I don't work for Apple, never have, and am not part of a fake grassroots effort of any kind, nor do I blanket newspapers and/or websites with information that appears to be a "grassroots" effort, when in reality it has a hidden agenda. But thanks for your concern! [1]
Fact: Firewire [800] is only available in PowerMac and two models of Powerbook (15" and 17"). It is not available in the rest of Apple's products
True enough. I should have said "almost all of its 'pro' products" products. This still doesn't mean Apple is "backing away" from FireWire (and I'm not insinuating that you're implying that).
Also, FireWire 800 ships on the Xserve G5 family.
I'm used to dealing with PowerBooks, Power Macs, and Xserves in my environment (all of which, except for the 12" PowerBook, ship with FireWire 800), but indeed, the consumer products do not ship with FireWire 800 (while they all still ship with FireWire 400). When you expand this to the entire product line, every Apple hardware product ships with some FireWire implementation (except accessories like headphones, for example). So, FireWire 800 or not, this was meant to show Apple is not "backing away" from FireWire.
That is, for PCs. For Macs, a USB2 card probably runs $200 or something.
Wrong again. First of all, all Macs already ship with USB 2.0. But, say you wanted to add a card to an older Mac. Mac OS X supports ANY OHCI-compliant (which they all are) USB PCI card. So the same Joe's Fly By Night USB 2.0 Card you get from LEET-PC-XPERTS.COM will also work in any Mac.
Because by any other measure Linux has about ten times the OS market share of Apple.
Actually, you're completely wrong.
Mac OS X is actually the number one shipping UNIX/UNIX-like OS in the world, surpassing Linux and all commercial UNIXes.
Yes, surpassing Linux.
No, not just on the desktop.
Yes, even servers.
(Okay, maybe not on embedded devices, but definitely in computers/servers/workstations. By far.)
Apple, in unit shipments, is the largest vendor of UNIX systems in the world. They may not be used in the same fashion, but Apple completely eclipses "unix/solaris/linux/bsd" in shipped units, in fact ridiculously so.
This has been common knowledge for a couple of years now.
And to repeat. THIS INCLUDES SERVERS.
There are now over 12 million Mac OS X systems in use (source: 23:40 of WWDC keynote). This by far eclipses shipments by all other UNIX/UNIX-like system vendors. Apple is the single largest vendor of UNIX-based systems in the world, bar none.
Now that we've established that Apple is "backing away" from FireWire, docks, and AC power, we must also presume that they're "backing away" from keyboards and mice, as the Mac mini no longer ships with them! Clearly, they're also "backing away" from screens: just look at the iPod shuffle!
It couldn't possibly be a decision made to save money! It must be tacit acknowledgment that the standard "lost", and now they're "backing away" from it.
FireWire is *far superior* to USB 2.0 - for the things that its used for. We're not talking about keyboards and mice and printers here. We're talking about a high-speed, peer-to-peer (unlike USB, which requires a host) serial connection standard that USB 2.0 simply can't touch for many tasks. Just because you see overlap between them and USB is used for normal desktop peripherals doesn't mean USB "won".
If FireWire lost anywhere, it wasn't in computing. It was in the AV world: there was a chance to have FireWire be the universal connection standard for all AV equipment.
Imagine a cable that not only carries video and audio, but isn't intended for "final output", and also can carry control information between devices, and every device is a peer: picture one, single FireWire cable running between each of your devices, essentially chained off of one another, and each device automatically recognizing any other devices available, and self-configuring to expose the correct settings and options for dealing with those device(s), being completely hot-pluggable and dynamic, and also working seamlessly with your computer.
Yes, that really was the promise of FireWire.
Much of the failure in that realm is due to two things:
- Apple's early insistence to charge $1/port on each device that used FireWire/IEEE-1394 ports, and the requirement to use Apple's old FireWire logo (which included an Apple logo) to use the name "FireWire", which is inarguably the name that would have taken the standard the farthest; now Apple allows free licensing of the FireWire name; and
- Content providers' deathly fear of ALL of your devices - including your computer and recording devices - being able to communicate with each other easily, seamlessly, and digitally
(And, no, NO OTHER CURRENT STANDARD, including HDMI or any USB standard, could do everything FireWire could have done. Oh well.)
Your mistake is thinking of USB and FireWire as competing standards. They really aren't (except in the area of desktop storage device connectivity - see this post for a concise summary). Yes, USB is everywhere. And uh, in case you didn't notice, you have Apple in large part to thank for that with the original iMac, in which Apple included it in 1997, eliminating legacy ports - and the floppy drive - thus creating a burgeoning USB peripheral market that helped the PC world make the transition much easier (that it STILL hasn't really made...)
