No, I think the point was, as I said, "and be mediocre". The iPod actually has access to ALL of those features through add-ons without altering the basic iPod design. There aren't any real standout multifunction mp3 players YET. I'm sure they will be designed, but there isn't even another standout mp3 player yet that is as good as the iPod (some are close, but they need to nail down the physical design, UI, and software, and I think they at most nail 2 out of 3)
It's your OPINION that FM tuning, voice recording, gapless playback, replacable batteries, etc. somehow completely fuck up the interface of every other player. Why this doesn't apply to iPod accessories I don't know. And I don't know of any "accessory" that adds a replacable battery or gapless playback. Sure, you CAN get an extra battery, and an FM tuner, and lots of other accessories for the iPod but then you've lost the size, appearance, and design advantages of the iPod and spent a lot of money to get the same features as other, cheaper, players.
For the record, I personally don't give a fuck about FM tuning and voice recording, but I can understand that other people DO. For example, MY holy grail of MP3 player features is crossfade.
Price competition forcing the #2 manufacturer to actually LOSE money to compete (Compare the fact that because Apple is cutting prices to maintain dominance, Creative is losing money to 'keep up')
You are out of the loop. Unless of course you don't think Creative is number 2?
Repitition doesn't make something true. Yes, Creative has announced in their Q4 numbers that they've lost money in the MP3 sector. I can't FIND a Q4 announcement by Apple so I don't KNOW if they lost money in the MP3 sector or not. And even if I DID find such a report and even if the report said that Apple made money, you STILL haven't demonstrated that Creative lost money because of Apple. Creative could have lost money for any number of reasons (mismanagement, disaster, smoking crack, etc). So unless you have insider information from Creative, and can verify that, you're talking out of your ass.
Apple's pricing structure prevents Creative from charging enough to make a profit. Read the press release, and you'll see them say "We had set our targets higher for unit volume and average selling prices for our MP3 players than we achieved in the period."
They wanted to sell more and charge more. Apple stopped them.
Assuming your interpetation is correct (we simply don't know), why should I as a consumer consider this a GOOD thing? Microsoft having a monopoly on the OS market is bad, but Apple having a monopoly on the MP3 player market is good? What sense does that make?
If all you're trying to show is that iPods are popular, you're absolutely correct. But this is largely do to really good marketing.
Look it up. They are the first to do 2gb and 4gb of flash. The biggest anyone else has is 1gb.
Yes it was. The iPod mini was the first microdrive based mp3 player, with Creative being the second. Apple's mini was announced and released in February of 2004, while Creative's was October.
Can you find another microdrive based mp3 player that was earlier?
So you can't deny that, in 2001, the iPod was the first mp3 player to upload data at 12mb/s, when everyone else using USB1 (2.0 didn't exist) was uploading at 1mb/s.
Whoopdie fucking do. Even if this is true (I won't bother to disprove it) it irrelavent because other equall
When IBM open-sources Lotus Notes, come back and talk to me about IBM's commitment to open source.
IBM is expending huge sums of money on open source applications like Linux, Apache, gcc, etc. that people acutally USE and that IBM doesn't own and never owned.
GNUstep is a perfect example. There is absolutely no reference to it I can find on Apple.com. In fact, reading the GNUstep website it doesn't look like Apple has ANYTHING to do with GNUstep at all. It's apparenly a work-like of OpenStep made by someone else.
And the LAST thing Linux/Unix needs is yet another poorly-implemented desktop graphical API. IMHO the single biggest problem with Linux right now is the lack of a unified desktop API.
Yeah, but you have to crack it for it to behave that way.
Virtually every disc image of WinXP I've seen floating around are either the corporate versions that don't require activation or are pre-cracked. And it's not like cracking is such a chore. It involves running one freely available executable exactly once.
Illegal but not immoral, in my opinion.
Nor do I think it's immoral to pirate WinXP since MS obviously gouges on pricing. But I'd argue that they are really no worse than Apple in this regard. Frankly, I think Windows should be free for non-commercial use. This would be the kiss of death for desktop Linux.
Not in my experience. Obviously you need to have CC info on file to use the iTunes music store, but simply to organize your music, registration is completely optional. It's FREE software, why should it require registration?
iTunes has to "call home" to verify protected content and that verification is NOT permanent, so if you leave your Mac disconnected from the Internet for a couple months all your music is unplayable because the licenses can't be verified. And you can't transfer music to another system without Internet access. And if your firewall doesn't like iTunes DRM (for example, it's stateful inspection) you can't verify your content. And what happens if Apple decides to stop supporting iTunes? You're SOL.
DRM is anti-consumer, period. If you buy music through iTunes eventually you WILL be burned by the DRM. And when the DRM breaks, which is quite easy if security in OSX gets messed up somehow, Apple acts like it's the customer's fault: http://www.idealog.us/2005/08/what_apple_supp.html
And no, I don't consider burning to CD and then re-ripping to MP3, OGG, etc. as a REASONABLE solution because it's a major pain in the ASS. Fuck DRM music and fuck Apple for promoting it.
It's worth noting that Protected Windows Media has pretty much exactly the same problems and is ALMOST as evil. It's just that if you know where to look you can find tools to easily strip off the DRM if you're having problems. MS tech support will even point you towards these tools if you're having problems (since they have no vested interest in music companies fucking you, unlike Apple).
Surely there is a reason for using XP beyond being a cheapskate.
That was my primary reason for adopting PCs over Macs way back in the early 90's. Macs were about three times the cost of PCs, I simply couldn't afford one. When Win95 was released much of the usability gap between Macs and WinTel disappeared, and it was still way cheaper.
This is still basically true today. Macs are still terribly overpriced. I seriously considered buying a Mac mini but when I actually USED one and saw how slow it was without expensive upgrades I felt cheated. In practice, Apple doesn't sell a computer for less than about $850 and for $250 I could buy a Brand X Athlon box that was roughly twice as fast as the Mac and could do absoultely everything that the Mac could do except run a handful of apps that I don't use anyway. I like Aqua, but I don't like it that much.
And lastly, I play computer games. Steve hasn't been willing to bribe Microsoft for DirectX, so MacOS sucks as a gaming platform. I want to be able to play games like Half-Life 2 and Battlefield 2. That means a Windows PC, and things are likely to stay that way for the forseeable future.
Which is why I think that this new design will work - and stay around for a long, long time. Simply put, Nintendo has never ever faltered in their controller design. Their consoles, perhaps - but not their controllers.
