Haha, right now I would be laughing my ass off except it's just too sad. The exchange rate may be irrelevant to you, Mr. I-Spend-$15-on-a-Fish-and-Chips-Every-Day, but for Americans who might want to visit or study in England, it's as if half of our life savings just became worthless. (2:1 exchange rate)
America really does seem to be becoming a 3rd-world country in the world marketplace. I don't like to think about what will happen when the next depression sets in....
Oh well. At least there's another excuse for Americans not to leave their own country.:-P
Yes. There's something big you're missing. It's the fact that THERE IS NO VALUE ADDED TAX in America.
There's just a sales tax of 6-10% varying state to state (with the exceptions of Oregon and Delaware, where there's also no sales tax. Also, in many states groceries are exempt from said sales tax).
Anyway, lesson being: If you ever visit America, buy your electronics there. They're WAY cheaper, especially consider the RIDICULOUS EXCHANGE RATE that Europeans now enjoy.
(I'm currently studying in Europe, but my parents are funding me from America. Which ROYALLY SUCKS from our financial perspective (basically since the Euro here gets you about as far as a dollar does in America, it's like there's a blanket 30% tax on everything).)
Eh, we'll see. As with everything MS, it will take them a couple of versions to make a halfway decent product/really start making a dent in market share. Actually, given the potential decline of the mp3-player market due to the rise of iPhone and other music phones, the Zune may be the only "mp3-player only" gadget that ever comes out of Microsoft. But between the software they developed for Zune, Windows Mobile, and Origami, I have a feeling this won't be the last media-centered piece of hardware coming out of MS Labs, nor does it mean that MS will forever continue to fail in this market.
I don't want to seem like a Yahoo fanboy, but.... I just checked the Yahoo homepage, and checked my Yahoo mail account, and there's not a single ad in sight.... I'm using Adblock and Filterset.G updater to automatically block unwanted ads... Perhaps you're just blocking the individual ads instead of the entire host of them? I don't know. I also don't know what you're talking about Re: ads appended to e-mails. Sure, stuff from Yahoo Groups has that, but just regular e-mails? Not in my experience.
It should be noted that I'm using the Yahoo Mail Beta (AJAX interface) and have a Premium Yahoo account (came with Verizon DSL service), so maybe that makes a difference.
DUDE! Just use Firefox with NoScript and enable JavaScript only for the sites you want to enable! I use a variety of Yahoo's beta, JavaScript-employing technologies, and I don't get any wierd pop-ups or other stuff on their site. Nor on any other site, because only the sites I let use JavaScript use it. It's that simple.
While you're at it, get Adblock Plus and Filterset.G Updater, and never worry about annoying banner/flash ads on web pages again.
Actually, Yahoo's Mail Beta and Photos Beta both do a fabulous job of supporting Firefox--the Photos site actually provides a Firefox Extension that lets you drag-and-drop photos onto your browser. What's not so good, unfortunately, is the Mail beta's support for browsers other than the big 3 (IE, Firefox, Opera)--try using it with Konquerer, for instance, and you're out of luck.
Yahoo's main advantage is actually that they have their fingers in so many pies. From a user perspective it actually does make things easier since everything is integrated. I know, because I use a variety of Yahoo services. Example: I can sign on once and access my email, my photos, and my Yahoo Groups account, and I can even add a photo album from my Yahoo Photos to my Yahoo Groups. I could also see at all times when any of my Yahoo-using friends are online with Yahoo Messenger (although unfortunately this feature is useless to me since all of my friends are on AIM). I also use Yahoo! Widgets (previously Konfabulator but now free thanks to Yahoo). The problem is that while Yahoo is very good in certain areas, such as Mail, Photos and Messenger, other areas suck. Example: Their calendar app pales in comparison to Google Calendar (and supports a more limited set of import/export filters), and therefore I don't use it, even though it would be more convenient for me to do so. Another example of a poor implementation of a product: Yahoo bought out MusicMatch jukebox and is offering their own music-download service, with a decent selection and price-range, but to do so they reengineered MusicMatch and the result is an incredibly buggy program that I would never dream of using as my main music player. (Of course I don't buy DRMed music anyway but if I were to do so I would probably go iTunes despite Yahoo's better prices.) Yet another lacking product: Yahoo Auctions. Its interface sucks compared to eBay and last time I tried using it, I couldn't even bid on the thing I wanted because I was told I had to have at least one auction already behind me--wtf?!
