There was nothing about this partnership that ever made good business sense, in my opinion. It was based on some vague notion that technology and the Internet were going to render traditional television irrelevant. NBC had no need for Microsoft, which is why MS ended up shouldering so much of the financial burden. It would make as little long-term sense as an ISP merging with an entertainment/media company. And who would be dumb enough to think THAT would work?:-)
It's the elitists like you who are always telling others how prejudiced they are, but you sound far more bigoted than the typical racists (white or black) that I've dealt with anywhere. There are good people everywhere and morons everywhere. You're clearly among the latter group -- no matter where you might live.
Microsoft might talk about integrating with other computers though standards and whatnot, but they really want to rig the integration in such a way as to cripple the non-MS systems, convincing customers that the "rational" solution is to switch everything to Windows. IMHO, of course.
There is sometimes a difference between what a word really means and what a court defines a word as meaning in a specific context. In MS's case, a court convicted the company of having a monopoly within the context of anti-trust law. The Wall Street Journal is using the word as it is actually defined by real people, which means to own ALL of a market. The newspaper is properly labeling reality, not showing evidence of bias one way or another. The fact that I detest MS and Windows doesn't keep me from seeing that the WSJ is just doing its job properly in saying "near monopoly." The moment you don't have ANY choice other than Windows in the market, it will be a monopoly. For now, though, the fact that I'm typing this on a Mac and can go buy as many non-Windows computers as I want says MS does NOT have a monopoly. Period.
I hear this same argument when it comes to viruses. As a user, I'm not as concerned with WHY my platform has advantages than I am that it DOES have advantages. For whatever the reason, the bottom line is that the Mac users can use this CD without having to resort to a bunch of hocus pocus. Windows users can't.
(Just for the record, I'm aware that there ARE other reasons other than "security through obscurity" why a Unix-based OS can be safer than Windows, but that's not my point here, so I'm not even getting into it.)
I have more than 4,000 songs on my iPod. Maybe 40 of them were bought from the iTunes Music Store. What is so difficult about dragging any MP3 file to the iTunes icon? Or inserting a CD and clicking the "import" button? I'd venture to guess that only a very small percentage of the songs on iPods were purchased from Apple.
I'm not certain whether your post is more stunningly ignorant or arrogant. You seem to assume that YOUR needs and desires about a product determine what is going to succeed in the market over the long term. Is it because you assume the world revolves around you or is it because you haven't noticed that just because geeks like a product, it doesn't necessarily fit the needs or desires of the majority of the world?
Contrary to what you assume, the real battle isn't about the actual products. It's about what the customer believes about the products. And what the customer believes is rarely the same as the assumptions made by the prophets of convergence.
I think you're making two mistakes in your thinking. Only time will tell which of us is closer to what happens in the marketplace.
1) You seem to be assuming that what you want is what the typical customer wants. I don't think anybody on Slashdot is typical of what the average customer wants, at least in relation to technical products.
2) You're looking at it as a technical challenge, but it's much more related to what is in the mind of the prospect than it is about the actual product. The geeky mind likes the idea of a bunch of complex functions jammed into one device, but the mind of the consumer wants simplicity. (Just as an aside, isn't it interesting that the MP3 players that also have radios and other functions built in aren't leading the market? The one with the most simplicity is leading.)
A LOT of money has been spent trying to make convergence devices work, and a lot more money will be spent in the future. That's because it SOUNDS so rational. It sounds as though the market MUST love this. In reality, divergence works better than convergence.
As I said, only time will tell which view will prevail. A study of what really happens in product categories suggests that money spent on convergence is mostly wasted captial, though.
Convergence sounds so logical when you put it into a business plan. It sounds so great when you ask people if it's what they want. "Do you want one device that cooks your meals, washes the dishes AND entertains you while you eat?" Sure, they say. In the real world, though, convergence devices almost never work in the long run.
I used to believe the convergence myth just as much as the next guy, but a marketing guru by the name of Al Ries convinced me otherwise. If you'd like to see his take on why convergence isn't going to happen, go to this page and click on, "The Convergence Bubble."
