If "control and granularity" is not achieved with the Smart Playlist function, it must not be very good.
You want me to drag and drop 8000+ songs onto my music player? You've definitely got a different idea of fun than I do.
I'm serious: Smart Playlists are the BOMB.
And you seem to be implying that you can't put a PowerPoint presentation on an iPod, which is a pretty silly idea. My iPod works as an external HDD on every computer I've ever tried plugging it into. Plug in iPod, drive mounts. Done.
"Either way, seasons of the same show are generally priced equally unless there's a difference in the number of episodes in the season,"
Duh. Renting a movie and showing it to ten people is cheaper than buying ten movie tickets. This is a well-understood pricing strategy. Also, renting one movie a lot of times is going to be more expensive than buying the movie. Point is, YOU get to spend YOUR money the way YOU want to. Exercise your fiat. Stop whining. There is nobody coercing you.
"Because you're not just claiming that people will buy it, you're the one claiming it's a good deal for you"
You're crazy. I made no such claim. You are arguing with the wrong person.
"Well, there's only game in town right now"
Apple is the only company that has elected to play this game, yes. Do you think it would somehow be better, or fairer, if they waited until some time in the unspecified future to start selling their service?
Somebody has to move first.
"Well, there's only game in town right now. The market tends to decide on higher prices than consumers would like when there's a monopoly."
You're not seriously suggesting that Apple has a monopoly on television content distribution, are you?
"I won't."
Fine.
"I am disappointed"
Wah.
"that I'm on the minority and that these episodes are selling so well"
You seem to be predicating your feelings and actions based on the feelings and actions of other people. This is a lousy strategy for self-actualization, and I suggest you re-evaluate it. You will be a happier person.
" 1. Season 2 will be released on dvd for the same price"
Maybe so, maybe no. Who cares?
"2. You're buying the episodes before they are out on dvd. Thus, the "paying more for getting the episode the day after it airs.""
That has nothing to do with the fact that I corrected a factual error in your post. You seem to be having an argument with somebody who is not me.
"Why do you think $35 is acceptable when you can buy a better product for the same price?"
Why do you care what I think? Apple thinks that they can command a higher price for the convenience of putting the video on an iPod. The market will tell them if they're right or not. Apple is welcome to price their services however they want, and customers are free to buy them or not.
What is the problem here? If you don't think it's a good deal, don't buy it. I'm not offended, I'm a little perplexed at why you're so exercised about this...
There is no "subscribe", unless you want to buy something, and then you give 'em a credit card and an email address, pretty much like every other online site you've ever bought stuff from.
Now, if you're complaining because you can't use the iTunes Music Store without installing iTunes, I think you're fairly silly. The grocery store doesn't usually dispense orange juice into a pail for you either...you have to take the can or carton or bottle as well.
Well, since you can buy all of season 1 of Lost for $34.99 from iTMS, I guess it's not quite as bad a deal as you're making it out to be.
Whether it's a good deal FOR YOU is for you to decide. I just think it's a little silly to construct straw man arguments when the facts are readily available.
Uh, you download the videos from inside iTunes. *draws diagram*
You're welcome to not use iTunes, but I don't really understand why you'd be all grouchy that Apple wants you to use their software to view these videos. You are obviously not in the target audience.
It's not a "strong feeling", it's a scientific assertion. ID is creationism in a lab coat. Calling it a scientific theory is a lie.
If theories are proven wrong, then they are no longer scientific theories, are they?
I fundamentally (there's a fun word) object to the conflation of religious dogma (ID) with scientific theories. The reason ID is at issue, and not the other "theories" you talk about (your selection makes me question whether you understand what a "theory" is), is because fundamentalist Christians are trying to hijack science programs here in the United States, and everybody with two neurons to bang together thinks that's a pretty lousy idea.
I think that ID is an excellent topic to study in comparative religion classes, or in a class about marketing. It is NOT based on science.
Now, I don't assert that you can't believe in Intelligent Design and still do science. I am sure that there are some reputable scientists who also believe in the literal historicity of the Bible. As long as they don't use their faith to justify their scientific theories, there is no issue. Anybody who thinks that ID is science is lying to themselves.
Mr. Behe is not one of those people. He presupposes God, and puts that God into any situation Behe doesn't fully understand. That's a silly position for a scientist to take, and a pretty lousy theology too.
(BTW, Bigfoot is pretty shaky as scientific theories go. Just in case you were wondering.)
