I wonder if he knows there's a menu item you can use to 'de-authorize' all the currently-authorized computers (which is 5, not 3) and then you can re-authorize the ones you want.
That talk is from June 2004, when apple had just 6 weeks prior changed the limit to 5 machines, I think we can assume Cory was giving an example from before April of that year, in the anecdote he even uses the phrase "I hit the 3 machine limit very early on". Additionally the Apple fanboy blogs are covering this new feature in iTunes where you can de-authorise all the machines currently authorised to access your files.
While each of these connections to other seeders/leechers may only be passing small amounts of information, they tend to take up a lot of the routers memory (especially for very slow connections that stay open even though they don't pass much if not any information). This kills a router.
Why does a large number of connections running affect the ISPs router if they are actively in use, the bittorrent client typically has configuration options for the number of peers it will send and receive data with (my client it set to 4 up 10 down) this means that if I have 1000 peer connections open on a single torrent I will be transferring data across a maximum of 14 of them (not including keep alive*). On my border router my internal network is masqueraded, this means that every connection will be listed in memory. My ISP doesn't need** to configure their routers to retain information about each connection as each IP packet contains all the information required to correctly deliver the payload.
If (for arguments sake I am going to pull numbers out of my arse) my bittorrent client sends a keep alive every 30 seconds the ISPs routers will need to handle just 60 packets per second to maintain my 1000 connections (keep alive message + ack) If my 14 connections to other peers are transfering 100k per second (I am on an ethernet so my packets are 1500bytes max) I will subject that same router to transferring 65 packets per second (I could have said 130 but lets assume my stack is good and wont ack every inbound packet).
Each of those 130+ packets per second are treated identically by the router, it will read the packets source and destination check its routing tables and send it on its way, this all assumes processing a 1500byte packet is as expensive as processing a keep alive message from bt client to bt client.
* Obviously TCP connections do not require keep alive packets, this is why I can put my laptop to sleep overnight and when I wake it up in the morning continue to use my ssh connections to the servers, but bittorrent clients will continuously poll each other and drop connections to machines which are nolonger accessable. ** By 'need' I mean there is no technical reason to do this, the ISP might do traffic flow analysis or bandwidth limiting but those are additional activities which the ISP decided to implement beyond what was required to technically route packets.
Long term contracts come up for renewal and with multiple companies able to provide restricted content into the IPod channel Apple would be unable to resist increasing prices if the record companies wanted.
Right now apple controls access to the iPod, if a company wants to push restricted content out they must play by apples rules which are for the most part in our favour* if apple give away access to the iPod the negotiations will switch from "we have these customers you wish to access" to "we have this content you wish to sell to your customers".
Just because Apple are the only company selling RIAA music videos online currently, does not mean that 320x240 == download quality. Apple chose that size for their service, others can (and do) offer larger or smaller files
I bought a music video on iTunes adn when i went full screen on my iBook it looked worse than the quicktime file i made from an old vhs of u2 videos.
No it didn't, your U2 VHS original was interlaced, distorted, discoloured AND only 240 lines, there is no way it could look better than the video you bought from Apple.
That's not a very good definition. Monopoly power is defined by a company's ability to set prices, not their market share.
Good thing we were not (and never were) talking about monopoly power then.
Face it: you could create an mp3 player tomorrow and sell it. That is why Apple doesn't have a monopoly.
Good thing I didn't say Apple had a monopoly.
Shall I repeat myself, In some territories Apple holds a monopoly like position* which at some point in the future they might try to abuse** in an illegal manner, but for now there is nothing to stop them acting in ways which Microsoft*** is prevented from emulating.
* If Standard Oil can be broken up for abusing its 65% market share, Apple can be described as Monopoly like with 75%. ** Difficult to do *** Convicted of illegally leveraging a monopoly in one market to take over another, and so prevented from certain market leveraging actions.
In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
Standard Oil was a real monopoly. They controled the oil supply and crushed all competition until, as I recall, oil was discovered in LA and companies were formed faster than they could stomp them out or buy them.
The definition does not include crushing competitors, anti competitive behaviour or illegal actions none are necessary for a market to be a monopoly. Standard Oil had a little over 60% of the oil market, not a technical monopoly by any stretch of the imagination yet it was broken up by the government because it abused its monopoly like position to inhibit competition.