Simply put, this is wrong. Remember Virtual Boy, Power Glove, the giant bazooka thing, the stupid little robot, etc.? Some of those were successes (the light gun), some failures (Power Glove), and some the jury is still out (Gamecube controller, DS).
What Nintendo has show is a real willingness to experiment with new controller designs, and opposed to the relatively conservative approach of it's primary competitors. For example, the PS2 uses a controller identical to the PS1 Dual Shock, and the PSP has a layout identical to the original PS1 controller except the analog "nub". The PS3 controller is very likely to look a lot like the Dual Shock.
OTOH, I see this controller as a DIRECT snub to third-party developers, abandoning multiplatform releases almost entirely. Of course, the GameCube was already mostly there anyway.
Spare, clean OSes that don't try to do everything and be mediocre (Compare to the MP3 players that have FM tuners, replaceable batteries, and voice recorders)
Unless you actually WANT those features, then you're shit out of luck.
Good software on said OSes (Compare to iTunes to all the other jukeboxes)
Unless you want to buy music from somewhere else (Napster, Wal-Mart, etc.) then you're shit out of luck.
Price competition forcing the #2 manufacturer to actually LOSE money to compete (Compare the fact that because Apple is cutting prices to maintain dominance, Creative is losing money to 'keep up')
Except this isn't true. I seriously doubt that you have access to either Creative or Apple's internal accounting. I wasn't able to find Q4 results on Apple's site, but according to Q3:
If you do some math you'll see that Apple's business is far more profitable. Why I as a consumer should consider this a good thing is beyond me.
Fast adoption of new technology (The iPod was the first with the 1.8" hd when everyone else was using 3.5" and 2.5" drive, the first to use CF drives when everyone else was using flash, and now the first to use flash when everyone else has adopted CF. The iPod was also first to use a fast serial connection.)
First to use flash? Methinks you are a little confused. Nor was it the first to use microdrives. It also wasn't the first to use USB 2.0, which was invented by Intel (First to use firewire, a dying interface, though). The iPods really have no "new" technologies, they simply have a good interface and design.
Computers people LOVE to use
MAC USERS love to use Macs, not people in general. Were this true, MacOS X' supposed superior interface would have dominated the computer industry. It hasn't. Real people also care about cost. Apple was charging $3500 for desktops when IBM, Compaq, etc were charging $1500. That's why Windows dominates the desktop world.
There are players available that have every feature any iPod has, and then some, with more capacity, for a lower price. That's just a fact.
The ONLY thing that the iPod has going for it is the OS and appearance of the player. And personally, I think there are more attactive players out there (I like OLEDs), so all you REALLY have with the iPod is the iPod OS and iTunes.
That's not such a small thing, as iTunes is widely regarded as the best "music manager app" out there. Of course, you CAN use other players with iTunes. The real value of the iPod is it's spiffy interface, which is superior to that of any other player I've used.
However, I don't own and iPod becasuse I want FEATURES, most notably protected WMA support so I can play cheap-ass downloads from Wal-Mart. I can live with a slightly crappy interface, like the one on my $35 MuVo NX.
Oh, and the iPod also has LOTS of marketing and advertising. The only players that come close are the Creative players. I don't consider this a plus.
I'm not going to spend big bucks until I find a player that has crossfade.
It is my understanding that Apple has had serious sourcing/price problems with microdrives, who have only ONE vendor (Hitachi), and rather than pay inflated prices for microdrives they redesigned the iPod mini to a flash player so they could use competing vendors, like Samsung. That's what's REALLY behind this great "design" innovation. I'm told theat they were originally going to do a new iPod mini with a larger color screen.
The nano is nice, but the iPod mini was more durable and had a better price/capacity ratio. But apparently Apple isn't getting good enough margin on them anymore.
(Disclaimer: I have yet to use the nano, but I have seen it in person and I've heard many reports about it's scratch-tastic faceplate.)
And people like you in the Linux-centric part of the free software community are ignoring all the rest of the really nice stuff in the pile of software that Apple's distributing because you're going "Ick, Mach".
Um, no. I've been hearing this over and over again and it bears corection.
Darwin has recieved virtually no attention from the open source community largely because it's perfectly clear to the open source community that Darwin is basically a feeble gesture and Apple clearly has no real commitment to the open source community unlike, say, IBM. Most of their interesting software is closed source, they have throughly embraced DRM and related technologies, they are very touchy about thirdy-party ANYTHING, etc. Open source people see developing for Darwin as a waste of time because it's just bolstering Apple's proprietary business and giving them money. It's the same reason they aren't working on Windows or Solaris.
Currently Apple requires NO serial number, registration, or any other verification to load OS X. People trade Jaguar, Panther & Tiger disk images on filesharing networks and they burn great. The same disks or legit copies can be used to load onto multiple machines on the same network. "Upgrades" bought from Apple require no previous version's SN to install, and cost the same as a brand new copy.
And I can do exactly the same thing with WinXP, in fact there were images for WinXP-64 widely available and cracked long before the OS was oficially released. THe same is very likely to be true of Vista. And upgrades costing the same as a "brand new copy" is a DEAL? Microsoft doesn't charge for Service Packs (and yes, Service Packs DO add new features, look at XP SP2). In fact, I've found Apple's pricing for minor OS upgrades to be almost obscene.
The big question is, does this new policy signal a change?I hope not, I appreciate Apple's laid back policy. Right now I'm trying to determine which flavor works best on my near-obsolete G3/333 "Lombard" Powerbook. It's convenient to be able to try out different options before I license a copy.
As far as I'm aware, what you're doing is still illegal. Microsoft gives away free trials of nearly all their software if you're not willing to pirate. And I think people are really being optimistic about future Macs not requiring activation or "calling home" There are already a number of Mac apps (like iTunes) that do this, a number of current and future OSX applications require so sort of activation, and with Apple's emphasis on DRM, combined with the possibility of 3rd-party hardware, it's likely new versions of OSX will require some sort of activation.
The reason they haven't done it already is because, as many have said, they make their money on the hardware. They really don't care if OSX is pirated at this point sine you need to buy their expensive hardware to run it. If this changes in Intel versions of OSX, you can be certain their will be some sort of activation.
I think the confusion here is caused by the fact that when most people think of home-brewed PVRs they tend to think of software only solutions like MythTV. In fact, that's exactly what Anandtech is talking about in the article: software video encoding.
You are apparently using the EyeTV 500, an external firewire MPEG encoder/decoded and channel tuner, etc. A $350 peripheral. According to the website any G4 500mhz or faster can encode HDTV using this peripherial. Which is unsuprising since it's the EyeTV that's doing all the "heavy lifting" of the PVR.
