...this reminds me of the scene in fahrenheit 451 (I believe, it's been awhile) where the TV coordinates the entire population to go and look out their front door to locate a fugative. I always found that part particularly scary.
Um, I think we might be in violent agreement here. The only real difference I see here is that I see ways in which content creators can make an adequate living (in some cases more than adequate) without the involvement of huge marketing and distribution corporations that don't actually create content themselves. That the existence of these corporations is an anomaly created by a certain set of circumstances that no longer applies, and the artificial prices and distribution methods they've created will change, regardless of their best efforts to cling to business models that no longer work. I see a time where content creators, instead of seeing a tiny fraction of a large number of sales, sees the majority of what might be a smaller but still significant number of sales. Of a time where word of mouth plays a greater part than marketing dollars in the gauge of an artist's popularity. You see it already -- reel big fish, nine inch nails, radiohead, cherry poppin daddies, groups that are getting out of their contracts and turning to self-production and alternate means of distribution. The world is changing, and ultimately, I believe the changes will benefit the artist.
There will always be annoying individuals, usually anonymous, who want uncontrolled distribution of pirated content. But I think the majority only really want reasonable access at a reasonable price. When I buy content, I should be able to view it on any of my devices at any time without being an alpha geek.
And so, this isn't a race to the bottom, it's a huge market correction that's been a long time coming. A whole bunch of middlemen will have to find some other source of revenue, and artists will become more directly connected to their customers. Prices will necessarily fall, but the percentage going to the content creator will increase significantly.
The wrecking ball may swing back and forth a few times before finally coming to rest in a new position, but it's all self-correcting. If it doesn't pay to create content, less quality content will be created. Some consumers will be willing to pay for higher quality content, which will stimulate the creation of same. The market adjusts.
True, but we don't need piracy to go away. We just need it to reduce to the point where it's not significant. To have zero occurrences amongst 6.9 billion people is not a reasonable goal. To have it shrink to the point where it's no more significant than, say, damage in shipment, is doable, I think, and should be sufficient.
Inconveniencing people who want the product is clearly the wrong path.
> Why are so many insistent on free exchange of copyrighted material?
Such a long, articulate article, to be starting from an incorrect presumption. Oh, I'm sure there are some people who would argue such, but the great majority of us, I think, are insistent on convenient access for a reasonable price. I believe TFA is making the point that when you provide a reasonable product at a reasonable price, piracy plummets. The business model has unrealistic expectations on how much the product is worth, and what hoops the consumer will willingly jump through in order to access the product. This is true in a lot of areas, not just media.
The term "piracy" when it refers to making unauthorized duplications of a copyrighted work is actually in reference to how pirates used to board merchant ships and make exact copies of everything on board, leaving the crew and cargo unharmed, but devaluing the goods slightly.
> Yea, you know what I do when I can't find a movie I want to see by legitimate means? I don't see it, 'cuz I'm not a moral-less pilferer.
You know what I do when I can't find a movie conveniently and cost effectively by legitimate means? I do something else. Because watching movies isn't that important. If the content providers are going to make it too expensive or inconvenient to watch it, I'll walk the dog, or read a book (remember those?) or watch something from a content provider that *does* understand supply and demand. Just sayin'.
The other thing that occurs to me about this is that by branding an incompatible, single marketplace, one-off OS as Windows, and then coming out with it *before* the real product (Surface Pro) Microsoft has again damaged the Windows brand. It may somewhat resemble what you have on the desktop, but users quickly find that it won't run the same applications. Does the company think they're going to say "Oh, I didn't want the RT, I wanted the Pro" and re-buy? Or does the company believe that even a failed product in the ARM space is better than no product at all? Or are they trying to demonstrate the uselessness of platforms based on ARM?
Correct. (7 pro purports to be "touch ready" but it's really just a rebranding of the Accessibility tools.) But at least running 7 it could be used as a regular laptop. With 8, it's well, it's an audio and video player if you care to muck with it and don't mind a somewhat aggravating experience, but it's not really a laptop.
Basically true but also irrelevant. For all practical purposes it may as well be linux given how compatible Windows RT is with Windows 8. There is no way to recompile desktop Windows 8 apps to work on Windows RT. iOS and OSX also share some technology but Apple was at least bright enough to brand them differently since they are not directly compatible at present. Frankly I think Microsoft marketing really screwed up the branding on this one.
What else could they do? Microsoft's only OS brand is Windows, and their only real selling point is "windows everywhere". Back end, desktop, laptop, tablet, phone. That some of those environments are incompatible with each other is an issue, but I don't see where Microsoft has any choice but to double down, even when it hurts them.
