"All you have to do is select your playlist (or entire library) and turn those options on, instant random song playback."
Sorry, you're an idiot. Plain and simple. I'm not talking about shuffling preexisting playlists (any moron can do that). I'm talking about create new playlists with randomly selected songs from the library. Exactly how I mentioned it in my original post. Show me how to get iTunes to randomly choose 20 minutes of songs (different music every time I open iTunes) without scripting.
"How long until 321 will be required to hand over their customer list (at least the ones that registered)?"
Uh, never. 321 was making money off sales of something that bypassed encryption. This pissed off the movie industry ONLY because it affected sales.
The industry could care less if individuals create their own backups. The only people they'd want to "go after" are those that made money off 321 (e.g. people who used the software to sell pirated copies of movies).
That would only make a difference if you were downloading the binaries directly. You're getting the boxed version from the id store. They still have to pay the distributor, fork over for advertising, etc.
"AppleScriptable"... one of iTunes biggest downfalls. I ran into a really weird situation a week after I bought my iPod. I wanted to create a "smart" playlist that would randomly select 20 minutes of music for exercising. Sounds simple, right?
Wrong. The ONLY way to do it was through AppleScript. You could create the playlist, but it would always have the same 20 minutes of music. I needed to script a way to remove all songs from the playlist so iTunes got the hint that I wanted 20 minutes of random music *every* time I opened the playlist.
And it's not that it was overly complicated, or differed much from what's already offered (iPod updates, for example, date-based playlists on the fly). Apple's reliance on AppleScript though, perturbed me. Basically, there was no way to get this functionality WITHOUT AppleScript. It's become an excuse.
Well, there's also the little issue about being an educated consumer -- this day in age, that includes reading the policies on the company's website, seeing what other people are experiencing with the product, etc. Apple is under no obligation to put the details you mentioned on the boxes (at least, under the current laws).
Nothing has changed for centuries. People were buying "health tonic" that was snakeoil in the 1800s. When consumers become educated ("Hey, that X product didn't cure any of my friends or family's ailments. And, it isn't recommended by doctors") the products fall off the market.
Not to mention that they've been pushing the open standards issue ever since Darwin. I always thought that was a curious double-standard. When they're open (Darwin, Rendezvoux) they're REALLY open. When they're closed (Quartz, iPod) the door is glued shut.
"Regarding the DMCA: you can't fault Apple for using a law on the books - passed by Congress (unanimously [loc.gov] by the Senate), and signed into law by President Clinton - to protect its own business interests."
Wow... Bondi Blue-colored glasses? OF COURSE YOU CAN. No one holds a gun to Steve's head and says "you must use the the DMCA". The way the statement is worded, it sounds like they're treading on very thin ground and want to get people's reaction before going forward with the DMCA.
"Seriously though, if you were targeting a few particular pages, those pages would get locked. If you persisted, your IP would be banned. If you tried a different IP, your subnet(s) would be banned. Admins are capabale of doing all of the above."
Except I was bouncing all over different subnets. How would this be remedied?
"Repeated vandalism? You (or your IP address) can get a one-day ban by any of the administrators. A longer ban can be placed if needed."
With very little work, I was able to convince the system that I was deleting the same page repeatedly from different IPs. It was just a test (in that case, I put it back), but banning particular IPs doesn't help too much.
I liked most of his responses (although his "they'll be crushed in 5 years" was a little too brunt for my tastes. Still, I think Jimmy underestimates one of the basic tenants of human nature: it's fun to be bad.
The first time I saw a Wiki, and learned enough to understand how to add to it, I was a bit surprised on how easily you could destroy the whole thing. A few types and, bam, the article was gone. Sure, there was versioning and all, so they could go back to an earlier version if they wanted, but the preventative measures they had in place for preventing random deletions (just showing the guy's IP) were crude.