You can say what you like, but you're wrong, according to the common definition of a monopoly.
Why, if Standard Oil with 60 odd percent of the oil market can be declared a de-facto monopoly, can I not suggest that in some territories Apple with its 75% market share holds a monopoly like status.
... that allow them to sell their iPod nano player at a price lower than than any competitor can reach.
Apple doesn't compete on price
Care to explain that to Creative who have just publicly announced that they cannot sell cheeper MP3 players than the iPod. Apple is now able to compete on style AND price, the only way a competitor can beat them is to out Apple Apple.
A Monopoly is where their is only one supplier of a good or service, a monopoly is impossible in a true market economy but "near monopoly" and "monopoly like" situations are entirely possible,
Anyone can build mp3 players. Apple is merely dominant in this market.
Microsoft did not have a monopoly in the OS market, but they were still found guilty of abusing their monopoly status.
Yes they did. Their OS was sufficiently complex that no new competitors could enter the market, and all the OEMs would be bundling a MS OS with their PCs anyway, due to exclusivity deals.
You appear to be confusing monopoly with abuse of monopoly and illegally maintaining a monopoly. A monopoly means there is a single supplier in a marketplace, it is technically impossible to ever have a real monopoly in a market because there will always be some competition. If you make the best toothbrush in the whole wide world and your ultra-mega-dragonball-toothbrush sells until it has 99% of the tooth care market, you have a near monopoly, once it grows to 100% (and all the competitors leave the market) you have a total monopoly, but the instant somebody pulls out a stick, ties a bit of string on one end and rubs in over their teeth, you have lost your monopoly. A monopoly is a description for a market not the behaviour of players in that market.
Microsoft never had a monopoly over operating systems, if they did Apple, Sun, Novel, Suse, Redhat (all the linux packagers) *BSD and palm would not exist, monopoly means single supplier the instant any other supplier is available (even if they never ever sell a single unit) the monopoly does not exist.
Microsoft was convicted of having a Monopoly like position in the OS market, which they then maintained by illegal means (and leveraged to take over emerging markets), having a monopoly is not illegal, and their is nothing specifically bad about a monopoly in and of itself.
You say Apple has a dominant position in the portable music player market, I said that in some territories they have a Monopoly like position, at some point a dominant position becomes a monopoly like position, it must do otherwise Microsoft would never have found itself in a Monopoly like position.
I think you have that backwards, a closer analogy is Sony only allowing you to play Sony Movies on Sony TVs. The only* media restriction on the iPod is that only apple can provide DRM content that can play on it, I don't have or want any DRM content so this restriction does not affect me in any way.
* by only I am assuming that apple obviously will not support every codec known to man or beast, but that the codecs they do support are open and standard enough that anybody can provide supported content.
"Apple claim to have an increasing share of the mp3 player market trending past 75%"
And they're maintaining their barrier to entry, how? Oh right, they're not. Microsoft is. See above.
So if I get this right, you are here to repeat my point for me, if you look at that grandparent post you will see its me.
"Is the how important?"
Uh, yeah.
No it isn't, because my point was that in the future apple might abuse a monopoly position in some way but Microsoft have abused their monopoly position in the past so right now Apple has less restrictions on their behaviour in the market. the great grandparent said... "If Apple can open an online music store and restrict competing hardware and software products then why can Microsoft not compete in exactly the same way? " And I replied... "Because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and Apple is not." I then quantified it by saying that in the future apple might abuse their market position but until they are prosecuted under anti-trust they are free to do as they please in the market place.
"unlike Microsoft their is nobody with the legal authority to step in and stop them"
Who's stopping Microsoft? You remember, the people who have actually been found by a court of law to maintain and extend an illegal monopoly?
unlike Microsoft, Apple was not prosecuted for anti-trust violations and as such have nobody limiting their behaviour in the market, if they continue to avoid an anti-trust court case, preferably by continuing to not violate anti-trust laws, then they will never have anybody limiting their behaviour in the market.
"Apple in some territories the iPod holds a monopoly like position"
Which territories?
