Dude, RIAA is gonna be the biggest fan of this... Only not.... Perhaps they'll only enable the audio out if the proper DRM key is inserted?
Digital Quality is a red herring. The real issue is marketing.
Option 1) With the internet and P2P, people can find niche artists. The people then spread their money out over a wide spectrum of artists, rather than only buying top 40 artists because they've only heard of them.
Option 2) With radio, people are exposed to a much smaller number of artists. Fewer artists make much money, but those that do will make a very large amount.
The RIAA desparately wants Option 2. It is a better bussiness model to have one artist sell 10 million records than to have 100 artists sell a hundred thousand records. Why? Because you have to spend less money to market one artist than to market 100 artists.
This entire issue is not about digital quality or stealing music: people don't always care about digital quality and many people buy more music than if they didn't use P2P. It is about the RIAA preserving their bussiness model.
If the RIAA has lost money because of P2P, it is not because people are buying less music, it is because they aren't buying the "right" music.
But ultimately, that could be because the current Pop artists are growing tiresome to the American public.
Interesting fact: at the time of this posting, the parent comment has a score higher than all the scores of all of the postings on the MacSlash page combined.
most users, given the choice will take the least expensive road available to them
No, most will take the easiest road available to them. If people can cheaply buy all music from a reliable central site, many people will. They will decide that it is easier to make the money they must spend than to pirate it.
If people really took the least expensive way rather than the easy way, Linux would have complete market saturation and we'd all walk everywhere because it is cheaper than a car.
And by the way, I think you need to give humanity a little more credit. There are a lot of honest people.
The instant time travel becomes possible, the only possible method for self-preservation is to race to the beginning. After all, how do you know that some far-distant alien race with souls of pure evil won't do the same just out of spite?
If I recall correctly, there's an Asimov book somewhat to that effect. A group of characters goes back to the begining of time and guides history so that not only does this not happen, but humanity is the only intelligent species to evolve anywhere.
This would seem to create a rather strange schism between OS X'x current reigning IM client, Fire.app, and Apple's new iChat offering.
Undoubtedly, anyone who depends on running on two or more messenger systems will stick with Fire. Those who use only AIM will probably switch to Apple's offering. But if this is true, then within any circle of friends it has to be one or the other -- Fire (or your fave) or iChat.
It would be a shame to see Fire die, but with the trend for Macheads to adopt Apple programs, that might very well be what happens.
[Sigh] Back to running two messenging apps again.:(
Yes, but nearly 100% of that worth is from the Time Warner part of AOL. Right now the market values the America OnLine part of AOL at practically nothing. This extreme devaluation is probably about as stupid as the huge market cap they had before, but that's the stock market for you.
That being said, I have heard of no plans to spin off the AOL part of AOLTW. For now the tail will continue to wag the dog.
I noticed this too. Apple's website still says Jaguar on the 24th, but the fact that Jaguar is preloaded is the only bolded item on the G4 feature list.
The truly sad thing is that you know there's some guy out there who will buy a new G4 just to get Jaguar a week early.
Actually, it's a little-known fact that all CD-ROMs do keep the CD stationary, and simply spin the rest of the universe around it. True fact.
In fact it was this fact which lead us to discover the shape of the universe. It is the only one which will simultaniously spin around thousands CDs in different drives.
They lie about being the ones to develop qigong (which has been around for thousands of years)
The first time I asked a practicioner what Falun Gong was, he told me it was a simplified form of a qigong practice that had been practiced for thousands of years. (I then had to ask what qigong was) My point is that this neither implies they came up with qigong nor does it contradict your own statement that qigong is thousands of years old.
They use spirituality to promote their own political agenda
Their agenda: let us practice our brand of spirituality. Man, talk about a misuse of spirituality for political purposes.
getting themselves killed (both by burning themselves...
if you are refering to the self-imolation incident, you should know that it was staged by the Chinese government. Know your facts before you spout off.
Oh -- and they have no political plan that's viable.
More acurately they have no political plan. You talk about a revolution like Falun Gong practicioners are trying to insight one. They aren't. They aren't even lobbying for a foreign overthrow. They don't even lobby for any course of action other countries should take in order to help the human rights situation. All they ever do is try to spread awareness. You may call that irresponsible, but really it is apolitical.
Its members live in society along with the rest of us.
It does not require money from it's adherants. In fact, neither payment nor donations are accepted.
Its teachings are freely avaliable to anyone who wants to read them or hear them. (not copyrighted like Scientology)
The philosophy/religion's founder is neither an object of devotion nor a political figure.
A friend of mine is a practicioner of Falun Gong, and I can testify that he is not a cult member. He is a very spiritual man, but by no stretch of the imagination a cult member. He performs the meditations in the quad of our college and offers information or instruction to anyone who wants it.
Alright, don't believe me? Visit religioustolerance.org and take a look at their page on Falun Gong, the cult question comes up near the bottom of the page.
will remain "Mac OS X" for quite some time. This poses any number of obvious numbering problems
Not like that hasn't been done before. How long exactly did we have "System 7" before MacOS8 came out? I know that it's numbering got at least as high as 7.6.1.