So you might say "no one in the community would do that". But guess what... it's human nature to test the system, to break things. That's where an Encyclopedia Britanica or whatever, with an established history, has a leg up over Wiki.
When I open a commercial encyclopedia, I know the article I'm reading was usually typed by someone educated in the subject, edited by multiple people, and will never disappear while I'm reading it. True, there's bias and errors, and everything, but they're in all media. Quality control, which he barely addresses, is much more difficult in an environment where Joe Public can randomly delete articles.
I think Wikis are eventually going to die off, and blogs with rating systems will ultimately reign supreme. Everyone talks, everyone determines what articles are top notch, and someone truly in control can axe things if necessary. There's no true control with Wiki, and that's its biggest hurdle.
That's because there's a couple of key advantages to that "geek" friend:
1.) They're (usually) patient. They don't try to rush you through the help. 2.) They speak your language. 3.) They're local and know you're idosynchricies (sp?)
That last one is crucial. At my job, I've become very familiar with certain users and their patterns. I can often solve problems with that knowledge in hand (X user tends to remove Outlook toolbars, probably happened to X user again, etc.)
Apple: "After all, the company's control over both software and hardware helps make its systems more reliable."
Bingo. Exactly.
I have two separate Apple support stories. One was at my company: for whatever reason, Preferences got corrupt on a 10.3 machine (I thought we left this stuff back in 9). Called Apple up, and the guy was extremely knowledgable and friendly. Walked me through what needed to be done on the command prompt (fun boot!), exactly what files to change, etc. Got back up and running in under 10 minutes.
Second story: iPod on PC. What a disaster. Simple installation: Dell machine that came as is with not a lot of junk installed. Installed the iPod software, installed iTunes, hooked it up and... nothing. Called them up. Played with services, played with dlls... Finally I got results a few days later by reading some forums online (not Apple's).
Now, before you say "Well, Apple shouldn't need to support PCs", 2 issues. One is that they market the iPod for the PC (in fact, I usually see it as "iPod for PC/Mac"). Second, and more importantly, when you become a PC-related company you have to learn to deal with lots of different vendors. Apple isn't stupid: they should know this. They should know (at the very least) to check the common Dell configurations and see what conflicts. "Remove the other programs" isn't an acceptable answer. "Reset the iPod" or "Restore the iPod" REALLY isn't, especially at the alarming rate I've heard it.
I always said, you can get a good feel for how solid a product is but the first bit of documentation you see. 3G iPod, bought a few days ago. Very top of the first reference card you get instructions for reseting it in case it crashes. I've only had to do this once, but kind of ominous, you think?
"You are ALWAYS completely at the mercy of the share price whether you have a 200 x $1 or 2 x $100, 10% up is the same amount, and 10% down is the same amount."
As I mentioned earlier, percentages aside, the chances of a stock dropping $10 vs. $1 is quite different. The reason that most companies like to keep things under $100 is precisely for that reason. You're going to get splits, sure, but the split is going to be almost immediate, negating the reason for selling it at such a high price to begin with (keeping shares out of the hands of a privledged few).
Regardless, anyone who buys this stock outright is committing financial suicide. I'll wait to see what mutual funds pick it up.
"If you buy $10K of stock, and the price halves, you've lost $5K. It doesn't matter whether you had 10,000 $1 shares or one $10K share, you've still lost half your money."
How often do you see shares valued at $10K each? Ok, how often do stocks split (for a variety of reasons, high price being one of them)? I rest my case.
Any investment analyst will tell you that it's far better to have numerous low-priced shared than a few high-priced ones. At this price, a moderate investment (let's say $10,000) gets you only about 100 shares. That means you're completely at the mercy of the stock price (which we know to be oh-so-stable in the tech industry).
No, what'll be interesting is to see what mutual funds grab onto Google as part of their portfolio, and at what percentage. We know it's "risky", but is it considered growth? What percentage will make sense in a mutual fund? 5%? 25%? Those are the questions I'd like to see answered.