Apple claim to have an increasing share of the mp3 player market trending past 75%, they claim to own an 80% share of the Legal Music download market, it is impossible for a true monopoly to exist in a true market economy which is why I used the term "monopoly like". The only difference between "not monopoly like" and "monopoly like" is where you draw the line, 70% of the market with 30 competitors holding 1% each, 85% of the market with 5 competitors sharing 3%, 95% with 1 competitor.
I decided to set the bar low.
and Apple might abuse that position
How?
Is the how important? The point I was making is that at some point some where some how apple could attempt to abuse their monopoly like position, unlike Microsoft their is nobody with the legal authority to step in and stop them. I was not saying this would be desirable, or that Apple will make us all line up, bend over and grab our ankles before listening to our music, but that their is always the possibility that somebody somewhere might attempt to abuse it.
Excluding competitors from a market place is not a requirement for being classed as a monopoly.
It absolutely is. If you can't exclude competitors, then they will come, so long as your market is profitable. The very essence of monopoly is that you can set the price higher than market rates and increase your overall profit. In order to do that, you must prevent the other guy from undercutting you, as they would in a free market.
Because of their market size, Apple have secured volume discounts on flashram chips that allow them to sell their iPod nano player at a price lower than than any competitor can reach. Scale also gives Apple a R&D advantage where their fixed development costs makeup a smaller proportion of the per player cost. Now Apple has a market advantage based on both product style and price point, all without excluding competitors from entering the market, but they wont be able to undercut the iPod.
A Monopoly is where their is only one supplier of a good or service, a monopoly is impossible in a true market economy but "near monopoly" and "monopoly like" situations are entirely possible, Microsoft did not have a monopoly in the OS market, but they were still found guilty of abusing their monopoly status. The closer Apple gets to 100% of the mp3 player market the closer they will be to a true monopoly, the only point of contention is where do you draw the line between "not monopoly like" and "monopoly like".
Apple is packed with floppy haired liberals who wouldn't dare abuse that position.
Who are these liberals? I'm liberal, but I'm not an idiot. If I had a monopoly, I would certainly milk it, but even monopolies can't go too far - the higher your rents, the more incentive to make you irrelevant.
Nice of you to take that quote out of context, they were all examples of things I could have said but didn't all of which could be taken to mean different things by different people (which you demonstrated oh so well). What I said was that apple might abuse their position, and I clarified what I meant by the word might.
Apple in some territories the iPod holds a monopoly like position and Apple might abuse that position
Explain how Apple can exclude competitords from the market, then.
Excluding competitors from a market place is not a requirement for being classed as a monopoly. A monopoly is when their is only one provider in a marketplace. So in some territories Apple holds a market share an order of magnitude larger than its nearest competitor, and Apple might abuse that monopoly like position.
I could have chosen a variety of words, Apple could abuse that position, Apple should abuse that position, Apple wants to abuse that position, Apple is likely to abuse that position, Apple wishes they could abuse that position, Apple won't abuse that position, Apple can't abuse that position, Apple is packed with floppy haired liberals who wouldn't dare abuse that position.
But really all I was saying was that Apple might hold what looks like a monopoly position but until they loose (or settle) an anti-trust case they are free to do as they please in the market place, unlike Microsoft.
Because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and Apple is not. Apple in some territories the iPod holds a monopoly like position and Apple might abuse that position, but until they are dragged into court on anti-trust violations and have business practice restrictions placed upon them, like Microsoft, they are free to do as they please. Microsoft reached an agreement that restricted what they could and could not do in the market place with their products, this means other companies are free to create vertically integrated product lines that Microsoft cannot emulate.
a) the companies are Japanese, the product / os is built in Japanese therefore primary release will always be for the JP market if only because of lead time. b) the primary localisation would be into English, so the next obvious markets to target would be the UK and US. c) the UK is part of the EU, and common market restrictions mean the product must be localised for french, german and english on release.
With the least intensive compression algorithms html can end up almost 10 times smaller That results in a 10 times shorter transfer time, Which results in 10 times fewer simultaneous connections, Which results in 10 times fewer apache processes, Which results in massively reduced memory and processor requirements.
That unused processor and memory is what would be used to perform the gzip operations. Lets say for arguments sake compressing the output doubles the processor usage (a ridiculously high number) cutting the number of apache processes by an order of magnitude only has to reduce CPU requirements by 50% to come out on top.
