Why do you think it will hurt sales? It is already possible to drop drm free.mobi and text files onto the device using a USB cable, so people interested in dinking around already have a path to read any book they have lying around on the device.
Most password encryption utilities generate them for free.
The only case where it is sort of inconvenient is when accessing some throwaway site from a semi-trusted computer (but the phone capable utilities handle that one).
"having the source gave the Chinese government the opportunity to develop a new attack against Windows" is not an obvious conclusion. Debugging tools are good enough to walk right through algorithms, and stuff like fuzz testing means that you can throw huge amounts of bad data at various functionality and see what it chokes on (rather than doing careful analysis of the source code).
I would speculate that there are far more people interested in viewing a movie once than there are people interested in owning a copy of the movie.
I don't like the $3.99 price point (I don't care all that much for the instantaneous part and immediately compare the price to Netflix), but if I thought that more and more movies were going to be available for immediate rental for $1 or $2 in the future, I would be even less inclined to actually purchase them (I would go so far as to say that I would be fine with DRM locked to a single screen, as long as it was a smooth experience).
Why are they charging me for the convenience of not having nearly as much physical infrastructure to maintain (including the 100s of human bodies required to fuss with the media)?
If the studios were smart enough to charge $1 for PPV, revenues would explode (and I'm pretty sure the various people doing the delivery can accomplish the delivery for less than that $1, for example, I don't think the ads on hulu are netting them $1 for each movie, and a Dish Network and Direct TV don't actually have any marginal costs on the delivery side).
Maybe they will go about it smartly and setup their system so that other news organizations can bill against it, and then sell those e-coins anonymously.
It's a problem for corporate security, but for home users that were running XP as Administrator already, it doesn't do much to help the untrusted code that they chose to execute.
Canada's population is pretty lumpy, so I'm not sure the infrastructure costs per subscriber are hugely different, and presumably, the U.S. providers have to service about 10 times as many people (or maybe 6 times as many, depending on the assumptions you make about redundancy).
They are quite aware that the effectiveness of most advertising is only mediocre when measured in eyeballs vs success. They don't care, as it is usually effective when measured in dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you think it will hurt sales? It is already possible to drop drm free .mobi and text files onto the device using a USB cable, so people interested in dinking around already have a path to read any book they have lying around on the device.
Most password encryption utilities generate them for free.
The only case where it is sort of inconvenient is when accessing some throwaway site from a semi-trusted computer (but the phone capable utilities handle that one).
"having the source gave the Chinese government the opportunity to develop a new attack against Windows" is not an obvious conclusion. Debugging tools are good enough to walk right through algorithms, and stuff like fuzz testing means that you can throw huge amounts of bad data at various functionality and see what it chokes on (rather than doing careful analysis of the source code).
Sort of. In many cases, customer relationships and knowledge of the codebase are a lot more valuable than the actual code.
I would speculate that there are far more people interested in viewing a movie once than there are people interested in owning a copy of the movie.
I don't like the $3.99 price point (I don't care all that much for the instantaneous part and immediately compare the price to Netflix), but if I thought that more and more movies were going to be available for immediate rental for $1 or $2 in the future, I would be even less inclined to actually purchase them (I would go so far as to say that I would be fine with DRM locked to a single screen, as long as it was a smooth experience).
Why are they charging me for the convenience of not having nearly as much physical infrastructure to maintain (including the 100s of human bodies required to fuss with the media)?
If the studios were smart enough to charge $1 for PPV, revenues would explode (and I'm pretty sure the various people doing the delivery can accomplish the delivery for less than that $1, for example, I don't think the ads on hulu are netting them $1 for each movie, and a Dish Network and Direct TV don't actually have any marginal costs on the delivery side).
Only for the interesting stories.
Perhaps this helps to explain the other fella's success in starting organizations.
Sure the had, one of the stipulations on the internet poll was that it wasn't final.
They named the COLBERT after him because it was good publicity.
You have weird priorities.
I would be outraged to learn that the landings were fake and don't care what fringe lunatics have to say.
A lot of the people that read the site are in their 40s, 50s and 60s (I'm not). That makes their moms mostly 60+.
Go dude, go.
Still, they did leave it up to the states, which led to the status quo.
Maybe they will go about it smartly and setup their system so that other news organizations can bill against it, and then sell those e-coins anonymously.
The guy at ______________ is gonna be pissed.
I was going to suggest dropping the "Free", but I decided people wouldn't go for it.
Disney?
I'd be more interested in cheap, short subscriptions (say, $0.25 for 12 hours).
That would work out to a pretty pricey annual rate, but it would fit the way I access their content.
Their global page shows less of that focus:
http://global.nytimes.com/
I'm going to play it safe and guess that the Sun is more powerful.
It's a problem for corporate security, but for home users that were running XP as Administrator already, it doesn't do much to help the untrusted code that they chose to execute.
Canada's population is pretty lumpy, so I'm not sure the infrastructure costs per subscriber are hugely different, and presumably, the U.S. providers have to service about 10 times as many people (or maybe 6 times as many, depending on the assumptions you make about redundancy).
They are quite aware that the effectiveness of most advertising is only mediocre when measured in eyeballs vs success. They don't care, as it is usually effective when measured in dollars.
If "CBS is not the enemy here; they will sub contract The Jack Benny out." is true, you are just being silly.
And if people are interested in having the episodes, is CBS evil if they charge $1 to release them? How about $2?
I think so, I don't understand what you are getting at.
They don't have the manual resources to be that tone-deaf.