So, basically Yahoo has the product line, the advertising muscle and the potential customers all lined up, and it already has a few niche products that are very good (Mail, Photos, Messenger, also Flickr--even tho it should be made free like Yahoo Photos is and the two should be integrated). It just needs to get everything working together better, and give a little more love to specific projects (like Auctions, Music, TV) or else if it's not willing to follow through on their development, cut them off.
Have you considered it might just be in your head? From the moment you came up with the idea that it was caused by the wireless signal, I'd say it's reasonable that you would come to associate pain in your thigh with using that laptop.
About the CompuServe comment: Yes, I find it very ironic. I have a CompuServe (2000, aka "AOL Budget Edition") account, and my parents are still paying for it since my mom still has yet to be completely weened off of it (onto Yahoo Premium, which is included in our Verizon DSL in case you were wondering). The fact that BYOA (bring your own access) AOL members now get a free ride, while we still have to pay about $8 a month, is ludicrous, especially considering the CompuServe software hasn't been updated in many more years than the AOL software, and spam filtering is non-existant, so at this point I get about 100 spam emails a day. Most outrageous of all, though, is that I am blocked out of using certain new AOL services, specifically the new free AOL mail, Pictures, and XDrive. These are services which are free to any and all AOL Instant Messenger account holders, yet I cannot access them despite my having a screenname and paying for it. It really pisses me off.
That said, the fact that I want to use these services goes to show that AOL has some good services at its disposal. I'm particularly impressed with XDrive's now being free, and I've always enjoyed services like Moviefone, Mapquest, and Shoutcast/AOL radio (all of which AOL of course did not originate but still holds the lead with in my book).
I've also recently tested the new OpenRide software, which is free for anyone with a screenname, and it seems pretty well-suited to families/newbies. (Amazingly enough, it even accessed my CompuServe mail for me.) AOL also has a new beta version of AIM out there without advertisements or voice/video chat features for people who just want to do text IM. These are all steps in the right direction. I just wish I could more whole-heartedly support them, given AOL's past record of horrible customer support and the fact that I myself as a paying CompuServe member can't even access half of the stuff.
P.S. As a tip-off: AOL Pictures is actually a knock-off of Yahoo Photos; both allow unlimited storage of full-res photos. I've already been using Yahoo Photos and can testify that it's a great product that beats Flickr anyday in my book since its interface is halfway decent and doesn't cost a cent.
You're absolutely right, the media purveyors have completely lost touch with the consumers. Sony, unfortunately, has been a lost cause for a longer time than most--consider it took it the entire lifetime of its MiniDisc products (aka up until a few months ago) before it allowed people to copy recordings hassle-free from the player back to their computer--of course the MiniDisc format is for all intensive purposes dead, now, since Sony cared too much about restricting the user in favor of supporting their own overbearingly crippling DRM limitations. With the PlayStation 3 and with BluRay, Sony could have had two winners on their hands, but they've decided to shoot themselves in the foot with every new decision they've made--first overpricing the PS3 instead of being willing to take a greater loss on the hardware, then leaving out HDMI from the low-end version so it's effectively useless for HD content anyway (potentially it's greatest would-be selling point). Sony has a consistent history of creating great technology, then botching it horribly because the interests of the draconian-DRM-obsessed chiefs at the top are more important than the interests of the consumers. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if their decisions manage to single-handedly destroy all adoption of the (technically superior) Blu-Ray technology. Too bad, because they had all the cards in their favor.
I disagree. Their KDE userbase IS their existing userbase. While they may pick up more Gnome customers in the future, I doubt that all their KDE fan users are going to jump ship. If they were ever to abandon KDE, it would be the worst publicity story I can possibly imagine.
In any case, I'm glad they're improving Gnome support along with KDE simultaneously. Gnome needs more help, whereas KDE doesn't as much. I'm also glad that they're rewriting Yast--the important thing is that they're improving it, and I'm sure it'll look fine in either environment regardless of the toolkit they use. Same with zen, except of course they botched that one--but ideally they're laying the foundation for improved future technology, and honestly I could care less which toolkit/development environment is behind it as long as they integrate it properly with KDE (which they are unquestionably doing; for evidence see for instance Kerry.
You're right that they have horrible coding practices and beaurocratic structure that cause poor programs to be put out (until at least the 3rd version)... However, they DO need these programs if they're going to compete with Mac OS X and Linux, which in fact provide even more programs. The days of a desktop OS as a stripped-down playing field are over, the days of the OS as a do-everything multi-function device are here.
Whoah there.... I think you're seriously underestimating the commitment Suse still holds to its KDE base. Just check this project out (led by a German Suse engineer I might add)...
