The PCs are a bit dull really. Would have been nice if they could run a different OS and have radically different hardware but I guess it's not 1985 anymore.
Well, Google is taking a much more scattergun approach to things. It's a case of finding cool services and then trying to work out a way to make them profitable. Microsoft are latching onto more established markets and muscling in. For example, the Zune has a much more tangible market than Google video.
I reckon Microsoft were probably like this in the first couple of years though.
the Google Phone will be a BlackBerry-like device running C++ at the core with an operating system bootstrap and optimized Java and that it would offer voice over Internet Protocol.
What does this actually mean? Why would it be running C++ at the core? Doesn't it make more sense to run native machine code? What devices have an OS but no bootstrap? How do you get them to start? Did they consider pessimised Java, but decided that optimised would be more efficient?
Sony can't claim copyright infringement on content they don't own, and if they did, they'd probably lose their safe harbor protection. Their letter makes it quite clear that they're aware of this, and simply warns that Grouper is probably violating the DMCA, rather than violating Sony's copyright. Then adds a bit of weaselling over trademarks, and makes a few suggestions over unfair competition.
Sony might actually have a point, but this is mostly sabre rattling.
Compression mechanisms don't remove all imperceptable information. Just the parts that help. So we simply encode information where removal has no compression benefits. As a trivial example, what if you make the volume 1% louder, or shift the entire image 1 pixel to the left? Would anyone notice? Okay - those methods would be rubbish since we'd have such low data density as to be worthless, but more complex mechanisms can be used.
Why? Well, because I like downloading new TV shows from the US. Simple as that.
Although, quite honestly, I'm not that fussed. I'd be happy to meet them half way. They allow me a quality download. I pay a reasonable amount of money.
Google have offered a deal to Viacom. Viacom have rejected the deal.
It's unlikely that people are choosing low quality segments of video on Youtube rather than watching broadcast quality shows on television. The impact on Viacom is small.
Maybe Google didn't offer a reasonable amount. Maybe this lawsuit is just part of the negotiation. Both sides know it could backfire horribly.
Google are profiting indirectly from the infringement. The DMCA safe harbor provisions may still be enough to protect them. It would seem unreasonable that the onus is on YouTube to prove that every single clip it shows is licenced by the copyright holder. I believe courts can use reasonableness as a factor in interpreting laws.
Google are in a much better position than Napster, since despite Viacom's Rhetoric, there's a decent amount of user created content there.
If Viacom lose, then Youtube has no reason to offer them any substantial deal.
I know enough not to speculate too much on how court cases will go. They can be unpredictable. Personally I want YouTube to win. Otherwise the service may end up non-viable, and video-clip on demand is a useful service.
Isn't this the patent on the hack that allows Windows 95 file systems to be used in MSDOS? It's a hack for back compatibility for a system that's completely obselete. And I'm not sure where its used. All cameras I've used use MSDOS 8.3 filenames. Mayeba few portable devices use FAT on flash, and maybe flash relies on this method or something ut I'd have thought this would have been thought of before.
Why didn't the standards organisations come up with a better, free filesystem for USB filesystem devices or for flash or something? FAT is cheap and nasty and, as I mentioned earlier, long filename support is a hack.
Certainly it is common for businesses to branch out, but usually there's at least a foothold in other markets. I've seen software companies become training companies but that was as a nautural offshoot of training for their own product. Even large leaps such as Apple's iPod use similar distribution channels to their exisitng products. And while people like Richard Branson will open a series of completely differnt businesses, that's the wexcpetion rather than the rule.
If google were to start manufacturing severs, I'd believe it. If they were to start a software company to rival MS, I'd not doubt that. But becoming a mobile phone manufacturer? It makes as much sense as them going into poultry farming.
I use a Nokia 3510. It's starting to feel a bit old and heavy though. When it wears out I'll probably replace is with something almost identical but more compact.
Microsoft went from a software company, to a more general software company, using a lot of the same basic techniqures and distribution channels. They then expanded that software to support games, and started working with 3D hardware manufacturers and game developers. At the same time, they realised that they had a good brand name and could use the same channels to sell hardware to the same customers who bought their software. They used their links to the games and 3D industry to allow them to expand into the game console industry. This was helped a lot because a large part of the software engineering had already been done.
