excludes the Apple I and his ranking of the Compaq portable PC at number one ahead of the Altair, Apple I and II, Apple Lisa and Macintosh
Gee, let me guess, you're an Apple nut, right ?
Sorry, but I fail to see how anyone could rate either the Apple I or the Apple Lisa as one of the "most popular" PCs of all time. Both were more or less irrelevant by any standard (the Apple I was not made in really large numbers, and the Lisa was so expensive as to be essentially ignored) making it impossible to call either "popular". Just because both were forerunners of popular computers does not make them popular by themselves. Next made a computer that is in some ways the technical forerunner of today's Macs, and I don't think anyone would claim that these were popular computers either (although a MUCH better case could me made for the Next boxes, these were very much coveted in certain - but small - circles in their day).
And one computer that was sorely missing was the Sinclair ZX-81, that thing sold a ton and it was if I recall the first personal computer under $100 (or was it $200) ?
destroys access to hundreds of thousands of independant artists.
Noone's stopping these guys from distributing their content somewhere else. Please. If Vivendi is snuffing out a need that is so desperately there, and if the independent music scene is as important as people sometimes seem to think, someone else will sprout up to service it. Barriers to entry here are pretty small.
Though personally, I think it would be in Vivendi's interest to KEEP their fingers on the indie pulse by controlling MP3.com and continuing to distribute those files, if only because it could help them find artists they could sign later - and if you really believe most of the artists are independent by choice, and wouldn't jump at an offer to sign a big record deal, you're nuts. But I bet Vivendi already figured this out, took a long look at MP3.COM and concluded that there wasn't much value or interest in that music anyways.
Let's continue to mod up everything insightful that rips the big-bad-evil-companies.
As has been pointed out by someone else, the parent's scenario is extremely far-fetched. But moreover, even if it came to pass, in the absence of a binding contract between MP3 and Jane Rockchick that promises service for some period of time, anything that happens after MP3.com terminates its service is not their fault.
What if I upload a fie - say GreatAmericanNovel.doc - to my ISP, they go out of business while I'm out of town for a few months and I don't read their service-termination notices, and then when I find out months later what has happened, I realize that all my backups have been eaten by MY dog. Is the ISP to blame ? Just another great writer that you will never hear of.
What if the person put a lot of effort in using mp3.com to market their stuff?
So what ? What's the alternative ? Force mp3.com to host the files in perpetuity ?
What if K-Mart spent a lot of money marketing Martha Stewart products available at their store, and what if Martha Stewart somewhere down the line decides she doesn't want to sell to K-Mart anymore. Is that messed up ?
Sorry, but if someone's whole business plan depends on their files specifically being at MP3.com, then they needed to make provisions to protect themselves.
More Apple-as-culture tripe
on
iPod-Jacked
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Firstly, they're not doing anything anyone couldn't have done 20 years ago with a walkman (and it seems that they can't verify that this is a real phenomenon at all, given that the author called a few places and it seems he is still the only one the writers can track down who's done it). What makes this an iPod-specific phenomenon ? Why wouldn't regular MP3-toting people be into this as well ? What's so special about the iPod that it enables this ? Answer, nothing.
Second, IF true (and I have my doubts), what does this say about the conspicuous consumption which in this article at least seems to define iPod users ? Just exactly how do these 'iPod regulars' identify themselves to each other ? It seems to me, if I had an iPod, it would be in my breast pocket, and noone outside would know I had one. Unless these guys are wearing these things around their neck ("hey, look at me"), I can't see how people taking walks in parks would be able to identify each other - unless, of course, they're super ostenatious and obnoxious showoffs. Maybe these guys are using binoculars to examine the earbuds of their iPod colleagues, but if so, that is a special type of snob indeed.
If people really are carrying on like this, it sounds to me like the iPod is getting to be more and more like a Prada handbag - something brandished like a badge of status. Don't get me wrong, Prada makes a beautiful bag, but now the biggest reason to one one is for what doing so says about their owner than anything else.
Amen. If the RIAA is so out-of-whack in agressively protecting their copyright, and as is so often alleged, if the RIAA member's record sales are declining because they only put out crap or because their distribution methods are out-of-date, then the sane solution is to vote with one's pocketbooks. People whine that the RIAA-members put out crap, then they whine about being prosecuted for trying to distribute that stuff ? If there are viable alternatives to RIAA-member-signed artists, and it appears there are some, take your money to them, and buy their music.