I keep reading this, and it's incorrect. PR is used to clean up spills within your own company. Legal teams are used to clean up spills in other companies.
(sarcasm) No kidding? Really! And I was gullible enough to think that some dedicated Bungie fan lunatic busted into some random woman's bee site (running IIS of all things) hacked it, told MS about it, and they decided to put it in their commercial! Who would've thought this was a carefully-planned marketing ploy! (/sarcasm)
OF COURSE WE KNOW THAT. We're enjoying a good old-fashioned mystery, likely by the same guys who did the AI thing. As I said, if you want standard billboards plastered all over the place, be sure to let the advertising industry know. I must prefer this version (which requires thought and at least you can turn it off).
Uh... if we have to have any, this is the best kind of marketing around. AI, the Burger King chicken... an enjoyable "commercial" that requires real thought, and you can turn off at whim.
But if you're content with countless billboards, go right ahead and let the advertisement industry know.
I'd have to disagree. The point of government in assisting capitalistic societies is to provide local subsidies for necessary/struggling/highly profitable industries. This "free market" you talk about encourages that. The reverse is almost a worldwide version of communism.
As for it being a "just" thing to do (one of your other replies), compare the alternatives. Many people against the world bank think its going to ruin economies by shifting low-cost/low-educated labor around. On the flipside, the US is assisting people that would otherwise die out in a highly-industrialized nation (while keeping local food reserves stable). While I agree that worldwide food supplies could be better managed, I firmly disagree that the farm subsidies are the right way to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
"All you have to do is select your playlist (or entire library) and turn those options on, instant random song playback."
Sorry, you're an idiot. Plain and simple. I'm not talking about shuffling preexisting playlists (any moron can do that). I'm talking about create new playlists with randomly selected songs from the library. Exactly how I mentioned it in my original post. Show me how to get iTunes to randomly choose 20 minutes of songs (different music every time I open iTunes) without scripting.
"How long until 321 will be required to hand over their customer list (at least the ones that registered)?"
Uh, never. 321 was making money off sales of something that bypassed encryption. This pissed off the movie industry ONLY because it affected sales.
The industry could care less if individuals create their own backups. The only people they'd want to "go after" are those that made money off 321 (e.g. people who used the software to sell pirated copies of movies).
That would only make a difference if you were downloading the binaries directly. You're getting the boxed version from the id store. They still have to pay the distributor, fork over for advertising, etc.
"AppleScriptable" ... one of iTunes biggest downfalls. I ran into a really weird situation a week after I bought my iPod. I wanted to create a "smart" playlist that would randomly select 20 minutes of music for exercising. Sounds simple, right?
Wrong. The ONLY way to do it was through AppleScript. You could create the playlist, but it would always have the same 20 minutes of music. I needed to script a way to remove all songs from the playlist so iTunes got the hint that I wanted 20 minutes of random music *every* time I opened the playlist.
And it's not that it was overly complicated, or differed much from what's already offered (iPod updates, for example, date-based playlists on the fly). Apple's reliance on AppleScript though, perturbed me. Basically, there was no way to get this functionality WITHOUT AppleScript. It's become an excuse.
"is offering to release the code to the world if enough donations are given to the Electronic Frontier Foundation"
Uh, why? Just release the code.
Actually, streaming is the answer. I'm streaming it now from GameSpot.
Why bother downloading?
Well, there's also the little issue about being an educated consumer -- this day in age, that includes reading the policies on the company's website, seeing what other people are experiencing with the product, etc. Apple is under no obligation to put the details you mentioned on the boxes (at least, under the current laws).
Nothing has changed for centuries. People were buying "health tonic" that was snakeoil in the 1800s. When consumers become educated ("Hey, that X product didn't cure any of my friends or family's ailments. And, it isn't recommended by doctors") the products fall off the market.
