I call BS on this one. Maybe some iPod users were just admiring the blinkenlights, but for me, it's all about technical merit. I HAD a Creative portable mp3 player. It worked great. It even had a technical feature I considered important--a line-level output, so I could plug it into the line-in of my car stereo. But the interface was clunky and the display was difficult to read. Then along came the Diamond (later SonicBlue) Rio 500. It worked with Audible.com. It didn't have line-out, and the display was even worse than the Creative's, but those were *techical* trades I was willing to make. In the meantime, Apple introduced the iPod. Even with 5, 10, and eventually 20 GB capacities, it wasn't enough to make me switch from my Rio (with about 128 MB of flash). Finally, the 3rd-generation iPod brought out the TECHNICAL combination to sell me on the product: line-out and Audible.com compatibility. So I got one. And you know what? It completely blows away the other two brands from a user interface standpoint. I spent six months kicking myself for not switching earlier. So, yes, it is about technical merit. Apple EARNED my purchase. And to drag this thread back on-topic, I find the lawsuit completely without merit. It Apple *had* copied Creative's interface, the iPod wouldn't be as good as it is.
Indeed. Heck, follwing up on the submitter's question of "why stop there?", we probably now have the computing power to store the Universal Library. Let's put all possible knowledge at our fingertips.
...and the Mac guy is Justin Long, the cheerleader/OSQ "Justin" of "Dodgeball" fame. Which qualifies him, uh, I'm not exactly sure how. But it's a cool flick.
Hmm... I'm gonna have to go with running on this one. And archery. Or javelin? All derived from things that people were doing just to survive. The only thing "artificial" about them as sports is that you're only pretending to be at war. But hey, it keeps the skillz sharp.
Wow you sure know your history better than I do. I had NO idea that Apple System 6 had a HTML based Widget technology on the desktop... Especially since HTML didn't exist for 4 years after System 6 was released. So tell me, when did Apple start predicting the future and innovating based on things that didn't exist yet?
I rather think he does know his history better than you do. Hypertext (the 'H' in HTML) was inspired by Apple's Hypercard software. Tim Berners Lee's innovation, of course, was to place everything out on the Internet. So, yes, System 6 had the equivalent of HTML-based widgets on the desktop. I was using Hypercard in 1987 to animate Excel charts.
TiVo picked this patent fight with Echostar because it was an open and shut case
I'm on TiVo's side on this one, but your assertion is false. If it were an open and shut case, TiVO would not bave thought it necessary to bring suit in the most plaintiff-friendly venue in the country: BFE, Texas.
Do not try to learn anything from games or anime. You -will- pick up bad habits if you try and learn that way that will be both hard to drop and impede your progress.
Yeah, but no matter how poor those habits are, can they really end up any worse than "Someone set us up the bomb?"
Per the precedent, yes, that device should be loaded with SCMS. I wouldn't have the foggiest notion as to why the RIAA is turning a blind eye, but I doubt they'd be so kind to Apple.
You were pointing right to it, but missing the last logical link. If the Rio (and, by extension, all of the pther portable players coming after it, including the iPod) were able to "make digital copies" (which, when you dig down into the arguments, was semantically equivalent to "act like a hard drive"), then it would be considered a "recording device," and the provisions of SCMS would apply, just like they do for MiniDisc and DAT. Disabling the "copy from" functions from mp3 players is what prevents them from being treated as recording devices, and inheriting all of those copyright control mechanisms.
But they don't - because their corporate partners are more important then their customers wishes.
This is an oversimplistic way of looking at the situation, and one that lays entirely too much blame at the feet of Apple. Go and look back to the very first pocket mp3 players. The RIAA vs Diamond Rio lawsuit (references here, here, and here is now the legal precedent that Apple and everyone else is following. They are simply not legally allowed to make it trivial to transfer files back off of an iPod. If portable, transferrable music is your goal, just to buy your favorite flavor of Flash-based memopry card (Compact Flash, SD, SmartMedia, Memory Stick, etc., $US 40 for 1 GB) and a USB reader ($US 7-8). Do not accuse Apple of being unfriendly to consumers when it's been demonstrated that if they were to take your approach, they would soon be faced with an injunction that would PREVENT them from selling ANYTHING to consumers.
I guess that upgrades him from just fanboy to I-like-my-money-so-I-won't-bash-my-investments fanboy?
Even a fanboy should have realized that Apple's stock peak back in January was likely to be the highest it's going to get for a LONG time. There's nothing the press can do at this point that'll pump up Apple's price. The next iPod is going to have to be subcutaneously-implantable nanotech to cause a significant bump. I am an unabashed fanboy, but even I sold (at 21* my 1996 purchase price) in January.
This makes absolutely no sense. The TV division of Universal is having great success right now distributing through (multi-platform) iTunes. Why would they want to start back over from scratch, and pick not only a different DRM format, but one that restricts the audience?
And yes, my apologies still go to Linux users who can't run iTunes (6) with QuickTime (7).
Thanks for the vocabulary lesson! JBased on your links, I got curious about other pirate lingo, and discovered that "freebooter" and "filibuster" both have the same etymology. I'll never be able to look at Congress the same way again...
Methinks you've got it backwards: shelving your book by expense/apppearance makes you a poseur and not a book-lover.
