$100 headphones, $400 archos. But I'm not going to spend $400 on music, because unlike the archos and h eadphones, music only lasts alittle while, once you hear it a few times it dies.
Exactly, thats why people likee me use Kazaa. We dont like the price so we dont buy. This doesnt mean we dont get to listen to the music, it just means we dont buy.
You tell me to get a job, where? Mc donalds? I dont have a degree and we are in an economic depression yet somehow I'm supposed to be able to get a job and have plenty of money overnight? You must be living in a fantasy world..50 a song is what a college student whos poor can afford to pay, the poor college students are the majority of the people who use Kazaa, not you. If record companies complain that poor college students are becoming pirates, perhaps a solution is to offer music at a price EVERYONE can afford.
If a bag of chips were $1, I wouldnt eat chips anymore, if a mc donalds hamburger were $50 (about the price of a resturant meal) I wouldnt be eating there anymore.
Yes I do have economic problems in my life, millions of other people in my age range have these same problems, so according to you, college students shouldnt be able to listen to music now?
Also music isnt a luxury its a commodity, supply and demand is not controlling the price of music, this is why people steal it.
Theres endless supply, and endless demand, but the supply out weighs the demand, what do music companies do? they illegally fix the price so music stays expensive, this keeps music as a luxury when its actually not.
Its equal to bread companies keeping breat at $10 a slice illegally and then trying to sell bread to poor Africans. Sure some people in the USA can afford bread at $10 a slice, people like you perhaps, but this is not the value of bread based on how much it costs to produce, or based on supply and demand. Its illegal to fix or control the price of something, the market is supposed to do that, so if the market says music is too expensive and decides to steal it, this is called capitalism.
Perhaps if the music followed the market instead of abusing it, people wouldnt steal it, the same can be said about Microsoft and Windows, and alot of other companies who try to treat their products like its a luxury product by inflating the price illegally.
Someone who steals my wallet is stealing somethinng I earned, someone who refuses to buy music is not stealing anything, they just arent buying.
I wouldnt consider us cheakskates, these older guys act like they never were in college before, maybe they were born rich or something, but some people have to work their way up and cannot afford to waste hundreds of dollars on music.
For $1 a track I can see $100 being wasted REALLY quick.
You arent going to stop the poor from using Napster like programs until you bring the price of music down to their level.
Just like if all resturants were expensive as hell fancy resturants which required tips, and there were no fast food resturants like mc donalds, poor people would never go to resturants. Sure you could try to offer smaller dishes to the poor, but they still wouldnt buy it because then they'd get less food.
What would they do? They'd make their own food and not go to resturants. SO I dont see how this solves anything, rich people who went to resturants before will go to the resturants selling smaller dishes, but the poor will still not buy food from resturants.
I wont be buying music at $1 a song because I cannot afford it, period, thats all there is to it, I think music is over priced, alot of people (millions) agree with me. Until I'm an upper class rich person like you, I'm going to continue to think this, and I think most college students who arent upper class and rich like you agree with me.
So until you release a music service for OUR class and age range of people, why should I care? I want cheap music. Its that simple.
How hard is it for rich people like you to understand? I'm sure you were poor before, or in college before, when you have to worry about just getting 3 meals a day, you arent caring about spending a dollar on music, that dollar is lunch!
But most college students and highschool students simply cannot afford the high priced(and getting higher each year) CDs.
You go pay $1 a song, I'll never buy music because I cannot afford to spend a dollar a song, I can spend 25 cent a song, 50 cent a song, but not a dollar a song, I barely have enough money to eat lunch everyday and I'm supposed to be spending a dollar on some 128bitrate low quality music file?
Sure people like you who always purchased music will spend this but for the people who use Kazaa and the napster users, and people who cannot afford to buy music, this service is worthless.
So ultimately this service will sell to the same people who are currently buying music CDs in stores, it wont make any more money than the current online music stores who do this.
Why should I buy this? Less quality than CDs, same exact price as CDs, and I already think CDs are too expensive.
So if I cannot afford CDs, why would I be able to afford this? Lets not forget this is less quality than CD, so why would I get this when I can get a full quality CD?
I'll let rich people like you who already can afford to buy $15-20 cds, waste your money on some 128bitrate copies of that CD, go ahead and waste your money, I'd rather buy a full quality CD or even vinyl than waste my limited income on this garbage.
Why downgrade quality and pay the same price? Dont accept this $1 a song crap, thats still ripping us off, 0.50 a song is fair, about the price of a bag of chips.
0.50 per song and under and I'd say its good but thats too expensive.
Also why no wireless features? If I have to go online to get my music why shouldnt I juse use Kazaa? I want to be able to download music while I'm walking around outside.
no you dont, you can check the data bit by bit and compare it, not to mention you can download code and have it compile automatically after you get it.