Basically, you're making an apples and oranges comparison here.
Rarely do I comment on such obvious bullshit, but...
Pornography in this day and age sets a standard for sexual intercourse that is enjoyed almost exclusively by men. Attention is focused on one thing and one thing only: male pleasure. The only foreplay you'll see in 9 out of 10 scenes is oral, usually being performed by the female party. Even taking your clothes off can be sensual if you do it right, pornographers can't even think try.
Nonsense. There is plenty of porn with extended scenes of foreplay, lots of softcore and "couples" oriented videos. And oral sex performed by men on women is very, very, very common in boy/girl porn. There are entire subgenres deveoted to oral sex. Just as there are subgenres devoted to striptease and exotic costumes.
Basically you're making a serious error here. You think: good sex = good porn. Porn isn't a sex documentary. It's a visual medium designed to titillate people, men in particular. Women are funamentally less interested in what we call "porn", because they're less interested in visual depections of sex. This doesn't mean that women aren't interested in erotic entertainment, far from it, it means that they tend towards stories, novels, correspondence, and in the modern age phone and "cyber" sex.
Practically no experimentation as far as position is concerned, there's a set of about 4 positions in Hollywood. Missionary, Doggy (with 2 or 3 variations, but ultimately the same), Cowgirl (2 variations) and Spoons (Laying on side, guy behind). Now, this may be fine for a one night stand; but real good sex usually entails a plethora of different positions. Hot sex doesn't just mean passionate and sweaty, it means pleasurable in many ways; requiring many different positions. For those who have read and used Kama Sutra, Scented Gardens or the plethora of other compilations; you'll know full well the hundreds of positions and the way they make the pleasure a different experience. Even more when there's more than 2 people, and yes, there are books that entail the kind of fun you can have in a party.
This is so completely NOT true that it's ridiculous. One of the biggest complaints among porn stars, particularly female porn stars, is all the uncomfortable and exotic positions. Have you ever watched porn? You've got people screwing in pools, on tables, in chairs, in the showers, standing up, sitting down, suspended from the celing, etc. in about a hundred different positions.
In Real Life I've found that relatively few women go for lots of exotic positons, they to find what's comfortable for them and stick with it.
Actually, this is very good advice. Just like popular opearting systems (i.e. Windows) are more likely to be the target of viruses, these popular services are more likely to be associated with fraud. I avoid PayPal and WAMU for exactly this reason.
You do realize that it works this way NOW? For example, you, me, and every other consumer is forced to pay a fee, which goes to the record labels, on every single blank CDR we purchase? The same is true of DVD+/-R and the movie studios. This is to "compensate for piracy", never mind the millions of legitmate uses for such blank media. I believe that in some nations, the smae applies to the recording equipment as well.
I should also point out that it is not unknown for game publishers to RELEASE games infeceted with viruses. It's not common, but it DOES happen. For this reason I'm fairly skeptical of the "safety" argument against using warez.
This guy's after the money. Most likely he will get a large out of court settlement from Yahoo, since I'm sure they don't even want to play around with the chance that their message boards could be regulated out of existance.
Doubtful. Yahoo! isn't going to pay this guy a dime, ever. Paying him off will simply encourage thousands of other people to make similar claims (as undoubtably thousands of people are insulted every day on Yahoo! message boards). Yahoo! has way more money than this loser, who has a case virtually without merit.
Why pay $90 for the privlidge of eating up huge amounts of your bandwidth downloading overpriced mediocre games that you could buy of eBay for $5 a pop. Nevermind that you could get a usenet account to download all the games (and porn, and movies, etc.) you want for $10 a month.
Personally, the only such kind of service I'm interested in would be a Netflix-like mail-in service that for $20 a month you could have out 5 games OR 5 movies.
Lots and lots of cellphones are sold cheaply on eBay. You'll amost certainly be able to find the simple phone you're looking for there.
After doing some research I've found that the Ericsson "T-series" phones (T10, T18, T20, T28, T29) are the simplest phones and you can find them for $10-$50 on eBay. Some of them are only available to the Euro markets though.
"What, you dorks seriously thought it was all a big hoax or scam?"
That's exactly what I thought, because it happeneds to be the truth. This product is a scam that Tim Roberts is using to milk money out of gullible VCs. I'd bet large sums of money that it will never see the light of day.
Roblimo and Gamespy were either duped (this guy is good at playing people, how else do you think he talked various VCs out of millions of dollars?) or they were bribed. The suspicious lack of photos in Roblimo's article does not impress me. And $25 million can pay a lot of design firms to buy a lot of mock-ups to make his scam more convincing.
A high-end shop like Circut City? That's where I bought my component stereo.
What you're saying is simply wrong. All-in-one style computers have available for many, many, many, years. Look at the Macintosh, that was 1985. It directly competed against the modular IBMPC and the IBMPC won fora simple reason, price. And the modular design was a big part of that. Not only was the "sticker price" lower because you had fewer high-end parts (that could be added later!) but if a part failed, like the video card, you could easily replace it or upgrade it. This same reasoning is why the modular ATX desktops remain prevalent today and are likely to remain so for the near future. Look at what happened with the iMac. It was extensively copied byPC manufacturers hoping to capitalize on it's design. All of these we failures that have disappered from the market. Why? Beause the iMac succeeded mainly Because it was a cheap Mac, which is something Apple fans have been demanding for years.
The conventional desktop isn't dead, not by a long shot. This is just a laptop that somewhat easier to use as a desktop. That's it.
Carter seems to be a fine man, the kind of guy I'd love to have as a neighbor. But what exactly would you have Bush duplicate of his presidency? The high inflation or would it be the oil crisis?
Neither of which had anything to do with Carter or his policy (except in the sense of supporting Israel). Not all economic problems are caused or soluable by the Presidency.
Again, what would you duplicate here? Raising taxes? Raising spending? Military intervention in countries that have nothing to do with our national interest? Sticking smoking devices into young interns? What exactly should Bush duplicate from Clinton's presidency?
First, Bush is raising spending faster than any other President in U.S. history, by a HUGE margin. He's almost DOUBLED Federal spending since he became President. As for what Bush SHOULD do:
1. Yes, he should raise taxes on the very rich. Typical "tricle down" thinking is not a good idea in a period of economic slowdown, and it should be obvious to everyone that the economy is not goign to recover anytime soon. 2. Cut spending, particularly the massive pork-barrel military and "homeland security" spending. I've worked in defense, and the money wasted is almost unimaginable. 3. Don't engage in military actions without broad international approval, ideally including the approval of the nation where forces are deployed. That way, the USA doesn't have to entirely shoulder the burden should anythign go wrong.
