Doesn't this mean that overall, fewer people are watching DVDs? This couldn't have to do with the quality of the content?
When people ask me why shouldn't they torrent movies, I say Netflix is cheap enough, convenient enough, and timely enough to be a reasonable substitution for torrenting. Now the studios think crippling rentals will increase sales? I'd say "what are they smoking?" but this is Hollywood, after all...
Whew! I was trying to figure out how I was going to fit my dog in a smart car. But now that I know my truck has less carbon footprint than my dog, I guess I'll keep it.
I'd like to point out that Libertarians do not all have the same beliefs. We tend not to blindly adhere to every plank of some party platform.
This particular libertarian thinks that if you create a product, you have the right to charge whatever you want for it, including nothing. I personally don't see how a free market proponent can argue differently. Sometimes it takes a free or extremely cheap product to bust up a monopoly, when legal and market maneuvers continue to force a price that the product is no longer worth. I think any real Libertarian would argue against government intervention, but there's something extremely satisfying in watching regular people successfully compete against software giants in their spare time. I would argue strongly that this is how the free market is supposed to work. If you're trying to charge a high price for something that another person is giving away for free, chances are there's something wrong with your business model.
Oh c'mon, it's not about online movies. This is yet another try at switching users from purchase to long-term rental, in the face of clear evidence that consumers do not want this. Disney clearly hasn't learned anything from DIVX and the 48 hour self-destructing DVD. They seem to think that all they need to do is find the right technology and the right marketing technique, and they can continue to depends on rebuys for a significant part of their revenue stream, despite that business model being dead since the VHS days.
When I purchase a movie, I don't want the content to be out in "the cloud", depending on services that will inevitably go TU some day, or depend on "phoning home" for permission to play the media I have purchased. I want a physical, non-encumbered archival copy, else it's just a high priced rental, competing unsuccessfully against dirt-cheap rentals like Netflix.
> The fact that you're competent in one field does not give you much credibility in other fields.
I think this is the phrase of the day. I can think of sooo many people who need this tattooed on their foreheads, backwards so they can read it in the mirror.
I wonder if it's still necessary for SCO to die. It depends on what their next step is. It would be interesting if what they cast off was the litigation side, and what they decided to concentrate on is producing a product. Wait wait wait, stop laughing, I didn't (necessarily) mean that as a joke. What would be the industry's reaction if the remains of SCO actually decided to enter the business of product development? Have they blown their credibility so bad that there's no turning back? Or could they survive as a (very small) software company?
"SCO" is just a name. It's a name with a nasty history, but it's the people, not the company, that made it what it was. With different people in charge, it might serve a positive role in the industry.
Agreed, banning photoshop is nonsensical. It's not the tool, it's the use to which it is put.
This sounds like a job for the swarm. There's a lot more people out there with photoshop experience, able to spot these kinds of manipulations, than these companies could hope to pursue. Let's not leave it just to Photoshop Disaster. If a few thousand geeks pursue them relentlessly, we could see real results.
Sorry, to any TV execs who may be listening, I watch every commercial with my shopping list in my lap.
Seriously, in a time when the Tivo sounds (bo-beep, be-boop, donk donk donk) are immediately recognizable to much of TV watching America, is there any point in pretending anymore?
Yes, I know the usual arguments, but I think Sanctuary, Doctor Horrible, et al, have proven that an engrossing story can be had through unconventional means.
And really -- I've only seen the first fifteen minutes of Stargate Universe so far (daughter wanted to watch Big Bang) but everything I've seen so far could be accomplished with a high school gym, a cast of unknowns, and a row of Macs. Maybe a small render farm on the back-end. It's the writing, not all the other stuff.
And interestingly enough, writers are the ones so often pissed on by the industry. This leaves the people responsible for the guts of the shows you watch looking for different business models where they can maybe get a larger slice of a smaller pie.
I think all that's holding together the old TV business model are the non-technical boomers who grew up with the old TV watching model -- climb into the barcolounger, remote in one hand, sixpack in the other, and let the TV connect to your brain from the beginning of prime time to the end of the 11:00 news. Once they start to die out, conventional TV is going to be in big trouble.
> Unlike Taco, I would be very happy to see ridiculous numbers of adds during every episode of SGU. The reason is quite simple. Adds pay for TV. The shows exist as a way to get people to watch adds.
Right, and any nerd worth his propeller hat skips over them anyway.
I have to disagree. The marketing for Windows 95 was masterful. The marketing of Windows XP was at least adequate. Now we have incomprehensible ads featuring Gates and Seinfeld, and cringe-worthy Windows 7 Party promotions. Is the company so sure of their position that they no longer think their campaigns need to be vetted?
We've been using menus for a quarter century. Everyone over the age of 3 knows that if you click on a word at the top of the frame, you'll get a drop-down. I can't find anything in the latest version of Word. I'm sure the ribbon will be intuitive as soon as I get used to it... wait, that isn't really the definition of intuitive, is it?
Slashdot Mirror
If Windows 7 doesn't get a huge initial fanbase, who would do quality testing?
Ok, so now, to change radio stations, besides driving you also have to watch out for police cars. Yeah, that increases safety.
Doesn't this mean that overall, fewer people are watching DVDs? This couldn't have to do with the quality of the content?
When people ask me why shouldn't they torrent movies, I say Netflix is cheap enough, convenient enough, and timely enough to be a reasonable substitution for torrenting. Now the studios think crippling rentals will increase sales? I'd say "what are they smoking?" but this is Hollywood, after all...
"It'll come up any minute now..."