The difference is, HP intentionally killed the Touchpad.
How do you know that is really a difference at all...
I started to write, because Microsoft wouldn't... and then I started to write, because that'd be suicide... and then I thought, hmm. I can't come up with a good answer to that.
Windows 7 while a better OS does not have the near touch support that 8 does nor the power saving optimizations and tuning.
You can thank Sinofsky for killing the touch enhancements in the final RC of Windows 7. I think he was already eying WIndows 8 back then.
The thing is, I already have Windows 8 on a laptop (asus) with a touch screen, and it's pants. At least with Windows 7, I'd be able to use it as a laptop, minus the touch screen. With Windows 8, well, I may be able to use it for content consumption, if I did a lot of that, which I don't. But it's too clumsy for content creation.
Wow, there is nothing that comes close to the Lumia 1020 and it's camera. I've been using DSLRs for quite some time. No camera phone has ever been able to hold its own against a DSLR like the NIkon D800... until now.
Thanks for injecting some much needed humor into my day.
I am no Steve Ballmer (I can never decide where to put the chairs). I would however, be well prepared for the meeting tomorrow morning. My suggestion would be a nice thank-you card and a voucher for a free upgraded ultra-sensitive microphone for your XBox One.
I wonder what Microsoft will do for customers who purchased a tablet right before the price drop?"
God, that's funny. I just had an epiphany. When it's time to rearrange the deck chairs (think about it...) Ballmer will have gotten good enough to just toss them to the correct spot.
> It's kind of flabbergasted me that Microsoft hasn't done the same thing with their TV ads
I'm not surprised at all. It's not possible to demonstrate actually apps and not have the consumer coming away thinking "it's just like Windows, only smaller".
Slashdot Mirror
Ok ok ok. Good one.
Um, I think we might be in violent agreement here. The only real difference I see here is that I see ways in which content creators can make an adequate living (in some cases more than adequate) without the involvement of huge marketing and distribution corporations that don't actually create content themselves. That the existence of these corporations is an anomaly created by a certain set of circumstances that no longer applies, and the artificial prices and distribution methods they've created will change, regardless of their best efforts to cling to business models that no longer work. I see a time where content creators, instead of seeing a tiny fraction of a large number of sales, sees the majority of what might be a smaller but still significant number of sales. Of a time where word of mouth plays a greater part than marketing dollars in the gauge of an artist's popularity. You see it already -- reel big fish, nine inch nails, radiohead, cherry poppin daddies, groups that are getting out of their contracts and turning to self-production and alternate means of distribution. The world is changing, and ultimately, I believe the changes will benefit the artist.
There will always be annoying individuals, usually anonymous, who want uncontrolled distribution of pirated content. But I think the majority only really want reasonable access at a reasonable price. When I buy content, I should be able to view it on any of my devices at any time without being an alpha geek.
And so, this isn't a race to the bottom, it's a huge market correction that's been a long time coming. A whole bunch of middlemen will have to find some other source of revenue, and artists will become more directly connected to their customers. Prices will necessarily fall, but the percentage going to the content creator will increase significantly.
The wrecking ball may swing back and forth a few times before finally coming to rest in a new position, but it's all self-correcting. If it doesn't pay to create content, less quality content will be created. Some consumers will be willing to pay for higher quality content, which will stimulate the creation of same. The market adjusts.
> Yes, it does. But piracy won't go away.
True, but we don't need piracy to go away. We just need it to reduce to the point where it's not significant. To have zero occurrences amongst 6.9 billion people is not a reasonable goal. To have it shrink to the point where it's no more significant than, say, damage in shipment, is doable, I think, and should be sufficient.
Inconveniencing people who want the product is clearly the wrong path.
> Why are so many insistent on free exchange of copyrighted material?
Such a long, articulate article, to be starting from an incorrect presumption. Oh, I'm sure there are some people who would argue such, but the great majority of us, I think, are insistent on convenient access for a reasonable price. I believe TFA is making the point that when you provide a reasonable product at a reasonable price, piracy plummets. The business model has unrealistic expectations on how much the product is worth, and what hoops the consumer will willingly jump through in order to access the product. This is true in a lot of areas, not just media.
> Or possibly the people who would pirate music already have most of what they want, and the remainder they can get from friends via a USB drive.
And no new movies or songs are coming out that anyone wants?
Um, wait... actually, that's plausible. Never mind.
