The news here is that they've reversed the order. The statement you're referring to was made by an AP reporter, not the Pentagon, and Slashdot's just quoting it. What's wrong with that? Didn't you notice the quotes around the statement and the statement "CNN reports that..."?
I've seen very few people make real cases for buying a Tivo without the service
I think it's essentially a question of marketing and sales. Tivo is breaking new ground in the area of "subscription-blessed appliances", appliances where a subscription is required in order to obtain basic functionality. Note that this differs from cable boxes and cellphones; in those cases, the need for a subscription is not artificially created. Tivo's going out on a limb here, in changing their sales pitch from an "enhanced service" to a requirement, and I'm concerned that consumers may not accept it. It particularly surprises me that they're making such risky moves to combat a problem, that, as you say, isn't much of a problem at all. How many people are actually using the box without a subscription, and is the money they're losing here worth the potential consumer backlash they may encounter by offering such a strange deal to customers?
The Tivo service, as sold to me, was billed as a program listings service. It was never sold to me as a requirement for the operation of the box-- in fact, anticipating what must have been a common question, the salesman assured me that the box would work as well as (or better than) a standard VCR, even without a subscription. If he had said that the subscription was required to make the box work at all, I probably would have looked at the purchase differently. I know that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but there is a definite difference in the mind of the consumer between a box that has at least VCR functionality without a program-listing service, and a box that has no functionality without some arbitrary "tivo-blessing" service. It certainly looks less justified. It also doesn't seem like a terribly effective sales technique to admit that you're selling a stick rather than a carrot. In other words, program listings sounds like an enhancement, whereas a subscription that is required to get any functionality out of the box sounds like a hidden charge. I think a lot of people will recoil at the concept of an appliance with the artificial requirement of a constant connection in order to operate; it's just so unusual. This is why Tivo deliberately avoided any such implication the first time around, and quite frankly I'm surprised that they're taking such steps now; it's not like Tivos are selling off the shelves.
There's no particular case for buying Tivo without the service, but if your service ever lapses for a period of time, it's awfully nice to know that the box isn't an oversized, useless hunk of metal. For instance, I'm moving to a new apartment, and due to some problems with the wiring, I may not have a dial tone for several weeks. It's reassuring to know that I can still manually record the programs that I (well, my girlfriend, really) like. Same is true for people who move outside of the US. It sucks to think that if I had purchased a newer unit, my equipment (which I spent a reasonable amount of money on) would become near worthless.
Frankly, I'm surprised that they can claim this problem was "overlooked." This isn't exactly a bug, it's a feature deliberately added by the development team. I don't think some programmer just slapped the "you must be a subscriber to record" dialog in there without some direction from management.
It also surprises me that they're moving to a subscription-only model for their newer boxes. One of the appeals of Tivo was that it could work in some fashion if you cancelled your service. Most people, including me, still buy the service, but we have the reassurance that the box is more than just a paperweight without it. I'm not sure this move is going to help them move boxes off the shelf: "does this work without the service?" is a pretty common question most consumers will ask before plunking down a couple of hundred bucks for such an extravagance.
I think that you hit the proverbial nail on the head with that one. The main point of a capitalist society is that you are free to make products and sell them as you see fit, the government can't interfere
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of the section of the Constitution that declared America a "free capitalist enterprise zone", or declared unrestricted business and industry to be the most important principles of this land. If you want a government-free society, there are some lovely mosquito-infested countries where your corporation can do pretty much what it wants; just remember to hire a small mercinary army.
Of course, if you want to live in America, one of the more vibrant economies in the world, you'll have to learn to live with our longstanding tradition of government regulation, particularly anti-monopoly regulation. It seems to work quite well for us, but of course it's your choice.
But if he was not a subscriber, then why did he use their service to set his unit's clock?
Because Tivo does not allow you to set the clock manually. This makes timed recording difficult to impossible.
This despite the fact that they clearly state in their advertising and literature that you CAN use the box for timed recording without subscribing to their service. So as far as I can see, Tivo is either defrauding the public by providing a box that doesn't do things they expressly say it will (this is actually a crime), or they've decided that this feature will be provided free of charge for non-subscription users, in which case people shouldn't be bitching about him "leeching off their service", as some have claimed. The second interpretation could be born out by the fact that even non-subscribers are allowed to set their clocks; this would be easy for Tivo to prevent, if they wanted to. You decide which interpretation you prefer.