Now are you still so upset? Do you STILL think Suse is letting KDE support fall by the wayside and not paying any attention to its users' needs/wants?
BTW, what ever gave you the idea that Gnome is a **default** in the new versions? In SLED maybe, but certainly not in OpenSuse. (Unless you consider a default radio button next to Gnome, with KDE presented equally large as an option right next to it, to be forcing a "default" on you).
Be happy that Suse is developing both DE's and pushing both of them. While I prefer KDE personally, I don't want to see Gnome die just because I like KDE better. As far as I'm concerned, Linux (and Suse in particular) is great because of the wide breadth of tools available, regardless of the toolkit their written in or the DE that the user runs. I will always use the best programs for the job, regardless of toolset, and to be honest Suse does the best job of making both toolkits work seamlessly for me. Lack of good Qt support was actually one of my main reasons for leaving Ubuntu.
...Not to say that THIS player couldn't technically support it, but in general it's a factor with older, more basic players (such as some of the older Sansas). With this model supporting color and video, I'm sure it could do ogg, but the battery life would probably suffer a smigeon.
Also, integrating the open-source code would surely cost at least SOME programming hours... and I doubt it's quite as simple as you think. If it were really so simple to integrate ogg with any and everything, then we would already have an ogg DirectShow filter with tag support...
I have experienced enough DRM headaches with my Sony Minidisc player to be convinced it is a bad idea. In this case, the Sony DRM Nazis decided that with their newer generation of NetMD players, they'd make it impossible to upload anything recorded on the player, period, even though it's stuff I recorded it through a mic onto the MD myself. In addition, once I got a new computer I had to re-rip all of my music just to be able to modify what was already on my music minidiscs.
Now imagine a world where such technology is pervasive, in which there is no original CD to rip from, so I have to buy the music all over again. Maybe a solution can be found, involving ability to transfer files using my fingerprint or something, but that technology doesn't exist yet. Not to mention that DRM doesn't factor in my ability to lend things out. Where does that fit in?
Another thing that worries me is the issue of historical archiving. If all of our data is stored in an actually airtight DRM, how will future generations be able to access it? This may seem silly given the idea that the original is still held unencrypted *SOMEWHERE*, but if a small media corporation were to go under and their original files were to be lost, all we would have would be a few extant DRM-encrypted discs or files. What then?
I feel like consumers would be more willing to pay money for online music if the files had fewer restrictions put on them. I know that if I could recieve 192kbps MP3s from the iTunes music store instead of limited-use limited-device DRMed AACs, I would consider buying from it a lot more strongly. DRM just ends up giving consumers headaches in most instances, and makes just about everything more inconvenient. Until such free-use media is offered for us to buy, people will keep on making illegal use of file-sharing networks.
"Involving test users outside the development team is something that takes preparation, and often money. Is it any wonder that interface design is the weakest link in FOSS?"
I agree with almost everything you say; however, it should be noted that involving test users outside of the development team also comes free with open-source software, since every development release is available to anyone for download. I would argue that money is not the main barrier, but rather a combination of 1) lack of exposure for non-established software 2) lack of willingness of end-users to try untested/unstable software and 3) lack of willingness of coders to implement suggested changes. Hopefully all three of these things are getting better as open-source becomes more mainstream and coders and end-users start paying more attention to each other.
Here's another story. AMD and Cyrix used to be neck-and-neck niche players, manufacturing cheap x86 chip alternatives. AMD bought NexGen and used its chip design for the K6, which was quite successful. That gave it enough capital to design the Athlon. Meanwhile, can you even remember the last time you heard the name Cyrix?
As for 3dfx, nVidia was the company that bought it, because of its Voodoo graphics chips. nVidia. Maybe you've heard of them. I don't know how much Voodoo technology went into later designs, but 3dfx was at least negated as a competitor (and the consolidation helped kill S3 IMHO).
Microsoft bought Hotmail and has since integrated it with its products, to its benefit. Point being, yes, success can be bought, sometimes, temporarily. No technology purchase will provide a permanent solution, however. All of the above examples were replaced with new technology somewhere down the road.
On a different note, and more to the point, Palm and Handspring is a very different situation. The Handspring execs were in fact the original developers of the PalmPilot. The best comparison would be Steve Jobs' return to Apple and the re-invigoration and return to innovation he brought to that company.
