This is idiotic; what would stop someone from driving to AZ, NV or Oregon and buy a TV from another state?
Well, given that the two largest population centers (SF Bay, LA) are not a 20 minute drive to the border, how much money would be saved driving out of state? The cost of gas to drive to and from the border would outweigh the savings on a cheaper, less-efficient set. On top of that, the energy bill for the TV will be higher over its lifetime. If you are going to be buying a huge TV, then you'll need an SUV or a big truck, and that doesn't sound like a cheap tank of gas.
Most people in CA don't live close to the border. Driving out of state will save how much money on a TV? How much will that cost? And this is all just to buy a less-efficient TV?
I think most people will just buy a TV at Best Buy and call it a day.
From what I understand, Amazon and iTunes are not purchasing options. I could be wrong.
Re:Whiners of all countries, unite!
on
One-Tweet Wonders
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There are several points to Twitter, but not all or none of them may apply to you. The one that has the most value to me is search. If there is an earthquake or some other breaking news story, you'll read about it online soonest via Twitter search.
Twitter content is like content on the web: some of it is valuable, but most of it is garbage. If you have a good search tool, you can more quickly get to the real value and out of the noise. Don't be distracted by the mindless chatter. And, if it turns out to be a fad, it will be gone soon enough.
You are correct in that if you have the mp3 files in your possession that you can listen to them should Lala go under. But Lala doesn't take away your files. All Lala does is allow you to listen to them through a web browser if you upload them to us. Then, this whole "network DRM" thing does is really make sure that you can listen to your own bytes. It's really just authentication.
On top of that feature, though, Lala also lets you listen to songs you don't own. The first listen of any song is free, at least. So this "network DRM" just prevents someone from grabbing the URL to one song and then posting that URL around. Some files are your own bytes that only you should have access to, and some files are in the catalog that anyone can potentially listen to.
Now, the 10-cent price-point for a streaming-only song comes with the limitation of being web-based. Some people like this product, others don't. If you don't, that's fine, and that's your option to not pay for a more limited product. But some people appreciate the much lower cost for "web songs", especially since they can apply those 10 cents toward an mp3 purchase if they decide to actually buy the DRM-free mp3. I like it (but I'm clearly biased) because I work at a computer all day with headphones and then listen to music through my computer at home. I'd rather not spend $0.99 per track, and I'm too lazy to use BT that often.
The article mischaracterizes the company and our product. There is a hefty chunk of FUD in there. Lala is like the Amazon mp3 store with two major additions: the 10-cent stream-only product, and an online collection. It is that straight-forward at its foundation.
People like you (or the vast majority of/. users) can grab the stream, sure. We know that, and the labels know that, too. We just don't want to make it dead simple. Plus, if you don't want to spend any money on music then don't. Use BT instead. You can get higher-quality rips from BT than a 128kbps file meant for streaming on a site. A sound-card loopback is amateur, and the packet-sniffing is overkill. There are easier ways.
The company may flop in the end, but the numbers don't show that at the moment.
Again, the whole point of the "network DRM" is just to prevent people from casually grabbing the file that we stream. You can call that DRM or call it one-time URLs and authentication.
As an employee of Lala I can tell you that we're definitely not evil. At least I don't think so.
Yes, we have a scanner. Downloading it and running it is completely optional. The only thing we do with it is to grant access to allow you to stream the music you already own. It's not a conspiracy, seriously. It ties in directly to the concept of putting your music collection online. If we can get people to use Lala like some people use iTunes (which requires all your music to have people use it regularly), then we'll have more opportunities to sell them DRM-free mp3s.
But we also have a 10-cent price-point for unlimited streaming of a song. You pay 10 cents and you can then stream that song on the website as much as you want. It goes into your online collection. That is there to help us cover our licensing costs that we pay to the labels. Will it work? Some people like it. Are they fools to buy it? Depends on your perspective, but there is always the risk that Lala goes out of business, sure.
So you combine the 10-cent "web song" which lives in your online collection with the music you already own (we don't care where you got the files), and now there is only one place to go to access your music, and that is Lala. That's the concept, at least.
Yeah, we got investment from a music label. They are not a controlling interest, and they have never approached us with any evil demand for info on what people upload. They agreed to this feature (after having sued others over the same concept years earlier) because they have learned lessons of the past. They have a long way to go, though. They're slowing learning.