So giving money to people instead of having them work and produce something is going to make life better? Maybe for a few for a short amount of time, but that's not a system that can work in the long-term. Forcing the successful and productive to subsidize the unproductive and, sometimes, downright lazy is NOT fair and is NOT in the national interest in the long-term.
It always pisses me off when I hear this sort of crap. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of financial aid goes to single mothers and the handicapped. It is near-impossible for a healthy, working-aged male to get any sort of public assistance (unemployment insurance doesn't count). I guess you think that "welfare moms" and blind people aren't working hard enough.
The alternatives to the current system include state-run orphanages and concentration camps, slavery, or extermination. If you wish to promote these solutions please do so, rather than mindlessly bashing welfare.
I would note that we have not significantly improved the sitution of the poor even after decades of wealth distribution. If the situation before and after are pretty much the same and the only difference is that we've increased the debt, what exactly was the point?
Because our economy still isn't significantly different from a feudal economy. The vast majority of wealth (90%) is controlled by less that 10% of the population, in an exact mirror of feudal economies.
This is the natural result of capitalism. The more money you make, the easier it is to make even MORE money (economies of scale, political influence, etc.). This is why corporations have such wealth and power in this nation, they're great tools for generating wealth and therefore great tools for CONCENTRATING wealth.
Income redistribution is an attept to "correct" for this natural tendency of capitalism. It's a failure because it hasn't gone far enough. For example, why should anyone making less than $100,000 per year pay any income tax AT ALL? They're already being shafted by consumption taxes on everything from gasoline to cigarettes.
It hasn't gone far enough because that top 10% in adition to having concentrated wealth have concentrated POLITICAL POWER (wealh=power in a capitalist economy) and have blocked any attempts to do so.
Not everyone that works in the defense industry is a "magnate" and the defense industry does provide jobs to MANY engineers that contribute to the tax base as well as lead to technological improvements, both military and
The two main PC parts stores (small private stores, not the big-box retailers) have had no-return policies on CPUs for a while now. Once you buy it, you have to go to the manufacturer if anything is wrong. They are willing to drop it into a system before you leave the store to check it is not DOA. Best Buy, etc, may have different return policies, but I don't know anyone that is into OC'ing that would buy a CPU at an overpriced place like BB.
At least in California, this is totally illegal. So are "restocking fees" and 15 day return policies on defective merchandise. By California law, if you purchase a defective product the retailer is obligated to repair the product, or exchange the product for an identical item or a 100% full refund, within 60 days. If the retailer suspects you damaged the item yourself, for whatever reason, the onus is ON THEM, IN COURT to prove that you damaged the item. A buyer must give his EXPRESS consent to waive any of these rules. All of this applies to mail-order businesses located in California.
California retailers have absolutely no obligations to give returns or refunds on fully-functional items.
Small retailers either don't know the law, or are hoping they'll fly under the radar of regulators. Don't buy into their crap.
If you are shipped a defective item from a mail-order California retailer, demand an identical item or your money fully refunded. If they refuse do a chargeback on your credit card explaining the reason. Or if you feel lik being a dick, take them to small claims in your state. You will win.
Well, here is the first article I could find using Google:
"Microsoft enjoyed more than 51: billion in total tax breaks over the past five years. Microsoft, in fact, actually paid no taxes at all in 1999, despite $12.3 billion in reported U.S. profits. Microsoft's tax rate for the past two years was only 1.8 percent on $21.9 billion in pre-tax U.S. profits."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welf ar e/Tax_Dollars_At_Work.html
So I take it back, they paid no taxes in 1999 and very little in 2000 and 2001. I find it doubtful that Microsoft paid much more in 2002. I should also note that this is pretty typical for large corporations with political influence, the artice cited gives several other examples.
All I hear on Slashdot is that hardly ANYONE would pirate movies/music/software if they were just priced reasonably, you could try them before you buy, and they provided good entertainment value (because there will reach a point when it's less of a hassle to buy than download). It stands to reason then that a game like Doom would hardly be pirated at all because Slashdot downloader types are benevolent souls who will gladly fork over the money for a superior product. Oh I almost forgot, iD is/was an "indie" company and not a heartless mega corporation, so that means their stuff definitely shouldn't be pirated because all the money will go to the team, not some fat-cat CEO types.
Reasonable pricing REDUCES piracy, it doesn't eliminate it. Mainly because different people have different ideas of "reasonable". If you're a 14-year-old kid downloading warez off IRC, "reasonable" basically means "next to nothing" because you have very little disposable income. You'll save your precious allowance dollars only for the very best.
Basically, the cheaper and more available something is, the less piracy there is of it. If DOOM was a $5 shareware game, there would probably be very little piracy of it. Think of shoplifting. What's the point of shoplifting a $1 item when you can just pay for it?
OTOH, there are many people who (IMHO, quite rightly) have a "me against the world" philosophy. If you pay for something and you don't HAVE to, you're a "chump". Since CEOs, politicians, etc. are always screwing over the "little guy" it's perfectly okay to hurt their bottom line. Hence, it's not stealing in their eyes, it's "common sense".
So the industry has by design or inattention locked most of its audience out of ever hearing about most of its product in the media, and abandoned the cheap single-song take-a-chance impulse-buy market. It's little wonder that their sales are down, even leaving the recession out of it.
Actually, the major labels sales have been down since the latter part of the tech boom, so the economy really has little to do with it.
You hit the nail exactly on the head. The major labels know that the BIG moneymakers are full album sales, not singles or compilations. That's why every year there are fewer and fewer singles, and very limited compilations (excepting the dance market). They know that any sort of "per song" sales will seriously hit their bottom line. They also know that it's a very tough sell to get online music buyers to buy whole albums.
So, for these reasons, they are basically completely opposed to online music sales and are secretly hoping that it will all just go away.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I think the point was, as I said, "and be mediocre". The iPod actually has access to ALL of those features through add-ons without altering the basic iPod design. There aren't any real standout multifunction mp3 players YET. I'm sure they will be designed, but there isn't even another standout mp3 player yet that is as good as the iPod (some are close, but they need to nail down the physical design, UI, and software, and I think they at most nail 2 out of 3)
It's your OPINION that FM tuning, voice recording, gapless playback, replacable batteries, etc. somehow completely fuck up the interface of every other player. Why this doesn't apply to iPod accessories I don't know. And I don't know of any "accessory" that adds a replacable battery or gapless playback. Sure, you CAN get an extra battery, and an FM tuner, and lots of other accessories for the iPod but then you've lost the size, appearance, and design advantages of the iPod and spent a lot of money to get the same features as other, cheaper, players.