As for Palm's purchase of Be, I am skeptical about its utility. I see it as a tragedy, really, because Palm has insisted on holding onto all the BeOS source code. yellowTab Zeta is basically a hack of the half-finished BeOS 6; without the source code, there's only so far they can go before it becomes obsolete and unsupportable. So here's hoping for the success of OpenBeOS.
And here's also hoping for the success of PalmSource, Symbian, Linux, and anything else that can one-up Microsoft. Until the next generation of corporate shortsightedness makes those names obsolete, and the next generation of revolution begins.
Number portability has made me pay silly monthly fees for a service I do not need....I'm a person, not a revenue source!
As already established, you are a revenue source. Big deal. But anyway, in my opinion you should just deal with the added fees. The phone companies didn't want to provide this service--the government imposed it as a new law. And it doesn't cost nothing for the providers to implement the new law--it costs money to modify the technology in order to make it possible.
For the poster who suggested that only the people switching pay, yeah right! Do you realize how much money that would mean? I don't know exactly, but it would make it prohibitively expensive to switch providers while holding onto your number. It would negate the entire point of the new law. By sharing fees among users, the costs are shared, for the greater good of those consumers in a position to benefit (and just because it doesn't apply to you right now doesn't mean that it's a stupid idea).
However, it seems like the possiblity exists for your provider to extract ridiculous, overestimated sums from you, and never lower the charge back once they're done with upgrades. The government really should have, in my opinion, attempted to regulate this aspect a bit more--for example, by setting limits as to how much the companies could charge, and for how long.
Either that, or the government itself could have raised the money from taxes and distributed it to the phone companies. But no one wants to may more taxes, now, do they?
It's a lose-lose situation from your perspective, perhaps, but I believe it's a positive change for the majority. And thank God they did it now before the old ways became totally entrenched.
Also... Wasn't the point of this article to talk about experiences switching providers? Up until now, it's just been bitching and moaning, with no one actually having any real experience to speak of. Oh, wait, I forgot. It's slashdot.
Re:One weakness of both articles: free always wins
on
Economics of File-Sharing
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't think the RIAA is too upset about people downloading small numbers of unknown artist's music.
You're right there, and maybe I did go a bit far with the "smart listener" as victim.
I should also note that after reading the "How the Top 40 Works" article, I realize that it's even more of a closed loop than I thought--listener requests have much less influence than "playlists" which are in turn influenced by the labels.
All they are upset about is that they do their job only to have the consumer reneg on their side of the bargain and download their products for free, but only after benefiting from the music industry's work and investment. The proof that they have held up their end is that the consumer vastly prefers to steal music industry supported artists.
There you're wrong. That the consumer "vastly prefers to steal music industry supported artists" proves nothing about whether they held up their end of the bargain, because 1) it's being downloaded based on its familiarity, not its quality, and 2) it's being downloaded because it's not seen as valuable enough to buy.
Re:One weakness of both articles: free always wins
on
Economics of File-Sharing
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
While it's true that many gawk at buying music when they've got broadband and KaZaA, I think there's a decent population that would be willing to pay for music, on CD or otherwise, if it came with extras such as interesting CD booklets (or downloadable versions thereof).
But as for this article, it misses the point that it itself initially makes: the companies aren't investing in the search for the artists.
This is enabled by an aspect of the music industry that the author doesn't take into account: MTV and radio. The way it works is basically: Industry says to MTV: play this music video; MTV plays it repeatedly; the video is seen enough times that the song get stuck in viewers' heads; the viewers then request the song on radio; and finally the song gets played so much via radio that everyone knows it and are brainwashed into buying the album, because it's got that song they know and love. The song could be absolute crap in comparison to everything else, mind you, it's just a matter of what the industry decides to support. Generally the looks of the artists are the deciding factor.
Only rarely does truly original, interesting new music get played on the mainstream radio stations, and then it's usually a battle for it to really become "mainstream" (because, after all, it's not a music video on MTV so no one's heard of it).
So, basically, since the recording companies CAN control listeners' preferences, they do. Smarter listeners (the ones who seek out interesting music themselves), on the other hand, have no easy way to connect into the closed media-driven circuit. And they end up downloading music online, or copying it or ripping it, simply because there is no easier way of discovering interesting music short of shelling out tons of cash.
Therefore, the problem that needs to be solved is that the industry needs to do its job and seek out the good music, not make up for its laziness by offering cash-back incentives, as the article suggests.
Until this starts happening, I don't see any reason I should go into Sam Goody.
Even if banks don't use Microsoft's backend, services will (IM, **secure digital media** (think about that new deal with AOL Time Warner), games, online stores, and at the pinnacle of Microsoft's plans, Office itself as a service).
