Of course there will be. Some people don't know any better. However, I don't think Sony will be able to get any real traction, let alone momentum, with this offering.
When Mossberg, of the WSJ, gives the Sony gadget a terrible review, many wealthy people will read it, and possibly use it as a guidee when making a purchase for themselves, their children, or grandchildren. Mossberg reaches a pretty large audience through the WSJ (and also through CNBC, where he is often a guest.)
Also, I think Mossberg's review will be the prototype of many other reviews. The failings of Sony are pretty obvious; only the most ardent astroturfer will overlook or minimize them.
Personally, I think Sony's best bet would be to go the Hewlett-Packard route, and get a licensing deal with Apple.
I might be mistaken, but Zero Conf was developed by an Apple employee named Stuart Cheshire and others at the IETFas an open standard. Are these the "University dudes" you're to whom you are refering?
Further, from what I've read, zeroconf seems to be loosely based on Appletalk.
That's as absurd as saying that it's not the Army's fault we're having problems bringing peace to Iraq and the Middle East, it's the President's fault.
I think the argument could be made that Jib Jab is making fun of both the candidates and the song, or at least the common perception of the song (the last few verses are usually left off the song as they aren't the most optimistic).
Satirizing the candidates for president does not rule out that the song is being parodized in a secondary manner.
Lastly, as noted elsewhere, there is some question of whether Guthrie released the song into the public domain and whether the current copyright owners improperly reclaimed it from the public domain.
I think you're right, but I thought of a twisted counter example.
What if Apple maintained that Fairplay was protecting the iPod from unauthorized DRMed content? I.e., that because Fairplay was protecting the iPod, that Real was circumventing?
Yeah, it's pretty far fetched, I know. Sometimes I think like a lawyer.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but the implication seemed to be that Hoover had a monopoly sized marketshare. But I'm not always the brightest and you clarified your point, so. ..
My point is that a year from now, there might be a product out that blows Apple's offerings away. Or perhaps a cell phone with an iPod mini sized HD will be given away by the cellular providers. It's hard to predict at this point of the race, although we can grant that Apple's horse is comfortably in the lead.
Second, I'd really be suprised if the RIAA let that come to pass. They still control the rights, and they can easily which online service gets which artists to a large degree. The only real threat to the record companies is if a large number of big acts dealt directly with Apple for distribution. Say U2 and twenty other bands of similar stature went over the heads of the RIAA and made a deal directly with Apple. If this where to happen, though, while it would certainly increase the power of Apple to an amazing degree, it would also increase the power of the artists. I think that only something like this will truly be the death knell for the RIAA.
Lastly, forgive me for putting words into your mouth. Given the context, i.e., the post you were responding to, I understood you to be saying something else. Thanks for clarifying.
There actually has been no word that Real tried to just license the technology. The story that was reported was that Real wanted to "partner" with Apple and form an "alliance". Back around 1999 or 2000 was when an alliance should have been formed. You don't wait until you're practically irrellevant to form an alliance, when you have nothing to bring to the table.
In light of Real's actions since, how much do you want to bet that they asked for this "partnership" while brandishing a big stick? My guess is that all they had to offer was the threat of this software. That would be blackmail.
Now, this is conjecture, of course. But it fits the facts as well as anything else.
Hey fuckface. Just kidding. Had to break the streak. =)
There are few, if any, perfect analogies. I just notice that the ones you see most on/., usually having to do with comparing automobiles to computers, are severely flawed and break down faster than a Harley Davidson. (Heh heh)
Anyways, I too see a potential for good to come out of all this despite my negative feelings towards Real. If Real goes forward with licensing this technology, Apple will be forced to further open up licensing of Fairplay, and they will need to license it at prices competitive with the psuedo-Fairplay. While this will be detrimental to the profitability of iTMS, it will actually be a major blow against MS's DRM schemes.
And, as you say, iTMS will have to compete on it's own merits (which I believe it is already quite well) without the proprietary crutch.
A lot of people are crying for Apple's blood, when Apple really hasn't done anything yet. I think there's a lot of people with iPod envy (how many of the people shouting "I bought it, I can do anything I want with it" are speaking more than theoretically?) or with a more generalized Apple envy.
Me? I'm waiting to see what Apple does next. Can they make lemonade out of the lemons Real handed them? Or will Steve's ego and stubborness get the better of him, and Apple loses the war by trying to win the battle? It could go either way.
