You just shot yourself in the foot. Proportionate sales notwithstanding, the PSP UMD format has been an outlandish success, sales-wise. People are buying them and studios are releasing more movies to the format than I'd ever imagined considering the constraints it offers.
What is happening is fascinating and scary, and anyone in the entertainment business anywhere in the world -- nowhere more than in Australia -- needs to understand it.
Nowhere more than Australia? Since when was Sydney the burdgeoning hub of the music industry?
The music industry fled into Jobs' arms in desperation as it watched piracy erode its sales
No, I seem to recall that Jobs had to do a lot of work to get all five major labels to agree to a $0.99-per-song pricing structure with minimal DRM.
We will witness the creation and destruction of a market dominance in the time it used to take to work up a business plan.
iPods have been around for, what, five years now? And they've been dominant for at least three.
I'm sorry, but half of this article sounds like an April Fool's joke, and the rest just sounds like wishful thinking.
The whole point of april fools day is to try to TRICK people..you know... with GOOD jokes and tricks..What the hell is the point of this shit on slashdot?
Well, you see, since everyone who reads/. is prepared on Apr. 1 for a bunch of outlandish stories, nobody falls for them anymore. So we may as well be ridiculous instead.
I seem to remember that, in the early days, iPods weren't purchasable anywhere except directly from Apple. Partially this was because they weren't in demand yet, and eventually it became a matter of Apple refusing to discount its products for anybody. The price you paid for a new iPod (or any new Apple product) at Apple's stores is as low as the price you paid anywhere else.
As iPods became more and more popular, it became painfully obvious that Wal-Mart was the last major retailer not to sell them. And, of course, this is because Wal-Mart's policy is to price anything it sells lower than all of its competitors.
So Wal-Mart had a problem: they needed to sell these iconic iPods, but Apple wouldn't let them sell it at a lower price. They'd be eroding their own business, but more importantly, they'd be losing a lot of money on what Apple insisted should be a quality product worth a higher price.
Eventually the two came to some kind of compromise, because you can buy a new iPod Nano at the Apple Store for $149.00, or at Wal-Mart for... $147.88. No matter what iPod you want to buy, Wal-Mart will sell it to you for precisely $1.12 less than Apple. And I'm assuming that Wal-Mart eats that loss themselves in the hopes of selling iPod accessories to you while you're in the store.
Capitalism is capitalism, and I don't begrudge Wal-Mart for the quite successful strategy it uses. But let's face it: for the most part, you get what you pay for. I'd much rather keep enjoying the $150 DVD player I have in my family room than some $30 P.o.S. from an off-brand Chinese manufacturer who only sells it to Wal-Mart because the remote control is incomprehensible and the components aren't expected to last a year.
So you not only have summarized TFA FOR me - so I don't have to RTFA - AND you're saying it's nothing for anyone but a sporadic user... Why are you wasting space on slasdot?
So that you know it, now. The real question is, why are you wasting space commenting on a posting you just said is worthless?
Gee, I can't think of anything I'd like to do more than watch a 320x240 ipod quality film. Sorry, I'd rather watch films on a sensible sized screen or not bother at all.
Fine, then don't download movies at all. But since this entire Slashdot submission was about downloading movies, I figured it was worth posting something on that subject.
A made-for-Disney-Channel movie? Yeah, because Disney have been making such great movies for the cinema recently. I'm sure that they've saved all the good stuff for made-for-Disney-Channel.
If it's holographic, aren't you more concerned with how much data per cubic inch? I mean, per square inch kind of loses meaning at that point, doesn't it?
Only if you have a way to focus your laser at an arbitrary depth. However, if a standard-size disc makes it possible to store thousands of gigabytes of data on a flat disc, then the question of three-dimensional storage is nearly moot. The cost of making a storage drive that can focus a laser in a three-dimensional medium is probably much higher than the cost of just sticking in another disc.
If/when we need storage on the order of thousands of times what most professionals need now, this will be an issue. Until then, it's easier to build something that can also play CDs and DVDs with ease.