The argument that we should be able to file-share music because that music sucks and is not worth buying is so completely hypocritcal it makes me gag.
Sorry, but the LCD screens that were likely on laptops relegated to the dumpster heap are probably way too crappy to be worth hanging on my wall. It's cool as a hack, but I sure wouldn't pay $500 for it.
There are TONS of trademarks issued for words that are in the English language. Look at Apple, Sun, and Windows for examples. Hell, even 'Ford' is an English word.
I live in Canada, but during the time period listed I bought a laptop while I was in grad school in California. As I read the settlement document, I'm eligible for a claim as long as I certainly purchased the computer "for use in California". So, am I reading this right ? Am I eligible for a claim even if I live outside California (and the U.S.) now ?
The reason I ask is that website allows you to have a claims package mailed, but you have to specify a state, which makes me wonder whether a) out-of-country-claimants are ineligible, or b) whether the form was just poorly designed.
There has to be some limit to what can be claimed here.
Yes, but your examples are way off base. Working for a a) telemarketer and b) talking on the phone is a completely different relationship than working at a i) company which makes productivity software and ii) writing productivity software. This guy wrote something which apparently Apple might find useful and might plausibly want to release of its own, because there is a plausible use for the program within its software it has already released.
Well, the breaking may not have been deliberate, but their refusal to support their customers is most certainly deliberate . And is it more than a coincidence that fixing this problem isn't going to sell many more iPods, is it ?
In an article about building your own storage server, why are they spending so much time talking about irrelevant things like *video card's 3-d performance* (128 MB in a storage server ??), mouse and keyboard choice, and yet fail to even so much as mention (as far as I could tell) OS choice or software ?
Most amusing is all the comments about how TV in cars is for passengers, because as we know, the drivers are too busy talking on their cel phones.
Look, it's obvious that cell phones are distracting too, but does ANYONE question that it must be more dangerous for a driver to be watching television vs talking on a phone ?
O'Reilly goes on to say that he now has a killer piece of 1-Click prior art 'on my bookshelf, in the odd event that Amazon loses its senses and sues anyone else over 1-click.'"
I don't understand this. He starts this whole bounty program to fight bad patents, we know he thinks the Amazon 1-click patent is bad, and he has this "killer" prior art which is apparently lethal to the Amazon patent in question, and yet he won't reveal what it is ?? Wouldn't we all be better served by seeing what is NOW, so that people who want to roll out 1-click type sites can do so without worrying about possible litigation and whether or not O'Reilly really has such killer prior-art ? I'm sorry, but if all I have to rely on is O'Reilly's say-so that he has the prior art that will protect ME from getting sued, I'm probably not going to test the waters.
It sounds to me like either: 1) he doesn't have squat, and is bluffing (poorly), or 2) he just doesn't want to pay out an earned bounty. Either way, it's fishy.
It's the labels that make money. Not the stores, and (typically) not the artists.
So, why do record stores exist then ? Unless you tell me that all record stores are wholly owned by RIAA members, if you're correct then it seems to me NO record stores should exist, since they don't sell much ancillary merchandise.
I just bought one of these for my wife, and she loves it. And, it addressses all of the points in the article except their last one, (which in my mind is largely irrelevant):
1. Battery Life: The iPod apparently gets around 6 hours, jetAudio (or whatever the company is called) claims 25 hours, on (I think) a single AA battery (it might be 2). And what a blessing it is to be able to run into a convenience store, even overseas, and get a fully charged battery. I won't even bother considering any of the rechargeable-only MP3 players, whether flash- or hard-drive-based.
2. Jogging with a hard drive-based player is not cool. As you can probably guess from the battery life, the iAudio is flash based so jogging is not a problem. It's also extremely small. I specifically bought her this machine so she could strap it to her arm while she's working out/running, and it works like a charm. Wearing a fanny pack to run with an iPod just doesn't cut it, and it wouldn't work very well at all when you're on a weight machine or a bench.
3. The iPod is expensive. In Canada, the cheapest iPods are about $450 CDN; I think I got this think for around 275 CDN, and that includes a nice pair of Sennheiser earbuds.
4. You want to make high-quality digital recordings. The iAudio has a built-in digital voice recorder. I don't know about making "high-quality" recordings - I don't care about high-quality voice, but it means she doesn't need to tote her digital voice recorder around any more.
