The thing about a conspiracy like that is that Safari would have to have more than a 1% browser share to have any success at decreasing ad revenue. The reader is peanuts compared to ad block software for firefox.
300 dpi is a number Adobe came up with a long time ago for when increasing printer or monitor resolution didn't matter. This is probably more subjective than the number come up with by this article, but subjective is what matters for perception really.
"you can hang a powered hub off it to support keyboard, mouse, Ethernet adapter,"
Not sure if you are in the market for a tablet. Perhaps you should consider a portable computer. It is true that Apple cuts adapters and connectors much faster than other manufacturers.
Remember when the iMac didn't have a floppy drive? My x86 computers continued to have them for about 5 years but I never used one after 2000 (others surely did, but I didn't). There was also firewire and gigabit Ethernet where they added these expensive high speed connectors way before others did.
Physical media is about 10% of the cost of production, most of the total cost is on people you don't see or think of who are involved in the production of a song/video. It has always been the case that most of the costs were not for the last unit, its mostly about the first unit.
As for what you call patronage, this will result in WAY to little product--I would never pony up for this model unless it was within a few bucks of the limit and stuck there for a day or two.
I'm worried that if things don't change soon there will be very little in the way of music production and even TV/movies might fall. I'm afraid that, ironically, only the biggest acts will survive and there are just going to be a bunch of people saying, "uh, I thought the price wasn't fair, so I got the torrent. Man, they needed to fix their business model and they never did. Not my fault."
Finally, when I read, "This is an interesting subject because digital content is such a profound game changer in eliminating scarcity, it is our first real replicator technology." I think, please google "gutenberg".
Ad models have changed substantially, think of Google Ads. The point is you can't really get away from (a) the user pays or (b) someone else pays and the user must pay attention to their ad.
As for a la carte, iTunes and netflix already have this. On iTunes, you can already subscribe to a show.
If it's crap, why would you waste your time watching/listening to it? Is it possible this is just a way to justify to yourself not paying for content?
Just curious, do you have a limit, like once the play count on a song goes over 10, then you buy it? Or might you play a song 40 times but still claim it is crap even if it is catchy?
There are only two models, ads and subscription/purchase. Ads have worked for radio, TV, newspaper for decades (and still more or less does for TV and radio). Subscription/purchase has worked for... HBO and books, it used to work for music and movies but then they became easy to rip and it was over.
Also, you are paid to watch the ads, you are paid with the content that you are given (otherwise gratis). If you don't want the ads: don't consume the content.
As for a better way, I've noticed that it is always someone else that people think will come up with a better way. The fact of the matter is that there are tons of consumers now who have been spoiled by ripped content so that they just want everything free. The only way to get around that is content-integrated ads that satisfy the ad buyers and the content producers. NOBODY is going to be happy with that.
The user has a right to express disapproval, but that's not what is going on. He is also arguing that it is okay for him to use ad block software the privates content owners' their revenue. The GP is just pointing out that this is BS and that he shouldn't be surprised when his favorite sites go dark.
Your argument makes no sense. Under either price regime there is a peak period and underuse period. If you price for access then people will overuse all of the time but undersubscribe. You will have either poor performance at peak or over expense for the service. If you price per MB at peak, then you will have appropriate use at peak (when everyone cares) and way too high a price the rest of the time.
Ideally, there would be a price regime based on current load and you could set a price point for every use of the phone. So you might download texts and email no matter what but only allow some app functions when the price is cheap. And you might only go to youtube when the network has slack (so price is zero or almost zero).
AT&T made $3 billion in profit in 4Q 2009, and invested $19 billion in infrastructure. The profit is about what it should be given the number and cost of shares.
I agree with you. I have a phone that works that way, but has no data (it's a phone). AT&T is moving in the right direction here with no contract, and pay per data, this is what we should hope for.
Depends on how you use real estate. Personally, I don't want just anyone in my house any time, so this is how I pay (I pay for each hour I use the house, that is, every hour of the month). But if you would be willing to let anyone else pay an hourly rate to use your house with the stuff, then, yes, this is how it would work, and I think that would be ideal actually!
Not sure what you are so indignant about. The ads are what pays for the content in the first place, so not getting them isn't really "fair" so much as it is what you want.
uh, "a good engineer's (or scientist's) response to new data that they can't fully explain is generally unmitigated glee, it means they've found something new." perhaps, but generally you don't ask others to read about it until you understand something about the phenomenon OR it has withstood several attempts to understand it.
You also wrote, "new technique" but what is new? Do you think they invented the heat map, or exploratory data analysis?
Slashdot Mirror
The thing about a conspiracy like that is that Safari would have to have more than a 1% browser share to have any success at decreasing ad revenue. The reader is peanuts compared to ad block software for firefox.
Actually, I was just at arstechnica, I enabled the reader, and there was just the one page.
Has the arms race already begun?
Here is another http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3774
Yeah, the article lacked a good punchline. I was underwhelmed and thinking, "I'll never get these 5 minutes back."