As a Lala employee, I recommend you try the site out. Michael Robertson likes to mischaracterize our product because his competing product isn't doing too well. This network DRM thing is what it is, but basically it means that we don't make it easy to just download the mp3 that gets streamed. If it weren't called DRM you wouldn't thing of it that way. You'd probably just think of it as trying to prevent leechers. We sell mp3s, and those are just plain mp3s, nothing special, no DRM. It's just the streaming part of it where we put in some safeguards. We know (and the labels, too) that people who don't want to pay for music won't pay. But it's a snap to build a tool that will let you grab any stream. The point, again, is to make it annoying enough to try to grab the stream that it isn't worth trying to get it from us.
One hour is not enough. If you can stick with it for a few days it will learn what sites/pages you go to when typing s.l.a... For me, I was checking the iPhone availability page on Apple's website. Now, when I type in the letter 'a' it gives me the right link the first line.
Because it also looks at the title of the page, when I type in "amazon" it shows me the link to the email in my Gmail account that has the link to track my Amazon order. That's useful. I was about to head to Amazon's site and drill into my account, but instead I was only a click or two away from seeing the tracking info. If I want amazon.com I can instead hold down the control key and hit enter. I see it as more fast options in front of me.
I say you should give it some time first. It does take an adjustment, but it seems to pay off in the end.
In the US the cost of a call from a landline depends on where the recipient is located. If it is long distance it costs more. Usually local calls are wrapped into the basic rate and cost nothing beyond that per call.
I got my cell number in my hometown so my parents can make a free local call (from their landline) to contact me regardless of where I am located. In Europe, is the cost of a call to a landline phone different than the cost of a call to a cell phone?
If you're a music fan, it doesn't take that many albums for the pirate site to be a strictly better deal *even considering the time investment* - unless you're Donald Trump or something. Then you should have your personal assistant do it.
Another piece of it is that I can afford it, it's no big deal. I don't buy DVDs because I think they're overpriced and there are plenty of alternatives. I've grabbed movies online, and also have software to rip DVDs from Netflix. But I eventually gave up on ripping the movies since I just don't care about being a media archiver. Now, I'm talking about movies which are somewhat different, but my view is the same: media will only get easier to aquire/access as time goes on. I don't need to maintain my music and movie collection anymore. My personal pictures and movies are what I care about, not any album I can find online. So spending the time to stay minimally up to date as far as what sites work and which ones are more hassle just isn't worth it.
With music I generally listen to a somewhat small collection at any one time. What's the point of hording 100s of GB when I don't listen to it anymore and it is readily accessible elsewhere?
I've heard it said that, at this point, people will pay for digital goods like music and movies for two reasons: convenience and/or quality.
I am in love with Firebug and have been for about 2 years now. The biggest things that are lacking in other browsers' dev tools are breakpoints in Javascript and the ability to inspect the HTML + CSS, including the ability to do live editing. I was very disappointed when Safari was announced for Windows, but really only because of the lack of dev tools. And Safari 3 is a lot better than Safari 2, so that helps as well.
Firebug lite is just too light. If you are in a desperate pinch, maybe, but for regular dev it's a lot easier to just do everything in FF with Firebug and then tweak for IE.
I wouldn't characterize the product as song rental. A rental implies that you are paying for a limited time use. It's more like a sub-license from Lala. It really is just to pay the bills for streaming.
There are various ways that Lala makes money, but the free streaming was intended to be used just as you used it: as a loss-leader. It gets you in the door and lets you experience more music in an easy way. After that you can pay 10 cents to stream that song as many times as you'd like, or 89 cents to download the MP3, or you can buy the CD or even trade your old CDs to get it.
The service was intended to be used just as you have. Some will like and use the web song concept, others will just use it to hear a track now and then, and others will use it to buy MP3s. It just depends on the person. Either way, if you're just a person who never spends a dime, you might tell your friend who will.
Imeem has a lot of ads and their business model makes it tough to see how they would be eager to give you access on any device that won't be able to show you ads. Lala has a desire to give access to your collection as many places as possible (desktop, cell phone, set-top box, etc.) so that people find value in the 10 cents spent.
Some will find imeem to be great for them. Others will like lala better.
If you're talking about searching for music, yeah, I do that sometimes. But the search results aren't always the quality that I want. I'll give it a shot, but the hassle isn't worth it to me. To each his own.
I thought that Hulu was going to turn into a POS, but I like it a lot, they've done a pretty decent job. I'm willing to accept the ads since the quality is good and the ads aren't too intrusive. It's just a trade-off and everyone has their own tolerance.
Slashdot Mirror
If I lived in Utah I would be happy to drive 2 hours for some beers.
This is idiotic; what would stop someone from driving to AZ, NV or Oregon and buy a TV from another state?
