It's flamebait because it's meant to be flamebait, not necessarily because it's untrue.
It's an old troll that I think even predates Mac OS X. The AC that posted it probably just pasted it in from his collection of trolls and added a few lines to make it a better fit. Take out the few lines that explicitly refer to Mac OS X and you've still got most of the post. Try the NetCraft link and you'll see that www.army.mil runs Mac OS X.
Also, lines like this : --- too bad the linux community is so stubborn that they refuse to understand that the Mac has always been the most secure OS for servers. are 100% flamebait.
Re:Use OS9 for secure server NOT OSX! Its 100% sec
on
Mac OS X Maximum Security
·
· Score: 2, Informative
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.army. mil...is just one of many large SECURE classic MacOS distributed servers.
Except for the fact that it's not: The site www.army.mil is running 4D_WebSTAR_S/5.3.0 (MacOS X) on MacOSX.
Dear fucktard moderator,
It has come to my attention that you're a fucking asshole. While you may not be aware of such modern inventions as fire, sliced bread, bathing, and non-asshole-ness, you should be aware by now that using 'Overrated' on an unmoderated post is the kind of fucking fucked-upedness for which there is a circle of hell reserved. DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE
I don't think anyone is making the assertion that people should buy a mega mp3 player, but for the price it's just not up to par.
Um, yes they are actually, in droves. I'd say that at least half of the top-modded posts are repetitions of "For only twice as much you can get an iPod", and so forth.
I'm at a loss as to why everyone keeps focusing on the fact that it's Gateway -- they sell a few dozen other MP3 players on the same site, you know, including the very same Nomad Jukebox 2. I just happen to think that the simple USB key-drive style is very conducive to widespread adoption. Moreso than having a hojillion GB of storage.
So, this Nomad, does it fit in your pocket? Your shirt pocket? Also, you tested how it stood up to vibration, but how about shock? Would you mind dropping it a few times for me, while it's running? Also, you had to install software to use it? That's lame.
You say that a device like this isn't up to par, but that's because it's playing a different game.
My point is that just because you don't want one doesn't mean there isn't a market for them.
When a friendly Gateway sales representative says "would you like to throw in an mp3 player for just $129.99?", lots of people are going to go for it.
Good.
No, really. I'm all for the proliferation and popularity of easy-to-use MP3 players. But they aren't going to be as ubiquitous as CD players until they get as cheap, as simple, and as rugged.
Most of the people here are obviously saying "It sucks, the iPod/Zen/Archos is better.". Well, yeah, but not everyone needs the power of one of those enough to justify spending $300 or so on it.
If you could get a car that does everything you need for $20,000, are you an idiot for not spending $40,000 on one that's "better"?
Your entire post is stupid. I'll say that right up front.
Why spent $170 for 256 megs of space? I can spent less than double...
Whoopty shit, you're still paying twice as much. Think of it in terms of basic addition and subtraction instead of multiplication. I think the iPod is pretty damn cool, but if I can get an MP3 player that does everything I need for $130 less, why shouldn't I? That's more cash money in my pocket to blow on blackjack and hookers, or CDs.
and get a faster transfer (firewire compared with USB 1.1)
Moot point when you've only got 128-256MB to fill up. FireWire would be wasted on a drive that small.
and 10 gigs of space with an iPod. That just doesn't make cents. An iPod is a much better deal.
What if I only have 1GB of MP3s? What if I only want an MP3 player for going on half-hour walks every other day? What if I have the unnerving habit of dropping everything I ever carry, repeatedly? HDD-based MP3 players do not fit everybody's needs. A lot of people here seem to be ignorant as to this point, so I'll make it bold : There is still a market for solid-state MP3 players.
IIRC, back in 2000, if you had an MP3 player, you were locked into using whatever crappy proprietary software came with it. And if you were extra lucky, you had to plug it into a proprietary USB cable, too.
With this (and the Creative MuVo), you plug it to the USB port (no cables) and and it shows up as a drive letter. No software bullshit. Huge difference. What they don't say on the box is that this will work on MacOS and Linux just as easily.
Don't act like this isn't a big improvement from the previous generation. There's still a market for solid-state MP3 players, and this is just following the trend.
Bad music is bundled with good music: Anyone who has bought a CD with one or two good songs knows he/she was forced into buying all the crap to have that one good song.
Nobody is forced to buy any CD. If you choose to buy a CD and find that you don't like it, well, that's too bad, maybe you should try to get a better idea of what you're buying beforehand.
If you hear a song on mainstream radio, or MTV, it's because the record company considers it the most likely to sell records. If you buy an album based only on your judgement of that song, you are what is known as a sucker.