300 dpi is a number Adobe came up with a long time ago for when increasing printer or monitor resolution didn't matter. This is probably more subjective than the number come up with by this article, but subjective is what matters for perception really.
"you can hang a powered hub off it to support keyboard, mouse, Ethernet adapter,"
Not sure if you are in the market for a tablet. Perhaps you should consider a portable computer. It is true that Apple cuts adapters and connectors much faster than other manufacturers.
Remember when the iMac didn't have a floppy drive? My x86 computers continued to have them for about 5 years but I never used one after 2000 (others surely did, but I didn't). There was also firewire and gigabit Ethernet where they added these expensive high speed connectors way before others did.
Wait, I can't replace my DSLR with the camera on a phone?
That was totally the market they were shooting for too.
I see, sorry for my misinterpretation and saying you don't pay for your content.
A few points:
Physical media is about 10% of the cost of production, most of the total cost is on people you don't see or think of who are involved in the production of a song/video. It has always been the case that most of the costs were not for the last unit, its mostly about the first unit.
As for what you call patronage, this will result in WAY to little product--I would never pony up for this model unless it was within a few bucks of the limit and stuck there for a day or two.
I'm worried that if things don't change soon there will be very little in the way of music production and even TV/movies might fall. I'm afraid that, ironically, only the biggest acts will survive and there are just going to be a bunch of people saying, "uh, I thought the price wasn't fair, so I got the torrent. Man, they needed to fix their business model and they never did. Not my fault."
Finally, when I read, "This is an interesting subject because digital content is such a profound game changer in eliminating scarcity, it is our first real replicator technology." I think, please google "gutenberg".
Ad models have changed substantially, think of Google Ads. The point is you can't really get away from (a) the user pays or (b) someone else pays and the user must pay attention to their ad.
As for a la carte, iTunes and netflix already have this. On iTunes, you can already subscribe to a show.
If it's crap, why would you waste your time watching/listening to it? Is it possible this is just a way to justify to yourself not paying for content?
Just curious, do you have a limit, like once the play count on a song goes over 10, then you buy it? Or might you play a song 40 times but still claim it is crap even if it is catchy?
There are only two models, ads and subscription/purchase. Ads have worked for radio, TV, newspaper for decades (and still more or less does for TV and radio). Subscription/purchase has worked for... HBO and books, it used to work for music and movies but then they became easy to rip and it was over.
Also, you are paid to watch the ads, you are paid with the content that you are given (otherwise gratis). If you don't want the ads: don't consume the content.
As for a better way, I've noticed that it is always someone else that people think will come up with a better way. The fact of the matter is that there are tons of consumers now who have been spoiled by ripped content so that they just want everything free. The only way to get around that is content-integrated ads that satisfy the ad buyers and the content producers. NOBODY is going to be happy with that.
The user has a right to express disapproval, but that's not what is going on. He is also arguing that it is okay for him to use ad block software the privates content owners' their revenue. The GP is just pointing out that this is BS and that he shouldn't be surprised when his favorite sites go dark.
Uh come again, I pay $12/mo for my cell phone with metered rate. Find me a cheaper service where I get loads of minutes that I don't use.
Your argument makes no sense. Under either price regime there is a peak period and underuse period. If you price for access then people will overuse all of the time but undersubscribe. You will have either poor performance at peak or over expense for the service. If you price per MB at peak, then you will have appropriate use at peak (when everyone cares) and way too high a price the rest of the time.
Ideally, there would be a price regime based on current load and you could set a price point for every use of the phone. So you might download texts and email no matter what but only allow some app functions when the price is cheap. And you might only go to youtube when the network has slack (so price is zero or almost zero).
I think it was the OP actually. That is why it is moderated "insightful".
sorry 19 billion was for 2009 as a whole.
AT&T made $3 billion in profit in 4Q 2009, and invested $19 billion in infrastructure. The profit is about what it should be given the number and cost of shares.
I agree with you. I have a phone that works that way, but has no data (it's a phone). AT&T is moving in the right direction here with no contract, and pay per data, this is what we should hope for.
Depends on how you use real estate. Personally, I don't want just anyone in my house any time, so this is how I pay (I pay for each hour I use the house, that is, every hour of the month). But if you would be willing to let anyone else pay an hourly rate to use your house with the stuff, then, yes, this is how it would work, and I think that would be ideal actually!
The light users do pay more, per MB.
When you write, "The only fair queuing strategy..." you should have written, "My favorite queuing strategy..."
Not sure if you know this, but the money to upgrade has to come from somewhere. Despite popular belief, companies don't get money from the sky.
Not sure what you are so indignant about. The ads are what pays for the content in the first place, so not getting them isn't really "fair" so much as it is what you want.
uh, "a good engineer's (or scientist's) response to new data that they can't fully explain is generally unmitigated glee, it means they've found something new." perhaps, but generally you don't ask others to read about it until you understand something about the phenomenon OR it has withstood several attempts to understand it.
You also wrote, "new technique" but what is new? Do you think they invented the heat map, or exploratory data analysis?
But almost all there concluding remarks on a figure are, "we don't understand this graph"