I'll never understand this. Why do people listen to songs from a band that can only turn out "3 or 4 good tracks", when you could buy an alblum from a good band and get an entire CDs worth of good music?
Methinks that's quite a bit like when your grandparents asked you why you didn't like Lawrence Welk. It was pompous and ignorant then, and it's pompous and ignorant now.
Seriously. People (or Kids, in this case) like what they like, or perhaps what their friends like. They don't choose their music based on the proficiency of a given band at filling up a whole CD. That's just stupid. I would be surprised if you really chose bands that way, rather than it just being a happy accident.
I'm an adult now, and I listen to adult music, but I imagine that if someone had suggested to me back then that the whole problem was because I liked the wrong bands, I would have laughed and laughed and laughed. And then I would have punched them in the nose. It's a preposterous suggestion. Seriously.
A real musician would be playing for the love of it and building human relationships with actual fans who would have no problem paying for fresh and scarce concerts, scarce physical merchandise, and CDs-as-a-patronage-thankyou.
Actually, that wouldn't be a professional musician, that would be a starving musician.
Now, if the vendors can't break even, why doesn't a record company (or, say, the RIAA itself) buy an 'unprofitable' online vendor and continue merrily selling songs
Would you waste your time on a music service that only carried songs from one label?
I wouldn't. And apparantly, neither would anyone else, as the labels already tried this approach, and failed miserably.
I read the other day that Amazon has just recorded it's first profitable year. Napster 2 is still very new, and its entered during a period where the whole market is still within a state of flux.
I don't think Wall Street will be nearly as patient with Napster as they have been with Amazon. Amazon is a huge business with huge revenues (not profits, not until recently) and a business model that requires huge infrastructure in order to support, not to mention buying, storing, moving, and shipping physical tangible goods.
Napster has none of these hurdles to surpass (and, in my estimation, none of the potential upside that Amazon has) and so it is unlikely that Wall Street will overlook more than a few more quarters of losses before they start pressuring Roxio to cut their losses.
Which leaves you in the same place. What do you do with your unsupported AAC files when iTunes dies? If the vendor dies, your files will work on the systems they currently work on, but no new systems. Which means you better home your hard drive doesn't die. iTunes and Napster are in the same boat as far as DRM, but since iTunes is/. favorite, most people tend to overlook their DRM, even when it leaves you in the same place as all the others.
The problem with this statement is that it ignores the fact that Apple has a sustainable hardware business, and will continue to support (or be compelled to support) your AAC files for as long as they remain in business.
Napster, as an arm (wholly owned subsidiary?) of Roxio does not have such a clearly sustainable business. If it's a subsidiary of Roxio, can't Roxio just fold it up and walk away when the losses become unbearable? Even if Roxio were compelled to support Napster's WMA files (legally or otherwise) is Roxio itself really the most stable corporate parent?
For instance, Apple has already subsumed much of Roxio's core functionality (disk burning, red book audio, etcetera) into MacOS X. How long before Microsoft does the same thing, leading to dwindling sales for Roxio as they desperately cling to their business model? What happens to support for Napster WMAs then?
To top it all off, if Microsoft really does become a player in the digital music distribution game, Bill will have added incentive to subsume Roxio's core functionality in a bid to drive them (and thus Napster) out of business.
think you may be on to something. IANL, but I think I remember that there is a time limitation that says: as the holder of a patent you must defend it against any alleged infringement within a certain time period or forfeit your right to defend it for that infringement.
You're thinking of trademarks. The same does not apply to patents.
if you follow the link, you'll see that the license fee is only $0.25 per unit, up to a max of $250,000 per licensee
I've been party to meetings and technical design exercises where we struggled to remove mere pennies from the build price of a product, and were elated when we managed to do so. 25 cents is a huge cost delta for the build price of a piece of hardware.
This "fact", while oft-repeated, is unfortunately completely untrue. The patent office may not do a stellar job of investigating for prior art, but technically any prior art, patented or not, counts.
This is the feedback I just gave them in the Ask The Prez section of their web site:
I've been reading the various press reports about SunnComm's threatened lawsuit against the Princeton student that revealed how to disable the software that SunnComm installs as part of it's copy protection.