For the record, I personally don't give a fuck about FM tuning and voice recording, but I can understand that other people DO. For example, MY holy grail of MP3 player features is crossfade.
Price competition forcing the #2 manufacturer to actually LOSE money to compete (Compare the fact that because Apple is cutting prices to maintain dominance, Creative is losing money to 'keep up')
You are out of the loop. Unless of course you don't think Creative is number 2?
Repitition doesn't make something true. Yes, Creative has announced in their Q4 numbers that they've lost money in the MP3 sector. I can't FIND a Q4 announcement by Apple so I don't KNOW if they lost money in the MP3 sector or not. And even if I DID find such a report and even if the report said that Apple made money, you STILL haven't demonstrated that Creative lost money because of Apple. Creative could have lost money for any number of reasons (mismanagement, disaster, smoking crack, etc). So unless you have insider information from Creative, and can verify that, you're talking out of your ass.
Apple's pricing structure prevents Creative from charging enough to make a profit. Read the press release, and you'll see them say "We had set our targets higher for unit volume and average selling prices for our MP3 players than we achieved in the period."
They wanted to sell more and charge more. Apple stopped them.
Assuming your interpetation is correct (we simply don't know), why should I as a consumer consider this a GOOD thing? Microsoft having a monopoly on the OS market is bad, but Apple having a monopoly on the MP3 player market is good? What sense does that make?
If all you're trying to show is that iPods are popular, you're absolutely correct. But this is largely do to really good marketing.
Look it up. They are the first to do 2gb and 4gb of flash. The biggest anyone else has is 1gb.
Incorrect. Took me 30 seconds on Google to find this.
http://www.engadget.com/entry/3623064539673730/
Yes it was. The iPod mini was the first microdrive based mp3 player, with Creative being the second. Apple's mini was announced and released in February of 2004, while Creative's was October.
Can you find another microdrive based mp3 player that was earlier?
The eDigital MXP-100 was released in late 2001, YEARS before the iPod mini was available. Here's a review at cNet:
http://reviews.cnet.com/eDigital_MXP_100_340_MB_Mi crodrive/4505-6490_7-7820490-2.html?tag=top
So you can't deny that, in 2001, the iPod was the first mp3 player to upload data at 12mb/s, when everyone else using USB1 (2.0 didn't exist) was uploading at 1mb/s.
Whoopdie fucking do. Even if this is true (I won't bother to disprove it) it irrelavent because other equall
When IBM open-sources Lotus Notes, come back and talk to me about IBM's commitment to open source.
IBM is expending huge sums of money on open source applications like Linux, Apache, gcc, etc. that people acutally USE and that IBM doesn't own and never owned.
GNUstep is a perfect example. There is absolutely no reference to it I can find on Apple.com. In fact, reading the GNUstep website it doesn't look like Apple has ANYTHING to do with GNUstep at all. It's apparenly a work-like of OpenStep made by someone else.
And the LAST thing Linux/Unix needs is yet another poorly-implemented desktop graphical API. IMHO the single biggest problem with Linux right now is the lack of a unified desktop API.
Yeah, but you have to crack it for it to behave that way.
l
Virtually every disc image of WinXP I've seen floating around are either the corporate versions that don't require activation or are pre-cracked. And it's not like cracking is such a chore. It involves running one freely available executable exactly once.
Illegal but not immoral, in my opinion.
Nor do I think it's immoral to pirate WinXP since MS obviously gouges on pricing. But I'd argue that they are really no worse than Apple in this regard. Frankly, I think Windows should be free for non-commercial use. This would be the kiss of death for desktop Linux.
Not in my experience. Obviously you need to have CC info on file to use the iTunes music store, but simply to organize your music, registration is completely optional. It's FREE software, why should it require registration?
iTunes has to "call home" to verify protected content and that verification is NOT permanent, so if you leave your Mac disconnected from the Internet for a couple months all your music is unplayable because the licenses can't be verified. And you can't transfer music to another system without Internet access. And if your firewall doesn't like iTunes DRM (for example, it's stateful inspection) you can't verify your content. And what happens if Apple decides to stop supporting iTunes? You're SOL.
DRM is anti-consumer, period. If you buy music through iTunes eventually you WILL be burned by the DRM. And when the DRM breaks, which is quite easy if security in OSX gets messed up somehow, Apple acts like it's the customer's fault:
http://www.idealog.us/2005/08/what_apple_supp.htm
And no, I don't consider burning to CD and then re-ripping to MP3, OGG, etc. as a REASONABLE solution because it's a major pain in the ASS. Fuck DRM music and fuck Apple for promoting it.
It's worth noting that Protected Windows Media has pretty much exactly the same problems and is ALMOST as evil. It's just that if you know where to look you can find tools to easily strip off the DRM if you're having problems. MS tech support will even point you towards these tools if you're having problems (since they have no vested interest in music companies fucking you, unlike Apple).
Surely there is a reason for using XP beyond being a cheapskate.
That was my primary reason for adopting PCs over Macs way back in the early 90's. Macs were about three times the cost of PCs, I simply couldn't afford one. When Win95 was released much of the usability gap between Macs and WinTel disappeared, and it was still way cheaper.
This is still basically true today. Macs are still terribly overpriced. I seriously considered buying a Mac mini but when I actually USED one and saw how slow it was without expensive upgrades I felt cheated. In practice, Apple doesn't sell a computer for less than about $850 and for $250 I could buy a Brand X Athlon box that was roughly twice as fast as the Mac and could do absoultely everything that the Mac could do except run a handful of apps that I don't use anyway. I like Aqua, but I don't like it that much.
And lastly, I play computer games. Steve hasn't been willing to bribe Microsoft for DirectX, so MacOS sucks as a gaming platform. I want to be able to play games like Half-Life 2 and Battlefield 2. That means a Windows PC, and things are likely to stay that way for the forseeable future.
Which is why I think that this new design will work - and stay around for a long, long time. Simply put, Nintendo has never ever faltered in their controller design. Their consoles, perhaps - but not their controllers.
Simply put, this is wrong. Remember Virtual Boy, Power Glove, the giant bazooka thing, the stupid little robot, etc.? Some of those were successes (the light gun), some failures (Power Glove), and some the jury is still out (Gamecube controller, DS).