Yeah, yeah, I know. It's about being heard, and expressing your artistic vision, and impressing chicks, and having something to do when you get trashed with your buddies.
But when it comes to spending any amount, it's about money and the aspiring musician's oft-mistaken belief that spending more of it will earn them more of it.
If it's all about getting heard by as many people as possible, bands should do what I did with my EP and write "Please copy the fuck out of this." on each disk, instead of worrying about being able to sell them to people any time, any where. It may not cover every scenario, but I reckon that the same kind of people that have internet access and a credit card stand a good chance of having a CD burner, and the total cost to me is $0.
--
What if some kid doesn't have the $8 at the show to purchase the CD?
If the kid doesn't have $8, he probably doesn't have a credit card, either. Also, any smart touring band will sell (at cost if neccessary) a few copies to a local independent record store before they leave town ("If you don't have $8 now, you can get it at XYZ Records.") -- this is common practice. It's cheap for the artist, doesn't require a computer or credit card, and supports local record shops. It's not as though there's going to be a lot of demand for your CD outside of the towns (or town for non-touring bands, like the highschool bands this thread started on about) you play in.
You're just giving people options. I don't see how the $40 is a huge investment.
Remember: It's $75 if you're not already using CDBaby. For that you have no guarantee that the services will accept your music, no refund if they don't, plus the cost of producing, packaging, and mailing a supply of CDs to CDBaby, where they may or may not sell, and if they do it will only be to people with internet access and a credit card.
Take this scenerio...
Yes, take that scenario and count on it occuring 15 or more times before you make any money at all. Also factor in the particular requirements of the services CDBaby mentions : iTunes requires a Mac, Rhapsody requires a continual subscription. All of this assuming that the services accept your music, which is yet to be seen. CDBaby seems perfectly willing to take your money now, though.
The post I was responding to specifically mentioned the idea of download sales instead of duplicating CDs. Thank you for not reading it, and thank you more for making the idea even dumber.
Your idea gives the potential buyer these options: 1) Buy the CD right there, right now, in all of it's uncompressed glory; or, 2) Go home and download a compressed copy.
Why would someone go and download it? Because it's cheaper? Congratulations, you've just undercut yourself, and made CDBaby $40 + 9% (+$35 if you're not already on CDBaby).
So, for the aspiring unsigned band, you've just paid for the privilage of cutting into your own CD sales, making other people money, and maybe marginally expanding your audience.
Personally, I think I'd rather have 50-100 extra CDs to sell.
This seems like a godsend for many of the bands my friends are in. For 40 dollars they have the chance to be distributed, instead of spending much more on CD's.
Judging by the highschool and college bands I've known, I think about 1 in 100 will break even with that deal. CDs have a much higher profit margin, especially when you duplicate (or even record) them yourself. If you're worried about the cost of duplication, you'd faint at the cost of recording) And you can actually hand them to people when you perform live, or sell them via CDBaby's normal service.
You wouldn't be reaching a larger audience, either. iTunes is a music store, not a music discovery service. The design really isn't geared toward finding artists you've never heard of.
It seems like this is what they wanted from that conference they held with the Indie labels.
I think that what you're describing is exactly something they don't want. They explicitly mentioned that they will deal only with record labels, and not individual artists. I imagine that this is largely for legal reasons, but I think a side benefit is that it will help keep the service from becoming flooded with crap that nobody wants. CDBaby is attempting to work around this, and it's not clear to me that Apple, or any of the other services, won't have a problem with this.
Someone that's willing to buy this device seems like they'd also be of the mindset to lie at the return counter if their CPU kills itself early after an Overclocking Session Gone Bad (TM).
I would have modded you down, but I didn't think that that would properly convey my reaction to this statement, which is : fuck you.
How in the hell do you conclude that anyone that wants to overclock is likely to be a liar as well?
I'm typing this on an overclocked system I built years ago -- why did I overclock? Because it saved me about $500 that I might have spent on a faster chip. Not because I'm somehow morally corrupt, or trying to swindle anyone.
You'll note that I said "emphasis". Yeah, I know full well they've worked together plenty in the past, but Apple seems to really be hammering home the IBM angle on the new chip. Watch the G5 introduction video, lots of geekporn showing off the IBM fab, which seems odd from Apple. (I can't say I was paying attention back then, but it seems like they're making a much bigger deal about it than they did with the first PowerPCs.)
I'm sure a large part of it is making up for the perceived and real troubles with relying on Motorola for the G4. Trying to indirectly say "Hey guys, our friends at IBM aren't going to hold us back like those other guys."
Why are these artists afraid that single-song downloads will undercut album sales? Could it be because they realize that they put out a lot of crap?
And don't give us this 'artistic integrity' bullshit. If your album is a work of art unto itself; if your album truly must be heard as a whole , then why can it not stand on it's own merits? Why do we have to hear from your lawyers?
