the ps installed user base is too big to overcome. most ps2 owners will re up and get a ps3. most ps2 owners are satisfied with their gaming experience, and I have no reason to believe that this will change between now and when the ps3 is released.
the ps3 will do well. how well the 360 does isn't dependent on what Sony does, more on what microsoft does. they have been marketing the 360 poorly in my opinion, thus limiting the reach of the console.
IT's because they know they won't cede top market position.
what percentage consumer retention (of PS2 owners) will Sony need in order to be considered successful with the PS3? 60%? 70%? any of those two guarantees a wealth of riches for the next seven years. They'll be fine. Microsoft XBox owners and PS owners rarely overlap. The audience that is actively choosing between the two is small. PS2 owners will re up when it comes out, and until then they have a shitload of games to keep playing.
Sony doesn't lose much from the delay.
MSFT has a lot to gain, but it's too late for this cycle. the xbox's road to glory lies in the fact that they tried to shoehorn some kind of media center into it. Then they'd have their hands in the entire gamut of content delivery to the living room. They fucked up though. First with a juvenile design that won't appeal to adult purchasers of consumer electronics. Second, XBox is a stupid name for a sophisticated consumer electronics device. NAmes mean a lot.
Third, They over market the gaming aspect and undermarket the other things you can do wih it. This, their market can't grow - they haven't show any reason non-owners of previous consoles should want one.
Nintendo is making serious inroads in thoguht process and this should be interesting, however. Their console is too new to call.
oh, and there will be advertising for something like pirate of the carribean. women over consumer media by a clip of 6 to 4 and growing. pirates in the future will be filled with flaxen haired actors sponsored by shampoo and hair mousse du jour.... your favorite actress's cheeks ruddied by something ord other - and glorious victorian chic clothing by designer X. It'll be like watching fashion week and oxygen all at once. Lol.
But it will be free to you. That way, piracy isn't an issue. It's the legalize everything method of content - and content providers will be the advertisers. You will be unable to Tivo as there will be no commercials to Tivo past.
It will work as you described and in a manner of other ways: certain actors may sign limited lifetime contracts with designers so they can only wear said deisgner's clothing or drive a certain manufacturers car. labels will be prominent. Scripts might even use certain companies prominently in the plot.
McDonald's already pays hip hop artists for references to their food in songs. Google it. They definitely announced the intention to do so at least six months ago.
IT will happen. Then they'll want you to download. You'll be spamming yourself.
All of my peers download music and don't buy. In fact, I can't remember when we've collectively seen the inside of a music store.
I understand what you're saying. You make two mistakes: asusming first and foremost that your experience is widespread, and second, that everyone who downoads then decides to pay for the EXACT SAME THING - even thoguh they don't have to.
With all due respect, that seems kind of dumb to me. As in not smart.
I've heard all the "moral" arguments. Fact is, that less than 5% of major label artists ever recoup expenses. Which is to say, less than 5% of artists ever sell enough to get into the black. So, buying a record is supporting and bolstering the music cartels that enslave the artists. Even after recouping, most artists rarely see more than $0.15 US per unit sold. The artists get fucked. Record companies are pimp industries and the artists are getting fucked. All of which is to say, the moral argument of buying something after you download makes no fiscal sense, and it doesn't benefit the artists. So, all of you who compalin of the hold the RIAA has on the industry buy into it when you buy music from affiliated labels. Everyone should know that an opinion in the US that you don't put your money behind is not an opinion at all. Good luck with that.
And then on top of it, you're all out of cash from these CDs you keep buying. It makes no sense to me. Honestly. And I work in media. I know mid level music execs who joke and laugh thatthey can't understand why people keep buying music. They LAUGH at you. *shaking head* Execs from Sony and Universal here in New York - it's an inside joke for them that music is worth $0.00 to the audience in the digital age. I've even seen their powerpoint presentations to that effect - I wish I had a link.
This buy music after downloading thing is misguided, and in my opinion, another example of how the system doesn't have to enslave us, they program us to enslave ourselves. And we proceed.
No dude. I'm right in the fact that content is going to be FREE for the end user.
It's the only way to make piracy a non-issue.
the artists will be paid BY THE ADVERTISER.
sheesh, I didn't think I'd have to spell it out.