The first generation drive has a capacity of 300GB on a single disk with a 20Mbps transfer rate. The first product will be followed by a family ranging from 800GB to 1.6TB capacity.
So apparently, that 515GB is a current maximum, and the 300GB disc won't be using that maximum density.
I was looking for some details on the storage mechanism
Click on the link to InPhase Technologies, click on their press releases... hey, there it is! Looks to me like they're trying to use CD/DVD-like discs to provide backwards compatibility. As for longevity of the medium, their web site seems to indicate they're still perfecting that part of the technology.
"Holographic storage is a revolutionary departure from all existing recording methods because it takes advantage of volumetric efficiencies rather than only recording on the surface of the material. InPhase will deliver the industry's first holographic drive and media later this year. The first generation drive has a capacity of 300 gigabytes on a single disk with a 20 megabyte per second transfer rate. The first product will be followed by a family ranging from 800GB to 1.6 terabyte (TB) capacity."
It's far easier and cheaper to set off (because of less gravity and no atmosphere).
That would be a plus, if it weren't for the little matter of fuel. Since there's no practical way to obtain rocket fuel from the moon itself, we'd have to carry it all up there on other spacecraft--completely eliminating any advantages.
This week, as more of an experiment than anything else, the iTunes Music Store began selling a downloadable version of the entire made-for-Disney-Channel movie "High School Musical" for $9.99 at iPod-video quality.
Granted, the movie is still being shown on Disney Channel now and then, but it's a bit of a big deal in that this is being offered a couple of months ahead of the DVD release, and for about half the price.
Well, I guess there's nothing to see here, I'll move along.
No kidding. By placing the series between Episodes 3 and 4, when Luke is still a kid and Obi-Wan is undercover, he rules out the possibility of any Jedi action whatsoever. That truncates his audience pretty sharply right there.
The resulting page doesn't list news for those companies, just the current stock price.
Really? I clicked on the link to AAPL and saw not just stock info and news--linked to dates on the chart, no less--but Company Facts, Company Summary, Company Financials, Management, Related Companies, and links to Blog Posts (courtesy of Google Blog Search, natch) and discussions hosted by Google. That's almost twice as much information as I got from Yahoo's default page.
Not quite like Google Maps; this stock chart is produced with Flash 8, not AJAX/DHTML/JS/whatever you want to call it.
Not a problem for me, or (I expect) for its target audience. Still, I think this is the first time Google has built something using Flash instead of AJAX, so it's notable just for that.
Having to jump through hoops to enjoy my fair use rights is hardly a fair replacement.
You always had to jump through hoops to enjoy fair use rights. Excerpt from a book? Retype the paragraph. Excerpt from a magazine? Pay $0.10 for the photocopy. Excerpt from a TV show? Find a blank tape and make sure your VCR is ready.
Just because it's a little tricker when that media is on a computer, you think the media companies owe you an easy way to fairly use parts of their media. They don't, and they never once gave you an easy way. You're just griping because the hoops are digital now instead of analog.
The bottom line is that most consumers just don't want a computer in their living room.
Perhaps, but they do want: - their MP3s on their stereo - their movie downloads on their living room TV - their photo slideshows on a large screen
No, nobody wants to use a computer from the living room couch -- but likewise, they don't really want their media on their computer desk, either. The trick is bridging the two as effortlessly as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like the PSP UMD format.
You just shot yourself in the foot. Proportionate sales notwithstanding, the PSP UMD format has been an outlandish success, sales-wise. People are buying them and studios are releasing more movies to the format than I'd ever imagined considering the constraints it offers.
Who wants to download something you can't burn and then watch on your home theater?
I dunno, who wants to buy a movie you can't rip to your PC without violating the DMCA?
Oh, that's right, everybody.
We know the difference. The whole world knows the difference. Apple Corp==music catalog. Apple Computer==computers, software, and media/content.
Apple Computer has a website, Apple Corps does not. *boggles*
What is happening is fascinating and scary, and anyone in the entertainment business anywhere in the world -- nowhere more than in Australia -- needs to understand it.