To clarify, I know that emulation itself is legal, but I think they fall into the same sort of category as P2P programs. Sure, plenty legal, but honestly, do most people use them in purely legal fashion?
Will it run Starcraft, Diablo II, Heroes of Might and Magic I, II, III, and IV, Master of Orion II, all of my Nintendo, SuperNintendo, N64, gameboy, gameboy color, gameboy advance emulators?
probably not. Probably not any of my other favorite PC apps either.
Ignoring your abyssmal taste in games, I don't see what the problem is. Plenty of games are written for or ported to the Mac. Are you implying that Apple should bend over backwards to support 2-3 year old games, and questionably-legal emulators? That's rediculous.
I know that Macs are supposed to be "better" at multimedia editing and such, but I can't think of any "killer apps" for the Mac that aren't available for Windows as well or have functional equivilants.
The entire platform is the killer app, in all seriousness.
I just don't see the purpose in buying a fast, yet incompatable computer system. It's like buying a Sun workstation or a really fast Amiga for home use *shrugs*.
Except neither of those run Office, or iTunes, or iMovie, or come with DVD burners, etc, etc. How are they so incompatable? They don't run Starcraft? Whoopty shit. I'm sure that's really killing sales.
What is it that the mac offers for the price that's so compelling to mac users???
If you don't see it, you won't get it. And yeah, part of it is marketing and the way Apple pitches their systems as 'your' computer rather than 'ours'. I don't even own a Mac and but I can see why they're so great. I started seeing it when I realized that what I was doing with my computer was more important than what my computer could do. If it made me feel like I was better using my time, I'd use my 486/66 Debian box.
It can't be the fruity colors, the wierd form factors, or the candy colored menu options.
It's not like Apple is unique in this. Everybody does it. Apple happens to be very good at it. Furthermore, they manage to make their designs (both hardware and software) very functional. It's not just interface cruft, it does actually make a significant difference in how the machine is used. Microsoft has made some nice efforts, and I know the GNOME and KDE guys are trying, but they just don't compare.
I admit Apple has been doing some interesting work for the Ipod, but there are other MP3 players out there --
That's like saying "That's a nice house, but there's plenty of caves you could live in." You get what you pay for. Yeah, most people aren't really hip to spending $400 on a gadget, but those that do are going to get a pretty damn nice gadget, whether it's an iPod, a Nomad, or whatever. Your argument here has nothing do with Apple, but rather that you're just cheap. I mean, $400 isn't that bad if you've got a CD collection that could really make use of it.
I hear Itunes and other programs are interesting, but really they're not much different than other programs for the PC.
How would you know?
I don't understand why Apple doesn't compete with MS directly by porting to Intel/AMD hardware.
Because Apple is a hardware company. They sell Apple computers. The operating system is just happens to be a feature. Please go and tell all your like-minded friends that this is so. You're barking up the wrong tree entirely. It just isn't going to happen. Microsoft would crush them in a heartbeat anyway.
What am I missing? With Macs only making up about 4% of the marketplace for personal computers, there aren't a lot of software companies producing mac software,
Yeah, there aren't many companies producing Linux software either, it must not be very good.
but I'm assuming many linux programs can run on MacOS now that it's based on unix???
Largely, yes. Around Slashdot, this is a big selling point. For myself, I've been running Apache, MySQL, Perl, PHP, GIMP, and some others on Windows, so it's inviting to know that a Mac wil
I think I speak for more than a few people when I say that I don't think the Segway sucks because it isn't innovative or 'neat'. It sure is innovative (though no more than Kamen's earlier iBot), and I'd love to try one out. But it's just not worth getting excited about.
No, it sucks because, well...it's still a scooter. Dispite all the secrecy and hype about how 'Ginger' was going to change the world, it's still just a neat toy. A very expensive toy. We were promised flying cars and we got a scooter.
I'm sorry, but you are either completely ignorant or utterly deluded. Either way, you're not a very good troll.
Yes and according to Nullsofts site when they released Waste, AOL paid them to write it, AOL even used it internally.
I did not see the original page for WASTE, but if this is true, then it would prove my point : WASTE was work-for-hire, and thus AOL held the copyright, giving Justin absolutely no right to release it. I don't know why you're demanding that I should be able to prove this in court, but if indeed WASTE ever becomes a legal matter, AOL/Nullsoft would easily be able to prove such. This is not my opinion, it is part of copyright law.
So its not like AOL can do anything about it now, the millions who downloaded it from NullSofts website have no way of knowing this, the only one who knows this are AOL, and Justin.