I might also mention that Tivo collects usage info from non-subscribers who connect to their service, without their legal consent (subscribers agree to a EULA, non-subscribers don't.) I can only say that such usage info probably more than repays Tivo for the resources they expend synchronizing the clock-- again, if it were a burden on them, they wouldn't be letting you connect at all.
I go down to the local DratShack and buy a new phone. The PFY behind the counter tries to sell me a service plan.
Me: No, I do not wish a service plan. I just want a phone.
PFY: But without a service plan, you cannot place nor receive calls.
Me: I'm too cheap to pay for a service plan. I want to be able to call 911, for which the phone does not need to have a service plan. Furthurmore, when I go on trips, I will buy a cheap prepaid phone card so that I may place calls during my trip.
PFY: OK, but you might not be able to get firmware updates without a service plan.
Me: Over-the-air updates don't bother me. Sell me the damn phone!
PFY: OK, but this could bite you.
Exactly. Tivo did not warn their non-subscription customers that this "could bite them", which is pretty damning. They simply said that Tivo would work without a subscription. They didn't mention upgrades that would reduce functionality, and they certainly didn't mention that these upgrades would be deliberately targeted at non-subscribers.
In any case, the problem here is not the lack of firmware updates. I can't see why you'd ever need firmware updates for a box that connects only to a standard TV network and television set-- in fact, it's a reasonable expectation that an unsubscribed Tivo will continue to work exactly as it did when you bought it. This is a case of exactly the opposite problem, where they have gone and deliberately messed up functionality on an unsubscribed unit.
The article provides very clear answers to your questions.
why were these users upgrading thier Tivo's when they worked fine the way they where?
They didn't deliberately upgrade the software. If Tivo is plugged into a phone line, it will automatically dial in, and upgrade itself. The only way to avoid this is to unplug Tivo from the phone line, which is all well and good-- except that Tivo's clock cannot be manually set, and relies on the phone connection. Tivo is basically useless without an accurate clock, which goes against their express written assertions that Tivo can be used for timed recording even if you don't subscribe.
I don't think Tivo has to support the users that use the Tivo as a VCR in thier software updates, that's not what the device was designed for.
Excellent point. Too bad Tivo's advertising, literature and manual all disagree with you. While they state that Tivo's functionality is limited without a subscription, they stipulate that it will still work for timed recording. Many people purchased the box on that basis; it's actually illegal in many states to make false or misleading statements in order to sell a product. If Tivo had clearly expressed to these people the reality of the situation, it wouldn't be such a big deal.
Following the journalistic lead of Slashdot editors, those who post SlashFUD rarely take the time to actually research the veracity of the material supporting their arguments.
Well, if you're going to accuse people of making unfounded allegations, then... back yourself up. What is it about the above post that you believe is untrue?
At least one of the complaints this guy has is in fact due to an improvement in the new software; the one-touch record now includes as much of the beginning of the show as exists in its rewind buffer. No program guide equals no way for the unit to know when the current show started.
Actually, Tivo can give you a choice of recording from the beginning of the program (including what's in the rewind buffer) OR dumping the rewind buffer and recording just the live input (the old functionality.) I'm not sure why they couldn't have continued using the old behavior for serviceless customers-- this would have been scarcely more work than the solution they adopted ("sorry, Dave I can't do that.") Disabling the functionality entirely demonstrates utter disregard for the commitment to service-free operation they advertise in their literature.
Isn't particularly accurate or up-to-date. I spent twenty minutes wrangling with payroll in order to find out that my company doesn't match contributions to 'political' groups like the EFF. I'm not sure who put the list together, but I think they made a lot of assumptions.
Re:Do you have Britney Spears home address?
on
Napster Going Legit
·
· Score: 1
Nobody would buy, copy, or download a single Briney Spears song if the record label did not
1: Hire studio rats to program the synth-pop music she sings over.
2: Hire a producer and recording engineer team able to make a child singer sound "sexy"
3: Produce expensive videos that wave Ms. Spears's two most obvious selling points in front of the camera.
4: Get it played on the radio (in this case, her records come from Disney, who is a top-5 player in almost every radio market)
I'd have to disagree with points 1-3 right off the bat. The artist (or the artists' producer, who does not necessarily work for any label) is financially responsible for recording and video production costs. The label does essentially loan the money for this endeavour, but in this respect they're just a bank.
Radio airplay is purchased. It's shitty and it's not cheap, and the record labels are in an excellent position to control it. But the internet does open up some new avenues for distribution, so maybe this isn't quite as necessary as it once was-- especially if you're not Britney Spears.