5. You want a choice in online music stores. I don't care about this at all, but I believe it plays WMA files.
Looks ? This thing is very, very attractive looking, and not only is it THE best looking flash player I've seen, it's also among the smallest MP3 flash players too. And it sounds AMAZING for a flash player, I've auditioned the iPod and to my ears this one sounds better.
Here are the negatives: - are that it "only" stores 256 MB - for working out, this is more than enough for us, but the memory is not upgradeable, - the interface is only USB 1.1 - it needs 2.0, at the least. - you can use it as an external drive BUT you need to use Windows software to access it. If I could have used it like a regular pen drive I'd have bought one for myself (and then I would ONLY want USB 2, not IEE1394).
if your focus group is slashdot you're in serious trouble, my lad.
No kidding. If McDonalds really wanted a promotion to get slashdotters, they should offer trading cards of anime girls and a wad of kleenex with every happy meal.
It sounded pretty plausible, even if the cost was roughly 50% more than McDonald's usual yearly advertising expenditures.
I can't figure out whether the editor was being sarcastic, suggesting that it *wasn't* plausible, or if he was being serious, to suggest that such a huge expenditure was plausible.
Perhaps the sheer size of the number he quotes should (*if* it's correct) answer my own question, but I don't know if I'm willing to give these editors that much credit...
you know, the concept of people selling to other people is obviously a new one. *sigh*
They're not patenting the idea of people selling to other people. What they're patenting is a particular and specific description of *how* that could happen. If you could come up with a different way for people to sell to other people, you wouldn't be infringing. And you know what ? I don't see what it's being a a "cool" idea has to do with whether or not it should be patentable.
Of course the clunkiest feature of Office is the part where you have pay several hundred dollars for it. I wish they'd get that bug ironed out already.
More than a few people on the various file-sharing networks have already worked this bug out.
Slashdot Mirror
excludes the Apple I and his ranking of the Compaq portable PC at number one ahead of the Altair, Apple I and II, Apple Lisa and Macintosh
Gee, let me guess, you're an Apple nut, right ?
Sorry, but I fail to see how anyone could rate either the Apple I or the Apple Lisa as one of the "most popular" PCs of all time. Both were more or less irrelevant by any standard (the Apple I was not made in really large numbers, and the Lisa was so expensive as to be essentially ignored) making it impossible to call either "popular". Just because both were forerunners of popular computers does not make them popular by themselves. Next made a computer that is in some ways the technical forerunner of today's Macs, and I don't think anyone would claim that these were popular computers either (although a MUCH better case could me made for the Next boxes, these were very much coveted in certain - but small - circles in their day).
And one computer that was sorely missing was the Sinclair ZX-81, that thing sold a ton and it was if I recall the first personal computer under $100 (or was it $200) ?
destroys access to hundreds of thousands of independant artists.
Noone's stopping these guys from distributing their content somewhere else. Please. If Vivendi is snuffing out a need that is so desperately there, and if the independent music scene is as important as people sometimes seem to think, someone else will sprout up to service it. Barriers to entry here are pretty small.
Though personally, I think it would be in Vivendi's interest to KEEP their fingers on the indie pulse by controlling MP3.com and continuing to distribute those files, if only because it could help them find artists they could sign later - and if you really believe most of the artists are independent by choice, and wouldn't jump at an offer to sign a big record deal, you're nuts. But I bet Vivendi already figured this out, took a long look at MP3.COM and concluded that there wasn't much value or interest in that music anyways.
Let's continue to mod up everything insightful that rips the big-bad-evil-companies.
As has been pointed out by someone else, the parent's scenario is extremely far-fetched. But moreover, even if it came to pass, in the absence of a binding contract between MP3 and Jane Rockchick that promises service for some period of time, anything that happens after MP3.com terminates its service is not their fault.
What if I upload a fie - say GreatAmericanNovel.doc - to my ISP, they go out of business while I'm out of town for a few months and I don't read their service-termination notices, and then when I find out months later what has happened, I realize that all my backups have been eaten by MY dog. Is the ISP to blame ? Just another great writer that you will never hear of.
What if the person put a lot of effort in using mp3.com to market their stuff?
So what ? What's the alternative ? Force mp3.com to host the files in perpetuity ?