If the gzip operation only inflicts a 10% overhead cutting the apache processes by ten only needs to free more than 9% to come out on top.
Look at your server, would cutting the number of apache processes from 400 to 40 save more than 10% of the CPU usage, would it save more than 50%?
[All numbers in this post were selected for ease of calculation not for their real world precision,]
I doubt it, it is not uncommon to find Rental stores that sell Used product and most mid-large music stores either have used departments or a second building close by that specialises in it.
The s at the end of "additional mouse buttons" implies more than one additional button, at the very least it requires the existance of button 2 AND 3.
I have button 2 set to right click (the default), button 3 set to show desktop, button 4 set to show all windows, and button 5 set to show application windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry What?
And THAT I would pay for.
That talk is from June 2004, when apple had just 6 weeks prior changed the limit to 5 machines, I think we can assume Cory was giving an example from before April of that year, in the anecdote he even uses the phrase "I hit the 3 machine limit very early on". Additionally the Apple fanboy blogs are covering this new feature in iTunes where you can de-authorise all the machines currently authorised to access your files.
Covering the release of iTunes 4.5
Covering the new de-authorise feature Please note it is not a menu option.
Slight mistake,
Podcast = Subscription
For the majority of Podcasts the subscription is free of cost and purely guarantees delivery of content in a timely manner.
Why does a large number of connections running affect the ISPs router if they are actively in use, the bittorrent client typically has configuration options for the number of peers it will send and receive data with (my client it set to 4 up 10 down) this means that if I have 1000 peer connections open on a single torrent I will be transferring data across a maximum of 14 of them (not including keep alive*). On my border router my internal network is masqueraded, this means that every connection will be listed in memory. My ISP doesn't need** to configure their routers to retain information about each connection as each IP packet contains all the information required to correctly deliver the payload.
If (for arguments sake I am going to pull numbers out of my arse) my bittorrent client sends a keep alive every 30 seconds the ISPs routers will need to handle just 60 packets per second to maintain my 1000 connections (keep alive message + ack)
If my 14 connections to other peers are transfering 100k per second (I am on an ethernet so my packets are 1500bytes max) I will subject that same router to transferring 65 packets per second (I could have said 130 but lets assume my stack is good and wont ack every inbound packet).
Each of those 130+ packets per second are treated identically by the router, it will read the packets source and destination check its routing tables and send it on its way, this all assumes processing a 1500byte packet is as expensive as processing a keep alive message from bt client to bt client.
* Obviously TCP connections do not require keep alive packets, this is why I can put my laptop to sleep overnight and when I wake it up in the morning continue to use my ssh connections to the servers, but bittorrent clients will continuously poll each other and drop connections to machines which are nolonger accessable.
** By 'need' I mean there is no technical reason to do this, the ISP might do traffic flow analysis or bandwidth limiting but those are additional activities which the ISP decided to implement beyond what was required to technically route packets.
Doesn't this comment mean you have no idea what BREW is?
Long term contracts come up for renewal and with multiple companies able to provide restricted content into the IPod channel Apple would be unable to resist increasing prices if the record companies wanted.
Right now apple controls access to the iPod, if a company wants to push restricted content out they must play by apples rules which are for the most part in our favour* if apple give away access to the iPod the negotiations will switch from "we have these customers you wish to access" to "we have this content you wish to sell to your customers".
*for this discussion.
My mind lives in the gutter.
That's not the reason they would be humming.
Just because Apple are the only company selling RIAA music videos online currently, does not mean that 320x240 == download quality. Apple chose that size for their service, others can (and do) offer larger or smaller files
No it didn't, your U2 VHS original was interlaced, distorted, discoloured AND only 240 lines, there is no way it could look better than the video you bought from Apple.
That's not a very good definition. Monopoly power is defined by a company's ability to set prices, not their market share.
Good thing we were not (and never were) talking about monopoly power then.
Face it: you could create an mp3 player tomorrow and sell it. That is why Apple doesn't have a monopoly.
Good thing I didn't say Apple had a monopoly.
Shall I repeat myself, In some territories Apple holds a monopoly like position* which at some point in the future they might try to abuse** in an illegal manner, but for now there is nothing to stop them acting in ways which Microsoft*** is prevented from emulating.