What Nintendo has show is a real willingness to experiment with new controller designs, and opposed to the relatively conservative approach of it's primary competitors. For example, the PS2 uses a controller identical to the PS1 Dual Shock, and the PSP has a layout identical to the original PS1 controller except the analog "nub". The PS3 controller is very likely to look a lot like the Dual Shock.
OTOH, I see this controller as a DIRECT snub to third-party developers, abandoning multiplatform releases almost entirely. Of course, the GameCube was already mostly there anyway.
This got modded up +5?
s .html
... For the third quarter, net income was $15.9 millione s.asp?pid=12078
Spare, clean OSes that don't try to do everything and be mediocre
(Compare to the MP3 players that have FM tuners, replaceable batteries, and voice recorders)
Unless you actually WANT those features, then you're shit out of luck.
Good software on said OSes
(Compare to iTunes to all the other jukeboxes)
Unless you want to buy music from somewhere else (Napster, Wal-Mart, etc.) then you're shit out of luck.
Price competition forcing the #2 manufacturer to actually LOSE money to compete
(Compare the fact that because Apple is cutting prices to maintain dominance, Creative is losing money to 'keep up')
Except this isn't true. I seriously doubt that you have access to either Creative or Apple's internal accounting. I wasn't able to find Q4 results on Apple's site, but according to Q3:
Apple posted a net quarterly profit of $320 million, or $.37 per diluted share, and revenue of $3.52 billion.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jul/13result
Sales for the first nine months of fiscal year 2005 were up 50 percent over the same period last year, at $919.0 million
http://www.creative.com/corporate/investor/releas
If you do some math you'll see that Apple's business is far more profitable. Why I as a consumer should consider this a good thing is beyond me.
Fast adoption of new technology (The iPod was the first with the 1.8" hd when everyone else was using 3.5" and 2.5" drive, the first to use CF drives when everyone else was using flash, and now the first to use flash when everyone else has adopted CF. The iPod was also first to use a fast serial connection.)
First to use flash? Methinks you are a little confused. Nor was it the first to use microdrives. It also wasn't the first to use USB 2.0, which was invented by Intel (First to use firewire, a dying interface, though). The iPods really have no "new" technologies, they simply have a good interface and design.
Computers people LOVE to use
MAC USERS love to use Macs, not people in general. Were this true, MacOS X' supposed superior interface would have dominated the computer industry. It hasn't. Real people also care about cost. Apple was charging $3500 for desktops when IBM, Compaq, etc were charging $1500. That's why Windows dominates the desktop world.
Nonsense.
There are players available that have every feature any iPod has, and then some, with more capacity, for a lower price. That's just a fact.
The ONLY thing that the iPod has going for it is the OS and appearance of the player. And personally, I think there are more attactive players out there (I like OLEDs), so all you REALLY have with the iPod is the iPod OS and iTunes.
That's not such a small thing, as iTunes is widely regarded as the best "music manager app" out there. Of course, you CAN use other players with iTunes. The real value of the iPod is it's spiffy interface, which is superior to that of any other player I've used.
However, I don't own and iPod becasuse I want FEATURES, most notably protected WMA support so I can play cheap-ass downloads from Wal-Mart. I can live with a slightly crappy interface, like the one on my $35 MuVo NX.
Oh, and the iPod also has LOTS of marketing and advertising. The only players that come close are the Creative players. I don't consider this a plus.
I'm not going to spend big bucks until I find a player that has crossfade.
Actually, no.
l ?articleID=169400638
It is my understanding that Apple has had serious sourcing/price problems with microdrives, who have only ONE vendor (Hitachi), and rather than pay inflated prices for microdrives they redesigned the iPod mini to a flash player so they could use competing vendors, like Samsung. That's what's REALLY behind this great "design" innovation. I'm told theat they were originally going to do a new iPod mini with a larger color screen.
Found an article on this: http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtm
The nano is nice, but the iPod mini was more durable and had a better price/capacity ratio. But apparently Apple isn't getting good enough margin on them anymore.
(Disclaimer: I have yet to use the nano, but I have seen it in person and I've heard many reports about it's scratch-tastic faceplate.)
And people like you in the Linux-centric part of the free software community are ignoring all the rest of the really nice stuff in the pile of software that Apple's distributing because you're going "Ick, Mach".
Um, no. I've been hearing this over and over again and it bears corection.
Darwin has recieved virtually no attention from the open source community largely because it's perfectly clear to the open source community that Darwin is basically a feeble gesture and Apple clearly has no real commitment to the open source community unlike, say, IBM. Most of their interesting software is closed source, they have throughly embraced DRM and related technologies, they are very touchy about thirdy-party ANYTHING, etc. Open source people see developing for Darwin as a waste of time because it's just bolstering Apple's proprietary business and giving them money. It's the same reason they aren't working on Windows or Solaris.
Currently Apple requires NO serial number, registration, or any other verification to load OS X. People trade Jaguar, Panther & Tiger disk images on filesharing networks and they burn great. The same disks or legit copies can be used to load onto multiple machines on the same network. "Upgrades" bought from Apple require no previous version's SN to install, and cost the same as a brand new copy.
And I can do exactly the same thing with WinXP, in fact there were images for WinXP-64 widely available and cracked long before the OS was oficially released. THe same is very likely to be true of Vista. And upgrades costing the same as a "brand new copy" is a DEAL? Microsoft doesn't charge for Service Packs (and yes, Service Packs DO add new features, look at XP SP2). In fact, I've found Apple's pricing for minor OS upgrades to be almost obscene.
The big question is, does this new policy signal a change?I hope not, I appreciate Apple's laid back policy. Right now I'm trying to determine which flavor works best on my near-obsolete G3/333 "Lombard" Powerbook. It's convenient to be able to try out different options before I license a copy.
As far as I'm aware, what you're doing is still illegal. Microsoft gives away free trials of nearly all their software if you're not willing to pirate. And I think people are really being optimistic about future Macs not requiring activation or "calling home" There are already a number of Mac apps (like iTunes) that do this, a number of current and future OSX applications require so sort of activation, and with Apple's emphasis on DRM, combined with the possibility of 3rd-party hardware, it's likely new versions of OSX will require some sort of activation.
The reason they haven't done it already is because, as many have said, they make their money on the hardware. They really don't care if OSX is pirated at this point sine you need to buy their expensive hardware to run it. If this changes in Intel versions of OSX, you can be certain their will be some sort of activation.