(4) They're about to change the pst spec to a different closed standard with some backwards compatibility.
Whew! I was trying to figure out how I was going to fit my dog in a smart car. But now that I know my truck has less carbon footprint than my dog, I guess I'll keep it.
I'd like to point out that Libertarians do not all have the same beliefs. We tend not to blindly adhere to every plank of some party platform.
This particular libertarian thinks that if you create a product, you have the right to charge whatever you want for it, including nothing. I personally don't see how a free market proponent can argue differently. Sometimes it takes a free or extremely cheap product to bust up a monopoly, when legal and market maneuvers continue to force a price that the product is no longer worth. I think any real Libertarian would argue against government intervention, but there's something extremely satisfying in watching regular people successfully compete against software giants in their spare time. I would argue strongly that this is how the free market is supposed to work. If you're trying to charge a high price for something that another person is giving away for free, chances are there's something wrong with your business model.
Sing or play unencumbered songs from independent groups. The added bonus is that you get to spread the word about indie groups.
> Exactly in line with their argument, I could say that Nature abhors the Chicago Cubs
I thought that was already a given.
Instead of going to such lengths to protect 80-year-old films, why don't they put that effort into producing some decent new titles?
> Thus Disney is in the problematic position of having a durable physical medium that may cause an eventual saturation of their target market.
Indeed. Test by: Go to any of the larger Salvation Army outlets, and check their DVD section.
Oh c'mon, it's not about online movies. This is yet another try at switching users from purchase to long-term rental, in the face of clear evidence that consumers do not want this. Disney clearly hasn't learned anything from DIVX and the 48 hour self-destructing DVD. They seem to think that all they need to do is find the right technology and the right marketing technique, and they can continue to depends on rebuys for a significant part of their revenue stream, despite that business model being dead since the VHS days.
When I purchase a movie, I don't want the content to be out in "the cloud", depending on services that will inevitably go TU some day, or depend on "phoning home" for permission to play the media I have purchased. I want a physical, non-encumbered archival copy, else it's just a high priced rental, competing unsuccessfully against dirt-cheap rentals like Netflix.
Google appliance...
> Fusion is difficult, REALLY difficult. But once it gets working, it will provide abundantly cheap energy with relatively few side effects.
Yeah... the thing is, I remember saying the same thing in the seventies.
> The fact that you're competent in one field does not give you much credibility in other fields.
I think this is the phrase of the day. I can think of sooo many people who need this tattooed on their foreheads, backwards so they can read it in the mirror.
I wonder if it's still necessary for SCO to die. It depends on what their next step is. It would be interesting if what they cast off was the litigation side, and what they decided to concentrate on is producing a product. Wait wait wait, stop laughing, I didn't (necessarily) mean that as a joke. What would be the industry's reaction if the remains of SCO actually decided to enter the business of product development? Have they blown their credibility so bad that there's no turning back? Or could they survive as a (very small) software company?
"SCO" is just a name. It's a name with a nasty history, but it's the people, not the company, that made it what it was. With different people in charge, it might serve a positive role in the industry.
Nah...
No, the morons on channel 680 mean that. Here, we mean Science Fiction.
Will be interesting how they handle that.
Agreed, banning photoshop is nonsensical. It's not the tool, it's the use to which it is put.
This sounds like a job for the swarm. There's a lot more people out there with photoshop experience, able to spot these kinds of manipulations, than these companies could hope to pursue. Let's not leave it just to Photoshop Disaster. If a few thousand geeks pursue them relentlessly, we could see real results.
Sorry, to any TV execs who may be listening, I watch every commercial with my shopping list in my lap.
Seriously, in a time when the Tivo sounds (bo-beep, be-boop, donk donk donk) are immediately recognizable to much of TV watching America, is there any point in pretending anymore?
Yes, I know the usual arguments, but I think Sanctuary, Doctor Horrible, et al, have proven that an engrossing story can be had through unconventional means.
And really -- I've only seen the first fifteen minutes of Stargate Universe so far (daughter wanted to watch Big Bang) but everything I've seen so far could be accomplished with a high school gym, a cast of unknowns, and a row of Macs. Maybe a small render farm on the back-end. It's the writing, not all the other stuff.
And interestingly enough, writers are the ones so often pissed on by the industry. This leaves the people responsible for the guts of the shows you watch looking for different business models where they can maybe get a larger slice of a smaller pie.
I think all that's holding together the old TV business model are the non-technical boomers who grew up with the old TV watching model -- climb into the barcolounger, remote in one hand, sixpack in the other, and let the TV connect to your brain from the beginning of prime time to the end of the 11:00 news. Once they start to die out, conventional TV is going to be in big trouble.
> Unlike Taco, I would be very happy to see ridiculous numbers of adds during every episode of SGU. The reason is quite simple. Adds pay for TV. The shows exist as a way to get people to watch adds.
Right, and any nerd worth his propeller hat skips over them anyway.
I have to disagree. The marketing for Windows 95 was masterful. The marketing of Windows XP was at least adequate. Now we have incomprehensible ads featuring Gates and Seinfeld, and cringe-worthy Windows 7 Party promotions. Is the company so sure of their position that they no longer think their campaigns need to be vetted?
Microsoft used to be one of the greatest marketing forces on the planet. What happened for them to go so far off the rails?
We've been using menus for a quarter century. Everyone over the age of 3 knows that if you click on a word at the top of the frame, you'll get a drop-down. I can't find anything in the latest version of Word. I'm sure the ribbon will be intuitive as soon as I get used to it... wait, that isn't really the definition of intuitive, is it?