Not to mention that they've been pushing the open standards issue ever since Darwin. I always thought that was a curious double-standard. When they're open (Darwin, Rendezvoux) they're REALLY open. When they're closed (Quartz, iPod) the door is glued shut.
"Regarding the DMCA: you can't fault Apple for using a law on the books - passed by Congress (unanimously [loc.gov] by the Senate), and signed into law by President Clinton - to protect its own business interests."
Wow... Bondi Blue-colored glasses? OF COURSE YOU CAN. No one holds a gun to Steve's head and says "you must use the the DMCA". The way the statement is worded, it sounds like they're treading on very thin ground and want to get people's reaction before going forward with the DMCA.
"Seriously though, if you were targeting a few particular pages, those pages would get locked. If you persisted, your IP would be banned. If you tried a different IP, your subnet(s) would be banned. Admins are capabale of doing all of the above."
Except I was bouncing all over different subnets. How would this be remedied?
"Repeated vandalism? You (or your IP address) can get a one-day ban by any of the administrators. A longer ban can be placed if needed."
With very little work, I was able to convince the system that I was deleting the same page repeatedly from different IPs. It was just a test (in that case, I put it back), but banning particular IPs doesn't help too much.
I liked most of his responses (although his "they'll be crushed in 5 years" was a little too brunt for my tastes. Still, I think Jimmy underestimates one of the basic tenants of human nature: it's fun to be bad.
The first time I saw a Wiki, and learned enough to understand how to add to it, I was a bit surprised on how easily you could destroy the whole thing. A few types and, bam, the article was gone. Sure, there was versioning and all, so they could go back to an earlier version if they wanted, but the preventative measures they had in place for preventing random deletions (just showing the guy's IP) were crude.
So you might say "no one in the community would do that". But guess what... it's human nature to test the system, to break things. That's where an Encyclopedia Britanica or whatever, with an established history, has a leg up over Wiki.
When I open a commercial encyclopedia, I know the article I'm reading was usually typed by someone educated in the subject, edited by multiple people, and will never disappear while I'm reading it. True, there's bias and errors, and everything, but they're in all media. Quality control, which he barely addresses, is much more difficult in an environment where Joe Public can randomly delete articles.
I think Wikis are eventually going to die off, and blogs with rating systems will ultimately reign supreme. Everyone talks, everyone determines what articles are top notch, and someone truly in control can axe things if necessary. There's no true control with Wiki, and that's its biggest hurdle.
That's because there's a couple of key advantages to that "geek" friend:
1.) They're (usually) patient. They don't try to rush you through the help.
2.) They speak your language.
3.) They're local and know you're idosynchricies (sp?)
That last one is crucial. At my job, I've become very familiar with certain users and their patterns. I can often solve problems with that knowledge in hand (X user tends to remove Outlook toolbars, probably happened to X user again, etc.)
Apple: "After all, the company's control over both software and hardware helps make its systems more reliable."
Bingo. Exactly.
I have two separate Apple support stories. One was at my company: for whatever reason, Preferences got corrupt on a 10.3 machine (I thought we left this stuff back in 9). Called Apple up, and the guy was extremely knowledgable and friendly. Walked me through what needed to be done on the command prompt (fun boot!), exactly what files to change, etc. Got back up and running in under 10 minutes.
Second story: iPod on PC. What a disaster. Simple installation: Dell machine that came as is with not a lot of junk installed. Installed the iPod software, installed iTunes, hooked it up and... nothing. Called them up. Played with services, played with dlls... Finally I got results a few days later by reading some forums online (not Apple's).
Now, before you say "Well, Apple shouldn't need to support PCs", 2 issues. One is that they market the iPod for the PC (in fact, I usually see it as "iPod for PC/Mac"). Second, and more importantly, when you become a PC-related company you have to learn to deal with lots of different vendors. Apple isn't stupid: they should know this. They should know (at the very least) to check the common Dell configurations and see what conflicts. "Remove the other programs" isn't an acceptable answer. "Reset the iPod" or "Restore the iPod" REALLY isn't, especially at the alarming rate I've heard it.