I think the confusion here is caused by the fact that when most people think of home-brewed PVRs they tend to think of software only solutions like MythTV. In fact, that's exactly what Anandtech is talking about in the article: software video encoding.
You are apparently using the EyeTV 500, an external firewire MPEG encoder/decoded and channel tuner, etc. A $350 peripheral. According to the website any G4 500mhz or faster can encode HDTV using this peripherial. Which is unsuprising since it's the EyeTV that's doing all the "heavy lifting" of the PVR.
Basically, you're making an apples and oranges comparison here.
Rarely do I comment on such obvious bullshit, but...
Pornography in this day and age sets a standard for sexual intercourse that is enjoyed almost exclusively by men. Attention is focused on one thing and one thing only: male pleasure. The only foreplay you'll see in 9 out of 10 scenes is oral, usually being performed by the female party. Even taking your clothes off can be sensual if you do it right, pornographers can't even think try.
Nonsense. There is plenty of porn with extended scenes of foreplay, lots of softcore and "couples" oriented videos. And oral sex performed by men on women is very, very, very common in boy/girl porn. There are entire subgenres deveoted to oral sex. Just as there are subgenres devoted to striptease and exotic costumes.
Basically you're making a serious error here. You think: good sex = good porn. Porn isn't a sex documentary. It's a visual medium designed to titillate people, men in particular. Women are funamentally less interested in what we call "porn", because they're less interested in visual depections of sex. This doesn't mean that women aren't interested in erotic entertainment, far from it, it means that they tend towards stories, novels, correspondence, and in the modern age phone and "cyber" sex.
Practically no experimentation as far as position is concerned, there's a set of about 4 positions in Hollywood. Missionary, Doggy (with 2 or 3 variations, but ultimately the same), Cowgirl (2 variations) and Spoons (Laying on side, guy behind). Now, this may be fine for a one night stand; but real good sex usually entails a plethora of different positions. Hot sex doesn't just mean passionate and sweaty, it means pleasurable in many ways; requiring many different positions. For those who have read and used Kama Sutra, Scented Gardens or the plethora of other compilations; you'll know full well the hundreds of positions and the way they make the pleasure a different experience. Even more when there's more than 2 people, and yes, there are books that entail the kind of fun you can have in a party.
This is so completely NOT true that it's ridiculous. One of the biggest complaints among porn stars, particularly female porn stars, is all the uncomfortable and exotic positions. Have you ever watched porn? You've got people screwing in pools, on tables, in chairs, in the showers, standing up, sitting down, suspended from the celing, etc. in about a hundred different positions.
In Real Life I've found that relatively few women go for lots of exotic positons, they to find what's comfortable for them and stick with it.
Actually, this is very good advice. Just like popular opearting systems (i.e. Windows) are more likely to be the target of viruses, these popular services are more likely to be associated with fraud. I avoid PayPal and WAMU for exactly this reason.
You do realize that it works this way NOW? For example, you, me, and every other consumer is forced to pay a fee, which goes to the record labels, on every single blank CDR we purchase? The same is true of DVD+/-R and the movie studios. This is to "compensate for piracy", never mind the millions of legitmate uses for such blank media. I believe that in some nations, the smae applies to the recording equipment as well.
I should also point out that it is not unknown for game publishers to RELEASE games infeceted with viruses. It's not common, but it DOES happen. For this reason I'm fairly skeptical of the "safety" argument against using warez.
This guy's after the money. Most likely he will get a large out of court settlement from Yahoo, since I'm sure they don't even want to play around with the chance that their message boards could be regulated out of existance.
Doubtful. Yahoo! isn't going to pay this guy a dime, ever. Paying him off will simply encourage thousands of other people to make similar claims (as undoubtably thousands of people are insulted every day on Yahoo! message boards). Yahoo! has way more money than this loser, who has a case virtually without merit.
Why pay $90 for the privlidge of eating up huge amounts of your bandwidth downloading overpriced mediocre games that you could buy of eBay for $5 a pop. Nevermind that you could get a usenet account to download all the games (and porn, and movies, etc.) you want for $10 a month.
Personally, the only such kind of service I'm interested in would be a Netflix-like mail-in service that for $20 a month you could have out 5 games OR 5 movies.
Lots and lots of cellphones are sold cheaply on eBay. You'll amost certainly be able to find the simple phone you're looking for there.
After doing some research I've found that the Ericsson "T-series" phones (T10, T18, T20, T28, T29) are the simplest phones and you can find them for $10-$50 on eBay. Some of them are only available to the Euro markets though.
"What, you dorks seriously thought it was all a big hoax or scam?"
That's exactly what I thought, because it happeneds to be the truth. This product is a scam that Tim Roberts is using to milk money out of gullible VCs. I'd bet large sums of money that it will never see the light of day.
Roblimo and Gamespy were either duped (this guy is good at playing people, how else do you think he talked various VCs out of millions of dollars?) or they were bribed. The suspicious lack of photos in Roblimo's article does not impress me. And $25 million can pay a lot of design firms to buy a lot of mock-ups to make his scam more convincing.
A high-end shop like Circut City? That's where I bought my component stereo.
What you're saying is simply wrong. All-in-one style computers have available for many, many, many, years. Look at the Macintosh, that was 1985. It directly competed against the modular IBMPC and the IBMPC won fora simple reason, price. And the modular design was a big part of that. Not only was the "sticker price" lower because you had fewer high-end parts (that could be added later!) but if a part failed, like the video card, you could easily replace it or upgrade it. This same reasoning is why the modular ATX desktops remain prevalent today and are likely to remain so for the near future. Look at what happened with the iMac. It was extensively copied byPC manufacturers hoping to capitalize on it's design. All of these we failures that have disappered from the market. Why? Beause the iMac succeeded mainly Because it was a cheap Mac, which is something Apple fans have been demanding for years.
The conventional desktop isn't dead, not by a long shot. This is just a laptop that somewhat easier to use as a desktop. That's it.
In order...
Carter seems to be a fine man, the kind of guy I'd love to have as a neighbor. But what exactly would you have Bush duplicate of his presidency? The high inflation or would it be the oil crisis?
Neither of which had anything to do with Carter or his policy (except in the sense of supporting Israel). Not all economic problems are caused or soluable by the Presidency.
Again, what would you duplicate here? Raising taxes? Raising spending? Military intervention in countries that have nothing to do with our national interest? Sticking smoking devices into young interns? What exactly should Bush duplicate from Clinton's presidency?