Slashdot Mirror
"The current exchange rate is irrelevant...."
:-P
Haha, right now I would be laughing my ass off except it's just too sad. The exchange rate may be irrelevant to you, Mr. I-Spend-$15-on-a-Fish-and-Chips-Every-Day, but for Americans who might want to visit or study in England, it's as if half of our life savings just became worthless. (2:1 exchange rate)
America really does seem to be becoming a 3rd-world country in the world marketplace. I don't like to think about what will happen when the next depression sets in....
Oh well. At least there's another excuse for Americans not to leave their own country.
Yes. There's something big you're missing. It's the fact that THERE IS NO VALUE ADDED TAX in America.
There's just a sales tax of 6-10% varying state to state (with the exceptions of Oregon and Delaware, where there's also no sales tax. Also, in many states groceries are exempt from said sales tax).
Anyway, lesson being: If you ever visit America, buy your electronics there. They're WAY cheaper, especially consider the RIDICULOUS EXCHANGE RATE that Europeans now enjoy.
(I'm currently studying in Europe, but my parents are funding me from America. Which ROYALLY SUCKS from our financial perspective (basically since the Euro here gets you about as far as a dollar does in America, it's like there's a blanket 30% tax on everything).)
Eh, we'll see. As with everything MS, it will take them a couple of versions to make a halfway decent product/really start making a dent in market share. Actually, given the potential decline of the mp3-player market due to the rise of iPhone and other music phones, the Zune may be the only "mp3-player only" gadget that ever comes out of Microsoft. But between the software they developed for Zune, Windows Mobile, and Origami, I have a feeling this won't be the last media-centered piece of hardware coming out of MS Labs, nor does it mean that MS will forever continue to fail in this market.
I don't want to seem like a Yahoo fanboy, but.... I just checked the Yahoo homepage, and checked my Yahoo mail account, and there's not a single ad in sight.... I'm using Adblock and Filterset.G updater to automatically block unwanted ads... Perhaps you're just blocking the individual ads instead of the entire host of them? I don't know. I also don't know what you're talking about Re: ads appended to e-mails. Sure, stuff from Yahoo Groups has that, but just regular e-mails? Not in my experience.
It should be noted that I'm using the Yahoo Mail Beta (AJAX interface) and have a Premium Yahoo account (came with Verizon DSL service), so maybe that makes a difference.
Cheers
Mike
DUDE! Just use Firefox with NoScript and enable JavaScript only for the sites you want to enable! I use a variety of Yahoo's beta, JavaScript-employing technologies, and I don't get any wierd pop-ups or other stuff on their site. Nor on any other site, because only the sites I let use JavaScript use it. It's that simple.
While you're at it, get Adblock Plus and Filterset.G Updater, and never worry about annoying banner/flash ads on web pages again.
Actually, Yahoo's Mail Beta and Photos Beta both do a fabulous job of supporting Firefox--the Photos site actually provides a Firefox Extension that lets you drag-and-drop photos onto your browser. What's not so good, unfortunately, is the Mail beta's support for browsers other than the big 3 (IE, Firefox, Opera)--try using it with Konquerer, for instance, and you're out of luck.
Yahoo's main advantage is actually that they have their fingers in so many pies. From a user perspective it actually does make things easier since everything is integrated. I know, because I use a variety of Yahoo services. Example: I can sign on once and access my email, my photos, and my Yahoo Groups account, and I can even add a photo album from my Yahoo Photos to my Yahoo Groups. I could also see at all times when any of my Yahoo-using friends are online with Yahoo Messenger (although unfortunately this feature is useless to me since all of my friends are on AIM). I also use Yahoo! Widgets (previously Konfabulator but now free thanks to Yahoo). The problem is that while Yahoo is very good in certain areas, such as Mail, Photos and Messenger, other areas suck. Example: Their calendar app pales in comparison to Google Calendar (and supports a more limited set of import/export filters), and therefore I don't use it, even though it would be more convenient for me to do so. Another example of a poor implementation of a product: Yahoo bought out MusicMatch jukebox and is offering their own music-download service, with a decent selection and price-range, but to do so they reengineered MusicMatch and the result is an incredibly buggy program that I would never dream of using as my main music player. (Of course I don't buy DRMed music anyway but if I were to do so I would probably go iTunes despite Yahoo's better prices.) Yet another lacking product: Yahoo Auctions. Its interface sucks compared to eBay and last time I tried using it, I couldn't even bid on the thing I wanted because I was told I had to have at least one auction already behind me--wtf?!