To suggest that Ms. Spears is somehow entitled to 100% (or even more than a small percentage) of the revenue generated by her "art" is to ignore who is doing all the work.
Yes, this person is her producer, and I'm sure he's getting plenty of dough out of it (not to mention his revenues from NSync and Backstreet Boys.)
All I'm trying to say is that people other than the record companies can do what the record companies do-- distribution has been the major handle these companies have had on the industry. It's just plain hard to move CDs across the country, and find shelf space for them.
The installed base of Napster P2P clients is still way up there (have you uninstalled it yet? I sure haven't - it just sits there waiting for the service to not suck).
Yes, but the "paying" version of Napster (the one with security built into the client) will require an update/reinstallation. So unless Napster has an auto-update feature built in (and maybe they do), they're not much better off than any other service.
US law, as interpreted by the courts, is notoriously lax on these issues. Generally, if you own it, you can record it, no matter who else is involved (you don't even have to notify them.) This has been applied to employees in their office, customers in dressing rooms, etc. I don't think a renter can expect privacy in the public (non-leased) spaces of their building, but someone might prove me wrong. In any case, I don't think there's ever been an expectation of privacy on who goes into your front door, whether it's on the street or inside of a building.
Perhaps you should fight back. A little bit of motor oil on a lens should just about do the trick-- they can't clean all the cameras every day. Or perhaps you should try putting X10 cameras outside the homes of the folks who manage your building (they don't have to work to get the point across.) If you're really concerned, you can just tell your friends to come over in disguise:)
Most of the bigger companies' (AT&T, IBM etc.) involvement is pretty minimal. The ones to be interested in are basically the electronics manufacturers. Not that anyone on SDMI's getting a whole lot done.
IBM has been working on Digital Rights Management/Protection software for quite some time. I have no idea why they're joining SDMI at this late stage in the game...
Let's not spread assumptions about free software or open source by acting as if the gratis nature of many open source and free software projects is the only way to do it.
I'm seriously confused as to what Microsoft is contributing to this debate. They want to give out their source code under an NDA, and make sure people continue to pay for their product. That's fine, but what's new about this, and why is it considered a 'philosophy'? Why don't they just say "hey, we're giving out our source under tightly controlled conditions, not to be modified and republished." Other companies have been doing this for years, and I must say that it hasn't changed the world.
This whole thing sounds like an excuse to generate BS hype for a Microsoft business initiative. I seriouly doubt that Mundie is going to say anything new at this presentation-- more likely he'll just flame a bit more, guaranteeing that MS's "shared source" gets a few more column inches. If someone other than a Microsoft honcho were touting this as a philosophy, we'd be paying them absolutely no attention. The only thing that makes it noteworthy is that it's coming from a massive company that has historically been so tight with their software that few people have even seen the source. That, and that they're using the opportunity to take some cheap shots at GPL-style Open Source Software, which really is a genuinely original phenomenon with some pretty amazing results.
Most AOL-type users want to check their email and do some light web surfing.
Most AOL-type users want to check their email and surf the web a whole lot faster than they can now. One of the most common complaints of your average modem user is that the Internet is slow as hell. People like that would love broadband, but most of them don't even understand it yet, and don't appreciate the difference. To them it's just another $20/mo they don't need to spend (while meanwhile they pay for n channels of HBO they don't watch:) Instead of getting broadband, they limit their web usage. My point is that once they try broadband for a while, they get to like it a whole lot-- and it changes their surfing habits. The net becomes a whole lot more useful. As their friends and neighbors start to get high speed connections, more and more people will begin to jump on the bandwagon.
Cable modem subscriptions went up by 18% or so last quarter, so it looks like they're starting to catch on. Do-it-yourself modems and aggressive advertising are mostly doing the trick-- not to mention that cable modems weren't even available in a lot of places until recently.
There's no incentive (or profit) to supply broadband content until there's a lot of broadband, and no incentive to get broadband until there's a lot of content.
Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. I read the whole article, and it was this fallacy that got me particularly teed off. Broadband content is not like HDTV. You don't need sites to provide special "broadband" content to get an enormous benefit from the modem. Simply getting through that obnoxious Flash download in 3 seconds instead of 30 every time I go to my bank's site is justification for the exta $20/mo, in my opinion. You don't have to be watching streaming video to appreciate the difference. Most of what I do on my broadband connection is simple web browsing. Browsing a catalog, or graphics-intensive site (and most modern sites are) on a modem is slow and unpleasant compared to the same experience over a broadband connection.