What's happening is that the iPod is shipping primarily to Windows PC owners. Many of whom, you know, don't have FireWire. And for the small minority who do, it's anyone's guess whether it's a 4-pin or 6-pin connector.
But they all have USB, and most, USB 2.0.
Apple also isn't shipping some iPods with a dock. Does that mean Apple is also "backing away" from the iPod dock?
What Apple is doing is a cost saving measure, plain and simple. ANYONE on any machine running Mac OS or Windows can use USB for syncing, and most of these customers have USB 2.0. including all recent Macs. And if you really want a FireWire cable, you can get one. I really don't see the problem. The iPod retail boxes are also now not platform-specific, as they were previously.
And far from "backing away" from FireWire, Apple is one of the primary members of the 1394 Trade Association, an Apple employee is the Chairman of the Board of the 1394 TA, an Apple employee has perennially been chair of the IEEE-1394 working group, Apple now allows free licensing of the "FireWire" name and logo for all 1394 products, and Apple is shipping 1394b (FireWire 800) on almost all of its products, save some of the "consumer" oriented products, and ALL Apple computers include FireWire. Many include both FireWire 400 (6-pin) and 800 (9-pin).
FireWire is FAR more robust than USB 2.0, and even FireWire 400 is faster in all benchmarks than USB 2.0. FireWire doesn't require a host as USB 2.0; all devices can be peers of one another. Additionally, the latest iterations of FireWire supports speeds up to 3.2 Gbps. There are wireless FireWire over 802.11x implementations planned. See the FireWire 800 Tech Brief for more information.
Additionally, all digital video cameras and decks, including new HDV cameras and decks, include FireWire as the primary - or only - connectivity. Further, starting 1 July 2005, all cable operators must provide a functional FireWire port on all HD digital set top boxes.
So no, Apple isn't "backing away" from FireWire. It's saving money on the new round of iPods by including a cable that 100% of its purchasers are guaranteed to be able to use, instead of a FireWire cable that the Mac users might be able to use, but the vast majority of PC users won't, and even if they HAVE FireWire, would have a 50/50 chance of being the wrong one. Not to mention that Apple got away from the iPod "for Mac" and iPod "for Windows" delineation and now ships them generically for both platforms.
First of all, the phone jockeys, whether they "know" anything or not, are the primary interface to the customer. I'm not saying *they* were personally, maliciously lying. That's not the fucking point. The point was that somewhere along they line, they were TOLD what to say. Someone, somewhere, within either the telephone call center organization or management instructed the phone staff how to respond to that question. And if they're giving out completely incorrect information, and you KNOW it's incorrect, you're saying that, as a customer, you should just ignore it and/or take it? This isn't a case of the phone staff not knowing something "technical"; this is a case of a company using their main customer interface to actively spread information that is incorrect to shield blame from itself. And yes, that's what it is, whether 1000 people or ten call up about the 30 second skip, which has been an integral feature of DVRs since the birth of TiVo.
This was merely a response to someone who said "don't ever fuck with the 30 second skip", and was pointing out that someone already had. And not only had they fucked with it, but they were, collectively as an organization, lying about why they did, i.e., that it was "illegal" to have a 30 second skip when that is clearly wrong. And no, dipshit, they weren't just "wrong". This wasn't just a "mistake". You don't accidentally specifically say that you can't have a 30 second skip because it's "illegal", and for two different phone agents and two different "supervisors" on separate days to say the same thing. And they weren't stumbling for the answer, they knew exactly what to say. In other words, WHETHER THEY THEMSELVES KNOW WHETHER IT'S ILLEGAL OR NOT IS IRRELEVANT.
But, dumbass, I could give a shit less about Charter's 30 second skip. As I said in my original post, I was TESTING the Charter DVR unit. It is NOT my primary DVR, nor will it ever be. My job responsibilities led me to test several DVRs, one of which was Charter's BMC9012.
Nice job with your stinging reply. Get a fucking brain before you respond next time. I can't believe I had to spell out to you why it's wrong for the customer service/support organization to actively spread incorrect information with a goal of shielding itself from a decision that IT MADE, itself, that negatively impacts the customer.
Your first paragraph starts with putting words in my mouth and generally saying I said things I didn't say. Bravo.
Me? I must confess to recently getting CATV but only because it was a cheap adder over cable net access. I could drop it at any time [...]
And now, you're what we call a "hypocrite".
most the stuff I watch is actually OTA and with my HD card it'll be better OTA than on cable. I also think OTA would get even better if people would stop paying for television.