What if K-Mart spent a lot of money marketing Martha Stewart products available at their store, and what if Martha Stewart somewhere down the line decides she doesn't want to sell to K-Mart anymore. Is that messed up ?
Sorry, but if someone's whole business plan depends on their files specifically being at MP3.com, then they needed to make provisions to protect themselves.
Firstly, they're not doing anything anyone couldn't have done 20 years ago with a walkman (and it seems that they can't verify that this is a real phenomenon at all, given that the author called a few places and it seems he is still the only one the writers can track down who's done it). What makes this an iPod-specific phenomenon ? Why wouldn't regular MP3-toting people be into this as well ? What's so special about the iPod that it enables this ? Answer, nothing.
Second, IF true (and I have my doubts), what does this say about the conspicuous consumption which in this article at least seems to define iPod users ? Just exactly how do these 'iPod regulars' identify themselves to each other ? It seems to me, if I had an iPod, it would be in my breast pocket, and noone outside would know I had one. Unless these guys are wearing these things around their neck ("hey, look at me"), I can't see how people taking walks in parks would be able to identify each other - unless, of course, they're super ostenatious and obnoxious showoffs. Maybe these guys are using binoculars to examine the earbuds of their iPod colleagues, but if so, that is a special type of snob indeed.
If people really are carrying on like this, it sounds to me like the iPod is getting to be more and more like a Prada handbag - something brandished like a badge of status. Don't get me wrong, Prada makes a beautiful bag, but now the biggest reason to one one is for what doing so says about their owner than anything else.
Ignorance is no defence under the law. Her lack of legal status might be.
Amen. If the RIAA is so out-of-whack in agressively protecting their copyright, and as is so often alleged, if the RIAA member's record sales are declining because they only put out crap or because their distribution methods are out-of-date, then the sane solution is to vote with one's pocketbooks. People whine that the RIAA-members put out crap, then they whine about being prosecuted for trying to distribute that stuff ? If there are viable alternatives to RIAA-member-signed artists, and it appears there are some, take your money to them, and buy their music.
The argument that we should be able to file-share music because that music sucks and is not worth buying is so completely hypocritcal it makes me gag.
Sorry, but the LCD screens that were likely on laptops relegated to the dumpster heap are probably way too crappy to be worth hanging on my wall. It's cool as a hack, but I sure wouldn't pay $500 for it.
is go dumpster diving for a better webserver, first.
Their current one is deader than the laptops they were scavenging.
There are TONS of trademarks issued for words that are in the English language. Look at Apple, Sun, and Windows for examples. Hell, even 'Ford' is an English word.
I live in Canada, but during the time period listed I bought a laptop while I was in grad school in California. As I read the settlement document, I'm eligible for a claim as long as I certainly purchased the computer "for use in California". So, am I reading this right ? Am I eligible for a claim even if I live outside California (and the U.S.) now ?
The reason I ask is that website allows you to have a claims package mailed, but you have to specify a state, which makes me wonder whether a) out-of-country-claimants are ineligible, or b) whether the form was just poorly designed.
Any thoughts ?
There has to be some limit to what can be claimed here.
Yes, but your examples are way off base. Working for a a) telemarketer and b) talking on the phone is a completely different relationship than working at a i) company which makes productivity software and ii) writing productivity software. This guy wrote something which apparently Apple might find useful and might plausibly want to release of its own, because there is a plausible use for the program within its software it has already released.
I'm not quite suggesting that this was deliberate
Well, the breaking may not have been deliberate, but their refusal to support their customers is most certainly deliberate . And is it more than a coincidence that fixing this problem isn't going to sell many more iPods, is it ?
At least one part of me will be employeed.
But keep reading Slashdot during business hours, and I doubt even that part of you would be employed for long.
In an article about building your own storage server, why are they spending so much time talking about irrelevant things like *video card's 3-d performance* (128 MB in a storage server ??), mouse and keyboard choice, and yet fail to even so much as mention (as far as I could tell) OS choice or software ?
Most amusing is all the comments about how TV in cars is for passengers, because as we know, the drivers are too busy talking on their cel phones.
Look, it's obvious that cell phones are distracting too, but does ANYONE question that it must be more dangerous for a driver to be watching television vs talking on a phone ?
O'Reilly goes on to say that he now has a killer piece of 1-Click prior art 'on my bookshelf, in the odd event that Amazon loses its senses and sues anyone else over 1-click.'"