Irrelevant if the code was not legaly licensed to them. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken, though I doubt very many of the "millions" that downloaded WASTE have managed not to hear about the scandal. If they use the code in a GPL project, they can expect to be sued. I wouldn't expect AOL to go after anyone, but the fact that they could means it's best to stay away from WASTE's source.
The GPL License says Nullsoft, not Justin Frankel, the same thing is on all of Nullsofts other products, like Winamp, so why pick this product to say "well we dont know if Justin was authorized to release this"
What's your point here? I wouldn't assume that Justin wrote it all by himself. I really don't get what you're driving at here.
Justin also released Winamp 3, Shoutcast, and all this other stuff.
No, Justin did not. Nullsoft/AOL did. They pay him to code Winamp. That's work-for-hire. He does not own Winamp. He could not GPL the code for Winamp. Not even what he wrote. That's a basic part of copyright law, your ignorance of which is astounding. As I mentioned in my prior post, there is the distinct possibility that WASTE, too, is work-for-hire, and as such, not his to give away.
What stops AOL from saying "You all must destroy your copies of WinAmp 3, Shoutcast,Aimazing," etc?
The fact that they licensed it to you the moment you hit "I agree." You agreed to those terms, and only those terms.
SO I guess AOL can change the license at any time and say "Hey we changed our license, you all have to pay for this software"
This is completely different from WASTE. They are not changing the terms of the license. They are saying that it was never legally licensed to you to begin with.
Once its released to a website, if even ONE person downloads it, the license takes effect.
You're completely missing the issue. The issue is whether whomever is responsible for it's release (presumably Justin Frankel) held the copyright, and thus had the right to do so. This comes down to contractual agreements between Justin and AOL.
It appears that AOL holds the copyright.
It could be that it is considered work-for-hire,(a previous article mentioned that WASTE had been used internally for sharing files between AOL's San Francisco and Dulles offices) a possibility I haven't heard voiced yet. This might explain why WASTE has been treated somewhat differently from Gnutella.
In fact they'll burn more gas getting there than they save, and yet people still do it looking for a perceived 'deal'.
Part of the advantage of iTMS is that you don't have to go anywhere to use it. If you use iTunes at all (well, iTunes 4, but let's assume), it's right there. If you buy new tracks every day, it's in the same place as it would be had you never used it.
People do often drive out of the way to save 2 or 3 cents on gas. Granted, many of them are rediculously stupid, but it's important to note that that's 2 or 3 cents per gallon. I can see your analogy holding for people who will consume 'gallons' of music -- those who are going to expect to buy (say) a hundred tracks or more over every three months are likely to go looking for a better deal. I would even argue that those who will 'consume' very large amounts of music are the least likely to be willing to pay for it to begin with.
Most people, however, aren't going to buy a hundred or more -- they may buy one, or five, or ten in that same period. They may buy one in January, fifty in February, three in March, and never buy any more. iTunes caters to this as much as it does someone who always buys exactly five songs every month. The convenience factor carries a huge amount of weight for people who intend only to buy one or two songs -- it's simply not worth the time to go looking for another service just to save twenty cents or so. Even P2P is a tough sell in these cases.
I also think that Apple is expecting some people to begin with one or two songs, but gradually begin using it much more. Hooking these people from the start is typically Apple. Why shop around when what you've got works?
Also They don't own the network, either - they rent it from Akamai usually. So bandwidth does cost them.
Apple owns a big chunk of Akamai, and IIRC, were there with them from the start. They're old friends, the kind that give each other really good deals on things like bandwidth. So, yes, it does cost them, but not as much as it would cost anyone else. I recall Steve Jobs mentioning in an interview that Apple's relationship with Akamai was one of the key elements to iTMS that it's competitors couldn't touch.
I know there's a little link overload, just illustrating how easily this could be done right now!
All of this could be squeezed into a current form factor Sony Clie.
No, no it couldn't. You've just linked to half a dozen different very expensive products in that form factor. The resulting combined product would be about six times larger, cost more than your house, and have a battery life of about thirty seconds. And nobody would buy it because they'd rather spend all that money on some of whatever it is you're smoking, because it must be some good shit.
Remember: in a newspaper, the editorial is where the editor gives his personal opinion.
Remember : On Slashdot, the comments are where everybody gives his personal opinion.
I've nothing against editors adding a little to the submission (often links to past coverage), but I see no reason that michael can't yap on in a comment, or in his journal, rather than using the article block, which I have no way of filtering out. It just seems like his way of getting his opinion in front of a lot of eyes without having to worry about that pesky "moderation" system.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember, though they also said (in the FAQ :
Q: Why do you hate Macs?
A: We don't hate Macs, the game companies do. Get it?
Q: No.
A: You would fit in on our forums. No one there gets anything either.