And, on top of that, an idiot: the OTA channels are LOCAL channels for which LOCAL broadcasters and broadcasting infrastructure exist. How would that get "better", when many of the channels delivered via cable or satellite are specialty channels with specialty content that would never be carried via an OTA operator? Is Discovery or CNN going to set up a broadcasting antenna in every neighborhood across the country? Also, cable operators CARRY HD content, so your OTA HD wouldn't be "better" than cable's HD content. It's digital HD.
How does arguing to be able to use something you paid for make me an "idiot"? And also, you kind of don't make sense: aside from that fact that YOU YOURSELF have cable TV, how does any of my argument equate to "now I'm going to be paying even more", and what, if anything, does that have to do with the Broadcast Flag?
Heh. I agree with your argument, but that's actually part of my point:
For many people, for better or worse, DVRs have enabled them to actually HAVE a life. No, I don't mean these people are so pathetic that they need to watch TV at all costs. I only record a couple shows a week myself. But the point is, I don't have to be there. I don't have to think or care whether or not I'm going to miss a show. And in the great scheme of things, it's not important. But neither is going outside or reading a book. But you get to go outside and read a book when YOU CHOOSE. Why not be able to have that same capability for another mechanism of entertainment/learning/relaxation/whatever-you-wan t-to-call-it? That's exactly what PVR/DVR technology means: it makes TV shows something to be watched when convenient, if at all, not something engineered to get X number of eyes in front of the tube from 8:00 to 9:01 on Thursday night, for advertising revenue and to pimp the next lame show that we all want to be force fed. No, seriously: no one has to watch it, and yes, everyone can get up and turn it off. And no one has to watch the next show. BUT, what's wrong with having a technological device that makes this easier, in fact, an order of magnitude easier and more functional and convenient than even the VCR?
If you can't record a particular show AT ALL on a DVR, the rest of your argument is meaningless.
The answer isn't "well, you could still hook an analog recording device up" blah blah blah. The device needs to be able to record in its default state. And yes, I agree that all of the niceties of a DVR (lots of space, easy to use, etc.) are all great.
But that's no the point. If you select "Judging Amy" or "Daytona 500" and it says "Sorry, you are not allowed to record this show. This program must be watched live," then that's going backward from things you could do, on equal footing - differences in technology aside - with the VCR. The point isn't that the DVR has a fancy interface or lets you record 200 hours of stuff. The point is whether it LETS you record something at all (in its default state, without a bunch of external equipment or analog connections).
I would hope the answer would be obvious, but it's because VCRs are recording on linear analog tape, and a "30 second skip" in the context of tape would be useless. I mean, yeah, you could have a button that "fast forwards" for 30 seconds, and maybe queues up button presses, but without a way to easily see, instantly, where you are in the video (as you can on a DVR), a 30 second skip isn't really useful.
But the modern "successor" to the VCR, e.g., TiVo, ReplayTV, Media Center - in fact, any product that is a digital video recorder - all have a skip feature, because it makes sense. It's the DVRs that are coming from cable and satellite operators, who are of course very beholden to their content providers, that are disabling the 30 second skip.
For that matter, why don't VCR (and now DVD) players have 2-level sound settings? I've noticed that movies generally have ultra-loud scenes and soft scenes, like battles and conversations; it would be useful to have 2 sound levels set to accomodate these.
I believe that is what the "volume" control is for... But seriously, having two volume presets (e.g., "soft" and "loud" would either be, if preset, 1.) wrong for most people, or, if it allowed you to set each of them either directly or as a ratio to the actual volume, 2.) too difficult for an ordinary person to understand or set up). I don't think that's a "problem" that needs solving.
Yes, of course, you're right...I'm kind of mixing two unrelated issues here. But from a consumer standpoint, they appear very related: cable and satellite operators will use No Record flags, that may not be the Broadcast Flag per se, on their content, and you're stuck with needing their equipment to tune the channels, or do any digital recording of that content. And, they'll be the carriers via which many people will get their local HD content to begin with, and their equipment indeed can and will have the capability to pass the flag mandates, albeit not with the "Broadcast Flag" itself: i'm speaking of the Broadcast Flag in the broad concept that 'do not record', 'record once', or 'free to record' must be respected by cable and satellite operators' equipment and delivery systems even if the settop sitting in your house doesn't respect the Broadcast Flag proper: somewhere along the line, NBC said the HD superbowl or the premiere of HD Las Vegas cannot be recorded, and your cable operator is respecting it with their equipment. Whether the settop in your living room is respecting the flag provisions for that channel itself or whether the operator is enforcing it a couple of layers detached on its network with its own rights management, it's still being enforced.