There were some pretty interesting research studies carried out when cable companies were considering entering the market, comparing the usage habits of broadband vs. non-broadband households. These people were not early adopters in the classic sense, they were average households that were selected and given a free cable modem. What they found was that the broadband households used their computers much more frequently than non-broadband families, and they used it much more like the TV. It tended to live in the living room (or some other family area), and the whole family would make use of it much more frequently and casually as compared to the dialup families. Mothers and children actually tended to very big users in the broadband households, unlike the non-broadband families. They also found that people stopped thinking of the Internet as something you had to "log on to" or "go to", but rather as just another app on their machine.
You may feel these results are pretty obvious, even mundane. But the implications are fairly profound for the industry. Average families, once they've been given the connection, have a hard time going back to dialup. They do notice the difference, even if Mr. Dvorak (I swear he only got his job for having a great name) doesn't think it's so important after a few weeks of casual usage. The tricky part is convincing them to make the switch, and that's something that's just going to have to create its own demand, the same way the dial-up net did. Putting more streaming video on the net is certainly not going to entice too many people to buy cable modems.
Don't be surprised if the cable TV operation gets sold to one of the bigger corps at some point. They've been gobbling up cable co-ops all over the place (and it's not a bad thing.) There's a lot less regulation on cable, which makes cable much more desirable to purchase than phone.
As far as content goes, there's certainly some out there.
This is what bugs me the most about the Dvorak article; anyone who uses a broadband connection knows that it makes a terrific difference in your entire internet experience. But to hear Dvorak tell it, broadband only helps you if you go to one of a handful of "broadband-optimized" websites-- sort of like buying a Betamax player and having to find Betamax tapes to watch. What nonsense. If the guy really believes broadband doesn't make a difference, he should suffer eternity reloading and reloading some awful Flash cover page.
Broadband has been "just around the corner" for 15 years or so.
The difference is that 10 years ago (or 5, for that matter), I couldn't just call my cable/phone company and have a megabit+ run into my living room (at least, not for a price I could afford.) I'd say there's a big difference between a world where broadband is something companies talk about offering, and a world where they're aggressively rolling it out to the mass market. Whether consumers'll buy it is a completely different issue, and that's what Dvorak is tossing around in his uniquely informative way.
Most activity targets the dial-up user, making broadband just a luxury. And in some cases, it may be an unnecessary luxury, as full-speed feeds to broadband users are fairly rare. I have a megabit line into my home office, and when I view a streaming video feed, I still get a herky-jerky 20-Kbps stream
Color TV is just a luxury, too. The truth is, waiting for a modern site to load over a modem is just plain painful. Most dialup users don't realize this, as they've never used broadband-- instead, they think the net just has to be slow. Broadband is slowly making inroads into people's consciousness. The best thing about it is that it doesn't require you to make some massive choice as a content provider-- any site that works over a dial-up connection will work even better over broadband. And those 20K internet streams are generally the result of poor site design. I consistently find myself taking advantage of over a megabit of my connection, just for day-to-day applications: watching movie trailers, downloading files, etc.
As far as the increasing numbers of dial-up customers; well, that seems to conflict with another recent study that showed cable-modem and DSL use to be up significantly while overall numbers of Internet subscribers dropped. In any case, dialup connections are easy to get into and out of; they don't represent any sort of commitment. It's fairly likely that a good portion of the new dialup crowd will eventually find themselves using broadband.
Movie producers are probably okay. They survived without money from video rentals before and will again if need be. As long as they can provide a compelling experience in the theater, they will be fine
I would beg to differ. Having several acquaintances in the production/marketing areas of the Movie Industry, I can tell you that nobody looks at file sharing with more trepidation than Hollywood.
A friend of mine recently purchased a very large, HDTV-capable projection TV, with 5 channel sound, etc. etc. I had the privilege of watching a couple of DVDs (not even HDTV) with him, and I have to say that the experience easily rivaled that of a theatre (particularly the kind that most of America has, with crappy seats and tiny screens.) We look at video as an unimportant business, but that's mostly because we watch them on tiny screens. My friend hasn't gone to the movies in months, simply because the experience he can reproduce is of similar quality and more convenient. I think the movie studios realize that they can't rely on the theatre experience to be their trump card forever, and consequently will be very defensive of their video sales/rental markets.