So, basically Yahoo has the product line, the advertising muscle and the potential customers all lined up, and it already has a few niche products that are very good (Mail, Photos, Messenger, also Flickr--even tho it should be made free like Yahoo Photos is and the two should be integrated). It just needs to get everything working together better, and give a little more love to specific projects (like Auctions, Music, TV) or else if it's not willing to follow through on their development, cut them off.
Have you considered it might just be in your head? From the moment you came up with the idea that it was caused by the wireless signal, I'd say it's reasonable that you would come to associate pain in your thigh with using that laptop.
Easy reason, probably the reason most people hang onto AOL: they don't want to give up their e-mail address.
About the CompuServe comment: Yes, I find it very ironic. I have a CompuServe (2000, aka "AOL Budget Edition") account, and my parents are still paying for it since my mom still has yet to be completely weened off of it (onto Yahoo Premium, which is included in our Verizon DSL in case you were wondering). The fact that BYOA (bring your own access) AOL members now get a free ride, while we still have to pay about $8 a month, is ludicrous, especially considering the CompuServe software hasn't been updated in many more years than the AOL software, and spam filtering is non-existant, so at this point I get about 100 spam emails a day. Most outrageous of all, though, is that I am blocked out of using certain new AOL services, specifically the new free AOL mail, Pictures, and XDrive. These are services which are free to any and all AOL Instant Messenger account holders, yet I cannot access them despite my having a screenname and paying for it. It really pisses me off.
That said, the fact that I want to use these services goes to show that AOL has some good services at its disposal. I'm particularly impressed with XDrive's now being free, and I've always enjoyed services like Moviefone, Mapquest, and Shoutcast/AOL radio (all of which AOL of course did not originate but still holds the lead with in my book).
I've also recently tested the new OpenRide software, which is free for anyone with a screenname, and it seems pretty well-suited to families/newbies. (Amazingly enough, it even accessed my CompuServe mail for me.) AOL also has a new beta version of AIM out there without advertisements or voice/video chat features for people who just want to do text IM. These are all steps in the right direction. I just wish I could more whole-heartedly support them, given AOL's past record of horrible customer support and the fact that I myself as a paying CompuServe member can't even access half of the stuff.
P.S. As a tip-off: AOL Pictures is actually a knock-off of Yahoo Photos; both allow unlimited storage of full-res photos. I've already been using Yahoo Photos and can testify that it's a great product that beats Flickr anyday in my book since its interface is halfway decent and doesn't cost a cent.
You're absolutely right, the media purveyors have completely lost touch with the consumers. Sony, unfortunately, has been a lost cause for a longer time than most--consider it took it the entire lifetime of its MiniDisc products (aka up until a few months ago) before it allowed people to copy recordings hassle-free from the player back to their computer--of course the MiniDisc format is for all intensive purposes dead, now, since Sony cared too much about restricting the user in favor of supporting their own overbearingly crippling DRM limitations. With the PlayStation 3 and with BluRay, Sony could have had two winners on their hands, but they've decided to shoot themselves in the foot with every new decision they've made--first overpricing the PS3 instead of being willing to take a greater loss on the hardware, then leaving out HDMI from the low-end version so it's effectively useless for HD content anyway (potentially it's greatest would-be selling point). Sony has a consistent history of creating great technology, then botching it horribly because the interests of the draconian-DRM-obsessed chiefs at the top are more important than the interests of the consumers. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if their decisions manage to single-handedly destroy all adoption of the (technically superior) Blu-Ray technology. Too bad, because they had all the cards in their favor.
In any case, I'm glad they're improving Gnome support along with KDE simultaneously. Gnome needs more help, whereas KDE doesn't as much. I'm also glad that they're rewriting Yast--the important thing is that they're improving it, and I'm sure it'll look fine in either environment regardless of the toolkit they use. Same with zen, except of course they botched that one--but ideally they're laying the foundation for improved future technology, and honestly I could care less which toolkit/development environment is behind it as long as they integrate it properly with KDE (which they are unquestionably doing; for evidence see for instance Kerry.
You're right that they have horrible coding practices and beaurocratic structure that cause poor programs to be put out (until at least the 3rd version)... However, they DO need these programs if they're going to compete with Mac OS X and Linux, which in fact provide even more programs. The days of a desktop OS as a stripped-down playing field are over, the days of the OS as a do-everything multi-function device are here.
Now are you still so upset? Do you STILL think Suse is letting KDE support fall by the wayside and not paying any attention to its users' needs/wants?
