because we all knew they were selfish jerks before this all started.
Just to clarify a bit, AAC is as open a format as MP3
Yes, but as far as I know, the iPod is the only portable player that will CURRENTLY play AAC files. Which is what I was addressing.
The article does make a good point, though. If a label is willing to let its music out on eMusic without DRM, and even willing to let Apple have it for iTunes without DRM, then why does Apple not post it on iTunes without FairPlay?
Because nobody's made a big enough noise about it, I suppose. There still aren't enough popular artists on eMusic for this to be a major issue for people.
Alternatively, consider that Apple would still be selling the music in AAC format, which it claims gives better quality in smaller file sizes than MP3. So buyers from the iTunes Store would still be shut out from listening to the music on other players.
It would be nice of Apple to license FairPlay to other hardware makers, especially since I can't see it putting a huge dent in iPod sales anyway. But I'm not sure this lawsuit has a compelling chance of making it happen. As long as the same music can be easily bought in other places, it's not a monopoly.
At each step down the line, there is a tremendous waste of energy.
But a tenfold increase in taste.
Plus you don't get gas from eating an entire plate of chicken protein.
What's really sad is that Shaye is such typical Hollywood; he actually believes an ego-driven pissing contest is more important than creating good work, and paying artists what the contract specifies.
When you're the guy with the money, instead of the guy creating the art... yeah, that is more important.
The first rule of Hollywood is simple: they're there to MAKE MONEY. Hollywood always has been about making money, not making great art. People who want to tell a great story on a shoestring budget write novels. People who want to make billion-dollar special effects blockbusters go to Hollywood, where they expect a return on their billion-dollar investment, because there, motion pictures are a billion-dollar business, not a billion-dollar creative grant.
Anyone who complains about Hollywood producers trying to make, and keep, all the money they can needs to wake up. Nobody is going to be completely honest and reasonable with anybody else when hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake.