As someone previously mentioned, they want high quality music for their downloads, not 128kbps MP3 files. I'd agree with that. I won't settle for low quality music as a compromise for easy access.
If Sony sets this up, and offers 128kbps downloads for $9.99, or a CD for $15.99 which you can use to make your own higher quality files, which will you buy? I'd suspect most audiophiles will still pony up for the CD because they want the higher quality. But they'll STILL have a valid desire to be able to download the music they want for a decent price.
If Sony forces lower quality music for the $9.99 charge, and the scheme fails, is it because people won't pay for music? Or is it because people don't want to sacrifice the quality?
It all depends on what your motivation is for writing the software.
If your motivation is purely profit, then yes, open source is a flawed model. It limits the amount of profit you can squeeze out of what you produce. This is, obviously, why Microsoft dislikes open source. Profit is their motive.
However, if your motive is the best possible end product, or saving your company money, or security, or creating something to fit your exact needs, then open source is the perfect model.
Not everything in the world has to succeed purely based on whether it can turn a profit or not. I don't choose my music based on how many albums the artist sold. I don't choose my art based on the price of the paintings. I don't choose my hobbies based on how marketable they are.
To bash open source because it's less "profitable" seems silly to me. That wasn't it's intent or goal. Was Michael Jordan a failure because he was a lousy baseball player? Or was he a success because he was a fantastic basketball player?
Open source is a fantastic success when measured against the goals it set out to reach. It's only when people try to measure it against different, inappropriate standards that it looks less than stellar.
Let open source play it's own way, and ignore the folks who try and measure it by the stats of a different game.
The fact that these memos keep leaking, and yet Microsoft keeps sending them means they're either very stupid, or the number of leaked memos is an insignificant number compared to the number that are sent.
It makes me wonder if there are a ton of memos that we HAVEN'T seen, and what the content of those might be...
They're competing against each other because they're a business. Their business happens to be Linux, but first and foremost, they're a business, created to generate revenue and profits.
We, as users, are happy to see Linux grow and prosper, and wish all the distros well. We want them all to succeed. All for the greater glory of Linux.
But from the perspective of RedHat, someone buying a copy of Mandrake isn't a new convert to Linux, it's someone NOT buying a copy of RedHat. RedHat gets no immediate tangible benefit from someone purchasing a different Linux distro.
And unfortunately, the easiest place to acquire new customers isn't by converting Windows users, it's by stealing current Linux users away from other distros.
What politician who wants to be re-elected would ever vote against a "Privacy Bill"?
I could sponsor legislation to grind up kittens and baby seals to pave our highways, and as long as I named the bill something like the "Privacy Bill", every legislator would vote in favor. No one wants to go on record as being against a "Privacy Bill".
This is one of the flaws in our short-attention-span news coverage. No one investigates in depth. Everyone assumes the name of the bill represents the contents. (PATRIOT Act anyone?) And so we get politicos voting on the name of the bill, rather than the content.
http://www.bk2k.com/bushbodycount/bodies.html
Both lists are a hodgepodge of coincidences, incredible stretches, and faulty conclusions.
Notice many of the names appear on both lists...
[i]'What have you done last week?' They may say they wrote a paper on this or that. So I tell them, 'Oh, you wrote a paper, and you got an A? Would it bother you if somebody could just take that paper and get an A too? Would that bug you?' [/i]
Isn't that exactly what the RIAA is doing? Aren't they taking the work of the artists and using it to get their own "A"s, in the form of lots and lots of dollars?
Maybe RIAA should write their own papers (or create their own music), and stop using the work of others!
Frankly, I've never heard Ms. Rosen sing, I've never seen her dance, and I've never seen a "RIAA's Greatest Hits" CD... so I'm a little confused when she's complaining about us using someone else's work...
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, there's no one here either....
As someone previously mentioned, they want high quality music for their downloads, not 128kbps MP3 files. I'd agree with that. I won't settle for low quality music as a compromise for easy access.
If Sony sets this up, and offers 128kbps downloads for $9.99, or a CD for $15.99 which you can use to make your own higher quality files, which will you buy? I'd suspect most audiophiles will still pony up for the CD because they want the higher quality. But they'll STILL have a valid desire to be able to download the music they want for a decent price.
If Sony forces lower quality music for the $9.99 charge, and the scheme fails, is it because people won't pay for music? Or is it because people don't want to sacrifice the quality?
If your motivation is purely profit, then yes, open source is a flawed model. It limits the amount of profit you can squeeze out of what you produce. This is, obviously, why Microsoft dislikes open source. Profit is their motive.
However, if your motive is the best possible end product, or saving your company money, or security, or creating something to fit your exact needs, then open source is the perfect model.
Not everything in the world has to succeed purely based on whether it can turn a profit or not. I don't choose my music based on how many albums the artist sold. I don't choose my art based on the price of the paintings. I don't choose my hobbies based on how marketable they are.
To bash open source because it's less "profitable" seems silly to me. That wasn't it's intent or goal. Was Michael Jordan a failure because he was a lousy baseball player? Or was he a success because he was a fantastic basketball player?
Open source is a fantastic success when measured against the goals it set out to reach. It's only when people try to measure it against different, inappropriate standards that it looks less than stellar.
Let open source play it's own way, and ignore the folks who try and measure it by the stats of a different game.
It makes me wonder if there are a ton of memos that we HAVEN'T seen, and what the content of those might be...
They're competing against each other because they're a business. Their business happens to be Linux, but first and foremost, they're a business, created to generate revenue and profits.
We, as users, are happy to see Linux grow and prosper, and wish all the distros well. We want them all to succeed. All for the greater glory of Linux.
But from the perspective of RedHat, someone buying a copy of Mandrake isn't a new convert to Linux, it's someone NOT buying a copy of RedHat. RedHat gets no immediate tangible benefit from someone purchasing a different Linux distro.
And unfortunately, the easiest place to acquire new customers isn't by converting Windows users, it's by stealing current Linux users away from other distros.
I could sponsor legislation to grind up kittens and baby seals to pave our highways, and as long as I named the bill something like the "Privacy Bill", every legislator would vote in favor. No one wants to go on record as being against a "Privacy Bill".
This is one of the flaws in our short-attention-span news coverage. No one investigates in depth. Everyone assumes the name of the bill represents the contents. (PATRIOT Act anyone?) And so we get politicos voting on the name of the bill, rather than the content.
No, unfortunately, he's NOT missing. We know right where he's at...in his office, writing bad legislation.
http://www.bk2k.com/bushbodycount/bodies.html Both lists are a hodgepodge of coincidences, incredible stretches, and faulty conclusions. Notice many of the names appear on both lists...
[i]'What have you done last week?' They may say they wrote a paper on this or that. So I tell them, 'Oh, you wrote a paper, and you got an A? Would it bother you if somebody could just take that paper and get an A too? Would that bug you?' [/i] Isn't that exactly what the RIAA is doing? Aren't they taking the work of the artists and using it to get their own "A"s, in the form of lots and lots of dollars? Maybe RIAA should write their own papers (or create their own music), and stop using the work of others! Frankly, I've never heard Ms. Rosen sing, I've never seen her dance, and I've never seen a "RIAA's Greatest Hits" CD... so I'm a little confused when she's complaining about us using someone else's work...