It's flamebait because it's meant to be flamebait, not necessarily because it's untrue.
It's an old troll that I think even predates Mac OS X. The AC that posted it probably just pasted it in from his collection of trolls and added a few lines to make it a better fit. Take out the few lines that explicitly refer to Mac OS X and you've still got most of the post. Try the NetCraft link and you'll see that www.army.mil runs Mac OS X.
Also, lines like this : --- too bad the linux community is so stubborn that they refuse to understand that the Mac has always been the most secure OS for servers. are 100% flamebait.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.army. mil ...is just one of many large SECURE classic MacOS distributed servers.
:
Except for the fact that it's not
The site www.army.mil is running 4D_WebSTAR_S/5.3.0 (MacOS X) on MacOSX.
Dear fucktard moderator,
It has come to my attention that you're a fucking asshole. While you may not be aware of such modern inventions as fire, sliced bread, bathing, and non-asshole-ness, you should be aware by now that using 'Overrated' on an unmoderated post is the kind of fucking fucked-upedness for which there is a circle of hell reserved. DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE
Thank you.
-dr.badass
I don't think anyone is making the assertion that people should buy a mega mp3 player, but for the price it's just not up to par.
Um, yes they are actually, in droves. I'd say that at least half of the top-modded posts are repetitions of "For only twice as much you can get an iPod", and so forth.
I'm at a loss as to why everyone keeps focusing on the fact that it's Gateway -- they sell a few dozen other MP3 players on the same site, you know, including the very same Nomad Jukebox 2. I just happen to think that the simple USB key-drive style is very conducive to widespread adoption. Moreso than having a hojillion GB of storage.
So, this Nomad, does it fit in your pocket? Your shirt pocket? Also, you tested how it stood up to vibration, but how about shock? Would you mind dropping it a few times for me, while it's running? Also, you had to install software to use it? That's lame.
You say that a device like this isn't up to par, but that's because it's playing a different game.
My point is that just because you don't want one doesn't mean there isn't a market for them.
When a friendly Gateway sales representative says "would you like to throw in an mp3 player for just $129.99?", lots of people are going to go for it.
Good.
No, really. I'm all for the proliferation and popularity of easy-to-use MP3 players. But they aren't going to be as ubiquitous as CD players until they get as cheap, as simple, and as rugged.
Most of the people here are obviously saying "It sucks, the iPod/Zen/Archos is better.". Well, yeah, but not everyone needs the power of one of those enough to justify spending $300 or so on it.
If you could get a car that does everything you need for $20,000, are you an idiot for not spending $40,000 on one that's "better"?
Your entire post is stupid. I'll say that right up front.
Why spent $170 for 256 megs of space? I can spent less than double...
Whoopty shit, you're still paying twice as much. Think of it in terms of basic addition and subtraction instead of multiplication. I think the iPod is pretty damn cool, but if I can get an MP3 player that does everything I need for $130 less, why shouldn't I? That's more cash money in my pocket to blow on blackjack and hookers, or CDs.
and get a faster transfer (firewire compared with USB 1.1)
Moot point when you've only got 128-256MB to fill up. FireWire would be wasted on a drive that small.
and 10 gigs of space with an iPod. That just doesn't make cents. An iPod is a much better deal.
What if I only have 1GB of MP3s? What if I only want an MP3 player for going on half-hour walks every other day? What if I have the unnerving habit of dropping everything I ever carry, repeatedly? HDD-based MP3 players do not fit everybody's needs. A lot of people here seem to be ignorant as to this point, so I'll make it bold : There is still a market for solid-state MP3 players.
IIRC, back in 2000, if you had an MP3 player, you were locked into using whatever crappy proprietary software came with it. And if you were extra lucky, you had to plug it into a proprietary USB cable, too.
With this (and the Creative MuVo), you plug it to the USB port (no cables) and and it shows up as a drive letter. No software bullshit. Huge difference. What they don't say on the box is that this will work on MacOS and Linux just as easily.
Don't act like this isn't a big improvement from the previous generation. There's still a market for solid-state MP3 players, and this is just following the trend.
Bad music is bundled with good music: Anyone who has bought a CD with one or two good songs knows he/she was forced into buying all the crap to have that one good song.
Nobody is forced to buy any CD. If you choose to buy a CD and find that you don't like it, well, that's too bad, maybe you should try to get a better idea of what you're buying beforehand.
If you hear a song on mainstream radio, or MTV, it's because the record company considers it the most likely to sell records. If you buy an album based only on your judgement of that song, you are what is known as a sucker.
This is about more than the money.
Yeah, yeah, I know. It's about being heard, and expressing your artistic vision, and impressing chicks, and having something to do when you get trashed with your buddies.