This is the exact question I wanted to ask, but didnt have the words to ask it.
Thats exactly it, So far Lindows is focused on becoming as good as Windows, but it needs to be BETTER than Windows to compete with Windows, not just as good, BETTER.
So far Linux needs to improve the quality, stuff like the fonts, the lack of alpha channel, or hardware rendering, the lack of eye candy, the clickNrun is a good start, it helps with functionality, but Linux is missing that eye candy to make Linux unique in itself, cloning Windows is not going to make people switch.
Also Linux needs that killer appp to bring the masses, kinda like napster was the killer app to make people buy CD burners, or games was windows killer app, even macs have their applications which they do best
Well I asked this question before but I think if you want to market Lindows, you need to give it away to college students who cannot afford to buy it anyway. How about you go on a sorta tour, where you go to college campuses, you show Lindows, and you give out free CDs. Go from College to College for about a year, get students using Lindows on their laptops instead of Windows, Apple does this kinda thing with their Ibooks.
Will Lindows be an open company? When can we buy stocks? and how are they doing?
These are some good questions, it would also be nice to have a clue on where they are going with this. Redhat has some projections on what their roadmap is. I know Michael Robertson has alot of money, but he doesnt have infinite money.
Also what about a cheaper subscription service for college students? Lindows college edition which instead of $99, is alot cheaper or maybe even free.
What do you think of the situation going on in the Xfree86 development community? Will Lindows be able to compete with OSX anytime soon in terms of quality.
Lindows is good right now, but the quality is behind and that extra quality which OSX has, is exactly what Linux is missing. When Linux gets quality, eye candy, or whatever you call it, the masses will come along.
Games mostly work, Alot of the important applications work. All Lindows needs is to simply be better at first glance than Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
$100 headphones, $400 archos. But I'm not going to spend $400 on music, because unlike the archos and h eadphones, music only lasts alittle while, once you hear it a few times it dies.
Yes but some people have more freetime than money (college students)
And other people have more money than free time (Guys like you)
I have free time, I just dont have money.
Exactly, thats why people likee me use Kazaa. We dont like the price so we dont buy. This doesnt mean we dont get to listen to the music, it just means we dont buy.
You tell me to get a job, where? Mc donalds? I dont have a degree and we are in an economic depression yet somehow I'm supposed to be able to get a job and have plenty of money overnight? You must be living in a fantasy world.
If a bag of chips were $1, I wouldnt eat chips anymore, if a mc donalds hamburger were $50 (about the price of a resturant meal) I wouldnt be eating there anymore.
Yes I do have economic problems in my life, millions of other people in my age range have these same problems, so according to you, college students shouldnt be able to listen to music now?
Please.
When did I say I steal it?
I just said I dont buy it.
Also music isnt a luxury its a commodity, supply and demand is not controlling the price of music, this is why people steal it.
Theres endless supply, and endless demand, but the supply out weighs the demand, what do music companies do? they illegally fix the price so music stays expensive, this keeps music as a luxury when its actually not.
Its equal to bread companies keeping breat at $10 a slice illegally and then trying to sell bread to poor Africans. Sure some people in the USA can afford bread at $10 a slice, people like you perhaps, but this is not the value of bread based on how much it costs to produce, or based on supply and demand. Its illegal to fix or control the price of something, the market is supposed to do that, so if the market says music is too expensive and decides to steal it, this is called capitalism.
Perhaps if the music followed the market instead of abusing it, people wouldnt steal it, the same can be said about Microsoft and Windows, and alot of other companies who try to treat their products like its a luxury product by inflating the price illegally.
Someone who steals my wallet is stealing somethinng I earned, someone who refuses to buy music is not stealing anything, they just arent buying.
I wouldnt consider us cheakskates, these older guys act like they never were in college before, maybe they were born rich or something, but some people have to work their way up and cannot afford to waste hundreds of dollars on music.
For $1 a track I can see $100 being wasted REALLY quick.
You arent going to stop the poor from using Napster like programs until you bring the price of music down to their level.
Just like if all resturants were expensive as hell fancy resturants which required tips, and there were no fast food resturants like mc donalds, poor people would never go to resturants. Sure you could try to offer smaller dishes to the poor, but they still wouldnt buy it because then they'd get less food.
What would they do? They'd make their own food and not go to resturants. SO I dont see how this solves anything, rich people who went to resturants before will go to the resturants selling smaller dishes, but the poor will still not buy food from resturants.
I wont be buying music at $1 a song because I cannot afford it, period, thats all there is to it, I think music is over priced, alot of people (millions) agree with me. Until I'm an upper class rich person like you, I'm going to continue to think this, and I think most college students who arent upper class and rich like you agree with me.
So until you release a music service for OUR class and age range of people, why should I care? I want cheap music. Its that simple.