That was part of my point. If the submitter needs a software solution to keep track of 3500 books, he's not really a book-lover, and (IMHO) just a poseur. So why not go all-out?
As to the color idea--I love it. I had my music CD collection organized that way. I could still find things in an instant. But when it eventually used up too much shelf space, the discs went into binders and the jewel cases into the attic.
My wife's a librarian, and she would laugh at the idea of using LoC numbers for a collection this small.
I'm not a librarian, and I'm laughing now. If you've got 3500 books, and can't by memory put your hand on the one you're looking for within 45 seconds, then you're a poseur, not a bibliophile. Just put the most expensive ones at eye level. Come up with some other aesthetic criteria for the rest, and you'll be just fine.
...and flagging the dupe. Here's a dupe of my previous comment, listing some of the competing music stores that are currently 100% iPod compatible. This is a non-issue, unless somehow this law would force Microsoft into licensing PlaysForSure to Apple (for iPod, and I would assume, MacOS).
If this happened as a "presto!" then you ignored one of the installation acknowledgement messages. It clearly warns you during the QT7 installation process that any previous installations (and accompanying Pro version registrations) will be removed.
And, by the way, if you happen to have a back-up, the current version of iTunes works just fine with QuickTime 6.5.
That's 32 million iPods and 18.5 million iTunes users. What are the other 14 million people using to get music into their iPods?
There's no requirement to "register" iTunes before you start using it to get songs onto an iPod, so the only way that Apple would identify you as a "unique user" woud be if you signed up to purchase music from the iTunes Music Store (tm). I'd be willing to bet that some of the other 14 million people just haven't bought music from Apple. (But your original statement is still true. I'm one of those folks with two iPods.)
Doh! I read your comment before TFA, and thought the device was named iPodula, not iuPload
Re:Not just Linux and Mac with problems...
on
In2TV Goes Public
·
· Score: 1
Same here--I started in Firefox, which requires the ActiveX control, and then download and launch of the Hi-Q player. The Hi-Q player launches IE (which I have supposedly disabled on this machine) to bring up a "catalogue" of videos to choose from. When I pick the same video in IE that I had already picked in Firefox, I get the commercial in IE again, and then a Hi-Q player window that times out on "acquiring license." Looks like plenty of bugs left.
Where besides input devices has vibration been used for feedback?
Also a "tell you when you're wrong" example, but one old-school vibration-feedback device is road-shoulder "hiccups" that tell you when you're drifting out of your lane. I got my driver's license in 1980, and they were around then.
I was simply refuting your lie that the only music store that offers iPod-compatible downloads is Apple's. Yes, all of those stores sell DRM-free MP3's. I never claimed that they wouldn't work with other players, either. Rent a clue.
Slashdot Mirror
...and low long until the first lawsuit for "excessive scratches" on the black models?
Indeed. Heck, follwing up on the submitter's question of "why stop there?", we probably now have the computing power to store the Universal Library. Let's put all possible knowledge at our fingertips.
Hey! I still use my "Internet Time" Swatch as an alarm clock, you insensitive clod!
Per the precedent, yes, that device should be loaded with SCMS. I wouldn't have the foggiest notion as to why the RIAA is turning a blind eye, but I doubt they'd be so kind to Apple.
You were pointing right to it, but missing the last logical link. If the Rio (and, by extension, all of the pther portable players coming after it, including the iPod) were able to "make digital copies" (which, when you dig down into the arguments, was semantically equivalent to "act like a hard drive"), then it would be considered a "recording device," and the provisions of SCMS would apply, just like they do for MiniDisc and DAT. Disabling the "copy from" functions from mp3 players is what prevents them from being treated as recording devices, and inheriting all of those copyright control mechanisms.
And yes, my apologies still go to Linux users who can't run iTunes (6) with QuickTime (7).
Thanks for the vocabulary lesson! JBased on your links, I got curious about other pirate lingo, and discovered that "freebooter" and "filibuster" both have the same etymology. I'll never be able to look at Congress the same way again...
As to the color idea--I love it. I had my music CD collection organized that way. I could still find things in an instant. But when it eventually used up too much shelf space, the discs went into binders and the jewel cases into the attic.
...and flagging the dupe. Here's a dupe of my previous comment, listing some of the competing music stores that are currently 100% iPod compatible. This is a non-issue, unless somehow this law would force Microsoft into licensing PlaysForSure to Apple (for iPod, and I would assume, MacOS).
If this happened as a "presto!" then you ignored one of the installation acknowledgement messages. It clearly warns you during the QT7 installation process that any previous installations (and accompanying Pro version registrations) will be removed. And, by the way, if you happen to have a back-up, the current version of iTunes works just fine with QuickTime 6.5.
Doh! I read your comment before TFA, and thought the device was named iPod ula, not i u P l o a d
Same here--I started in Firefox, which requires the ActiveX control, and then download and launch of the Hi-Q player. The Hi-Q player launches IE (which I have supposedly disabled on this machine) to bring up a "catalogue" of videos to choose from. When I pick the same video in IE that I had already picked in Firefox, I get the commercial in IE again, and then a Hi-Q player window that times out on "acquiring license." Looks like plenty of bugs left.
I was simply refuting your lie that the only music store that offers iPod-compatible downloads is Apple's. Yes, all of those stores sell DRM-free MP3's. I never claimed that they wouldn't work with other players, either. Rent a clue.