Then they started panicking as they realised that their only viable rival has produced a music player that they could both make a profit on, and use to promote their brand, so they made a substandard "me too" product. But even that was a branch from their existing computer hardware business. Each step had some relationship to the previous one.
The speculation is that Google are going to shift froma a large web services company, supported by advertising, to a mass production company in a barely related field, using none of their acquired business partenrs, experience, or customers, and making money from unit sales. It would make as much sense as Ford branching out into radish farming becasue they could probably make a tractor.
Certainly an excellent concept, but surely it would be better if Google provided the spec, and let the established mobilephone makers design phones that fit the spec. Google can then do what they do best - provide the mobile service.
Google is a web service company. Branching out into electrnics makes no sense. I could imagine them banching into mobile services, and maybe even partnering with an exisiting company to make a specialised handset, but making a mobile phone? It doesn't mnake sense.
Blu-Ray movies don't work in my DVD player, vinyl doesn't work in my Laserdisc player, my Windows PC won't install Office For Mac, my XBox 360 can't play Wii games and I had to use legally questionable firmware hacks to get my PSP to understand my PS1 files.
But you have a choice of Blu-Ray DVD players, and laserdisc players. Nobody is actively preventing you from installing Mac Office on Windows. The lock-in for consoles is a pretty bad situation as well, and it surprises me that nobody has actually taken the console makers to task over this clear abuse of position.
If iTunes was offering raw AAC files then nobody would mind. Anyone would be free to make a player that can play them. But they're offering encrypted AAC files that are locked to a specific device.
Well, this particular bureaucrat has been championing consumer rights for years. Steve Jobs has produced overpriced electrical equipment and made lots of money from it.
Because if she has, she would know that Jobs himself opposes the DRM scheme.
But iTunes doesn't even give publishers the option of no DRM. I'm not convinced that Steve Jobs is that committed to DRM-Free music. It sounds like a bargaining position.
I am guessing it would be more like $20 per person unless the government prints out the other $16 or so per person out of thin air...
I doubt everyone is going to bother to apply. Those who already have some for of decoder box aren't going to be interested in another one. Not everyone will want 2 boxes.
Whether or not $40 is going to be enough, remains to be seen (they might sell the boxes for $300, who knows.)
Well, digiboxes in the UK are going for about that. If they're going to be selling 24 750 000 of them, I'd expect they'll get the same sort of economies of scale.
1. TV is important since it is tells people what's going on
2. Luxuries are important in modern society.
3. It would be unfair on poor families to suddenly take away their TV service rather than take measures to rectify the situation.
4. This only amounts to about $3.30 per US citizen.
5. The money spent on this is not being taken out of crime prevention, housing, the military or anti-terrorism efforts. If they did not do this, we'd only see a tiny tax break.
Seriously. It just doesn't work like that. The US is the richest nation in the world. If the government believed that the problems mentioned could be solved by throwing a couple of billion dollars at them then they would. Lack of television reception is a problem that can be solved by throwing a billion dollars at it.
I don't think that was the intention. In 1999 it was quite clear that there were going to be some web hosts with this much capacity. Back then, most user created (and user-pirated) content was on ISP provided homepages. A company like AOL has no problem dealing with the number of takedown requests that they receive, and wouldn't have back then.
Probably. And it appears to have been part of the intent of the DMCA. However the act was pretty badly drafted, and part of it does depend on whether Google is directly profitting from the infringement.
Of course, in Youtube's favour, is the fact that the service clearly isn't intended as a vehicle for copyright infringement. Most of the material there is actually the home video stuff that the site is intended for, and they are making efforts to remove the material immediately.
There are many fields where the off-the-shelf principle doesn't work.
But curiously, reducing the labour needed for production reduces prices and seems to often increase demand sufficiently to more than compensate for the reduction in labour. Take the Ford Model T as an example. Work required per car was considerably smaller than any other brand of car, but the workforce was huge. Commercial software (e.g. Windows, and Excel) does all the tasks required of 90% of users, so this should mean that the software industry is only about 10% of the size it was in the 1960's. But it's much larger than it's ever been.
Slashdot Mirror
The PCs are a bit dull really. Would have been nice if they could run a different OS and have radically different hardware but I guess it's not 1985 anymore.
That Gravel media player looks kinda cute though.