Free content means no piracy. Anyone watching it is good. You can track it all you want and keep statistics to ensure that the product is viral enough. This will serve as "ratings" in the new paradigm.
Right, I thought something similar - it's an emperor has no clothes deal.
in fact - if those numbers hold - the RIAA might be able to find some kind of correlation between pre and post p2p sales (hypothetical).
All of which is to say, it's absurd to think that P2P isn't affecting music sales. It's like the climate change thing. It's clear the climate is changing. It's clear that our greenhouse gassing is additional input. The question is - does more fuel burning = climate change.
Does the availability of ubiquitous and free music online mean reduced sales of music? It's clear that P2P is having an effect on music sales. In fact, it might be clear that P2P is having an effect on movie sales. This is the reality. The issue here is that both industries are so tied to their methods of delivery that they need to protect their current pipeline until they've shifted over.
In the long run, content is going to be free. Commercials and conventional advertising is going to die, and the only way to get adverts to the end user is going to be via content. Songs about Pepsi, Trojan brand condoms in love scenes. This sucks for Hollywood and RIAA because it means a paradigm shift away from their models.
You're wrong. of course it will help. Most people in repressed societies are very interestedi n the political process - and take interest in voting, etc., even if it is life threatening. Thus, the access to information is of importance to them.
The united states sports a pretty low voter turnout in national elections, and even lower turnout in local and state elections. It's the mark of a decadent society, I guess. We're so spoiled and well off collectively that we don't vote. In fact, the powers that be now count on young folks not voting, and factor it into the election process.
So our leaders take "fat shits" as you put it, on our faces because we let them. Maybe repression is what's warranted to mobilize and reinvigorate an overstimulated and jaded populace.
Interestingly enough, this is why I use gmail. I'm a freelancer, so I often do business and hammer out the details of a potential transaction via email. gmail allows me to eaisly categorize and track even innocuous conversations. I can confirm previously discussed terms - whether a vendor is backsliding on previously discussed terms, etc. It's a great way to keep on top of minutiae. I've even goten to being the friendly guy who sends invites to those interested in using gmail - if only so I can chat more easily and index those as well.
email is one of those things. One of my favorite movies is this movie from the 90s called Dark City. Kiefer Sutherland says something to the effect of: "The only place you're safe is in your head." Assume a camera is always on you, assume that everything you put into the world will be recorded for posterity.
smart money is just on developing technology to reimplement what already exists in nature. To that end, there never was a first BIG THING. Just attentive people with the right pair of eyes to describe and understand what was unfolding before them and implement the same in society.
It's weird... because this universe really is like an Eden of sorts. Everything we need to do what we need to do to get what we want, collectively that is, is all here. Instead, we surf for porn. *sigh*
i agree with you. in fact, it's a benefit that these people don't know science. Knowledgeable people often think first of the limitations - hindrances, impracticalities, etc to the reality of something. Because these non-science people don't know and are ignorant, it frees them from such limitations - in a sense allowing their imagination to run a bit more freely.
I can't recall - but someone did a study recently about how creative thinking decreased markedly with every year of post secondary education or something like that. My nephew just turned 10. His dad isn't around so I try (poorly) to serve as some form of role model. I've noticed, with some melancholy, that he's less whimsical and prone to fancy as he learns more and becomes more task oriented. It suddenly dawned on me that the school system is designed to squash imagination and producer worker drones. But I digress.
It's no one's fault for thinking up outlandish things - engineers should just incorporate the free-thinking meme a bit more and make these guys obsolete. That way - you'll have smart money chasing high yield ideas.
the ps2 installed user base should prevent them from serious issue. I'm not certain what percentage of user base retention is enough to be considered a success - but if they keep 70% of the ps2 user base - they still have enough revenue to ride well into the next decade. the xbox 360 - it's weird... because while it's a great machine - I don't see enough of a compelling reason for other console owners to come over and purchase one. It's not MSFT's fault per se - the machine damn near does everything except make dinner. They're doing a moderate-to-poor job of convincing the non-console owner to come on the bandwagon - they haven't sold non-gamers enough to make it a good value home entertainment center. They also designed it poorly - as it looks too much like something that belongs in an adolescent's room as opposed to sleek living room decor.