Well, given that the two largest population centers (SF Bay, LA) are not a 20 minute drive to the border, how much money would be saved driving out of state? The cost of gas to drive to and from the border would outweigh the savings on a cheaper, less-efficient set. On top of that, the energy bill for the TV will be higher over its lifetime. If you are going to be buying a huge TV, then you'll need an SUV or a big truck, and that doesn't sound like a cheap tank of gas.
Most people in CA don't live close to the border. Driving out of state will save how much money on a TV? How much will that cost? And this is all just to buy a less-efficient TV?
I think most people will just buy a TV at Best Buy and call it a day.
From what I understand, Amazon and iTunes are not purchasing options. I could be wrong.
There are several points to Twitter, but not all or none of them may apply to you. The one that has the most value to me is search. If there is an earthquake or some other breaking news story, you'll read about it online soonest via Twitter search.
Twitter content is like content on the web: some of it is valuable, but most of it is garbage. If you have a good search tool, you can more quickly get to the real value and out of the noise. Don't be distracted by the mindless chatter. And, if it turns out to be a fad, it will be gone soon enough.
...now there's only one place you want to go to access your music...
Thanks. :)
I need to get back to coding.
You are correct in that if you have the mp3 files in your possession that you can listen to them should Lala go under. But Lala doesn't take away your files. All Lala does is allow you to listen to them through a web browser if you upload them to us. Then, this whole "network DRM" thing does is really make sure that you can listen to your own bytes. It's really just authentication.
On top of that feature, though, Lala also lets you listen to songs you don't own. The first listen of any song is free, at least. So this "network DRM" just prevents someone from grabbing the URL to one song and then posting that URL around. Some files are your own bytes that only you should have access to, and some files are in the catalog that anyone can potentially listen to.
Now, the 10-cent price-point for a streaming-only song comes with the limitation of being web-based. Some people like this product, others don't. If you don't, that's fine, and that's your option to not pay for a more limited product. But some people appreciate the much lower cost for "web songs", especially since they can apply those 10 cents toward an mp3 purchase if they decide to actually buy the DRM-free mp3. I like it (but I'm clearly biased) because I work at a computer all day with headphones and then listen to music through my computer at home. I'd rather not spend $0.99 per track, and I'm too lazy to use BT that often.
The article mischaracterizes the company and our product. There is a hefty chunk of FUD in there. Lala is like the Amazon mp3 store with two major additions: the 10-cent stream-only product, and an online collection. It is that straight-forward at its foundation.
People like you (or the vast majority of /. users) can grab the stream, sure. We know that, and the labels know that, too. We just don't want to make it dead simple. Plus, if you don't want to spend any money on music then don't. Use BT instead. You can get higher-quality rips from BT than a 128kbps file meant for streaming on a site. A sound-card loopback is amateur, and the packet-sniffing is overkill. There are easier ways.
The company may flop in the end, but the numbers don't show that at the moment.
Again, the whole point of the "network DRM" is just to prevent people from casually grabbing the file that we stream. You can call that DRM or call it one-time URLs and authentication.
And it's spelled "moron".
As an employee of Lala I can tell you that we're definitely not evil. At least I don't think so.
Yes, we have a scanner. Downloading it and running it is completely optional. The only thing we do with it is to grant access to allow you to stream the music you already own. It's not a conspiracy, seriously. It ties in directly to the concept of putting your music collection online. If we can get people to use Lala like some people use iTunes (which requires all your music to have people use it regularly), then we'll have more opportunities to sell them DRM-free mp3s.
But we also have a 10-cent price-point for unlimited streaming of a song. You pay 10 cents and you can then stream that song on the website as much as you want. It goes into your online collection. That is there to help us cover our licensing costs that we pay to the labels. Will it work? Some people like it. Are they fools to buy it? Depends on your perspective, but there is always the risk that Lala goes out of business, sure.
So you combine the 10-cent "web song" which lives in your online collection with the music you already own (we don't care where you got the files), and now there is only one place to go to access your music, and that is Lala. That's the concept, at least.
Yeah, we got investment from a music label. They are not a controlling interest, and they have never approached us with any evil demand for info on what people upload. They agreed to this feature (after having sued others over the same concept years earlier) because they have learned lessons of the past. They have a long way to go, though. They're slowing learning.