First, Bush is raising spending faster than any other President in U.S. history, by a HUGE margin. He's almost DOUBLED Federal spending since he became President. As for what Bush SHOULD do:
1. Yes, he should raise taxes on the very rich. Typical "tricle down" thinking is not a good idea in a period of economic slowdown, and it should be obvious to everyone that the economy is not goign to recover anytime soon.
2. Cut spending, particularly the massive pork-barrel military and "homeland security" spending. I've worked in defense, and the money wasted is almost unimaginable.
3. Don't engage in military actions without broad international approval, ideally including the approval of the nation where forces are deployed. That way, the USA doesn't have to entirely shoulder the burden should anythign go wrong.
So giving money to people instead of having them work and produce something is going to make life better? Maybe for a few for a short amount of time, but that's not a system that can work in the long-term. Forcing the successful and productive to subsidize the unproductive and, sometimes, downright lazy is NOT fair and is NOT in the national interest in the long-term.
It always pisses me off when I hear this sort of crap. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of financial aid goes to single mothers and the handicapped. It is near-impossible for a healthy, working-aged male to get any sort of public assistance (unemployment insurance doesn't count). I guess you think that "welfare moms" and blind people aren't working hard enough.
The alternatives to the current system include state-run orphanages and concentration camps, slavery, or extermination. If you wish to promote these solutions please do so, rather than mindlessly bashing welfare.
I would note that we have not significantly improved the sitution of the poor even after decades of wealth distribution. If the situation before and after are pretty much the same and the only difference is that we've increased the debt, what exactly was the point?
Because our economy still isn't significantly different from a feudal economy. The vast majority of wealth (90%) is controlled by less that 10% of the population, in an exact mirror of feudal economies.
This is the natural result of capitalism. The more money you make, the easier it is to make even MORE money (economies of scale, political influence, etc.). This is why corporations have such wealth and power in this nation, they're great tools for generating wealth and therefore great tools for CONCENTRATING wealth.
Income redistribution is an attept to "correct" for this natural tendency of capitalism. It's a failure because it hasn't gone far enough. For example, why should anyone making less than $100,000 per year pay any income tax AT ALL? They're already being shafted by consumption taxes on everything from gasoline to cigarettes.
It hasn't gone far enough because that top 10% in adition to having concentrated wealth have concentrated POLITICAL POWER (wealh=power in a capitalist economy) and have blocked any attempts to do so.
Not everyone that works in the defense industry is a "magnate" and the defense industry does provide jobs to MANY engineers that contribute to the tax base as well as lead to technological improvements, both military and
You just want to continue worshipping your womanizing, alcholic, hero.
Are we talking about George Bush now?
The two main PC parts stores (small private stores, not the big-box retailers) have had no-return policies on CPUs for a while now. Once you buy it, you have to go to the manufacturer if anything is wrong. They are willing to drop it into a system before you leave the store to check it is not DOA. Best Buy, etc, may have different return policies, but I don't know anyone that is into OC'ing that would buy a CPU at an overpriced place like BB.
At least in California, this is totally illegal. So are "restocking fees" and 15 day return policies on defective merchandise. By California law, if you purchase a defective product the retailer is obligated to repair the product, or exchange the product for an identical item or a 100% full refund, within 60 days. If the retailer suspects you damaged the item yourself, for whatever reason, the onus is ON THEM, IN COURT to prove that you damaged the item. A buyer must give his EXPRESS consent to waive any of these rules. All of this applies to mail-order businesses located in California.
California retailers have absolutely no obligations to give returns or refunds on fully-functional items.
Small retailers either don't know the law, or are hoping they'll fly under the radar of regulators. Don't buy into their crap.
If you are shipped a defective item from a mail-order California retailer, demand an identical item or your money fully refunded. If they refuse do a chargeback on your credit card explaining the reason. Or if you feel lik being a dick, take them to small claims in your state. You will win.
Well, here is the first article I could find using Google:
f ar e/Tax_Dollars_At_Work.html
"Microsoft enjoyed more than 51: billion in total tax breaks over the past five years. Microsoft, in fact, actually paid no taxes at all in 1999, despite $12.3 billion in reported U.S. profits. Microsoft's tax rate for the past two years was only 1.8 percent on $21.9 billion in pre-tax U.S. profits."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Wel
So I take it back, they paid no taxes in 1999 and very little in 2000 and 2001. I find it doubtful that Microsoft paid much more in 2002. I should also note that this is pretty typical for large corporations with political influence, the artice cited gives several other examples.
All I hear on Slashdot is that hardly ANYONE would pirate movies/music/software if they were just priced reasonably, you could try them before you buy, and they provided good entertainment value (because there will reach a point when it's less of a hassle to buy than download). It stands to reason then that a game like Doom would hardly be pirated at all because Slashdot downloader types are benevolent souls who will gladly fork over the money for a superior product. Oh I almost forgot, iD is/was an "indie" company and not a heartless mega corporation, so that means their stuff definitely shouldn't be pirated because all the money will go to the team, not some fat-cat CEO types.
Reasonable pricing REDUCES piracy, it doesn't eliminate it. Mainly because different people have different ideas of "reasonable". If you're a 14-year-old kid downloading warez off IRC, "reasonable" basically means "next to nothing" because you have very little disposable income. You'll save your precious allowance dollars only for the very best.
Basically, the cheaper and more available something is, the less piracy there is of it. If DOOM was a $5 shareware game, there would probably be very little piracy of it. Think of shoplifting. What's the point of shoplifting a $1 item when you can just pay for it?
OTOH, there are many people who (IMHO, quite rightly) have a "me against the world" philosophy. If you pay for something and you don't HAVE to, you're a "chump". Since CEOs, politicians, etc. are always screwing over the "little guy" it's perfectly okay to hurt their bottom line. Hence, it's not stealing in their eyes, it's "common sense".
So the industry has by design or inattention locked most of its audience out of ever hearing about most of its product in the media, and abandoned the cheap single-song take-a-chance impulse-buy market. It's little wonder that their sales are down, even leaving the recession out of it.
Actually, the major labels sales have been down since the latter part of the tech boom, so the economy really has little to do with it.
You hit the nail exactly on the head. The major labels know that the BIG moneymakers are full album sales, not singles or compilations. That's why every year there are fewer and fewer singles, and very limited compilations (excepting the dance market). They know that any sort of "per song" sales will seriously hit their bottom line. They also know that it's a very tough sell to get online music buyers to buy whole albums.
So, for these reasons, they are basically completely opposed to online music sales and are secretly hoping that it will all just go away.