I just wanted to say Thank You! This case, should it go to trial, will almost certainly point out the absurdity of the DMCA and, with any luck, completely invalidate that part of the DMCA, thereby saving us all from future frivolous lawsuits.
You are doing a great service to our country. Keep up the good work!
But that's okay, you keep racking up those charges on your credit card, while the rest of us will continue our boycott of the RIAA until they begin distributing a good product for a fair price.
But that's okay, you keep raging against the machine until you're blue in the face, while the rest of us will be listening to music we did purchase at a fair price whilst getting on with our lives.
There are so many more important things for me to focus my anger on than whether or not the products of one little company (namely Apple) are suitable for my consumption or not. I swear, geeks get their panties in such a wad sometimes over the silliest things.
Second, you can boot off of a bluetooth usb to drive connection? You can boot off of usb, depending on the board and bios you have.
Missing the point, maybe. Plugging your watch into a USB jack means either taking off your watch or typing with one hand. Okay, maybe some people have developed that skill to an artform, but all the time? Okay, maybe they've developed that skill too. Nevertheless, booting off the drive is, IMHO, much less important than just having it available for personal documents.
That's great. However, a command-line-interface will never ever ever be accepted by mainstream computer users. If you think otherwise, you're either delusional, or you've eaten too many Moon Pies. Possibly both.
The points made by JWZ are that video playback needs a whole lot of improvement before it can be casually used by those with better things to do than f*ck with a command line interface.
I wonder sometimes if "the powers that be" aren't just holding back on some of the new LCD-like display technologies because they've got a lot of money tied up in LCD technology that's just starting to show a return on investment.
This would seem to ignore the realities of a capitalist economy, where "the powers that be" have up-and-comers biting their ass trying to get a foothold in the market. If it can be made for less money, it will be made for less money, by somebody somewhere.
I second (or third, or whatever) the vote for the SliMP3 from www.slimdevices.com. I was looking for the same kind of device, and the SliMP3 meets most of my requirements. Super simple, sounds great, and all the software is open source. Plus, you can also push music to it from any web browser on your network.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll never understand this. Why do people listen to songs from a band that can only turn out "3 or 4 good tracks", when you could buy an alblum from a good band and get an entire CDs worth of good music?
Methinks that's quite a bit like when your grandparents asked you why you didn't like Lawrence Welk. It was pompous and ignorant then, and it's pompous and ignorant now.
Seriously. People (or Kids, in this case) like what they like, or perhaps what their friends like. They don't choose their music based on the proficiency of a given band at filling up a whole CD. That's just stupid. I would be surprised if you really chose bands that way, rather than it just being a happy accident.
I'm an adult now, and I listen to adult music, but I imagine that if someone had suggested to me back then that the whole problem was because I liked the wrong bands, I would have laughed and laughed and laughed. And then I would have punched them in the nose. It's a preposterous suggestion. Seriously.
A real musician would be playing for the love of it and building human relationships with actual fans who would have no problem paying for fresh and scarce concerts, scarce physical merchandise, and CDs-as-a-patronage-thankyou.
Actually, that wouldn't be a professional musician, that would be a starving musician.
That's either the most misguided thing I've ever heard, or else...
Nevermind. I just remembered that this was Slashdot.
Now, if the vendors can't break even, why doesn't a record company (or, say, the RIAA itself) buy an 'unprofitable' online vendor and continue merrily selling songs
Would you waste your time on a music service that only carried songs from one label?
I wouldn't. And apparantly, neither would anyone else, as the labels already tried this approach, and failed miserably.
I read the other day that Amazon has just recorded it's first profitable year. Napster 2 is still very new, and its entered during a period where the whole market is still within a state of flux.
I don't think Wall Street will be nearly as patient with Napster as they have been with Amazon. Amazon is a huge business with huge revenues (not profits, not until recently) and a business model that requires huge infrastructure in order to support, not to mention buying, storing, moving, and shipping physical tangible goods.
Napster has none of these hurdles to surpass (and, in my estimation, none of the potential upside that Amazon has) and so it is unlikely that Wall Street will overlook more than a few more quarters of losses before they start pressuring Roxio to cut their losses.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Which leaves you in the same place. What do you do with your unsupported AAC files when iTunes dies? If the vendor dies, your files will work on the systems they currently work on, but no new systems. Which means you better home your hard drive doesn't die. iTunes and Napster are in the same boat as far as DRM, but since iTunes is /. favorite, most people tend to overlook their DRM, even when it leaves you in the same place as all the others.