If all you care about is OTA HDTV/DTV, then sure, go out and get one of the several computer-based or standalone non-flag-compliant HDTV/DTV tuners. But people in many markets will access what are normally their local OTA channels (if they had OTA equipment) via something like a cable operator. And the cable operator will be respecting the flag. If you want to have all sorts of different tuners and equipment, then by all means, go for it, but most ordinary customers won't be able to do this.
...all of the Broadcast Flag plans were in motion up long before Bush became president, during Clinton's presidency. Clinton appointed Michael Powell to the FCC [when he became Chairman, he didn't get any more votes], Clinton signed the DMCA into law, and Fritz Hollings (D) (along with four other Democratic senators) is the sponsor of the CBDTPA (née SSSCA or "DMCA 2").
I'm not saying the parent is speaking to this specifically, but this is just a point of information for others who will no doubt ignorantly vomit out the opposite in this thread.
Buy an HD tuner that doesn't respect the flag before 1 July 2005, or purchase any such preexisting device after 1 July 2005 (all non flag compliant devices can be resold after that date).
But it's not that simple, after all. Because the problem is TUNING the content you want to record, e.g., from a satellite provider or cable operator. And since more and more of the digital content is encrypted, and is only able to be tuned by devices sanctioned by the provider, and all such devices will respect the Broadcast Flag, the answer is to "What can I do to prepare for the Broadcast Flag?" is "Not much."
Unless, of course, you don't mind recording from an analog connection, such as composite video, S-video, or component video. But the FireWire ports that are, for example, also mandated on all HD/digital cable set top boxes after 1 July 2005 will be mostly encrypted. One might ask the question, if they're encrypted, then what the hell good are they? Indeed. But what can you do in the face of a cable provider whose call centers don't even know what FireWire is, or who argues that "technically" the FireWire ports are "functional" (as required by the FCC), even though their output is encrypted.
The real answer, of course, is that these ports will interact with OTHER 5C-compliant FireWire devices that also respect the Broadcast Flag. There's no way around it unless you go analog. And that INCLUDES all the nice things on the EFF's page. Sure, you can tune over-the-air HD channels and record them. And that's great. In some markets, that may account for a lot of content. But you won't be able to digitally record content that is flagged as Record Never that you're paying for from a cable or satellite operator, because you need THEIR EQUIPMENT to tune to those channels. (Or, something like a CableCard in - guess what - another device that respects the flag.)
All in all, we'll be able to do less with our current (i.e., digital) equipment than we could do with equivalent equipment (i.e., the VCR) 30 years ago. And most of the operators won't shoulder any of the blame. They'll just point the finger at laws or at the content providers. And then what is a customer to do? The only thing you really *can* do is write your elected officials, and provide feedback to the FCC. Or, not buy any flag compliant devices, which might ultimately prove to be a very hard thing to do.
In sum: anything you buy now won't guarantee you recording of ALL content you might legitimately have access to, unless you're ONLY concerned about OTA recording.
Something being "illegal" means it's against the law. It's not an issue of semantics. What they said was an outright lie; a fabrication; completely inaccurate.
Do you honestly think that's what they should be telling people? That there's no 30-second skip because it's "against the law"?
Slashdot Mirror
Nice Astroturfing!
I don't work for Apple, never have, and am not part of a fake grassroots effort of any kind, nor do I blanket newspapers and/or websites with information that appears to be a "grassroots" effort, when in reality it has a hidden agenda. But thanks for your concern! [1]
To be clear, the "5 million" figure is referenced in a document that is over 2 years old.
The "12 million" figure is from June, 2004 (source: 23:40 of WWDC keynote)
As of January 2005, the figure is now over 14 million. (Source: 5:20 of Macworld Expo San Francisco 2005 keynote)
The new iPod mini no longer has this requirement (and all of the iPods support charging via USB; this was not always the case).
Fact: Firewire [800] is only available in PowerMac and two models of Powerbook (15" and 17"). It is not available in the rest of Apple's products
True enough. I should have said "almost all of its 'pro' products" products. This still doesn't mean Apple is "backing away" from FireWire (and I'm not insinuating that you're implying that).
Also, FireWire 800 ships on the Xserve G5 family.
I'm used to dealing with PowerBooks, Power Macs, and Xserves in my environment (all of which, except for the 12" PowerBook, ship with FireWire 800), but indeed, the consumer products do not ship with FireWire 800 (while they all still ship with FireWire 400). When you expand this to the entire product line, every Apple hardware product ships with some FireWire implementation (except accessories like headphones, for example). So, FireWire 800 or not, this was meant to show Apple is not "backing away" from FireWire.
The funny thing is that a PCI USB2 adapter is generally much cheaper than a 1394 cable.
Wrong.
That is, for PCs. For Macs, a USB2 card probably runs $200 or something.