Much of this punditry is much ado about nothing. PS2 owners will re up on the PS3. It's msft that has to do more to appeal not to ps2 owners - but to the guy who doesn't game, but might be persuaded to buy one when his DVD player gives out and he considers an all in one solution.
I work in film and the logic isn't flawed on paper. you take television from a previous generation and redo it with current generation talent.
you get the original audience and fans of the current talent. two birds with one stone. by and large that formula isn't broken. it works to the point that people go and see them, and they do rather well.
there is a dearth of original ideas. this is because more expensive films require compromise to mitigate risk. understand, most films, small or large, are financed by thrid parties. hollywood is notorious for not financing their own films. so these films are beholden to finance guys who want easily reducible commodities. remake plus star talent is a recognized formula.
the real problem here is this. hollywood primarily relies on the first-timers to make some cash. first timer are the rising young adult - adult generation. this is the problem - the first timeers aren't going to the movies. they're like the second generation to grow up with cable - so technically - they aren't first timers. So when a 30 something guy reflects that films are recycling themselves... hollywood is in the problem place that 18 year olds are saying the same thing. they've seen it all before.
this is why the movie paradigm is problematic. hollywood has always been cyclical before. They'd wade out the lull and wait for a rising generation and introduce them to old shit that's new to them. It's not new to them - they've probably seen the original on cable or online or via blockbuster. they have prior memory of originals and probably prefer them. so without the first timer cushion - hollywood is quite possibly rready for a paradigm shift.
Slashdot Mirror
this is a poor and biased assessment. what functionality will the ps3 have that the 360 does not?
didn't msft put anti-spyware companies into business in the first place?
msft giveth, msft taketh away.
the ps installed user base is too big to overcome. most ps2 owners will re up and get a ps3. most ps2 owners are satisfied with their gaming experience, and I have no reason to believe that this will change between now and when the ps3 is released.
the ps3 will do well. how well the 360 does isn't dependent on what Sony does, more on what microsoft does. they have been marketing the 360 poorly in my opinion, thus limiting the reach of the console.
IT's because they know they won't cede top market position.
what percentage consumer retention (of PS2 owners) will Sony need in order to be considered successful with the PS3? 60%? 70%? any of those two guarantees a wealth of riches for the next seven years. They'll be fine. Microsoft XBox owners and PS owners rarely overlap. The audience that is actively choosing between the two is small. PS2 owners will re up when it comes out, and until then they have a shitload of games to keep playing.
Sony doesn't lose much from the delay.
MSFT has a lot to gain, but it's too late for this cycle. the xbox's road to glory lies in the fact that they tried to shoehorn some kind of media center into it. Then they'd have their hands in the entire gamut of content delivery to the living room. They fucked up though. First with a juvenile design that won't appeal to adult purchasers of consumer electronics. Second, XBox is a stupid name for a sophisticated consumer electronics device. NAmes mean a lot.
Third, They over market the gaming aspect and undermarket the other things you can do wih it. This, their market can't grow - they haven't show any reason non-owners of previous consoles should want one.
Nintendo is making serious inroads in thoguht process and this should be interesting, however. Their console is too new to call.
oh, and there will be advertising for something like pirate of the carribean. women over consumer media by a clip of 6 to 4 and growing. pirates in the future will be filled with flaxen haired actors sponsored by shampoo and hair mousse du jour.... your favorite actress's cheeks ruddied by something ord other - and glorious victorian chic clothing by designer X. It'll be like watching fashion week and oxygen all at once. Lol.
It's coming - sooner than you think.
I never said it was worth anything.
But it will be free to you. That way, piracy isn't an issue. It's the legalize everything method of content - and content providers will be the advertisers. You will be unable to Tivo as there will be no commercials to Tivo past.
It will work as you described and in a manner of other ways: certain actors may sign limited lifetime contracts with designers so they can only wear said deisgner's clothing or drive a certain manufacturers car. labels will be prominent. Scripts might even use certain companies prominently in the plot.
McDonald's already pays hip hop artists for references to their food in songs. Google it. They definitely announced the intention to do so at least six months ago.