How hard is it for rich people like you to understand? I'm sure you were poor before, or in college before, when you have to worry about just getting 3 meals a day, you arent caring about spending a dollar on music, that dollar is lunch!
I guess you've never heard of WiFi. Try free downloads. WiFi speed is good, its better than 56k anyway.
Maybe if you lived in a real city like Boston you'd know about WiFi. Move into the city onto a college campus.
But most college students and highschool students simply cannot afford the high priced(and getting higher each year) CDs.
You go pay $1 a song, I'll never buy music because I cannot afford to spend a dollar a song, I can spend 25 cent a song, 50 cent a song, but not a dollar a song, I barely have enough money to eat lunch everyday and I'm supposed to be spending a dollar on some 128bitrate low quality music file?
Sure people like you who always purchased music will spend this but for the people who use Kazaa and the napster users, and people who cannot afford to buy music, this service is worthless.
So ultimately this service will sell to the same people who are currently buying music CDs in stores, it wont make any more money than the current online music stores who do this.
Or, use Kazaa and save your money.
You act like you only have 2 choices. Even with 3 choices, CDs are currently way over priced. Music should be gettinng cheaper not more expensive.
I'm not going to buy music until its at a level I can afford, I'm in college and cannot afford $20 cds.
Why should I buy this? Less quality than CDs, same exact price as CDs, and I already think CDs are too expensive.
So if I cannot afford CDs, why would I be able to afford this? Lets not forget this is less quality than CD, so why would I get this when I can get a full quality CD?
I'll let rich people like you who already can afford to buy $15-20 cds, waste your money on some 128bitrate copies of that CD, go ahead and waste your money, I'd rather buy a full quality CD or even vinyl than waste my limited income on this garbage.
How the hell am I cheap? CDs are too expensive, at $15-20 a CD, why the fuck do I want to pay the same price, only with less quality in digital form?
Come on man, its economics 101, people buy based on value.
Why downgrade quality and pay the same price?
Dont accept this $1 a song crap, thats still ripping us off, 0.50 a song is fair, about the price of a bag of chips.
Thats too expensive. Sorry but I'm already priced out of that market. No song is worth $1.
I wont pay more than 0.50 for any song. Especially a 128bitrate song, that should be 25 cent.
0.50 per song and under and I'd say its good but thats too expensive.
Also why no wireless features? If I have to go online to get my music why shouldnt I juse use Kazaa? I want to be able to download music while I'm walking around outside.
no you dont, you can check the data bit by bit and compare it, not to mention you can download code and have it compile automatically after you get it.
They tried that, Codeweavers does not want any partners, they are the ones responsible for the whole Wine fork..
Transgaming and Lindows are partners.
Its called business.
If Lindows is cheaper and of better quality, people will use it.
If Lindows is higher quality and cheaper than Windows2003, people will choose Lindows.
why use apt-get or clickNrun? What about using P2P instead?
This is the exact question I wanted to ask, but didnt have the words to ask it.
Thats exactly it, So far Lindows is focused on becoming as good as Windows, but it needs to be BETTER than Windows to compete with Windows, not just as good, BETTER.
So far Linux needs to improve the quality, stuff like the fonts, the lack of alpha channel, or hardware rendering, the lack of eye candy, the clickNrun is a good start, it helps with functionality, but Linux is missing that eye candy to make Linux unique in itself, cloning Windows is not going to make people switch.
Also Linux needs that killer appp to bring the masses, kinda like napster was the killer app to make people buy CD burners, or games was windows killer app, even macs have their applications which they do best
Linux needs to find its niche.
Well I asked this question before but I think if you want to market Lindows, you need to give it away to college students who cannot afford to buy it anyway. How about you go on a sorta tour, where you go to college campuses, you show Lindows, and you give out free CDs. Go from College to College for about a year, get students using Lindows on their laptops instead of Windows, Apple does this kinda thing with their Ibooks.
Yeah file sharing within Lindows would be great if its built in, or even an mp3.com style setup.
Or maybe a Media warehouse, where you can have an mp3.com type setup.
Will Lindows be an open company? When can we buy stocks? and how are they doing?
These are some good questions, it would also be nice to have a clue on where they are going with this. Redhat has some projections on what their roadmap is. I know Michael Robertson has alot of money, but he doesnt have infinite money.
Also what about a cheaper subscription service for college students? Lindows college edition which instead of $99, is alot cheaper or maybe even free.
What do you think of the situation going on in the Xfree86 development community? Will Lindows be able to compete with OSX anytime soon in terms of quality.
Lindows is good right now, but the quality is behind and that extra quality which OSX has, is exactly what Linux is missing. When Linux gets quality, eye candy, or whatever you call it, the masses will come along.
Games mostly work, Alot of the important applications work. All Lindows needs is to simply be better at first glance than Windows.