Wrong again. First of all, all Macs already ship with USB 2.0. But, say you wanted to add a card to an older Mac. Mac OS X supports ANY OHCI-compliant (which they all are) USB PCI card. So the same Joe's Fly By Night USB 2.0 Card you get from LEET-PC-XPERTS.COM will also work in any Mac.
But congrats on the troll!
Actually, you're completely wrong.
Mac OS X is actually the number one shipping UNIX/UNIX-like OS in the world, surpassing Linux and all commercial UNIXes.
Yes, surpassing Linux.
No, not just on the desktop.
Yes, even servers.
(Okay, maybe not on embedded devices, but definitely in computers/servers/workstations. By far.)
Apple, in unit shipments, is the largest vendor of UNIX systems in the world. They may not be used in the same fashion, but Apple completely eclipses "unix/solaris/linux/bsd" in shipped units, in fact ridiculously so.
"With the release of Mac OS X, Apple became the largest vendor of Unix in the world"
"There are over 5 million Mac OS X users, including scientists, animators, developers, and system administrators, making Apple the largest vendor of UNIX-based systems."
A lot more...
This has been common knowledge for a couple of years now.
And to repeat. THIS INCLUDES SERVERS. There are now over 12 million Mac OS X systems in use (source: 23:40 of WWDC keynote). This by far eclipses shipments by all other UNIX/UNIX-like system vendors. Apple is the single largest vendor of UNIX-based systems in the world, bar none.
Ok, good.
Now that we've established that Apple is "backing away" from FireWire, docks, and AC power, we must also presume that they're "backing away" from keyboards and mice, as the Mac mini no longer ships with them! Clearly, they're also "backing away" from screens: just look at the iPod shuffle!
It couldn't possibly be a decision made to save money! It must be tacit acknowledgment that the standard "lost", and now they're "backing away" from it.
Right?
...is FireWire used as the only standard on all digital and HDV camcorders, professional cameras, and decks and VTRs?
...is FireWire required on all digital HD set top boxes beginning 1 July 2005?
...do all these high end consumer, "prosumer", and professional AV and computing devices ship with FireWire?
FireWire is *far superior* to USB 2.0 - for the things that its used for. We're not talking about keyboards and mice and printers here. We're talking about a high-speed, peer-to-peer (unlike USB, which requires a host) serial connection standard that USB 2.0 simply can't touch for many tasks. Just because you see overlap between them and USB is used for normal desktop peripherals doesn't mean USB "won".
If FireWire lost anywhere, it wasn't in computing. It was in the AV world: there was a chance to have FireWire be the universal connection standard for all AV equipment.
Imagine a cable that not only carries video and audio, but isn't intended for "final output", and also can carry control information between devices, and every device is a peer: picture one, single FireWire cable running between each of your devices, essentially chained off of one another, and each device automatically recognizing any other devices available, and self-configuring to expose the correct settings and options for dealing with those device(s), being completely hot-pluggable and dynamic, and also working seamlessly with your computer.
Yes, that really was the promise of FireWire.
Much of the failure in that realm is due to two things:
- Apple's early insistence to charge $1/port on each device that used FireWire/IEEE-1394 ports, and the requirement to use Apple's old FireWire logo (which included an Apple logo) to use the name "FireWire", which is inarguably the name that would have taken the standard the farthest; now Apple allows free licensing of the FireWire name; and
- Content providers' deathly fear of ALL of your devices - including your computer and recording devices - being able to communicate with each other easily, seamlessly, and digitally
(And, no, NO OTHER CURRENT STANDARD, including HDMI or any USB standard, could do everything FireWire could have done. Oh well.)
Your mistake is thinking of USB and FireWire as competing standards. They really aren't (except in the area of desktop storage device connectivity - see this post for a concise summary). Yes, USB is everywhere. And uh, in case you didn't notice, you have Apple in large part to thank for that with the original iMac, in which Apple included it in 1997, eliminating legacy ports - and the floppy drive - thus creating a burgeoning USB peripheral market that helped the PC world make the transition much easier (that it STILL hasn't really made...)
Nice troll, though!
http://www.g4tv.com/freshgear/features/39129/USB_2 0_Versus_FireWire_pg3.html
p
o n.com/columns/macskeptic/02/02/08/
Despite the speed advantage USB 2.0 offers over the old v1.1 standard, FireWire remains the performance king of plug-and-play connections.
http://www.firewire-1394.com/firewire-vs-usb.htm
Performance Comparison - FireWire vs. USB 2.0
Read and write tests to the same IDE hard drive connected using FireWire and then USB 2.0 show:
Read Test:
5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 33% faster than USB 2.0
160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 70% faster than USB 2.0
Write Test:
5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 16% faster than USB 2.0
160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 48% faster than USB 2.0
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,844061,00.as
Though USB 2.0 is rated at a higher throughput speed, FireWire delivered faster performance on external hard drives when connected to a desktop.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.macopini
And there's more, which can be found via Google.