As for the rest of your comment... It's easy to stick your head in the sand concerning corporate conglomeration. You don't have to be a communist to be concerned by the trend-- even a committed capitalist has to agree that a massive reduction in competition is a bad thing for our economy, as much so as Nationalization. As people are so fond of saying: corporations have one interest, maximizing profits for their shareholders. If you believe that interest will necessarily coincide with your personal interests as a citizen, then enjoy. Unfortunately, I don't see why it should.
Engineers have to get paid for their work of recording the music, and advertising and promotion is very expensive, too. Add to this compensation for the artists
Actually, studio costs come out of the artists' share, which is generally not huge. As do video production costs, limos, catering etc. The only thing the record company pays for is marketing. Even after all that, they still make a ton of money.
One of the things the record companies are afraid of is losing the CD model, which is a work of pure genius. Come up with one or two hit singles, bundle them with 8 or 9 other tracks that can range from genius (rare) to garbage (think Britney Spears hits are bad? Go listen to the rest of the album.)
it remains $1 to be share between artists and music industry.
Seeing as a lucky artist will generally see less than 20 cents per CD (and they pay for all studio costs), and manfucturing costs are neglibible, it still doesn't seem like a terrible deal. And manufacturing/distribution can be done more cheaply.
Slashdot Mirror
The news here is that they've reversed the order. The statement you're referring to was made by an AP reporter, not the Pentagon, and Slashdot's just quoting it. What's wrong with that? Didn't you notice the quotes around the statement and the statement "CNN reports that..."?
I think it's essentially a question of marketing and sales. Tivo is breaking new ground in the area of "subscription-blessed appliances", appliances where a subscription is required in order to obtain basic functionality. Note that this differs from cable boxes and cellphones; in those cases, the need for a subscription is not artificially created. Tivo's going out on a limb here, in changing their sales pitch from an "enhanced service" to a requirement, and I'm concerned that consumers may not accept it. It particularly surprises me that they're making such risky moves to combat a problem, that, as you say, isn't much of a problem at all. How many people are actually using the box without a subscription, and is the money they're losing here worth the potential consumer backlash they may encounter by offering such a strange deal to customers?
The Tivo service, as sold to me, was billed as a program listings service. It was never sold to me as a requirement for the operation of the box-- in fact, anticipating what must have been a common question, the salesman assured me that the box would work as well as (or better than) a standard VCR, even without a subscription. If he had said that the subscription was required to make the box work at all, I probably would have looked at the purchase differently. I know that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but there is a definite difference in the mind of the consumer between a box that has at least VCR functionality without a program-listing service, and a box that has no functionality without some arbitrary "tivo-blessing" service. It certainly looks less justified. It also doesn't seem like a terribly effective sales technique to admit that you're selling a stick rather than a carrot. In other words, program listings sounds like an enhancement, whereas a subscription that is required to get any functionality out of the box sounds like a hidden charge. I think a lot of people will recoil at the concept of an appliance with the artificial requirement of a constant connection in order to operate; it's just so unusual. This is why Tivo deliberately avoided any such implication the first time around, and quite frankly I'm surprised that they're taking such steps now; it's not like Tivos are selling off the shelves.
There's no particular case for buying Tivo without the service, but if your service ever lapses for a period of time, it's awfully nice to know that the box isn't an oversized, useless hunk of metal. For instance, I'm moving to a new apartment, and due to some problems with the wiring, I may not have a dial tone for several weeks. It's reassuring to know that I can still manually record the programs that I (well, my girlfriend, really) like. Same is true for people who move outside of the US. It sucks to think that if I had purchased a newer unit, my equipment (which I spent a reasonable amount of money on) would become near worthless.
It also surprises me that they're moving to a subscription-only model for their newer boxes. One of the appeals of Tivo was that it could work in some fashion if you cancelled your service. Most people, including me, still buy the service, but we have the reassurance that the box is more than just a paperweight without it. I'm not sure this move is going to help them move boxes off the shelf: "does this work without the service?" is a pretty common question most consumers will ask before plunking down a couple of hundred bucks for such an extravagance.
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of the section of the Constitution that declared America a "free capitalist enterprise zone", or declared unrestricted business and industry to be the most important principles of this land. If you want a government-free society, there are some lovely mosquito-infested countries where your corporation can do pretty much what it wants; just remember to hire a small mercinary army.
Of course, if you want to live in America, one of the more vibrant economies in the world, you'll have to learn to live with our longstanding tradition of government regulation, particularly anti-monopoly regulation. It seems to work quite well for us, but of course it's your choice.