As a Lala employee, I recommend you try the site out. Michael Robertson likes to mischaracterize our product because his competing product isn't doing too well. This network DRM thing is what it is, but basically it means that we don't make it easy to just download the mp3 that gets streamed. If it weren't called DRM you wouldn't thing of it that way. You'd probably just think of it as trying to prevent leechers. We sell mp3s, and those are just plain mp3s, nothing special, no DRM. It's just the streaming part of it where we put in some safeguards. We know (and the labels, too) that people who don't want to pay for music won't pay. But it's a snap to build a tool that will let you grab any stream. The point, again, is to make it annoying enough to try to grab the stream that it isn't worth trying to get it from us.
If you purchase MP3s from Lala, they are regular MP3s and there is no DRM, network-based or otherwise.
If you buy the MP3, it is yours and downloaded to your computer. The patent doesn't cover plain MP3 purchases, just streaming.
According to the stats from the website I work for, Chrome is #4 (just over 2% of traffic) and Opera is #5 (0.7%).
One hour is not enough. If you can stick with it for a few days it will learn what sites/pages you go to when typing s.l.a... For me, I was checking the iPhone availability page on Apple's website. Now, when I type in the letter 'a' it gives me the right link the first line.
Because it also looks at the title of the page, when I type in "amazon" it shows me the link to the email in my Gmail account that has the link to track my Amazon order. That's useful. I was about to head to Amazon's site and drill into my account, but instead I was only a click or two away from seeing the tracking info. If I want amazon.com I can instead hold down the control key and hit enter. I see it as more fast options in front of me.
I say you should give it some time first. It does take an adjustment, but it seems to pay off in the end.
In the US the cost of a call from a landline depends on where the recipient is located. If it is long distance it costs more. Usually local calls are wrapped into the basic rate and cost nothing beyond that per call.
I got my cell number in my hometown so my parents can make a free local call (from their landline) to contact me regardless of where I am located. In Europe, is the cost of a call to a landline phone different than the cost of a call to a cell phone?
Another piece of it is that I can afford it, it's no big deal. I don't buy DVDs because I think they're overpriced and there are plenty of alternatives. I've grabbed movies online, and also have software to rip DVDs from Netflix. But I eventually gave up on ripping the movies since I just don't care about being a media archiver. Now, I'm talking about movies which are somewhat different, but my view is the same: media will only get easier to aquire/access as time goes on. I don't need to maintain my music and movie collection anymore. My personal pictures and movies are what I care about, not any album I can find online. So spending the time to stay minimally up to date as far as what sites work and which ones are more hassle just isn't worth it.
With music I generally listen to a somewhat small collection at any one time. What's the point of hording 100s of GB when I don't listen to it anymore and it is readily accessible elsewhere?
I've heard it said that, at this point, people will pay for digital goods like music and movies for two reasons: convenience and/or quality.
And I'm done rambling now...
I am in love with Firebug and have been for about 2 years now. The biggest things that are lacking in other browsers' dev tools are breakpoints in Javascript and the ability to inspect the HTML + CSS, including the ability to do live editing. I was very disappointed when Safari was announced for Windows, but really only because of the lack of dev tools. And Safari 3 is a lot better than Safari 2, so that helps as well.
What tools do you use on Safari?
Firebug lite is just too light. If you are in a desperate pinch, maybe, but for regular dev it's a lot easier to just do everything in FF with Firebug and then tweak for IE.
I wouldn't characterize the product as song rental. A rental implies that you are paying for a limited time use. It's more like a sub-license from Lala. It really is just to pay the bills for streaming.
There are various ways that Lala makes money, but the free streaming was intended to be used just as you used it: as a loss-leader. It gets you in the door and lets you experience more music in an easy way. After that you can pay 10 cents to stream that song as many times as you'd like, or 89 cents to download the MP3, or you can buy the CD or even trade your old CDs to get it.
The service was intended to be used just as you have. Some will like and use the web song concept, others will just use it to hear a track now and then, and others will use it to buy MP3s. It just depends on the person. Either way, if you're just a person who never spends a dime, you might tell your friend who will.
Imeem has a lot of ads and their business model makes it tough to see how they would be eager to give you access on any device that won't be able to show you ads. Lala has a desire to give access to your collection as many places as possible (desktop, cell phone, set-top box, etc.) so that people find value in the 10 cents spent.
Some will find imeem to be great for them. Others will like lala better.
If you're talking about searching for music, yeah, I do that sometimes. But the search results aren't always the quality that I want. I'll give it a shot, but the hassle isn't worth it to me. To each his own.
CD trading is not going away, no. Hopefully an increase is users will mean more people that can be introduced to trading.
Time will tell.
I thought that Hulu was going to turn into a POS, but I like it a lot, they've done a pretty decent job. I'm willing to accept the ads since the quality is good and the ads aren't too intrusive. It's just a trade-off and everyone has their own tolerance.