Try going outside occassionally, or attempting to speak to someone of the opposite sex.
:-)
After much consternation and apprehension, I tried your advice. And it worked! I'm getting married!
Thank you, Mr. Anonymous Coward!
I mean, they must be, since no longer include a dock with most of the iPods.
They also must be backing away from alternating current power, since they don't include an AC adapter with iPod mini any longer.
...
I was just waiting for this to get posted.
Apple is not "backing away" from FireWire.
What's happening is that the iPod is shipping primarily to Windows PC owners. Many of whom, you know, don't have FireWire. And for the small minority who do, it's anyone's guess whether it's a 4-pin or 6-pin connector.
But they all have USB, and most, USB 2.0.
Apple also isn't shipping some iPods with a dock. Does that mean Apple is also "backing away" from the iPod dock?
What Apple is doing is a cost saving measure, plain and simple. ANYONE on any machine running Mac OS or Windows can use USB for syncing, and most of these customers have USB 2.0. including all recent Macs. And if you really want a FireWire cable, you can get one. I really don't see the problem. The iPod retail boxes are also now not platform-specific, as they were previously.
And far from "backing away" from FireWire, Apple is one of the primary members of the 1394 Trade Association, an Apple employee is the Chairman of the Board of the 1394 TA, an Apple employee has perennially been chair of the IEEE-1394 working group, Apple now allows free licensing of the "FireWire" name and logo for all 1394 products, and Apple is shipping 1394b (FireWire 800) on almost all of its products, save some of the "consumer" oriented products, and ALL Apple computers include FireWire. Many include both FireWire 400 (6-pin) and 800 (9-pin).
FireWire is FAR more robust than USB 2.0, and even FireWire 400 is faster in all benchmarks than USB 2.0. FireWire doesn't require a host as USB 2.0; all devices can be peers of one another. Additionally, the latest iterations of FireWire supports speeds up to 3.2 Gbps. There are wireless FireWire over 802.11x implementations planned. See the FireWire 800 Tech Brief for more information.
Additionally, all digital video cameras and decks, including new HDV cameras and decks, include FireWire as the primary - or only - connectivity. Further, starting 1 July 2005, all cable operators must provide a functional FireWire port on all HD digital set top boxes.
So no, Apple isn't "backing away" from FireWire. It's saving money on the new round of iPods by including a cable that 100% of its purchasers are guaranteed to be able to use, instead of a FireWire cable that the Mac users might be able to use, but the vast majority of PC users won't, and even if they HAVE FireWire, would have a 50/50 chance of being the wrong one. Not to mention that Apple got away from the iPod "for Mac" and iPod "for Windows" delineation and now ships them generically for both platforms.
Not to reply again, but there's also things like this in K-12:
Georgia school district looking to get 63,000 iBooks
The University of Wisconsin - Madison has about 8000 Macs.
There are SEVERAL major research universities (University of Michigan, UT-Austin, Stanford, etc.) with several thousand Macs.
The DoE National Laboratories also have several labs that have numbers of Macs in the thousands (LLNL and LANL, for example).
This isn't any surprise.
God, you're a fucking moron.
First of all, the phone jockeys, whether they "know" anything or not, are the primary interface to the customer. I'm not saying *they* were personally, maliciously lying. That's not the fucking point. The point was that somewhere along they line, they were TOLD what to say. Someone, somewhere, within either the telephone call center organization or management instructed the phone staff how to respond to that question. And if they're giving out completely incorrect information, and you KNOW it's incorrect, you're saying that, as a customer, you should just ignore it and/or take it? This isn't a case of the phone staff not knowing something "technical"; this is a case of a company using their main customer interface to actively spread information that is incorrect to shield blame from itself. And yes, that's what it is, whether 1000 people or ten call up about the 30 second skip, which has been an integral feature of DVRs since the birth of TiVo.
This was merely a response to someone who said "don't ever fuck with the 30 second skip", and was pointing out that someone already had. And not only had they fucked with it, but they were, collectively as an organization, lying about why they did, i.e., that it was "illegal" to have a 30 second skip when that is clearly wrong. And no, dipshit, they weren't just "wrong". This wasn't just a "mistake". You don't accidentally specifically say that you can't have a 30 second skip because it's "illegal", and for two different phone agents and two different "supervisors" on separate days to say the same thing. And they weren't stumbling for the answer, they knew exactly what to say. In other words, WHETHER THEY THEMSELVES KNOW WHETHER IT'S ILLEGAL OR NOT IS IRRELEVANT.