Because Tivo does not allow you to set the clock manually. This makes timed recording difficult to impossible.
This despite the fact that they clearly state in their advertising and literature that you CAN use the box for timed recording without subscribing to their service. So as far as I can see, Tivo is either defrauding the public by providing a box that doesn't do things they expressly say it will (this is actually a crime), or they've decided that this feature will be provided free of charge for non-subscription users, in which case people shouldn't be bitching about him "leeching off their service", as some have claimed. The second interpretation could be born out by the fact that even non-subscribers are allowed to set their clocks; this would be easy for Tivo to prevent, if they wanted to. You decide which interpretation you prefer.
I might also mention that Tivo collects usage info from non-subscribers who connect to their service, without their legal consent (subscribers agree to a EULA, non-subscribers don't.) I can only say that such usage info probably more than repays Tivo for the resources they expend synchronizing the clock-- again, if it were a burden on them, they wouldn't be letting you connect at all.
I go down to the local DratShack and buy a new phone. The PFY behind the counter tries to sell me a service plan.
Me: No, I do not wish a service plan. I just want a phone.
PFY: But without a service plan, you cannot place nor receive calls.
Me: I'm too cheap to pay for a service plan. I want to be able to call 911, for which the phone does not need to have a service plan. Furthurmore, when I go on trips, I will buy a cheap prepaid phone card so that I may place calls during my trip.
PFY: OK, but you might not be able to get firmware updates without a service plan.
Me: Over-the-air updates don't bother me. Sell me the damn phone!
PFY: OK, but this could bite you.
Exactly. Tivo did not warn their non-subscription customers that this "could bite them", which is pretty damning. They simply said that Tivo would work without a subscription. They didn't mention upgrades that would reduce functionality, and they certainly didn't mention that these upgrades would be deliberately targeted at non-subscribers.
In any case, the problem here is not the lack of firmware updates. I can't see why you'd ever need firmware updates for a box that connects only to a standard TV network and television set-- in fact, it's a reasonable expectation that an unsubscribed Tivo will continue to work exactly as it did when you bought it. This is a case of exactly the opposite problem, where they have gone and deliberately messed up functionality on an unsubscribed unit.
why were these users upgrading thier Tivo's when they worked fine the way they where?
They didn't deliberately upgrade the software. If Tivo is plugged into a phone line, it will automatically dial in, and upgrade itself. The only way to avoid this is to unplug Tivo from the phone line, which is all well and good-- except that Tivo's clock cannot be manually set, and relies on the phone connection. Tivo is basically useless without an accurate clock, which goes against their express written assertions that Tivo can be used for timed recording even if you don't subscribe.
I don't think Tivo has to support the users that use the Tivo as a VCR in thier software updates, that's not what the device was designed for.
Excellent point. Too bad Tivo's advertising, literature and manual all disagree with you. While they state that Tivo's functionality is limited without a subscription, they stipulate that it will still work for timed recording. Many people purchased the box on that basis; it's actually illegal in many states to make false or misleading statements in order to sell a product. If Tivo had clearly expressed to these people the reality of the situation, it wouldn't be such a big deal.
Well, if you're going to accuse people of making unfounded allegations, then... back yourself up. What is it about the above post that you believe is untrue?
Actually, Tivo can give you a choice of recording from the beginning of the program (including what's in the rewind buffer) OR dumping the rewind buffer and recording just the live input (the old functionality.) I'm not sure why they couldn't have continued using the old behavior for serviceless customers-- this would have been scarcely more work than the solution they adopted ("sorry, Dave I can't do that.") Disabling the functionality entirely demonstrates utter disregard for the commitment to service-free operation they advertise in their literature.
Isn't particularly accurate or up-to-date. I spent twenty minutes wrangling with payroll in order to find out that my company doesn't match contributions to 'political' groups like the EFF. I'm not sure who put the list together, but I think they made a lot of assumptions.
1: Hire studio rats to program the synth-pop music she sings over.
2: Hire a producer and recording engineer team able to make a child singer sound "sexy"
3: Produce expensive videos that wave Ms. Spears's two most obvious selling points in front of the camera.
4: Get it played on the radio (in this case, her records come from Disney, who is a top-5 player in almost every radio market)
I'd have to disagree with points 1-3 right off the bat. The artist (or the artists' producer, who does not necessarily work for any label) is financially responsible for recording and video production costs. The label does essentially loan the money for this endeavour, but in this respect they're just a bank.