Nowhere more than Australia? Since when was Sydney the burdgeoning hub of the music industry?
The music industry fled into Jobs' arms in desperation as it watched piracy erode its sales
No, I seem to recall that Jobs had to do a lot of work to get all five major labels to agree to a $0.99-per-song pricing structure with minimal DRM.
We will witness the creation and destruction of a market dominance in the time it used to take to work up a business plan.
iPods have been around for, what, five years now? And they've been dominant for at least three.
I'm sorry, but half of this article sounds like an April Fool's joke, and the rest just sounds like wishful thinking.
The whole point of april fools day is to try to TRICK people..you know... with GOOD jokes and tricks..What the hell is the point of this shit on slashdot?
/. is prepared on Apr. 1 for a bunch of outlandish stories, nobody falls for them anymore. So we may as well be ridiculous instead.
Well, you see, since everyone who reads
More like a circle jerk....
http://www.gdrc.org/icts/i-overload/cure.html
Thanks for ruining my fun, Google.
I seem to remember that, in the early days, iPods weren't purchasable anywhere except directly from Apple. Partially this was because they weren't in demand yet, and eventually it became a matter of Apple refusing to discount its products for anybody. The price you paid for a new iPod (or any new Apple product) at Apple's stores is as low as the price you paid anywhere else.
As iPods became more and more popular, it became painfully obvious that Wal-Mart was the last major retailer not to sell them. And, of course, this is because Wal-Mart's policy is to price anything it sells lower than all of its competitors.
So Wal-Mart had a problem: they needed to sell these iconic iPods, but Apple wouldn't let them sell it at a lower price. They'd be eroding their own business, but more importantly, they'd be losing a lot of money on what Apple insisted should be a quality product worth a higher price.
Eventually the two came to some kind of compromise, because you can buy a new iPod Nano at the Apple Store for $149.00, or at Wal-Mart for... $147.88. No matter what iPod you want to buy, Wal-Mart will sell it to you for precisely $1.12 less than Apple. And I'm assuming that Wal-Mart eats that loss themselves in the hopes of selling iPod accessories to you while you're in the store.
Capitalism is capitalism, and I don't begrudge Wal-Mart for the quite successful strategy it uses. But let's face it: for the most part, you get what you pay for. I'd much rather keep enjoying the $150 DVD player I have in my family room than some $30 P.o.S. from an off-brand Chinese manufacturer who only sells it to Wal-Mart because the remote control is incomprehensible and the components aren't expected to last a year.
My browser reads the link correctly, but every time I click on it I get redirected to http://www.fbi.gov/
So you not only have summarized TFA FOR me - so I don't have to RTFA - AND you're saying it's nothing for anyone but a sporadic user... Why are you wasting space on slasdot?
So that you know it, now. The real question is, why are you wasting space commenting on a posting you just said is worthless?
Gee, I can't think of anything I'd like to do more than watch a 320x240 ipod quality film. Sorry, I'd rather watch films on a sensible sized screen or not bother at all.
Fine, then don't download movies at all. But since this entire Slashdot submission was about downloading movies, I figured it was worth posting something on that subject.
I wonder if the fact that Apple produced the special U2 iPod (A physical product containing "music") will be held against them.
IIRC, the iPod didn't include the music, but you did get a $50 credit toward downloading U2's music library from the iTMS.
A made-for-Disney-Channel movie? Yeah, because Disney have been making such great movies for the cinema recently. I'm sure that they've saved all the good stuff for made-for-Disney-Channel.
2 7-high-school-musical_x.htm among others.
It's not my thing, but apparently "High School Musical" has been a ginormous success for Disney Channel. See http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2006-02-
If it's holographic, aren't you more concerned with how much data per cubic inch? I mean, per square inch kind of loses meaning at that point, doesn't it?
Only if you have a way to focus your laser at an arbitrary depth. However, if a standard-size disc makes it possible to store thousands of gigabytes of data on a flat disc, then the question of three-dimensional storage is nearly moot. The cost of making a storage drive that can focus a laser in a three-dimensional medium is probably much higher than the cost of just sticking in another disc.