But when it comes to spending any amount, it's about money and the aspiring musician's oft-mistaken belief that spending more of it will earn them more of it.
If it's all about getting heard by as many people as possible, bands should do what I did with my EP and write "Please copy the fuck out of this." on each disk, instead of worrying about being able to sell them to people any time, any where. It may not cover every scenario, but I reckon that the same kind of people that have internet access and a credit card stand a good chance of having a CD burner, and the total cost to me is $0.
--
What if some kid doesn't have the $8 at the show to purchase the CD?
If the kid doesn't have $8, he probably doesn't have a credit card, either. Also, any smart touring band will sell (at cost if neccessary) a few copies to a local independent record store before they leave town ("If you don't have $8 now, you can get it at XYZ Records.") -- this is common practice. It's cheap for the artist, doesn't require a computer or credit card, and supports local record shops. It's not as though there's going to be a lot of demand for your CD outside of the towns (or town for non-touring bands, like the highschool bands this thread started on about) you play in.
You're just giving people options. I don't see how the $40 is a huge investment.
Remember: It's $75 if you're not already using
CDBaby. For that you have no guarantee that the services will accept your music, no refund if they don't, plus the cost of producing, packaging, and mailing a supply of CDs to CDBaby, where they may or may not sell, and if they do it will only be to people with internet access and a credit card.
Take this scenerio...
Yes, take that scenario and count on it occuring 15 or more times before you make any money at all.
Also factor in the particular requirements of the services CDBaby mentions : iTunes requires a Mac, Rhapsody requires a continual subscription. All of this assuming that the services accept your music, which is yet to be seen. CDBaby seems perfectly willing to take your money now, though.
The post I was responding to specifically mentioned the idea of download sales instead of duplicating CDs. Thank you for not reading it, and thank you more for making the idea even dumber.
Your idea gives the potential buyer these options: 1) Buy the CD right there, right now, in all of it's uncompressed glory; or, 2) Go home and download a compressed copy.
Why would someone go and download it? Because it's cheaper? Congratulations, you've just undercut yourself, and made CDBaby $40 + 9% (+$35 if you're not already on CDBaby).
So, for the aspiring unsigned band, you've just paid for the privilage of cutting into your own CD sales, making other people money, and maybe marginally expanding your audience.
Personally, I think I'd rather have 50-100 extra CDs to sell.
This seems like a godsend for many of the bands my friends are in. For 40 dollars they have the chance to be distributed, instead of spending much more on CD's.
Judging by the highschool and college bands I've known, I think about 1 in 100 will break even with that deal. CDs have a much higher profit margin, especially when you duplicate (or even record) them yourself. If you're worried about the cost of duplication, you'd faint at the cost of recording) And you can actually hand them to people when you perform live, or sell them via CDBaby's normal service.
You wouldn't be reaching a larger audience, either. iTunes is a music store, not a music discovery service. The design really isn't geared toward finding artists you've never heard of.
It seems like this is what they wanted from that conference they held with the Indie labels.
I think that what you're describing is exactly something they don't want. They explicitly mentioned that they will deal only with record labels, and not individual artists. I imagine that this is largely for legal reasons, but I think a side benefit is that it will help keep the service from becoming flooded with crap that nobody wants. CDBaby is attempting to work around this, and it's not clear to me that Apple, or any of the other services, won't have a problem with this.
Someone that's willing to buy this device seems like they'd also be of the mindset to lie at the return counter if their CPU kills itself early after an Overclocking Session Gone Bad (TM).
I would have modded you down, but I didn't think that that would properly convey my reaction to this statement, which is : fuck you.
How in the hell do you conclude that anyone that wants to overclock is likely to be a liar as well?
I'm typing this on an overclocked system I built years ago -- why did I overclock? Because it saved me about $500 that I might have spent on a faster chip. Not because I'm somehow morally corrupt, or trying to swindle anyone.
You'll note that I said "emphasis". Yeah, I know full well they've worked together plenty in the past, but Apple seems to really be hammering home the IBM angle on the new chip. Watch the G5 introduction video, lots of geekporn showing off the IBM fab, which seems odd from Apple. (I can't say I was paying attention back then, but it seems like they're making a much bigger deal about it than they did with the first PowerPCs.)
I'm sure a large part of it is making up for the perceived and real troubles with relying on Motorola for the G4. Trying to indirectly say "Hey guys, our friends at IBM aren't going to hold us back like those other guys."
And that's what I'm talking about.
Does anyone else find the slightest hint of irony in the emphasis on the partnership between Apple and IBM?
Maybe upon consideration of the ad that signaled the launch of the first Macintosh?
Anybody?
Why are these artists afraid that single-song downloads will undercut album sales? Could it be because they realize that they put out a lot of crap?