The term "piracy" when it refers to making unauthorized duplications of a copyrighted work is actually in reference to how pirates used to board merchant ships and make exact copies of everything on board, leaving the crew and cargo unharmed, but devaluing the goods slightly.
Um, what? I've never heard of this. Citation?
> Yea, you know what I do when I can't find a movie I want to see by legitimate means? I don't see it, 'cuz I'm not a moral-less pilferer.
You know what I do when I can't find a movie conveniently and cost effectively by legitimate means? I do something else. Because watching movies isn't that important. If the content providers are going to make it too expensive or inconvenient to watch it, I'll walk the dog, or read a book (remember those?) or watch something from a content provider that *does* understand supply and demand. Just sayin'.
Portland, OR
Fresno.
Um, what? not even close.
why?
Because it's funny?
Yeah but the US president deserves a nobel peace prize just because he's black? What an achievement!
To be fair, I think it was actually because he isn't Bush.
That assessment turned out to be somewhat incorrect.
Mod way up.
I have to disagree. I think there's a big difference between "I hate America" and "I hate what America's government is doing".
The other thing that occurs to me about this is that by branding an incompatible, single marketplace, one-off OS as Windows, and then coming out with it *before* the real product (Surface Pro) Microsoft has again damaged the Windows brand. It may somewhat resemble what you have on the desktop, but users quickly find that it won't run the same applications. Does the company think they're going to say "Oh, I didn't want the RT, I wanted the Pro" and re-buy? Or does the company believe that even a failed product in the ARM space is better than no product at all? Or are they trying to demonstrate the uselessness of platforms based on ARM?
7 isn't touch compatible.
Correct. (7 pro purports to be "touch ready" but it's really just a rebranding of the Accessibility tools.) But at least running 7 it could be used as a regular laptop. With 8, it's well, it's an audio and video player if you care to muck with it and don't mind a somewhat aggravating experience, but it's not really a laptop.
WRONG It's actually windows 8 compiled for arm.
Basically true but also irrelevant. For all practical purposes it may as well be linux given how compatible Windows RT is with Windows 8. There is no way to recompile desktop Windows 8 apps to work on Windows RT. iOS and OSX also share some technology but Apple was at least bright enough to brand them differently since they are not directly compatible at present. Frankly I think Microsoft marketing really screwed up the branding on this one.
What else could they do? Microsoft's only OS brand is Windows, and their only real selling point is "windows everywhere". Back end, desktop, laptop, tablet, phone. That some of those environments are incompatible with each other is an issue, but I don't see where Microsoft has any choice but to double down, even when it hurts them.
The difference is, HP intentionally killed the Touchpad.
How do you know that is really a difference at all...
I started to write, because Microsoft wouldn't... and then I started to write, because that'd be suicide... and then I thought, hmm. I can't come up with a good answer to that.
Windows 7 while a better OS does not have the near touch support that 8 does nor the power saving optimizations and tuning.
You can thank Sinofsky for killing the touch enhancements in the final RC of Windows 7. I think he was already eying WIndows 8 back then.
The thing is, I already have Windows 8 on a laptop (asus) with a touch screen, and it's pants. At least with Windows 7, I'd be able to use it as a laptop, minus the touch screen. With Windows 8, well, I may be able to use it for content consumption, if I did a lot of that, which I don't. But it's too clumsy for content creation.
Wow, there is nothing that comes close to the Lumia 1020 and it's camera. I've been using DSLRs for quite some time. No camera phone has ever been able to hold its own against a DSLR like the NIkon D800... until now.
Thanks for injecting some much needed humor into my day.
That's a fantastic deal, especially now that RT devices come with Outlook. I need to pick one of these up.
But... didn't the company issue you one?
"Everything else failed, lets sell them at cost price."
But but but... did they really cost $350 to produce? Cost must have been lower than that, right?
I am no Steve Ballmer (I can never decide where to put the chairs). I would however, be well prepared for the meeting tomorrow morning. My suggestion would be a nice thank-you card and a voucher for a free upgraded ultra-sensitive microphone for your XBox One.
I wonder what Microsoft will do for customers who purchased a tablet right before the price drop?"
God, that's funny. I just had an epiphany. When it's time to rearrange the deck chairs (think about it...) Ballmer will have gotten good enough to just toss them to the correct spot.
> It's kind of flabbergasted me that Microsoft hasn't done the same thing with their TV ads
I'm not surprised at all. It's not possible to demonstrate actually apps and not have the consumer coming away thinking "it's just like Windows, only smaller".