But, dumbass, I could give a shit less about Charter's 30 second skip. As I said in my original post, I was TESTING the Charter DVR unit. It is NOT my primary DVR, nor will it ever be. My job responsibilities led me to test several DVRs, one of which was Charter's BMC9012.
Nice job with your stinging reply. Get a fucking brain before you respond next time. I can't believe I had to spell out to you why it's wrong for the customer service/support organization to actively spread incorrect information with a goal of shielding itself from a decision that IT MADE, itself, that negatively impacts the customer.
Your first paragraph starts with putting words in my mouth and generally saying I said things I didn't say. Bravo.
Me? I must confess to recently getting CATV but only because it was a cheap adder over cable net access. I could drop it at any time [...]
And now, you're what we call a "hypocrite".
most the stuff I watch is actually OTA and with my HD card it'll be better OTA than on cable. I also think OTA would get even better if people would stop paying for television.
And, on top of that, an idiot: the OTA channels are LOCAL channels for which LOCAL broadcasters and broadcasting infrastructure exist. How would that get "better", when many of the channels delivered via cable or satellite are specialty channels with specialty content that would never be carried via an OTA operator? Is Discovery or CNN going to set up a broadcasting antenna in every neighborhood across the country? Also, cable operators CARRY HD content, so your OTA HD wouldn't be "better" than cable's HD content. It's digital HD.
How does arguing to be able to use something you paid for make me an "idiot"? And also, you kind of don't make sense: aside from that fact that YOU YOURSELF have cable TV, how does any of my argument equate to "now I'm going to be paying even more", and what, if anything, does that have to do with the Broadcast Flag?
I await what is sure to be an entertaining reply!
Heh. I agree with your argument, but that's actually part of my point:
n t-to-call-it? That's exactly what PVR/DVR technology means: it makes TV shows something to be watched when convenient, if at all, not something engineered to get X number of eyes in front of the tube from 8:00 to 9:01 on Thursday night, for advertising revenue and to pimp the next lame show that we all want to be force fed. No, seriously: no one has to watch it, and yes, everyone can get up and turn it off. And no one has to watch the next show. BUT, what's wrong with having a technological device that makes this easier, in fact, an order of magnitude easier and more functional and convenient than even the VCR?
For many people, for better or worse, DVRs have enabled them to actually HAVE a life. No, I don't mean these people are so pathetic that they need to watch TV at all costs. I only record a couple shows a week myself. But the point is, I don't have to be there. I don't have to think or care whether or not I'm going to miss a show. And in the great scheme of things, it's not important. But neither is going outside or reading a book. But you get to go outside and read a book when YOU CHOOSE. Why not be able to have that same capability for another mechanism of entertainment/learning/relaxation/whatever-you-wa
Gotta call you out on this one.
If you can't record a particular show AT ALL on a DVR, the rest of your argument is meaningless.
The answer isn't "well, you could still hook an analog recording device up" blah blah blah. The device needs to be able to record in its default state. And yes, I agree that all of the niceties of a DVR (lots of space, easy to use, etc.) are all great.
But that's no the point. If you select "Judging Amy" or "Daytona 500" and it says "Sorry, you are not allowed to record this show. This program must be watched live," then that's going backward from things you could do, on equal footing - differences in technology aside - with the VCR. The point isn't that the DVR has a fancy interface or lets you record 200 hours of stuff. The point is whether it LETS you record something at all (in its default state, without a bunch of external equipment or analog connections).
The candidate for whom I voted lost. How am I represented?
By the party that DIDN'T initiate the Broadcast Flag, DMCA, and CBDTPA...
Why don't VCRs have a 30-sec skip feature?
I would hope the answer would be obvious, but it's because VCRs are recording on linear analog tape, and a "30 second skip" in the context of tape would be useless. I mean, yeah, you could have a button that "fast forwards" for 30 seconds, and maybe queues up button presses, but without a way to easily see, instantly, where you are in the video (as you can on a DVR), a 30 second skip isn't really useful.
But the modern "successor" to the VCR, e.g., TiVo, ReplayTV, Media Center - in fact, any product that is a digital video recorder - all have a skip feature, because it makes sense. It's the DVRs that are coming from cable and satellite operators, who are of course very beholden to their content providers, that are disabling the 30 second skip.
For that matter, why don't VCR (and now DVD) players have 2-level sound settings? I've noticed that movies generally have ultra-loud scenes and soft scenes, like battles and conversations; it would be useful to have 2 sound levels set to accomodate these.