I take God's existence on faith. It is not something I subject to rational scrutiny. I believe because I choose to believe. And I don't assert that God didn't create the Earth. I simply assert that the Bible is a valuable text on human interactions, and a rotten text on science.
Not "people who believe in God are stupid". I believe in God, and I'm not stupid. I am, however, vehemently opposed to this sham of a theory being compared with well-established principles of modern biology.
ID is not a theory. It is a fantasy. Behe's defense of ID amounts to the Chewbacca defense.
Anybody who attempts to position ID as scientific theory is a liar.
Re:Your tax dollars at work ladies and gentlemen
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
"A natural monopoly. I defy anyone to explain how running wire to every dwellling in the country (or even a region) is somehow "imporived" by competition"
I don't know how to take up your challenge, because I've never seen anything "imporived" by anything.
"If there was sufficient competition in the market, nobody would care if "MS was trying to force other manufacturers to limit their players to running only Windows Media Player software.""
Funny thing is, if you look at the numbers on MP3 player sales and pay-for-download music, nobody does care.
Slashdot Mirror
If "control and granularity" is not achieved with the Smart Playlist function, it must not be very good.
You want me to drag and drop 8000+ songs onto my music player? You've definitely got a different idea of fun than I do.
I'm serious: Smart Playlists are the BOMB.
And you seem to be implying that you can't put a PowerPoint presentation on an iPod, which is a pretty silly idea. My iPod works as an external HDD on every computer I've ever tried plugging it into. Plug in iPod, drive mounts. Done.
The result of Apple's control is good solutions.
The result of Microsoft's control is a stagnant software market, with lots of bad solutions.
I like Apple's control better.
So why do you watch movies?
"obviously rip offs of earlier works"
There's nothing new under the sun. Doesn't prevent me from enjoying a good story well-told.
Case in point: Mirrormask. Not an unexpected plot twist anywhere in sight, but I simply didn't care. I was riveted for two hours.
Art doesn't need to be original to be good...
"Either way, seasons of the same show are generally priced equally unless there's a difference in the number of episodes in the season,"
Duh. Renting a movie and showing it to ten people is cheaper than buying ten movie tickets. This is a well-understood pricing strategy. Also, renting one movie a lot of times is going to be more expensive than buying the movie. Point is, YOU get to spend YOUR money the way YOU want to. Exercise your fiat. Stop whining. There is nobody coercing you.
"Because you're not just claiming that people will buy it, you're the one claiming it's a good deal for you"
You're crazy. I made no such claim. You are arguing with the wrong person.
"Well, there's only game in town right now"
Apple is the only company that has elected to play this game, yes. Do you think it would somehow be better, or fairer, if they waited until some time in the unspecified future to start selling their service?
Somebody has to move first.
"Well, there's only game in town right now. The market tends to decide on higher prices than consumers would like when there's a monopoly."
You're not seriously suggesting that Apple has a monopoly on television content distribution, are you?
"I won't."
Fine.
"I am disappointed"
Wah.
"that I'm on the minority and that these episodes are selling so well"
You seem to be predicating your feelings and actions based on the feelings and actions of other people. This is a lousy strategy for self-actualization, and I suggest you re-evaluate it. You will be a happier person.
" 1. Season 2 will be released on dvd for the same price"
Maybe so, maybe no. Who cares?
"2. You're buying the episodes before they are out on dvd. Thus, the "paying more for getting the episode the day after it airs.""
That has nothing to do with the fact that I corrected a factual error in your post. You seem to be having an argument with somebody who is not me.
"Why do you think $35 is acceptable when you can buy a better product for the same price?"
Why do you care what I think? Apple thinks that they can command a higher price for the convenience of putting the video on an iPod. The market will tell them if they're right or not. Apple is welcome to price their services however they want, and customers are free to buy them or not.
What is the problem here? If you don't think it's a good deal, don't buy it. I'm not offended, I'm a little perplexed at why you're so exercised about this...
There is no "subscribe", unless you want to buy something, and then you give 'em a credit card and an email address, pretty much like every other online site you've ever bought stuff from.
Now, if you're complaining because you can't use the iTunes Music Store without installing iTunes, I think you're fairly silly. The grocery store doesn't usually dispense orange juice into a pail for you either...you have to take the can or carton or bottle as well.
You musta missed the part where I corrected your wrong assertion about how much Season 1 cost.
But, hey, whatever makes you have the happy in your trousers.