So, you're saying that Hoover has a monopoly on vacuums, and TIVO has a monopoly on PVRs? I guess then that means Coca Cola has a monopoly on softdrinks, Singer has a monopoly sewing machines, Levi-Strauss has a monopoly on pants, Jello has a monopoly on gelatin based desserts, Planters has a monopoly on peanuts. . ..am I getting through here?
Being the established major player or having brand name recognition does not a monopoly make.
Besides which:
It's far too early to tell if Apple will ever reach monopoly status. It's too soon to tell if they can maintain their "major player" status.
If it ever does control 95% of the MP3 player market, the RIAA companies will still control the rights to the content.
Monopolies themselves are not illegal. The case against MS was that they abused their monopoly power on the OS side to destroy competition in the browser segment.
Yeah, this is actually my biggest objection with the Apple press release. Legal saber rattling, even mentioning the DMCA, eh, it's to be expected. But to slam hackers like this, given the company's roots, i.e., Woz and others is really really bad.
I think all the rest of this "controversy" is just your typical slashdot sound and fury, signifying nothing. I'm going to wait and see what Apple actually does before I get my hackles up.
I'd calm down a little. Apple hasn't said that they're suing Real under DMCA, they said they're examining at their options, which may include using the DMCA. It's very preliminary saber rattling by Apple's legal department.
I think that if Apple ultimately does use the DMCA, it would be a bad thing, but frankly, I'm not sure if they have the legal basis to use it. The only way, near as I can tell, is if they claimed that Fairplay was designed to protect the iPod from unauthorized music from vendors such as real. This seems pretty absurd to me, but you never know how these things work themselves out.
Anyway, I just wanted to offer some calming words before you went to the supermarket and started putting razor blades into Apples. That was my first reaction too.
Slashdot Mirror
Sony has become more schizophrenic than most hardware manufacturers.
Because the "synergies" from Sony Entertainment are driving the hardware business into the ground.
Sony is going to have to decide, at some point, which is more important to them, selling content or selling hardware.
I think this device pretty much shows what they decided.
and all this time I thought Samsung Means to Come
Of course there will be. Some people don't know any better. However, I don't think Sony will be able to get any real traction, let alone momentum, with this offering.
When Mossberg, of the WSJ, gives the Sony gadget a terrible review, many wealthy people will read it, and possibly use it as a guidee when making a purchase for themselves, their children, or grandchildren. Mossberg reaches a pretty large audience through the WSJ (and also through CNBC, where he is often a guest.)
Also, I think Mossberg's review will be the prototype of many other reviews. The failings of Sony are pretty obvious; only the most ardent astroturfer will overlook or minimize them.
Personally, I think Sony's best bet would be to go the Hewlett-Packard route, and get a licensing deal with Apple.
I might be mistaken, but Zero Conf was developed by an Apple employee named Stuart Cheshire and others at the IETF as an open standard. Are these the "University dudes" you're to whom you are refering?
Further, from what I've read, zeroconf seems to be loosely based on Appletalk.
That's as absurd as saying that it's not the Army's fault we're having problems bringing peace to Iraq and the Middle East, it's the President's fault.
Yeah, I'm trolling. =)
Dude, you're 5 years too late. Wet dog shit has totally sold out, which is why you hear it Clear Channel all the time these days.
I bet you didn't like X-files, either. =P
Hmmmmm, and why would that be? Because of the Republican chip implanted at the base of your spine?
Dunh-dunh-DUNH!!!!
Ha ha, look who thinks he's a Republican! Well, so long as he votes Republican, let him have his illusions.
No, you're wrong. Perhaps you're right about non-transfer of copyright. I don't know, that's a whole 'nother topic.
But a descendant can provide insight into the intentions and wishes of the creator who has passed.
I think the argument could be made that Jib Jab is making fun of both the candidates and the song, or at least the common perception of the song (the last few verses are usually left off the song as they aren't the most optimistic).
Satirizing the candidates for president does not rule out that the song is being parodized in a secondary manner.
Lastly, as noted elsewhere, there is some question of whether Guthrie released the song into the public domain and whether the current copyright owners improperly reclaimed it from the public domain.
Yo mama so Real she exist in FIVE dimensions!
Hey, that worked! Really cool! So how long do we have to wait for O'Reilly to publish your book, "Slashdot Hacks"?
You know, that's about as funny as[buffering. . . .0%]
I think you're right, but I thought of a twisted counter example.
What if Apple maintained that Fairplay was protecting the iPod from unauthorized DRMed content? I.e., that because Fairplay was protecting the iPod, that Real was circumventing?