BTW, what ever gave you the idea that Gnome is a **default** in the new versions? In SLED maybe, but certainly not in OpenSuse. (Unless you consider a default radio button next to Gnome, with KDE presented equally large as an option right next to it, to be forcing a "default" on you). Be happy that Suse is developing both DE's and pushing both of them. While I prefer KDE personally, I don't want to see Gnome die just because I like KDE better. As far as I'm concerned, Linux (and Suse in particular) is great because of the wide breadth of tools available, regardless of the toolkit their written in or the DE that the user runs. I will always use the best programs for the job, regardless of toolset, and to be honest Suse does the best job of making both toolkits work seamlessly for me. Lack of good Qt support was actually one of my main reasons for leaving Ubuntu.
...Not to say that THIS player couldn't technically support it, but in general it's a factor with older, more basic players (such as some of the older Sansas). With this model supporting color and video, I'm sure it could do ogg, but the battery life would probably suffer a smigeon.
Also, integrating the open-source code would surely cost at least SOME programming hours... and I doubt it's quite as simple as you think. If it were really so simple to integrate ogg with any and everything, then we would already have an ogg DirectShow filter with tag support...
Actually, it would cost more processing power--ogg's higher level of compression demands faster, more powerful chips. That means added cost.
I have experienced enough DRM headaches with my Sony Minidisc player to be convinced it is a bad idea. In this case, the Sony DRM Nazis decided that with their newer generation of NetMD players, they'd make it impossible to upload anything recorded on the player, period, even though it's stuff I recorded it through a mic onto the MD myself. In addition, once I got a new computer I had to re-rip all of my music just to be able to modify what was already on my music minidiscs.
Now imagine a world where such technology is pervasive, in which there is no original CD to rip from, so I have to buy the music all over again. Maybe a solution can be found, involving ability to transfer files using my fingerprint or something, but that technology doesn't exist yet. Not to mention that DRM doesn't factor in my ability to lend things out. Where does that fit in?
Another thing that worries me is the issue of historical archiving. If all of our data is stored in an actually airtight DRM, how will future generations be able to access it? This may seem silly given the idea that the original is still held unencrypted *SOMEWHERE*, but if a small media corporation were to go under and their original files were to be lost, all we would have would be a few extant DRM-encrypted discs or files. What then?
I feel like consumers would be more willing to pay money for online music if the files had fewer restrictions put on them. I know that if I could recieve 192kbps MP3s from the iTunes music store instead of limited-use limited-device DRMed AACs, I would consider buying from it a lot more strongly. DRM just ends up giving consumers headaches in most instances, and makes just about everything more inconvenient. Until such free-use media is offered for us to buy, people will keep on making illegal use of file-sharing networks.
"Involving test users outside the development team is something that takes preparation, and often money. Is it any wonder that interface design is the weakest link in FOSS?"
I agree with almost everything you say; however, it should be noted that involving test users outside of the development team also comes free with open-source software, since every development release is available to anyone for download. I would argue that money is not the main barrier, but rather a combination of 1) lack of exposure for non-established software 2) lack of willingness of end-users to try untested/unstable software and 3) lack of willingness of coders to implement suggested changes. Hopefully all three of these things are getting better as open-source becomes more mainstream and coders and end-users start paying more attention to each other.
Here's another story. AMD and Cyrix used to be neck-and-neck niche players, manufacturing cheap x86 chip alternatives. AMD bought NexGen and used its chip design for the K6, which was quite successful. That gave it enough capital to design the Athlon. Meanwhile, can you even remember the last time you heard the name Cyrix?
As for 3dfx, nVidia was the company that bought it, because of its Voodoo graphics chips. nVidia. Maybe you've heard of them. I don't know how much Voodoo technology went into later designs, but 3dfx was at least negated as a competitor (and the consolidation helped kill S3 IMHO).
Microsoft bought Hotmail and has since integrated it with its products, to its benefit. Point being, yes, success can be bought, sometimes, temporarily. No technology purchase will provide a permanent solution, however. All of the above examples were replaced with new technology somewhere down the road.
On a different note, and more to the point, Palm and Handspring is a very different situation. The Handspring execs were in fact the original developers of the PalmPilot. The best comparison would be Steve Jobs' return to Apple and the re-invigoration and return to innovation he brought to that company.
As for Palm's purchase of Be, I am skeptical about its utility. I see it as a tragedy, really, because Palm has insisted on holding onto all the BeOS source code. yellowTab Zeta is basically a hack of the half-finished BeOS 6; without the source code, there's only so far they can go before it becomes obsolete and unsupportable. So here's hoping for the success of OpenBeOS.