I don't understand this. He starts this whole bounty program to fight bad patents, we know he thinks the Amazon 1-click patent is bad, and he has this "killer" prior art which is apparently lethal to the Amazon patent in question, and yet he won't reveal what it is ?? Wouldn't we all be better served by seeing what is NOW, so that people who want to roll out 1-click type sites can do so without worrying about possible litigation and whether or not O'Reilly really has such killer prior-art ? I'm sorry, but if all I have to rely on is O'Reilly's say-so that he has the prior art that will protect ME from getting sued, I'm probably not going to test the waters.
It sounds to me like either: 1) he doesn't have squat, and is bluffing (poorly), or 2) he just doesn't want to pay out an earned bounty. Either way, it's fishy.
It's the labels that make money. Not the stores, and (typically) not the artists.
So, why do record stores exist then ? Unless you tell me that all record stores are wholly owned by RIAA members, if you're correct then it seems to me NO record stores should exist, since they don't sell much ancillary merchandise.
What would installing one of these things do to your warranty ?
I just bought one of these for my wife, and she loves it. And, it addressses all of the points in the article except their last one, (which in my mind is largely irrelevant):
1. Battery Life: The iPod apparently gets around 6 hours, jetAudio (or whatever the company is called) claims 25 hours, on (I think) a single AA battery (it might be 2). And what a blessing it is to be able to run into a convenience store, even overseas, and get a fully charged battery. I won't even bother considering any of the rechargeable-only MP3 players, whether flash- or hard-drive-based.
2. Jogging with a hard drive-based player is not cool. As you can probably guess from the battery life, the iAudio is flash based so jogging is not a problem. It's also extremely small. I specifically bought her this machine so she could strap it to her arm while she's working out/running, and it works like a charm. Wearing a fanny pack to run with an iPod just doesn't cut it, and it wouldn't work very well at all when you're on a weight machine or a bench.
3. The iPod is expensive. In Canada, the cheapest iPods are about $450 CDN; I think I got this think for around 275 CDN, and that includes a nice pair of Sennheiser earbuds.
4. You want to make high-quality digital recordings. The iAudio has a built-in digital voice recorder. I don't know about making "high-quality" recordings - I don't care about high-quality voice, but it means she doesn't need to tote her digital voice recorder around any more.
5. You want a choice in online music stores. I don't care about this at all, but I believe it plays WMA files.
Looks ? This thing is very, very attractive looking, and not only is it THE best looking flash player I've seen, it's also among the smallest MP3 flash players too. And it sounds AMAZING for a flash player, I've auditioned the iPod and to my ears this one sounds better.
Here are the negatives:
- are that it "only" stores 256 MB - for working out, this is more than enough for us, but the memory is not upgradeable,
- the interface is only USB 1.1 - it needs 2.0, at the least.
- you can use it as an external drive BUT you need to use Windows software to access it. If I could have used it like a regular pen drive I'd have bought one for myself (and then I would ONLY want USB 2, not IEE1394).
This thing is great.
if your focus group is slashdot you're in serious trouble, my lad.
No kidding. If McDonalds really wanted a promotion to get slashdotters, they should offer trading cards of anime girls and a wad of kleenex with every happy meal.
It sounded pretty plausible, even if the cost was roughly 50% more than McDonald's usual yearly advertising expenditures.
I can't figure out whether the editor was being sarcastic, suggesting that it *wasn't* plausible, or if he was being serious, to suggest that such a huge expenditure was plausible.
Perhaps the sheer size of the number he quotes should (*if* it's correct) answer my own question, but I don't know if I'm willing to give these editors that much credit...
you know, the concept of people selling to other people is obviously a new one. *sigh*
They're not patenting the idea of people selling to other people. What they're patenting is a particular and specific description of *how* that could happen. If you could come up with a different way for people to sell to other people, you wouldn't be infringing. And you know what ? I don't see what it's being a a "cool" idea has to do with whether or not it should be patentable.
You can bet something like this will not be allowed during test taking, that's for sure.
Care to point out which of your listed items is allowed during test taking *now* ?
Of course the clunkiest feature of Office is the part where you have pay several hundred dollars for it. I wish they'd get that bug ironed out already.
More than a few people on the various file-sharing networks have already worked this bug out.