If/when we need storage on the order of thousands of times what most professionals need now, this will be an issue. Until then, it's easier to build something that can also play CDs and DVDs with ease.
The first generation drive has a capacity of 300GB on a single disk with a 20Mbps transfer rate. The first product will be followed by a family ranging from 800GB to 1.6TB capacity.
So apparently, that 515GB is a current maximum, and the 300GB disc won't be using that maximum density.
I was looking for some details on the storage mechanism
_ 4000.html
Click on the link to InPhase Technologies, click on their press releases... hey, there it is! Looks to me like they're trying to use CD/DVD-like discs to provide backwards compatibility. As for longevity of the medium, their web site seems to indicate they're still perfecting that part of the technology.
http://www.inphase-technologies.com/news/Tapestry
"Holographic storage is a revolutionary departure from all existing recording methods because it takes advantage of volumetric efficiencies rather than only recording on the surface of the material. InPhase will deliver the industry's first holographic drive and media later this year. The first generation drive has a capacity of 300 gigabytes on a single disk with a 20 megabyte per second transfer rate. The first product will be followed by a family ranging from 800GB to 1.6 terabyte (TB) capacity."
It's far easier and cheaper to set off (because of less gravity and no atmosphere).
That would be a plus, if it weren't for the little matter of fuel. Since there's no practical way to obtain rocket fuel from the moon itself, we'd have to carry it all up there on other spacecraft--completely eliminating any advantages.
This week, as more of an experiment than anything else, the iTunes Music Store began selling a downloadable version of the entire made-for-Disney-Channel movie "High School Musical" for $9.99 at iPod-video quality.
Granted, the movie is still being shown on Disney Channel now and then, but it's a bit of a big deal in that this is being offered a couple of months ahead of the DVD release, and for about half the price.
Well, I guess there's nothing to see here, I'll move along.
No kidding. By placing the series between Episodes 3 and 4, when Luke is still a kid and Obi-Wan is undercover, he rules out the possibility of any Jedi action whatsoever. That truncates his audience pretty sharply right there.
How odd, here in the USA I was able to pull up CM right away. Maybe you had a beta burp.
The resulting page doesn't list news for those companies, just the current stock price.
Really? I clicked on the link to AAPL and saw not just stock info and news--linked to dates on the chart, no less--but Company Facts, Company Summary, Company Financials, Management, Related Companies, and links to Blog Posts (courtesy of Google Blog Search, natch) and discussions hosted by Google. That's almost twice as much information as I got from Yahoo's default page.
The stock ticker is draggable, like Google Maps
Not quite like Google Maps; this stock chart is produced with Flash 8, not AJAX/DHTML/JS/whatever you want to call it.
Not a problem for me, or (I expect) for its target audience. Still, I think this is the first time Google has built something using Flash instead of AJAX, so it's notable just for that.
Having to jump through hoops to enjoy my fair use rights is hardly a fair replacement.
You always had to jump through hoops to enjoy fair use rights. Excerpt from a book? Retype the paragraph. Excerpt from a magazine? Pay $0.10 for the photocopy. Excerpt from a TV show? Find a blank tape and make sure your VCR is ready.
Just because it's a little tricker when that media is on a computer, you think the media companies owe you an easy way to fairly use parts of their media. They don't, and they never once gave you an easy way. You're just griping because the hoops are digital now instead of analog.
Try playing your video on a different machine not authorized to your itunes account and you'll see what he's griping about.
All I have to do is log into iTunes from that machine; Apple lets me authorize my media on up to five different computers at a time.
The bottom line is that most consumers just don't want a computer in their living room.
Perhaps, but they do want:
- their MP3s on their stereo
- their movie downloads on their living room TV
- their photo slideshows on a large screen
No, nobody wants to use a computer from the living room couch -- but likewise, they don't really want their media on their computer desk, either. The trick is bridging the two as effortlessly as possible.