And here's also hoping for the success of PalmSource, Symbian, Linux, and anything else that can one-up Microsoft. Until the next generation of corporate shortsightedness makes those names obsolete, and the next generation of revolution begins.
But no one wants to may more taxes, now, do they?
Ahem, --pay-- more taxes...
Take Thanksgiving, combine it with dyslexia....hgra...
Number portability has made me pay silly monthly fees for a service I do not need. ...I'm a person, not a revenue source!
As already established, you are a revenue source. Big deal. But anyway, in my opinion you should just deal with the added fees. The phone companies didn't want to provide this service--the government imposed it as a new law. And it doesn't cost nothing for the providers to implement the new law--it costs money to modify the technology in order to make it possible.
For the poster who suggested that only the people switching pay, yeah right! Do you realize how much money that would mean? I don't know exactly, but it would make it prohibitively expensive to switch providers while holding onto your number. It would negate the entire point of the new law. By sharing fees among users, the costs are shared, for the greater good of those consumers in a position to benefit (and just because it doesn't apply to you right now doesn't mean that it's a stupid idea).
However, it seems like the possiblity exists for your provider to extract ridiculous, overestimated sums from you, and never lower the charge back once they're done with upgrades. The government really should have, in my opinion, attempted to regulate this aspect a bit more--for example, by setting limits as to how much the companies could charge, and for how long.
Either that, or the government itself could have raised the money from taxes and distributed it to the phone companies. But no one wants to may more taxes, now, do they?
It's a lose-lose situation from your perspective, perhaps, but I believe it's a positive change for the majority. And thank God they did it now before the old ways became totally entrenched.
Also... Wasn't the point of this article to talk about experiences switching providers? Up until now, it's just been bitching and moaning, with no one actually having any real experience to speak of. Oh, wait, I forgot. It's slashdot.
I don't think the RIAA is too upset about people downloading small numbers of unknown artist's music.
You're right there, and maybe I did go a bit far with the "smart listener" as victim.
I should also note that after reading the "How the Top 40 Works" article, I realize that it's even more of a closed loop than I thought--listener requests have much less influence than "playlists" which are in turn influenced by the labels.
All they are upset about is that they do their job only to have the consumer reneg on their side of the bargain and download their products for free, but only after benefiting from the music industry's work and investment. The proof that they have held up their end is that the consumer vastly prefers to steal music industry supported artists.
There you're wrong. That the consumer "vastly prefers to steal music industry supported artists" proves nothing about whether they held up their end of the bargain, because 1) it's being downloaded based on its familiarity, not its quality, and 2) it's being downloaded because it's not seen as valuable enough to buy.
While it's true that many gawk at buying music when they've got broadband and KaZaA, I think there's a decent population that would be willing to pay for music, on CD or otherwise, if it came with extras such as interesting CD booklets (or downloadable versions thereof).
But as for this article, it misses the point that it itself initially makes: the companies aren't investing in the search for the artists.
This is enabled by an aspect of the music industry that the author doesn't take into account: MTV and radio. The way it works is basically: Industry says to MTV: play this music video; MTV plays it repeatedly; the video is seen enough times that the song get stuck in viewers' heads; the viewers then request the song on radio; and finally the song gets played so much via radio that everyone knows it and are brainwashed into buying the album, because it's got that song they know and love. The song could be absolute crap in comparison to everything else, mind you, it's just a matter of what the industry decides to support. Generally the looks of the artists are the deciding factor.
Only rarely does truly original, interesting new music get played on the mainstream radio stations, and then it's usually a battle for it to really become "mainstream" (because, after all, it's not a music video on MTV so no one's heard of it).
So, basically, since the recording companies CAN control listeners' preferences, they do. Smarter listeners (the ones who seek out interesting music themselves), on the other hand, have no easy way to connect into the closed media-driven circuit. And they end up downloading music online, or copying it or ripping it, simply because there is no easier way of discovering interesting music short of shelling out tons of cash.
Therefore, the problem that needs to be solved is that the industry needs to do its job and seek out the good music, not make up for its laziness by offering cash-back incentives, as the article suggests.
Until this starts happening, I don't see any reason I should go into Sam Goody.
Even if banks don't use Microsoft's backend, services will (IM, **secure digital media** (think about that new deal with AOL Time Warner), games, online stores, and at the pinnacle of Microsoft's plans, Office itself as a service).
Hello???? M O Z I L L A. How is IE the only game in town??????