Well, Google is taking a much more scattergun approach to things. It's a case of finding cool services and then trying to work out a way to make them profitable. Microsoft are latching onto more established markets and muscling in. For example, the Zune has a much more tangible market than Google video.
I reckon Microsoft were probably like this in the first couple of years though.
the Google Phone will be a BlackBerry-like device running C++ at the core with an operating system bootstrap and optimized Java and that it would offer voice over Internet Protocol.
What does this actually mean? Why would it be running C++ at the core? Doesn't it make more sense to run native machine code? What devices have an OS but no bootstrap? How do you get them to start? Did they consider pessimised Java, but decided that optimised would be more efficient?
s/Goruper/Searchles/
Must get the companies involved right... Doh. Well you get the idea.
Sony can't claim copyright infringement on content they don't own, and if they did, they'd probably lose their safe harbor protection. Their letter makes it quite clear that they're aware of this, and simply warns that Grouper is probably violating the DMCA, rather than violating Sony's copyright. Then adds a bit of weaselling over trademarks, and makes a few suggestions over unfair competition.
Sony might actually have a point, but this is mostly sabre rattling.
Yes. It's easy.
Compression mechanisms don't remove all imperceptable information. Just the parts that help. So we simply encode information where removal has no compression benefits. As a trivial example, what if you make the volume 1% louder, or shift the entire image 1 pixel to the left? Would anyone notice? Okay - those methods would be rubbish since we'd have such low data density as to be worthless, but more complex mechanisms can be used.
Well, I hate this idea.
Why? Well, because I like downloading new TV shows from the US. Simple as that.
Although, quite honestly, I'm not that fussed. I'd be happy to meet them half way. They allow me a quality download. I pay a reasonable amount of money.
Google have offered a deal to Viacom. Viacom have rejected the deal.
It's unlikely that people are choosing low quality segments of video on Youtube rather than watching broadcast quality shows on television. The impact on Viacom is small.
Maybe Google didn't offer a reasonable amount. Maybe this lawsuit is just part of the negotiation. Both sides know it could backfire horribly.
Google are profiting indirectly from the infringement. The DMCA safe harbor provisions may still be enough to protect them. It would seem unreasonable that the onus is on YouTube to prove that every single clip it shows is licenced by the copyright holder. I believe courts can use reasonableness as a factor in interpreting laws.
Google are in a much better position than Napster, since despite Viacom's Rhetoric, there's a decent amount of user created content there.
If Viacom lose, then Youtube has no reason to offer them any substantial deal.
I know enough not to speculate too much on how court cases will go. They can be unpredictable. Personally I want YouTube to win. Otherwise the service may end up non-viable, and video-clip on demand is a useful service.
Isn't this the patent on the hack that allows Windows 95 file systems to be used in MSDOS? It's a hack for back compatibility for a system that's completely obselete. And I'm not sure where its used. All cameras I've used use MSDOS 8.3 filenames. Mayeba few portable devices use FAT on flash, and maybe flash relies on this method or something ut I'd have thought this would have been thought of before. Why didn't the standards organisations come up with a better, free filesystem for USB filesystem devices or for flash or something? FAT is cheap and nasty and, as I mentioned earlier, long filename support is a hack.
Certainly it is common for businesses to branch out, but usually there's at least a foothold in other markets. I've seen software companies become training companies but that was as a nautural offshoot of training for their own product. Even large leaps such as Apple's iPod use similar distribution channels to their exisitng products. And while people like Richard Branson will open a series of completely differnt businesses, that's the wexcpetion rather than the rule.
If google were to start manufacturing severs, I'd believe it. If they were to start a software company to rival MS, I'd not doubt that. But becoming a mobile phone manufacturer? It makes as much sense as them going into poultry farming.
Or is it just speculation?
Is there an experiment we could perform that would prove or disprove this hypothesis? Is there a mathematical model that makes this plausible?
Hawking has a lot of profound ideas, but I'm not convinced by any of it.
I use a Nokia 3510. It's starting to feel a bit old and heavy though. When it wears out I'll probably replace is with something almost identical but more compact.
Catch my drift?
Uhm... No.
Microsoft went from a software company, to a more general software company, using a lot of the same basic techniqures and distribution channels. They then expanded that software to support games, and started working with 3D hardware manufacturers and game developers. At the same time, they realised that they had a good brand name and could use the same channels to sell hardware to the same customers who bought their software. They used their links to the games and 3D industry to allow them to expand into the game console industry. This was helped a lot because a large part of the software engineering had already been done.