I believe that is what the "volume" control is for... But seriously, having two volume presets (e.g., "soft" and "loud" would either be, if preset, 1.) wrong for most people, or, if it allowed you to set each of them either directly or as a ratio to the actual volume, 2.) too difficult for an ordinary person to understand or set up). I don't think that's a "problem" that needs solving.
Yes, of course, you're right...I'm kind of mixing two unrelated issues here. But from a consumer standpoint, they appear very related: cable and satellite operators will use No Record flags, that may not be the Broadcast Flag per se, on their content, and you're stuck with needing their equipment to tune the channels, or do any digital recording of that content. And, they'll be the carriers via which many people will get their local HD content to begin with, and their equipment indeed can and will have the capability to pass the flag mandates, albeit not with the "Broadcast Flag" itself: i'm speaking of the Broadcast Flag in the broad concept that 'do not record', 'record once', or 'free to record' must be respected by cable and satellite operators' equipment and delivery systems even if the settop sitting in your house doesn't respect the Broadcast Flag proper: somewhere along the line, NBC said the HD superbowl or the premiere of HD Las Vegas cannot be recorded, and your cable operator is respecting it with their equipment. Whether the settop in your living room is respecting the flag provisions for that channel itself or whether the operator is enforcing it a couple of layers detached on its network with its own rights management, it's still being enforced.
If all you care about is OTA HDTV/DTV, then sure, go out and get one of the several computer-based or standalone non-flag-compliant HDTV/DTV tuners. But people in many markets will access what are normally their local OTA channels (if they had OTA equipment) via something like a cable operator. And the cable operator will be respecting the flag. If you want to have all sorts of different tuners and equipment, then by all means, go for it, but most ordinary customers won't be able to do this.
...all of the Broadcast Flag plans were in motion up long before Bush became president, during Clinton's presidency. Clinton appointed Michael Powell to the FCC [when he became Chairman, he didn't get any more votes], Clinton signed the DMCA into law, and Fritz Hollings (D) (along with four other Democratic senators) is the sponsor of the CBDTPA (née SSSCA or "DMCA 2").
I'm not saying the parent is speaking to this specifically, but this is just a point of information for others who will no doubt ignorantly vomit out the opposite in this thread.
...to what others have said in response, not only will it still work, but it will still be legal to own, use, AND resell indefinitely.
Buy an HD tuner that doesn't respect the flag before 1 July 2005, or purchase any such preexisting device after 1 July 2005 (all non flag compliant devices can be resold after that date).
But it's not that simple, after all. Because the problem is TUNING the content you want to record, e.g., from a satellite provider or cable operator. And since more and more of the digital content is encrypted, and is only able to be tuned by devices sanctioned by the provider, and all such devices will respect the Broadcast Flag, the answer is to "What can I do to prepare for the Broadcast Flag?" is "Not much."
Unless, of course, you don't mind recording from an analog connection, such as composite video, S-video, or component video. But the FireWire ports that are, for example, also mandated on all HD/digital cable set top boxes after 1 July 2005 will be mostly encrypted. One might ask the question, if they're encrypted, then what the hell good are they? Indeed. But what can you do in the face of a cable provider whose call centers don't even know what FireWire is, or who argues that "technically" the FireWire ports are "functional" (as required by the FCC), even though their output is encrypted.
The real answer, of course, is that these ports will interact with OTHER 5C-compliant FireWire devices that also respect the Broadcast Flag. There's no way around it unless you go analog. And that INCLUDES all the nice things on the EFF's page. Sure, you can tune over-the-air HD channels and record them. And that's great. In some markets, that may account for a lot of content. But you won't be able to digitally record content that is flagged as Record Never that you're paying for from a cable or satellite operator, because you need THEIR EQUIPMENT to tune to those channels. (Or, something like a CableCard in - guess what - another device that respects the flag.)
All in all, we'll be able to do less with our current (i.e., digital) equipment than we could do with equivalent equipment (i.e., the VCR) 30 years ago. And most of the operators won't shoulder any of the blame. They'll just point the finger at laws or at the content providers. And then what is a customer to do? The only thing you really *can* do is write your elected officials, and provide feedback to the FCC. Or, not buy any flag compliant devices, which might ultimately prove to be a very hard thing to do.
In sum: anything you buy now won't guarantee you recording of ALL content you might legitimately have access to, unless you're ONLY concerned about OTA recording.
It's NOT illegal, and it's not semantics.
Something being "illegal" means it's against the law. It's not an issue of semantics. What they said was an outright lie; a fabrication; completely inaccurate.
Do you honestly think that's what they should be telling people? That there's no 30-second skip because it's "against the law"?