Well, since you can buy all of season 1 of Lost for $34.99 from iTMS, I guess it's not quite as bad a deal as you're making it out to be.
Whether it's a good deal FOR YOU is for you to decide. I just think it's a little silly to construct straw man arguments when the facts are readily available.
Uh, you download the videos from inside iTunes. *draws diagram*
You're welcome to not use iTunes, but I don't really understand why you'd be all grouchy that Apple wants you to use their software to view these videos. You are obviously not in the target audience.
If people exchange money for said things, they are not valueless. QED.
They may not be of value to YOU, and YOU are allowed to not buy them.
I think lottery tickets are valueless. Doesn't prevent lotsa people from buyin' them...
I just get a happy feeling in my tummy when I imagine Larry Ellison's shiny Mercedes getting wadded up under the push-bumper of a fire truck.
*wistful sigh*
But the deal as speculated would benefit both Apple and Pixar stockholders. Where's the conflict of interest?
Disney doesn't have to play ball. All they have to do is walk away from the table.
Which they won't, because Steve has something that the Mouse wants...good movies.
It's not a "strong feeling", it's a scientific assertion. ID is creationism in a lab coat. Calling it a scientific theory is a lie.
If theories are proven wrong, then they are no longer scientific theories, are they?
I fundamentally (there's a fun word) object to the conflation of religious dogma (ID) with scientific theories. The reason ID is at issue, and not the other "theories" you talk about (your selection makes me question whether you understand what a "theory" is), is because fundamentalist Christians are trying to hijack science programs here in the United States, and everybody with two neurons to bang together thinks that's a pretty lousy idea.
I think that ID is an excellent topic to study in comparative religion classes, or in a class about marketing. It is NOT based on science.
Now, I don't assert that you can't believe in Intelligent Design and still do science. I am sure that there are some reputable scientists who also believe in the literal historicity of the Bible. As long as they don't use their faith to justify their scientific theories, there is no issue. Anybody who thinks that ID is science is lying to themselves.
Mr. Behe is not one of those people. He presupposes God, and puts that God into any situation Behe doesn't fully understand. That's a silly position for a scientist to take, and a pretty lousy theology too.
(BTW, Bigfoot is pretty shaky as scientific theories go. Just in case you were wondering.)
Why do you care what I believe?
I take God's existence on faith. It is not something I subject to rational scrutiny. I believe because I choose to believe. And I don't assert that God didn't create the Earth. I simply assert that the Bible is a valuable text on human interactions, and a rotten text on science.
Not "people who believe in God are stupid". I believe in God, and I'm not stupid. I am, however, vehemently opposed to this sham of a theory being compared with well-established principles of modern biology.
ID is not a theory. It is a fantasy. Behe's defense of ID amounts to the Chewbacca defense.
Anybody who attempts to position ID as scientific theory is a liar.
"A natural monopoly. I defy anyone to explain how running wire to every dwellling in the country (or even a region) is somehow "imporived" by competition"
I don't know how to take up your challenge, because I've never seen anything "imporived" by anything.
Yay! Much adulation! Go forth and make it not suck! Vast encouragementses!
"Apple claim to have an increasing share of the mp3 player market trending past 75%"
And they're maintaining their barrier to entry, how? Oh right, they're not. Microsoft is. See above.
"Is the how important?"
Uh, yeah.
" unlike Microsoft their is nobody with the legal authority to step in and stop them"
Who's stopping Microsoft? You remember, the people who have actually been found by a court of law to maintain and extend an illegal monopoly?
Anybody want a peanut?
Right, because it's a lot easier to write a program to index my collection than to let iTunes do it flawlessly.
Hey man, if that's what works for you, knock yourself out. I can't imagine why I'd ever desire that feature. Smart Playlists==super awesome.
uh huh. Trying to get hired on permanently, are you?
"Apple in some territories the iPod holds a monopoly like position"
Which territories?
" and Apple might abuse that position"
How?
"If there was sufficient competition in the market, nobody would care if "MS was trying to force other manufacturers to limit their players to running only Windows Media Player software.""
Funny thing is, if you look at the numbers on MP3 player sales and pay-for-download music, nobody does care.
"First idiot"
Hey! Say what you want about the President, but Laura's hot.
"If you (or your good(but not so brilliant) friend"
Hope you pay more attention than this to your parentheses when you CODE SOME MORE.
Then it's probably not a big deal, huh?