And don't give us this 'artistic integrity' bullshit. If your album is a work of art unto itself; if your album truly must be heard as a whole , then why can it not stand on it's own merits? Why do we have to hear from your lawyers?
Music is art. The 'music industry' is not.
To clarify, I know that emulation itself is legal, but I think they fall into the same sort of category as P2P programs. Sure, plenty legal, but honestly, do most people use them in purely legal fashion?
Will it run Starcraft, Diablo II, Heroes of Might and Magic I, II, III, and IV, Master of Orion II, all of my Nintendo, SuperNintendo, N64, gameboy, gameboy color, gameboy advance emulators?
probably not. Probably not any of my other favorite PC apps either.
Ignoring your abyssmal taste in games, I don't see what the problem is. Plenty of games are written for or ported to the Mac. Are you implying that Apple should bend over backwards to support 2-3 year old games, and questionably-legal emulators? That's rediculous.
I know that Macs are supposed to be "better" at multimedia editing and such, but I can't think of any "killer apps" for the Mac that aren't available for Windows as well or have functional equivilants.
The entire platform is the killer app, in all seriousness.
I just don't see the purpose in buying a fast, yet incompatable computer system. It's like buying a Sun workstation or a really fast Amiga for home use *shrugs*.
Except neither of those run Office, or iTunes, or iMovie, or come with DVD burners, etc, etc. How are they so incompatable? They don't run Starcraft? Whoopty shit. I'm sure that's really killing sales.
What is it that the mac offers for the price that's so compelling to mac users???
If you don't see it, you won't get it. And yeah, part of it is marketing and the way Apple pitches their systems as 'your' computer rather than 'ours'. I don't even own a Mac and but I can see why they're so great. I started seeing it when I realized that what I was doing with my computer was more important than what my computer could do. If it made me feel like I was better using my time, I'd use my 486/66 Debian box.
It can't be the fruity colors, the wierd form factors, or the candy colored menu options.
It's not like Apple is unique in this. Everybody does it. Apple happens to be very good at it. Furthermore, they manage to make their designs (both hardware and software) very functional. It's not just interface cruft, it does actually make a significant difference in how the machine is used. Microsoft has made some nice efforts, and I know the GNOME and KDE guys are trying, but they just don't compare.
I admit Apple has been doing some interesting work for the Ipod, but there are other MP3 players out there --
That's like saying "That's a nice house, but there's plenty of caves you could live in." You get what you pay for. Yeah, most people aren't really hip to spending $400 on a gadget, but those that do are going to get a pretty damn nice gadget, whether it's an iPod, a Nomad, or whatever.
Your argument here has nothing do with Apple, but rather that you're just cheap. I mean, $400 isn't that bad if you've got a CD collection that could really make use of it.
I hear Itunes and other programs are interesting, but really they're not much different than other programs for the PC.
How would you know?
I don't understand why Apple doesn't compete with MS directly by porting to Intel/AMD hardware.
Because Apple is a hardware company. They sell Apple computers. The operating system is just happens to be a feature. Please go and tell all your like-minded friends that this is so. You're barking up the wrong tree entirely. It just isn't going to happen. Microsoft would crush them in a heartbeat anyway.
What am I missing? With Macs only making up about 4% of the marketplace for personal computers, there aren't a lot of software companies producing mac software,
Yeah, there aren't many companies producing Linux software either, it must not be very good.
but I'm assuming many linux programs can run on MacOS now that it's based on unix???
Largely, yes. Around Slashdot, this is a big selling point. For myself, I've been running Apache, MySQL, Perl, PHP, GIMP, and some others on Windows, so it's inviting to know that a Mac wil
I think I speak for more than a few people when I say that I don't think the Segway sucks because it isn't innovative or 'neat'. It sure is innovative (though no more than Kamen's earlier iBot), and I'd love to try one out. But it's just not worth getting excited about.
No, it sucks because, well...it's still a scooter. Dispite all the secrecy and hype about how 'Ginger' was going to change the world, it's still just a neat toy. A very expensive toy. We were promised flying cars and we got a scooter.
I'm sorry, but you are either completely ignorant or utterly deluded. Either way, you're not a very good troll.
Yes and according to Nullsofts site when they released Waste, AOL paid them to write it, AOL even used it internally.
I did not see the original page for WASTE, but if this is true, then it would prove my point : WASTE was work-for-hire, and thus AOL held the copyright, giving Justin absolutely no right to release it. I don't know why you're demanding that I should be able to prove this in court, but if indeed WASTE ever becomes a legal matter, AOL/Nullsoft would easily be able to prove such. This is not my opinion, it is part of copyright law.
Are you a troll, or just ignorant?