Agreed. But I'm afraid I don't see much of any contradiction between our two statements. Except perhaps that I would attribute part of the suckiness of corporate radio to the suckiness of coporate music.
My point is that radio will not just suck, but be doomed if the event I decribe occur. My argument follows very well into payola. No record company will use payola on a record that will only be downloaded, and the formulas won't kick in to get the song air time if its sales aren't high.
Most of the stuff I hear on the radio around me is standard mainstream music. Not that I have anything in particular against it, but you just don't usually hear any small bands get radio play.
Most stuff. That's key. Beyond that, mainstream doesn't automatically equal bad, some good music does go mainstream. My point is that breaking through to top 40 rotation will be more difficult if fans don't puchase CDs (and yes, I am making a judgement that the more technoliterate tend to listen to better music, that's why many turn to file-sharing in the first place)
I agree with everyone that 18 is not as good an album at not as good a time, but I think Moby's point is valid.
In fact, I'll go a step further, not only does it affect album sales, it is also a bad thing. I have already expressed this opinion to my friends.
If this trend continues, radio will be truly dead to anyone with taste. Only bad bands will consistently make the top 40 and the RIAA may well decide that top 40 band are the only bands worth producing.
I know no one here likes the RIAA, but you must give them their due, they are the primary gateway to popularity. Mass downloading of music, and especially mass downloading of particular types of music which effects sales, will affect what types of music get produced and marketed. Why spend money on marketing if it leads to downloading not sales.
It may be bad for the RIAA in the long run to deemphasize music with substance, but in the mean time, the amount of quality music that is widely available will decline.
It seems like the description of the article gives a misleading picture of the article (not that the first few paragraphs of the article don't as well).
He's not saying that the mac is the worst thing out there and should be discontinued, he's saying that it is the best thing out there and should be discontinued. Though breifly, he states clearly enough that MacOS is better than copycat Windows or too-difficult-for-the-desktop-user-GUI Linux.
My interpretation is that Dvorak expects that because Apple claims innovator status (I would agree with Apple) it should be coming out with some revolutionary new thing. The modern computer in general is obsolete and Apple should abandon the Mac for this "new thing."
Problem is this: Dvorak never even hints at what this revolutionary new product should do. He seems to forget that it is necessity (or at least desire) that leads to innovation. The Mac provided something people needed -- a GUI that a home user could handle. Dvorak doesn't even address what void exists now and how Mac does not fill it.
In my way of thinking, what people want now is stability and streamlined use of the web. OS X has those features in mind. Dvorak discounts the new OS as merely eye-candy and beautification akin to fancy chrome on a car. My experience is contradictory, though. OS X has provided better stability and a better internet experience for me.
Slashdot Mirror
I can just imagine the first online vote. What do you think CowboyNeal would do as prime minister of Canada?
Digital Quality is a red herring. The real issue is marketing.
Option 1) With the internet and P2P, people can find niche artists. The people then spread their money out over a wide spectrum of artists, rather than only buying top 40 artists because they've only heard of them.
Option 2) With radio, people are exposed to a much smaller number of artists. Fewer artists make much money, but those that do will make a very large amount.
The RIAA desparately wants Option 2. It is a better bussiness model to have one artist sell 10 million records than to have 100 artists sell a hundred thousand records. Why? Because you have to spend less money to market one artist than to market 100 artists.
This entire issue is not about digital quality or stealing music: people don't always care about digital quality and many people buy more music than if they didn't use P2P. It is about the RIAA preserving their bussiness model.
If the RIAA has lost money because of P2P, it is not because people are buying less music, it is because they aren't buying the "right" music.
But ultimately, that could be because the current Pop artists are growing tiresome to the American public.
Exactly! The very idea that human can even kill the Earth presupposes the greatest arrogance on the part of humanity.
The Earth will survive anything we do, but we might not be around afterward.
Where? 13 bucks? Holy crap! That's like a third less than I normally have to pay!!
Interesting fact: at the time of this posting, the parent comment has a score higher than all the scores of all of the postings on the MacSlash page combined.
Poor MacSlash, I knew him well.
No, most will take the easiest road available to them. If people can cheaply buy all music from a reliable central site, many people will. They will decide that it is easier to make the money they must spend than to pirate it.
If people really took the least expensive way rather than the easy way, Linux would have complete market saturation and we'd all walk everywhere because it is cheaper than a car.
And by the way, I think you need to give humanity a little more credit. There are a lot of honest people.
If I recall correctly, there's an Asimov book somewhat to that effect. A group of characters goes back to the begining of time and guides history so that not only does this not happen, but humanity is the only intelligent species to evolve anywhere.
I can imagine remote electronic voting.
Undoubtedly, anyone who depends on running on two or more messenger systems will stick with Fire. Those who use only AIM will probably switch to Apple's offering. But if this is true, then within any circle of friends it has to be one or the other -- Fire (or your fave) or iChat.