Radio airplay is purchased. It's shitty and it's not cheap, and the record labels are in an excellent position to control it. But the internet does open up some new avenues for distribution, so maybe this isn't quite as necessary as it once was-- especially if you're not Britney Spears.
To suggest that Ms. Spears is somehow entitled to 100% (or even more than a small percentage) of the revenue generated by her "art" is to ignore who is doing all the work.
Yes, this person is her producer, and I'm sure he's getting plenty of dough out of it (not to mention his revenues from NSync and Backstreet Boys.)
All I'm trying to say is that people other than the record companies can do what the record companies do-- distribution has been the major handle these companies have had on the industry. It's just plain hard to move CDs across the country, and find shelf space for them.
Yes, but the "paying" version of Napster (the one with security built into the client) will require an update/reinstallation. So unless Napster has an auto-update feature built in (and maybe they do), they're not much better off than any other service.
So how do business method patents survive this requirement?
Perhaps you should fight back. A little bit of motor oil on a lens should just about do the trick-- they can't clean all the cameras every day. Or perhaps you should try putting X10 cameras outside the homes of the folks who manage your building (they don't have to work to get the point across.) If you're really concerned, you can just tell your friends to come over in disguise :)
Most of the bigger companies' (AT&T, IBM etc.) involvement is pretty minimal. The ones to be interested in are basically the electronics manufacturers. Not that anyone on SDMI's getting a whole lot done.
IBM has been working on Digital Rights Management/Protection software for quite some time. I have no idea why they're joining SDMI at this late stage in the game...
I'm seriously confused as to what Microsoft is contributing to this debate. They want to give out their source code under an NDA, and make sure people continue to pay for their product. That's fine, but what's new about this, and why is it considered a 'philosophy'? Why don't they just say "hey, we're giving out our source under tightly controlled conditions, not to be modified and republished." Other companies have been doing this for years, and I must say that it hasn't changed the world.
This whole thing sounds like an excuse to generate BS hype for a Microsoft business initiative. I seriouly doubt that Mundie is going to say anything new at this presentation-- more likely he'll just flame a bit more, guaranteeing that MS's "shared source" gets a few more column inches. If someone other than a Microsoft honcho were touting this as a philosophy, we'd be paying them absolutely no attention. The only thing that makes it noteworthy is that it's coming from a massive company that has historically been so tight with their software that few people have even seen the source. That, and that they're using the opportunity to take some cheap shots at GPL-style Open Source Software, which really is a genuinely original phenomenon with some pretty amazing results.
Most AOL-type users want to check their email and surf the web a whole lot faster than they can now. One of the most common complaints of your average modem user is that the Internet is slow as hell. People like that would love broadband, but most of them don't even understand it yet, and don't appreciate the difference. To them it's just another $20/mo they don't need to spend (while meanwhile they pay for n channels of HBO they don't watch :) Instead of getting broadband, they limit their web usage. My point is that once they try broadband for a while, they get to like it a whole lot-- and it changes their surfing habits. The net becomes a whole lot more useful. As their friends and neighbors start to get high speed connections, more and more people will begin to jump on the bandwagon.
Cable modem subscriptions went up by 18% or so last quarter, so it looks like they're starting to catch on. Do-it-yourself modems and aggressive advertising are mostly doing the trick-- not to mention that cable modems weren't even available in a lot of places until recently.
Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. I read the whole article, and it was this fallacy that got me particularly teed off. Broadband content is not like HDTV. You don't need sites to provide special "broadband" content to get an enormous benefit from the modem. Simply getting through that obnoxious Flash download in 3 seconds instead of 30 every time I go to my bank's site is justification for the exta $20/mo, in my opinion. You don't have to be watching streaming video to appreciate the difference. Most of what I do on my broadband connection is simple web browsing. Browsing a catalog, or graphics-intensive site (and most modern sites are) on a modem is slow and unpleasant compared to the same experience over a broadband connection.
There were some pretty interesting research studies carried out when cable companies were considering entering the market, comparing the usage habits of broadband vs. non-broadband households. These people were not early adopters in the classic sense, they were average households that were selected and given a free cable modem. What they found was that the broadband households used their computers much more frequently than non-broadband families, and they used it much more like the TV. It tended to live in the living room (or some other family area), and the whole family would make use of it much more frequently and casually as compared to the dialup families. Mothers and children actually tended to very big users in the broadband households, unlike the non-broadband families. They also found that people stopped thinking of the Internet as something you had to "log on to" or "go to", but rather as just another app on their machine.