* If Standard Oil can be broken up for abusing its 65% market share, Apple can be described as Monopoly like with 75%.
** Difficult to do
*** Convicted of illegally leveraging a monopoly in one market to take over another, and so prevented from certain market leveraging actions.
From the wikipedia monopoly page, the first sentence is.
Standard Oil was a real monopoly. They controled the oil supply and crushed all competition until, as I recall, oil was discovered in LA and companies were formed faster than they could stomp them out or buy them.
The definition does not include crushing competitors, anti competitive behaviour or illegal actions none are necessary for a market to be a monopoly. Standard Oil had a little over 60% of the oil market, not a technical monopoly by any stretch of the imagination yet it was broken up by the government because it abused its monopoly like position to inhibit competition.
You can say what you like, but you're wrong, according to the common definition of a monopoly.
Why, if Standard Oil with 60 odd percent of the oil market can be declared a de-facto monopoly, can I not suggest that in some territories Apple with its 75% market share holds a monopoly like status.
Care to explain that to Creative who have just publicly announced that they cannot sell cheeper MP3 players than the iPod. Apple is now able to compete on style AND price, the only way a competitor can beat them is to out Apple Apple.
You appear to be confusing monopoly with abuse of monopoly and illegally maintaining a monopoly.
A monopoly means there is a single supplier in a marketplace, it is technically impossible to ever have a real monopoly in a market because there will always be some competition. If you make the best toothbrush in the whole wide world and your ultra-mega-dragonball-toothbrush sells until it has 99% of the tooth care market, you have a near monopoly, once it grows to 100% (and all the competitors leave the market) you have a total monopoly, but the instant somebody pulls out a stick, ties a bit of string on one end and rubs in over their teeth, you have lost your monopoly. A monopoly is a description for a market not the behaviour of players in that market.
Microsoft never had a monopoly over operating systems, if they did Apple, Sun, Novel, Suse, Redhat (all the linux packagers) *BSD and palm would not exist, monopoly means single supplier the instant any other supplier is available (even if they never ever sell a single unit) the monopoly does not exist.
Microsoft was convicted of having a Monopoly like position in the OS market, which they then maintained by illegal means (and leveraged to take over emerging markets), having a monopoly is not illegal, and their is nothing specifically bad about a monopoly in and of itself.
You say Apple has a dominant position in the portable music player market, I said that in some territories they have a Monopoly like position, at some point a dominant position becomes a monopoly like position, it must do otherwise Microsoft would never have found itself in a Monopoly like position.
I think you have that backwards, a closer analogy is Sony only allowing you to play Sony Movies on Sony TVs. The only* media restriction on the iPod is that only apple can provide DRM content that can play on it, I don't have or want any DRM content so this restriction does not affect me in any way.
* by only I am assuming that apple obviously will not support every codec known to man or beast, but that the codecs they do support are open and standard enough that anybody can provide supported content.
So if I get this right, you are here to repeat my point for me, if you look at that grandparent post you will see its me.
No it isn't, because my point was that in the future apple might abuse a monopoly position in some way but Microsoft have abused their monopoly position in the past so right now Apple has less restrictions on their behaviour in the market. the great grandparent said...
"If Apple can open an online music store and restrict competing hardware and software products then why can Microsoft not compete in exactly the same way? "
And I replied
"Because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and Apple is not."
I then quantified it by saying that in the future apple might abuse their market position but until they are prosecuted under anti-trust they are free to do as they please in the market place.
unlike Microsoft, Apple was not prosecuted for anti-trust violations and as such have nobody limiting their behaviour in the market, if they continue to avoid an anti-trust court case, preferably by continuing to not violate anti-trust laws, then they will never have anybody limiting their behaviour in the market.
Apple claim to have an increasing share of the mp3 player market trending past 75%, they claim to own an 80% share of the Legal Music download market, it is impossible for a true monopoly to exist in a true market economy which is why I used the term "monopoly like". The only difference between "not monopoly like" and "monopoly like" is where you draw the line, 70% of the market with 30 competitors holding 1% each, 85% of the market with 5 competitors sharing 3%, 95% with 1 competitor.
I decided to set the bar low.