IT will happen. Then they'll want you to download. You'll be spamming yourself.
All of my peers download music and don't buy. In fact, I can't remember when we've collectively seen the inside of a music store.
I understand what you're saying. You make two mistakes: asusming first and foremost that your experience is widespread, and second, that everyone who downoads then decides to pay for the EXACT SAME THING - even thoguh they don't have to.
With all due respect, that seems kind of dumb to me. As in not smart.
I've heard all the "moral" arguments. Fact is, that less than 5% of major label artists ever recoup expenses. Which is to say, less than 5% of artists ever sell enough to get into the black. So, buying a record is supporting and bolstering the music cartels that enslave the artists. Even after recouping, most artists rarely see more than $0.15 US per unit sold. The artists get fucked. Record companies are pimp industries and the artists are getting fucked. All of which is to say, the moral argument of buying something after you download makes no fiscal sense, and it doesn't benefit the artists. So, all of you who compalin of the hold the RIAA has on the industry buy into it when you buy music from affiliated labels. Everyone should know that an opinion in the US that you don't put your money behind is not an opinion at all. Good luck with that.
And then on top of it, you're all out of cash from these CDs you keep buying. It makes no sense to me. Honestly. And I work in media. I know mid level music execs who joke and laugh thatthey can't understand why people keep buying music. They LAUGH at you. *shaking head* Execs from Sony and Universal here in New York - it's an inside joke for them that music is worth $0.00 to the audience in the digital age. I've even seen their powerpoint presentations to that effect - I wish I had a link.
This buy music after downloading thing is misguided, and in my opinion, another example of how the system doesn't have to enslave us, they program us to enslave ourselves. And we proceed.
No dude. I'm right in the fact that content is going to be FREE for the end user.
It's the only way to make piracy a non-issue.
the artists will be paid BY THE ADVERTISER.
sheesh, I didn't think I'd have to spell it out.
Free content means no piracy. Anyone watching it is good. You can track it all you want and keep statistics to ensure that the product is viral enough. This will serve as "ratings" in the new paradigm.
*shrugs*
Right, I thought something similar - it's an emperor has no clothes deal.
in fact - if those numbers hold - the RIAA might be able to find some kind of correlation between pre and post p2p sales (hypothetical).
All of which is to say, it's absurd to think that P2P isn't affecting music sales. It's like the climate change thing. It's clear the climate is changing. It's clear that our greenhouse gassing is additional input. The question is - does more fuel burning = climate change.
Does the availability of ubiquitous and free music online mean reduced sales of music? It's clear that P2P is having an effect on music sales. In fact, it might be clear that P2P is having an effect on movie sales. This is the reality. The issue here is that both industries are so tied to their methods of delivery that they need to protect their current pipeline until they've shifted over.
In the long run, content is going to be free. Commercials and conventional advertising is going to die, and the only way to get adverts to the end user is going to be via content. Songs about Pepsi, Trojan brand condoms in love scenes. This sucks for Hollywood and RIAA because it means a paradigm shift away from their models.
You're wrong. of course it will help. Most people in repressed societies are very interestedi n the political process - and take interest in voting, etc., even if it is life threatening. Thus, the access to information is of importance to them.
The united states sports a pretty low voter turnout in national elections, and even lower turnout in local and state elections. It's the mark of a decadent society, I guess. We're so spoiled and well off collectively that we don't vote. In fact, the powers that be now count on young folks not voting, and factor it into the election process.
So our leaders take "fat shits" as you put it, on our faces because we let them. Maybe repression is what's warranted to mobilize and reinvigorate an overstimulated and jaded populace.
lawl!!!!!!! funny.
Interestingly enough, this is why I use gmail. I'm a freelancer, so I often do business and hammer out the details of a potential transaction via email. gmail allows me to eaisly categorize and track even innocuous conversations. I can confirm previously discussed terms - whether a vendor is backsliding on previously discussed terms, etc. It's a great way to keep on top of minutiae. I've even goten to being the friendly guy who sends invites to those interested in using gmail - if only so I can chat more easily and index those as well.
email is one of those things. One of my favorite movies is this movie from the 90s called Dark City. Kiefer Sutherland says something to the effect of: "The only place you're safe is in your head." Assume a camera is always on you, assume that everything you put into the world will be recorded for posterity.
smart money is just on developing technology to reimplement what already exists in nature. To that end, there never was a first BIG THING. Just attentive people with the right pair of eyes to describe and understand what was unfolding before them and implement the same in society.