So its not like AOL can do anything about it now, the millions who downloaded it from NullSofts website have no way of knowing this, the only one who knows this are AOL, and Justin.
Irrelevant if the code was not legaly licensed to them. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken, though I doubt very many of the "millions" that downloaded WASTE have managed not to hear about the scandal. If they use the code in a GPL project, they can expect to be sued. I wouldn't expect AOL to go after anyone, but the fact that they could means it's best to stay away from WASTE's source.
The GPL License says Nullsoft, not Justin Frankel, the same thing is on all of Nullsofts other products, like Winamp, so why pick this product to say "well we dont know if Justin was authorized to release this"
What's your point here? I wouldn't assume that Justin wrote it all by himself. I really don't get what you're driving at here.
Justin also released Winamp 3, Shoutcast, and all this other stuff.
No, Justin did not. Nullsoft/AOL did. They pay him to code Winamp. That's work-for-hire. He does not own Winamp. He could not GPL the code for Winamp. Not even what he wrote. That's a basic part of copyright law, your ignorance of which is astounding. As I mentioned in my prior post, there is the distinct possibility that WASTE, too, is work-for-hire, and as such, not his to give away.
What stops AOL from saying "You all must destroy your copies of WinAmp 3, Shoutcast,Aimazing," etc?
The fact that they licensed it to you the moment you hit "I agree." You agreed to those terms, and only those terms.
SO I guess AOL can change the license at any time and say "Hey we changed our license, you all have to pay for this software"
This is completely different from WASTE. They are not changing the terms of the license. They are saying that it was never legally licensed to you to begin with.
Once its released to a website, if even ONE person downloads it, the license takes effect.
You're completely missing the issue. The issue is whether whomever is responsible for it's release (presumably Justin Frankel) held the copyright, and thus had the right to do so. This comes down to contractual agreements between Justin and AOL.
It appears that AOL holds the copyright.
It could be that it is considered work-for-hire,(a previous article mentioned that WASTE had been used internally for sharing files between AOL's San Francisco and Dulles offices) a possibility I haven't heard voiced yet. This might explain why WASTE has been treated somewhat differently from Gnutella.
In fact they'll burn more gas getting there than they save, and yet people still do it looking for a perceived 'deal'.
Part of the advantage of iTMS is that you don't have to go anywhere to use it. If you use iTunes at all (well, iTunes 4, but let's assume), it's right there. If you buy new tracks every day, it's in the same place as it would be had you never used it.
People do often drive out of the way to save 2 or 3 cents on gas. Granted, many of them are rediculously stupid, but it's important to note that that's 2 or 3 cents per gallon.
I can see your analogy holding for people who will consume 'gallons' of music -- those who are going to expect to buy (say) a hundred tracks or more over every three months are likely to go looking for a better deal. I would even argue that those who will 'consume' very large amounts of music are the least likely to be willing to pay for it to begin with.
Most people, however, aren't going to buy a hundred or more -- they may buy one, or five, or ten in that same period. They may buy one in January, fifty in February, three in March, and never buy any more. iTunes caters to this as much as it does someone who always buys exactly five songs every month. The convenience factor carries a huge amount of weight for people who intend only to buy one or two songs -- it's simply not worth the time to go looking for another service just to save twenty cents or so. Even P2P is a tough sell in these cases.
I also think that Apple is expecting some people to begin with one or two songs, but gradually begin using it much more. Hooking these people from the start is typically Apple. Why shop around when what you've got works?
Also They don't own the network, either - they rent it from Akamai usually. So bandwidth does cost them.
Apple owns a big chunk of Akamai, and IIRC, were there with them from the start. They're old friends, the kind that give each other really good deals on things like bandwidth. So, yes, it does cost them, but not as much as it would cost anyone else. I recall Steve Jobs mentioning in an interview that Apple's relationship with Akamai was one of the key elements to iTMS that it's competitors couldn't touch.
I know there's a little link overload, just illustrating how easily this could be done right now!
All of this could be squeezed into a current form factor Sony Clie.
No, no it couldn't. You've just linked to half a dozen different very expensive products in that form factor. The resulting combined product would be about six times larger, cost more than your house, and have a battery life of about thirty seconds. And nobody would buy it because they'd rather spend all that money on some of whatever it is you're smoking, because it must be some good shit.
Remember: in a newspaper, the editorial is where the editor gives his personal opinion.
Remember : On Slashdot, the comments are where everybody gives his personal opinion.
I've nothing against editors adding a little to the submission (often links to past coverage), but I see no reason that michael can't yap on in a comment, or in his journal, rather than using the article block, which I have no way of filtering out. It just seems like his way of getting his opinion in front of a lot of eyes without having to worry about that pesky "moderation" system.