You may feel these results are pretty obvious, even mundane. But the implications are fairly profound for the industry. Average families, once they've been given the connection, have a hard time going back to dialup. They do notice the difference, even if Mr. Dvorak (I swear he only got his job for having a great name) doesn't think it's so important after a few weeks of casual usage. The tricky part is convincing them to make the switch, and that's something that's just going to have to create its own demand, the same way the dial-up net did. Putting more streaming video on the net is certainly not going to entice too many people to buy cable modems.
Don't be surprised if the cable TV operation gets sold to one of the bigger corps at some point. They've been gobbling up cable co-ops all over the place (and it's not a bad thing.) There's a lot less regulation on cable, which makes cable much more desirable to purchase than phone.
This is what bugs me the most about the Dvorak article; anyone who uses a broadband connection knows that it makes a terrific difference in your entire internet experience. But to hear Dvorak tell it, broadband only helps you if you go to one of a handful of "broadband-optimized" websites-- sort of like buying a Betamax player and having to find Betamax tapes to watch. What nonsense. If the guy really believes broadband doesn't make a difference, he should suffer eternity reloading and reloading some awful Flash cover page.
The difference is that 10 years ago (or 5, for that matter), I couldn't just call my cable/phone company and have a megabit+ run into my living room (at least, not for a price I could afford.) I'd say there's a big difference between a world where broadband is something companies talk about offering, and a world where they're aggressively rolling it out to the mass market. Whether consumers'll buy it is a completely different issue, and that's what Dvorak is tossing around in his uniquely informative way.
Color TV is just a luxury, too. The truth is, waiting for a modern site to load over a modem is just plain painful. Most dialup users don't realize this, as they've never used broadband-- instead, they think the net just has to be slow. Broadband is slowly making inroads into people's consciousness. The best thing about it is that it doesn't require you to make some massive choice as a content provider-- any site that works over a dial-up connection will work even better over broadband. And those 20K internet streams are generally the result of poor site design. I consistently find myself taking advantage of over a megabit of my connection, just for day-to-day applications: watching movie trailers, downloading files, etc.
As far as the increasing numbers of dial-up customers; well, that seems to conflict with another recent study that showed cable-modem and DSL use to be up significantly while overall numbers of Internet subscribers dropped. In any case, dialup connections are easy to get into and out of; they don't represent any sort of commitment. It's fairly likely that a good portion of the new dialup crowd will eventually find themselves using broadband.
I would beg to differ. Having several acquaintances in the production/marketing areas of the Movie Industry, I can tell you that nobody looks at file sharing with more trepidation than Hollywood.
A friend of mine recently purchased a very large, HDTV-capable projection TV, with 5 channel sound, etc. etc. I had the privilege of watching a couple of DVDs (not even HDTV) with him, and I have to say that the experience easily rivaled that of a theatre (particularly the kind that most of America has, with crappy seats and tiny screens.) We look at video as an unimportant business, but that's mostly because we watch them on tiny screens. My friend hasn't gone to the movies in months, simply because the experience he can reproduce is of similar quality and more convenient. I think the movie studios realize that they can't rely on the theatre experience to be their trump card forever, and consequently will be very defensive of their video sales/rental markets.
As for the rest of your comment... It's easy to stick your head in the sand concerning corporate conglomeration. You don't have to be a communist to be concerned by the trend-- even a committed capitalist has to agree that a massive reduction in competition is a bad thing for our economy, as much so as Nationalization. As people are so fond of saying: corporations have one interest, maximizing profits for their shareholders. If you believe that interest will necessarily coincide with your personal interests as a citizen, then enjoy. Unfortunately, I don't see why it should.
Actually, studio costs come out of the artists' share, which is generally not huge. As do video production costs, limos, catering etc. The only thing the record company pays for is marketing. Even after all that, they still make a ton of money.
One of the things the record companies are afraid of is losing the CD model, which is a work of pure genius. Come up with one or two hit singles, bundle them with 8 or 9 other tracks that can range from genius (rare) to garbage (think Britney Spears hits are bad? Go listen to the rest of the album.)
Seeing as a lucky artist will generally see less than 20 cents per CD (and they pay for all studio costs), and manfucturing costs are neglibible, it still doesn't seem like a terrible deal. And manufacturing/distribution can be done more cheaply.