It's weird... because this universe really is like an Eden of sorts. Everything we need to do what we need to do to get what we want, collectively that is, is all here. Instead, we surf for porn. *sigh*
Slashdot is not a "diversity of opinion". He's right. This laptop wass roasted by /., and now Gates will get roasted for holding a similar opinion.
I similarly will get roasted for the comment in the form of bad karma.
i agree with you. in fact, it's a benefit that these people don't know science. Knowledgeable people often think first of the limitations - hindrances, impracticalities, etc to the reality of something. Because these non-science people don't know and are ignorant, it frees them from such limitations - in a sense allowing their imagination to run a bit more freely.
I can't recall - but someone did a study recently about how creative thinking decreased markedly with every year of post secondary education or something like that. My nephew just turned 10. His dad isn't around so I try (poorly) to serve as some form of role model. I've noticed, with some melancholy, that he's less whimsical and prone to fancy as he learns more and becomes more task oriented. It suddenly dawned on me that the school system is designed to squash imagination and producer worker drones. But I digress.
It's no one's fault for thinking up outlandish things - engineers should just incorporate the free-thinking meme a bit more and make these guys obsolete. That way - you'll have smart money chasing high yield ideas.
the ps2 installed user base should prevent them from serious issue. I'm not certain what percentage of user base retention is enough to be considered a success - but if they keep 70% of the ps2 user base - they still have enough revenue to ride well into the next decade. the xbox 360 - it's weird... because while it's a great machine - I don't see enough of a compelling reason for other console owners to come over and purchase one. It's not MSFT's fault per se - the machine damn near does everything except make dinner. They're doing a moderate-to-poor job of convincing the non-console owner to come on the bandwagon - they haven't sold non-gamers enough to make it a good value home entertainment center. They also designed it poorly - as it looks too much like something that belongs in an adolescent's room as opposed to sleek living room decor.
Much of this punditry is much ado about nothing. PS2 owners will re up on the PS3. It's msft that has to do more to appeal not to ps2 owners - but to the guy who doesn't game, but might be persuaded to buy one when his DVD player gives out and he considers an all in one solution.
me too. post a link for a torrent... i mean... he he.
more for the children bullshit?
I don't understand. You're opposed to making it harder for kids to find porn online?
interesting that you said the government's homework. I'm curious as to what you mean by that.
I work in film and the logic isn't flawed on paper. you take television from a previous generation and redo it with current generation talent.
you get the original audience and fans of the current talent. two birds with one stone. by and large that formula isn't broken. it works to the point that people go and see them, and they do rather well.
there is a dearth of original ideas. this is because more expensive films require compromise to mitigate risk. understand, most films, small or large, are financed by thrid parties. hollywood is notorious for not financing their own films. so these films are beholden to finance guys who want easily reducible commodities. remake plus star talent is a recognized formula.
the real problem here is this. hollywood primarily relies on the first-timers to make some cash. first timer are the rising young adult - adult generation. this is the problem - the first timeers aren't going to the movies. they're like the second generation to grow up with cable - so technically - they aren't first timers. So when a 30 something guy reflects that films are recycling themselves... hollywood is in the problem place that 18 year olds are saying the same thing. they've seen it all before.
this is why the movie paradigm is problematic. hollywood has always been cyclical before. They'd wade out the lull and wait for a rising generation and introduce them to old shit that's new to them. It's not new to them - they've probably seen the original on cable or online or via blockbuster. they have prior memory of originals and probably prefer them. so without the first timer cushion - hollywood is quite possibly rready for a paradigm shift.
I use writely. it rocks. the developers were really cool too. kudos to them for getting rich.
but google is beholden to analysts. most of these analysts are google investors.
correction. Value and Fidelity are the two biggest institutional investors of google. I think LEgg Mason is no. 3.
Ten year tech cycle? I find that hard to believe. Can you cite a source?
legg mason is an analyst that holds google stock. they might be google's largest single investor.