Is the how important? The point I was making is that at some point some where some how apple could attempt to abuse their monopoly like position, unlike Microsoft their is nobody with the legal authority to step in and stop them. I was not saying this would be desirable, or that Apple will make us all line up, bend over and grab our ankles before listening to our music, but that their is always the possibility that somebody somewhere might attempt to abuse it.
Because of their market size, Apple have secured volume discounts on flashram chips that allow them to sell their iPod nano player at a price lower than than any competitor can reach. Scale also gives Apple a R&D advantage where their fixed development costs makeup a smaller proportion of the per player cost. Now Apple has a market advantage based on both product style and price point, all without excluding competitors from entering the market, but they wont be able to undercut the iPod.
A Monopoly is where their is only one supplier of a good or service, a monopoly is impossible in a true market economy but "near monopoly" and "monopoly like" situations are entirely possible, Microsoft did not have a monopoly in the OS market, but they were still found guilty of abusing their monopoly status. The closer Apple gets to 100% of the mp3 player market the closer they will be to a true monopoly, the only point of contention is where do you draw the line between "not monopoly like" and "monopoly like".
Nice of you to take that quote out of context, they were all examples of things I could have said but didn't all of which could be taken to mean different things by different people (which you demonstrated oh so well). What I said was that apple might abuse their position, and I clarified what I meant by the word might.
Excluding competitors from a market place is not a requirement for being classed as a monopoly. A monopoly is when their is only one provider in a marketplace. So in some territories Apple holds a market share an order of magnitude larger than its nearest competitor, and Apple might abuse that monopoly like position.
I could have chosen a variety of words,
Apple could abuse that position,
Apple should abuse that position,
Apple wants to abuse that position,
Apple is likely to abuse that position,
Apple wishes they could abuse that position,
Apple won't abuse that position,
Apple can't abuse that position,
Apple is packed with floppy haired liberals who wouldn't dare abuse that position.
But really all I was saying was that Apple might hold what looks like a monopoly position but until they loose (or settle) an anti-trust case they are free to do as they please in the market place, unlike Microsoft.
Because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and Apple is not.
Apple in some territories the iPod holds a monopoly like position and Apple might abuse that position, but until they are dragged into court on anti-trust violations and have business practice restrictions placed upon them, like Microsoft, they are free to do as they please. Microsoft reached an agreement that restricted what they could and could not do in the market place with their products, this means other companies are free to create vertically integrated product lines that Microsoft cannot emulate.
Just to be clear, King Canute sat at the waters edge to prove to his courtiers that he could NOT turn the tide back.
So how about "weighs about the same as an apple*, and is about the thickness of your little finger".
Cox, Royal Gala or Japanese Apple?
Male or Female finger? Adult or Child?
a) the companies are Japanese, the product / os is built in Japanese therefore primary release will always be for the JP market if only because of lead time.
... The EU is dead last for everything.
b) the primary localisation would be into English, so the next obvious markets to target would be the UK and US.
c) the UK is part of the EU, and common market restrictions mean the product must be localised for french, german and english on release.
Therefore
With the least intensive compression algorithms html can end up almost 10 times smaller
That results in a 10 times shorter transfer time,
Which results in 10 times fewer simultaneous connections,
Which results in 10 times fewer apache processes,
Which results in massively reduced memory and processor requirements.
That unused processor and memory is what would be used to perform the gzip operations. Lets say for arguments sake compressing the output doubles the processor usage (a ridiculously high number) cutting the number of apache processes by an order of magnitude only has to reduce CPU requirements by 50% to come out on top.
If the gzip operation only inflicts a 10% overhead cutting the apache processes by ten only needs to free more than 9% to come out on top.
Look at your server, would cutting the number of apache processes from 400 to 40 save more than 10% of the CPU usage, would it save more than 50%?
[All numbers in this post were selected for ease of calculation not for their real world precision,]
I doubt it, it is not uncommon to find Rental stores that sell Used product and most mid-large music stores either have used departments or a second building close by that specialises in it.
Nah.. this is a mac.
'additional mouse buttons' is button 2.
The s at the end of "additional mouse buttons" implies more than one additional button, at the very least it requires the existance of button 2 AND 3.
I have button 2 set to right click (the default),
button 3 set to show desktop,
button 4 set to show all windows,
and button 5 set to show application windows.