I always said, you can get a good feel for how solid a product is but the first bit of documentation you see. 3G iPod, bought a few days ago. Very top of the first reference card you get instructions for reseting it in case it crashes. I've only had to do this once, but kind of ominous, you think?
"In what way are you now less at the mercy of the stock price?"
If you want to jump ship on the $10K a share one, you can't drop a few shares. It's all or nothing. That's why you're at the mercy of the price.
"You are ALWAYS completely at the mercy of the share price whether you have a 200 x $1 or 2 x $100, 10% up is the same amount, and 10% down is the same amount."
As I mentioned earlier, percentages aside, the chances of a stock dropping $10 vs. $1 is quite different. The reason that most companies like to keep things under $100 is precisely for that reason. You're going to get splits, sure, but the split is going to be almost immediate, negating the reason for selling it at such a high price to begin with (keeping shares out of the hands of a privledged few).
Regardless, anyone who buys this stock outright is committing financial suicide. I'll wait to see what mutual funds pick it up.
"If you buy $10K of stock, and the price halves, you've lost $5K. It doesn't matter whether you had 10,000 $1 shares or one $10K share, you've still lost half your money."
How often do you see shares valued at $10K each? Ok, how often do stocks split (for a variety of reasons, high price being one of them)? I rest my case.
"I think it's a fair price."
Any investment analyst will tell you that it's far better to have numerous low-priced shared than a few high-priced ones. At this price, a moderate investment (let's say $10,000) gets you only about 100 shares. That means you're completely at the mercy of the stock price (which we know to be oh-so-stable in the tech industry).
No, what'll be interesting is to see what mutual funds grab onto Google as part of their portfolio, and at what percentage. We know it's "risky", but is it considered growth? What percentage will make sense in a mutual fund? 5%? 25%? Those are the questions I'd like to see answered.
"Let 'em use the 'pod and win a major PR victory"
I keep reading this, and it's incorrect. PR is used to clean up spills within your own company. Legal teams are used to clean up spills in other companies.
Yes, yes he does. Personally, I want to be any number of livestock/farm animals, but I don't think my wish is possible.
Note: it's a joke.
"Hubba-Hotep, Hubba-Hotep. Guys, look in your notes. Anyone see a Hubba-Hotep?" -- paraphrase of the incredible MST3K
"This ilovebees.com is just that."
(sarcasm) No kidding? Really! And I was gullible enough to think that some dedicated Bungie fan lunatic busted into some random woman's bee site (running IIS of all things) hacked it, told MS about it, and they decided to put it in their commercial! Who would've thought this was a carefully-planned marketing ploy! (/sarcasm)
OF COURSE WE KNOW THAT. We're enjoying a good old-fashioned mystery, likely by the same guys who did the AI thing. As I said, if you want standard billboards plastered all over the place, be sure to let the advertising industry know. I must prefer this version (which requires thought and at least you can turn it off).
"A case of viral marketing? Move along...."
Uh... if we have to have any, this is the best kind of marketing around. AI, the Burger King chicken... an enjoyable "commercial" that requires real thought, and you can turn off at whim.
But if you're content with countless billboards, go right ahead and let the advertisement industry know.
Where's Indiana Jones?
I'd have to disagree. The point of government in assisting capitalistic societies is to provide local subsidies for necessary/struggling/highly profitable industries. This "free market" you talk about encourages that. The reverse is almost a worldwide version of communism.
As for it being a "just" thing to do (one of your other replies), compare the alternatives. Many people against the world bank think its going to ruin economies by shifting low-cost/low-educated labor around. On the flipside, the US is assisting people that would otherwise die out in a highly-industrialized nation (while keeping local food reserves stable). While I agree that worldwide food supplies could be better managed, I firmly disagree that the farm subsidies are the right way to do it.