Yeah, it's pretty far fetched, I know. Sometimes I think like a lawyer.
You're real.
=)
Maybe I misunderstood you, but the implication seemed to be that Hoover had a monopoly sized marketshare. But I'm not always the brightest and you clarified your point, so. . .
My point is that a year from now, there might be a product out that blows Apple's offerings away. Or perhaps a cell phone with an iPod mini sized HD will be given away by the cellular providers. It's hard to predict at this point of the race, although we can grant that Apple's horse is comfortably in the lead.
Second, I'd really be suprised if the RIAA let that come to pass. They still control the rights, and they can easily which online service gets which artists to a large degree. The only real threat to the record companies is if a large number of big acts dealt directly with Apple for distribution. Say U2 and twenty other bands of similar stature went over the heads of the RIAA and made a deal directly with Apple. If this where to happen, though, while it would certainly increase the power of Apple to an amazing degree, it would also increase the power of the artists. I think that only something like this will truly be the death knell for the RIAA.
Lastly, forgive me for putting words into your mouth. Given the context, i.e., the post you were responding to, I understood you to be saying something else. Thanks for clarifying.
Well spank me with a hotwheel track.
There actually has been no word that Real tried to just license the technology. The story that was reported was that Real wanted to "partner" with Apple and form an "alliance". Back around 1999 or 2000 was when an alliance should have been formed. You don't wait until you're practically irrellevant to form an alliance, when you have nothing to bring to the table.
In light of Real's actions since, how much do you want to bet that they asked for this "partnership" while brandishing a big stick? My guess is that all they had to offer was the threat of this software. That would be blackmail.
Now, this is conjecture, of course. But it fits the facts as well as anything else.
WAV = AIFF with slightly different header information. You can convert losslessly.
Hey fuckface. Just kidding. Had to break the streak. =)
/., usually having to do with comparing automobiles to computers, are severely flawed and break down faster than a Harley Davidson. (Heh heh)
There are few, if any, perfect analogies. I just notice that the ones you see most on
Anyways, I too see a potential for good to come out of all this despite my negative feelings towards Real. If Real goes forward with licensing this technology, Apple will be forced to further open up licensing of Fairplay, and they will need to license it at prices competitive with the psuedo-Fairplay. While this will be detrimental to the profitability of iTMS, it will actually be a major blow against MS's DRM schemes.
And, as you say, iTMS will have to compete on it's own merits (which I believe it is already quite well) without the proprietary crutch.
A lot of people are crying for Apple's blood, when Apple really hasn't done anything yet. I think there's a lot of people with iPod envy (how many of the people shouting "I bought it, I can do anything I want with it" are speaking more than theoretically?) or with a more generalized Apple envy.
Me? I'm waiting to see what Apple does next. Can they make lemonade out of the lemons Real handed them? Or will Steve's ego and stubborness get the better of him, and Apple loses the war by trying to win the battle? It could go either way.
Being the established major player or having brand name recognition does not a monopoly make.
Besides which:
It's far too early to tell if Apple will ever reach monopoly status. It's too soon to tell if they can maintain their "major player" status.
If it ever does control 95% of the MP3 player market, the RIAA companies will still control the rights to the content.
Monopolies themselves are not illegal. The case against MS was that they abused their monopoly power on the OS side to destroy competition in the browser segment.
The last two quarters, Apple made a small profit on iTMS. Who's to say that someday this small profit won't eventually become a large one?
Yeah, this is actually my biggest objection with the Apple press release. Legal saber rattling, even mentioning the DMCA, eh, it's to be expected. But to slam hackers like this, given the company's roots, i.e., Woz and others is really really bad.
I think all the rest of this "controversy" is just your typical slashdot sound and fury, signifying nothing. I'm going to wait and see what Apple actually does before I get my hackles up.
I recently read somewhere that MS's success was a fluke; they lucked out because IBM bent over at precisely the right moment.
I'd calm down a little. Apple hasn't said that they're suing Real under DMCA, they said they're examining at their options, which may include using the DMCA. It's very preliminary saber rattling by Apple's legal department.
I think that if Apple ultimately does use the DMCA, it would be a bad thing, but frankly, I'm not sure if they have the legal basis to use it. The only way, near as I can tell, is if they claimed that Fairplay was designed to protect the iPod from unauthorized music from vendors such as real. This seems pretty absurd to me, but you never know how these things work themselves out.
Anyway, I just wanted to offer some calming words before you went to the supermarket and started putting razor blades into Apples. That was my first reaction too.