It would be a shame to see Fire die, but with the trend for Macheads to adopt Apple programs, that might very well be what happens.
[Sigh] Back to running two messenging apps again. :(
Yes, but nearly 100% of that worth is from the Time Warner part of AOL. Right now the market values the America OnLine part of AOL at practically nothing. This extreme devaluation is probably about as stupid as the huge market cap they had before, but that's the stock market for you.
That being said, I have heard of no plans to spin off the AOL part of AOLTW. For now the tail will continue to wag the dog.
The truly sad thing is that you know there's some guy out there who will buy a new G4 just to get Jaguar a week early.
If the law encouraged you to run around naked in public and you decided not to, we might be praising you on some forum somewhere.
Right now I'm playing Missle under Classic, which claims a copyright date of August 1984.
In fact it was this fact which lead us to discover the shape of the universe. It is the only one which will simultaniously spin around thousands CDs in different drives.
Oh, but only if you're on my campus network.
If it is a sham of a religion, how did it get so many followers (including communist officials) before its banning?
The first time I asked a practicioner what Falun Gong was, he told me it was a simplified form of a qigong practice that had been practiced for thousands of years. (I then had to ask what qigong was) My point is that this neither implies they came up with qigong nor does it contradict your own statement that qigong is thousands of years old.
They use spirituality to promote their own political agenda
Their agenda: let us practice our brand of spirituality. Man, talk about a misuse of spirituality for political purposes.
getting themselves killed (both by burning themselves...
if you are refering to the self-imolation incident, you should know that it was staged by the Chinese government. Know your facts before you spout off.
Oh -- and they have no political plan that's viable.
More acurately they have no political plan. You talk about a revolution like Falun Gong practicioners are trying to insight one. They aren't. They aren't even lobbying for a foreign overthrow. They don't even lobby for any course of action other countries should take in order to help the human rights situation. All they ever do is try to spread awareness. You may call that irresponsible, but really it is apolitical.
Yeah, broadcasting twenty seconds of information really causes terror.
The last time I saw a commercial it freaked the hell out of me.
Its members live in society along with the rest of us.
It does not require money from it's adherants. In fact, neither payment nor donations are accepted.
Its teachings are freely avaliable to anyone who wants to read them or hear them. (not copyrighted like Scientology)
The philosophy/religion's founder is neither an object of devotion nor a political figure.
A friend of mine is a practicioner of Falun Gong, and I can testify that he is not a cult member. He is a very spiritual man, but by no stretch of the imagination a cult member. He performs the meditations in the quad of our college and offers information or instruction to anyone who wants it.
Alright, don't believe me? Visit religioustolerance.org and take a look at their page on Falun Gong, the cult question comes up near the bottom of the page.
Not like that hasn't been done before. How long exactly did we have "System 7" before MacOS8 came out? I know that it's numbering got at least as high as 7.6.1.
My point is that radio will not just suck, but be doomed if the event I decribe occur. My argument follows very well into payola. No record company will use payola on a record that will only be downloaded, and the formulas won't kick in to get the song air time if its sales aren't high.
Most stuff. That's key. Beyond that, mainstream doesn't automatically equal bad, some good music does go mainstream. My point is that breaking through to top 40 rotation will be more difficult if fans don't puchase CDs (and yes, I am making a judgement that the more technoliterate tend to listen to better music, that's why many turn to file-sharing in the first place)
In fact, I'll go a step further, not only does it affect album sales, it is also a bad thing. I have already expressed this opinion to my friends.
If this trend continues, radio will be truly dead to anyone with taste. Only bad bands will consistently make the top 40 and the RIAA may well decide that top 40 band are the only bands worth producing.
I know no one here likes the RIAA, but you must give them their due, they are the primary gateway to popularity. Mass downloading of music, and especially mass downloading of particular types of music which effects sales, will affect what types of music get produced and marketed. Why spend money on marketing if it leads to downloading not sales.
It may be bad for the RIAA in the long run to deemphasize music with substance, but in the mean time, the amount of quality music that is widely available will decline.
He's not saying that the mac is the worst thing out there and should be discontinued, he's saying that it is the best thing out there and should be discontinued. Though breifly, he states clearly enough that MacOS is better than copycat Windows or too-difficult-for-the-desktop-user-GUI Linux.
My interpretation is that Dvorak expects that because Apple claims innovator status (I would agree with Apple) it should be coming out with some revolutionary new thing. The modern computer in general is obsolete and Apple should abandon the Mac for this "new thing."
Problem is this: Dvorak never even hints at what this revolutionary new product should do. He seems to forget that it is necessity (or at least desire) that leads to innovation. The Mac provided something people needed -- a GUI that a home user could handle. Dvorak doesn't even address what void exists now and how Mac does not fill it.
In my way of thinking, what people want now is stability and streamlined use of the web. OS X has those features in mind. Dvorak discounts the new OS as merely eye-candy and beautification akin to fancy chrome on a car. My experience is contradictory, though. OS X has provided better stability and a better internet experience for me.
Besides, how can porting more open source stuff be bad?