The problem with this statement is that it ignores the fact that Apple has a sustainable hardware business, and will continue to support (or be compelled to support) your AAC files for as long as they remain in business.
Napster, as an arm (wholly owned subsidiary?) of Roxio does not have such a clearly sustainable business. If it's a subsidiary of Roxio, can't Roxio just fold it up and walk away when the losses become unbearable? Even if Roxio were compelled to support Napster's WMA files (legally or otherwise) is Roxio itself really the most stable corporate parent?
For instance, Apple has already subsumed much of Roxio's core functionality (disk burning, red book audio, etcetera) into MacOS X. How long before Microsoft does the same thing, leading to dwindling sales for Roxio as they desperately cling to their business model? What happens to support for Napster WMAs then?
To top it all off, if Microsoft really does become a player in the digital music distribution game, Bill will have added incentive to subsume Roxio's core functionality in a bid to drive them (and thus Napster) out of business.
Bob Young is the FOUNDER and CEO of REDHAT...
You know...
The company SUEING SCO.
Here's a clue for you: He's no longer at Red Hat. The original poster's question is valid: why is he here?
You're thinking of trademarks. The same does not apply to patents.
if you follow the link, you'll see that the license fee is only $0.25 per unit, up to a max of $250,000 per licensee
I've been party to meetings and technical design exercises where we struggled to remove mere pennies from the build price of a product, and were elated when we managed to do so. 25 cents is a huge cost delta for the build price of a piece of hardware.
Larry who?
This "fact", while oft-repeated, is unfortunately completely untrue. The patent office may not do a stellar job of investigating for prior art, but technically any prior art, patented or not, counts.
Please stop repeating this falsehood.
But that's okay, you keep racking up those charges on your credit card, while the rest of us will continue our boycott of the RIAA until they begin distributing a good product for a fair price.
But that's okay, you keep raging against the machine until you're blue in the face, while the rest of us will be listening to music we did purchase at a fair price whilst getting on with our lives.
There are so many more important things for me to focus my anger on than whether or not the products of one little company (namely Apple) are suitable for my consumption or not. I swear, geeks get their panties in such a wad sometimes over the silliest things.
I've got a 30gig model, and it's full. My total MP3 collection (all legal) tops out at around 65gig.
Is that you, Darl? Tsk tsk tsk... I thought you were through trolling Slashdot for jollies.
Nice try, dickhead. Your paltry attempt at vandalism with your stupid rm -rf redirect didn't work. Thanks for playing.
Speaker wire sucks. Run CAT5 everywhere and plug in a SliMP3 in whichever rooms you want sound.
I own one of the SliMP3 units. Very cool, and the server software is open source and runs on everything.
Second, you can boot off of a bluetooth usb to drive connection? You can boot off of usb, depending on the board and bios you have.
Missing the point, maybe. Plugging your watch into a USB jack means either taking off your watch or typing with one hand. Okay, maybe some people have developed that skill to an artform, but all the time? Okay, maybe they've developed that skill too. Nevertheless, booting off the drive is, IMHO, much less important than just having it available for personal documents.
command-line MPlayer works perfectly for me.
That's great. However, a command-line-interface will never ever ever be accepted by mainstream computer users. If you think otherwise, you're either delusional, or you've eaten too many Moon Pies. Possibly both.
The points made by JWZ are that video playback needs a whole lot of improvement before it can be casually used by those with better things to do than f*ck with a command line interface.
It never ceases to amaze me how easily a troll can get mod'ed up on Slashdot.
This would seem to ignore the realities of a capitalist economy, where "the powers that be" have up-and-comers biting their ass trying to get a foothold in the market. If it can be made for less money, it will be made for less money, by somebody somewhere.
Objective C takes about 10 minutes to learn. Maybe a day to become fluent. Not wanting to use Cocoa because of Objective C is silly.
I second (or third, or whatever) the vote for the SliMP3 from www.slimdevices.com. I was looking for the same kind of device, and the SliMP3 meets most of my requirements. Super simple, sounds great, and all the software is open source. Plus, you can also push music to it from any web browser on your network.