Then they started panicking as they realised that their only viable rival has produced a music player that they could both make a profit on, and use to promote their brand, so they made a substandard "me too" product. But even that was a branch from their existing computer hardware business. Each step had some relationship to the previous one.
The speculation is that Google are going to shift froma a large web services company, supported by advertising, to a mass production company in a barely related field, using none of their acquired business partenrs, experience, or customers, and making money from unit sales. It would make as much sense as Ford branching out into radish farming becasue they could probably make a tractor.
Certainly an excellent concept, but surely it would be better if Google provided the spec, and let the established mobilephone makers design phones that fit the spec. Google can then do what they do best - provide the mobile service.
Google is a web service company. Branching out into electrnics makes no sense. I could imagine them banching into mobile services, and maybe even partnering with an exisiting company to make a specialised handset, but making a mobile phone? It doesn't mnake sense.
Blu-Ray movies don't work in my DVD player, vinyl doesn't work in my Laserdisc player, my Windows PC won't install Office For Mac, my XBox 360 can't play Wii games and I had to use legally questionable firmware hacks to get my PSP to understand my PS1 files.
But you have a choice of Blu-Ray DVD players, and laserdisc players. Nobody is actively preventing you from installing Mac Office on Windows. The lock-in for consoles is a pretty bad situation as well, and it surprises me that nobody has actually taken the console makers to task over this clear abuse of position.
If iTunes was offering raw AAC files then nobody would mind. Anyone would be free to make a player that can play them. But they're offering encrypted AAC files that are locked to a specific device.
Well, this particular bureaucrat has been championing consumer rights for years. Steve Jobs has produced overpriced electrical equipment and made lots of money from it.
Because if she has, she would know that Jobs himself opposes the DRM scheme.
But iTunes doesn't even give publishers the option of no DRM. I'm not convinced that Steve Jobs is that committed to DRM-Free music. It sounds like a bargaining position.
I am guessing it would be more like $20 per person unless the government prints out the other $16 or so per person out of thin air...
I doubt everyone is going to bother to apply. Those who already have some for of decoder box aren't going to be interested in another one. Not everyone will want 2 boxes.
Whether or not $40 is going to be enough, remains to be seen (they might sell the boxes for $300, who knows.)
Well, digiboxes in the UK are going for about that. If they're going to be selling 24 750 000 of them, I'd expect they'll get the same sort of economies of scale.
1. TV is important since it is tells people what's going on
2. Luxuries are important in modern society.
3. It would be unfair on poor families to suddenly take away their TV service rather than take measures to rectify the situation.
4. This only amounts to about $3.30 per US citizen.
5. The money spent on this is not being taken out of crime prevention, housing, the military or anti-terrorism efforts. If they did not do this, we'd only see a tiny tax break.
Seriously. It just doesn't work like that. The US is the richest nation in the world. If the government believed that the problems mentioned could be solved by throwing a couple of billion dollars at them then they would. Lack of television reception is a problem that can be solved by throwing a billion dollars at it.
I don't think that was the intention. In 1999 it was quite clear that there were going to be some web hosts with this much capacity. Back then, most user created (and user-pirated) content was on ISP provided homepages. A company like AOL has no problem dealing with the number of takedown requests that they receive, and wouldn't have back then.
Probably. And it appears to have been part of the intent of the DMCA. However the act was pretty badly drafted, and part of it does depend on whether Google is directly profitting from the infringement.
Of course, in Youtube's favour, is the fact that the service clearly isn't intended as a vehicle for copyright infringement. Most of the material there is actually the home video stuff that the site is intended for, and they are making efforts to remove the material immediately.
There are many fields where the off-the-shelf principle doesn't work.
But curiously, reducing the labour needed for production reduces prices and seems to often increase demand sufficiently to more than compensate for the reduction in labour. Take the Ford Model T as an example. Work required per car was considerably smaller than any other brand of car, but the workforce was huge. Commercial software (e.g. Windows, and Excel) does all the tasks required of 90% of users, so this should mean that the software industry is only about 10% of the size it was in the 1960's. But it's much larger than it's ever been.
Yes, but that woulkd mean violating the standard. I'm an anal retentive, you insensitive jerk!