If you'll ever clarify your thinking, you'll figure out that the government you hold so dear is nothing but a sanitized version of the street thug. You go right ahead with your irrational smugness in the meantime, but neither you nor "society" -- which is nothing but an artificial construction -- has any right to claim my time or my money.
I give a lot of money to charitable causes that help other people, but it's because I CHOOSE to. I volunteer time at a homeless shelter and at a prison ministry that helps convicts to learn life skills they'll need once they're out, but it's because I CHOOSE to. Anybody who claims that he or she is OWED my money or my time is claiming the right to enslave me against my will. I don't accept that anyone has the right to make me his slave without my consent. Of course, governments take my money against my will now, but it's only because they're able to back up their claims with the threat of force -- just as any street thug might.
Taxing a person to pay for goods or services going to other people IS theft. If a gang of thugs takes money from one person to give it to another, it's called theft. If government does the same thing, we sanitize it by calling it taxation. Either way, it's theft.
So if you take money from someone else to pay off a person's debt and steal money from other people to pay for the guy's health care, THAT is what freedom is? Were you a consultant for Orwell with that Newspeak thing?:-)
I believe that Apple is switching to Intel because Steve Jobs was kidnapped by aliens and taken to the Mother Ship. While he was there, he was brainwashed and ordered to switch Macs to Intel's X86 architecture. So he did. End of story.
OK. So there might not be any evidence to support my theory, but there's at least as much evidence to support mine as there is to support the rest of the theories I've been reading. They're ALL just pure speculation, including my little green men.:-)
You really should figure out what the word, "forgery," actually means.
On the main point, though, it's difficult to say with certainty whether this is the wave of the future or just a novelty. Anyone who says he KNOWS is just guessing. After all, many movie people were CERTAIN that sound in movies was just a novelty that would pass in time.
How difficult is it to understand the original point of contention here? The poster I originally responded to claimed that Eisner had been QUOTED in the media as saying he was afraid of losing tax breaks if Disney distributed the film. There is still ZERO evidence of such a quote from Eisner. If you or others would like to debate whether he MIGHT have said such a thing in a private conversation, go ahead, but it is not the point I questioned. I challenged a simple statement which I believed to be very mistaken. So far, the pro-Moore people have simply posted statements quoting Moore's AGENT as making the charge, which isn't even VAGUELY the same thing as a quote from Eisner.
No one here has shown ANY statement which has been credibly shown to be from Eisner or any other Disney rep making the statement which was alleged. You don't seem to understand the difference between a person making a statement and having his enemy allege that he made a statement.
I don't know of anyone in the media who would accept that Eisner has been "quoted" as saying this based on the fact that Moore's agent said so. When I was a newspaper reporter (and later editor), we would obviously quote one person as claiming that someone said something (which the NYT did), but we would never claim that the second person DID say something. It's just not credible. By that logic, I can claim to have had a conversation with John Kerry in which he said that George Bush is a great president -- and then quote myself as proof that it was said.
You can reasonably argue about whether this was Eisner's motivation for his action (although it's sheer speculatioin), but that isn't what I disagreed with in my original post. I challenged the notion that Eisner had been quoted as saying he was afraid of losing tax breaks. It seems as though Moore's agent's charge has been repeated enough that some people BELIEVE that Eisner said it, and I see no evidence to believe that's true.
The thing that bothers me in debates such as this one is that most people (regardless of political beliefs) end up being intellectually dishonest in order to support their positions. The left thinks the right has a monopoly on that and the right thinks the same in reverse. I think it's just a basic human tendency regardless of your beliefs, but I think it's sad how we have to demonize our opponents in so many cases. The fact of the matter is that there are many very good and honest leftists who believe every word they're saying, and there are also many very good and honest right-wingers who believe every word they're saying. I think the motives of most on both sides for believing what they believe is much more pure and honest than the other side believes.
The funniest thing about the whole debate about the Disney angle is that Disney could have shelved the film and made sure it was never shown if the company had decided to. I don't imagine it was under any contractural obligation to release the film or sell it to someone else. The fact that Eisner was willing to sell it (on terms which I understand to be quite favorable to the Weinsteins) is evidence to me that he wasn't concerned with the political content -- as long as someone else's name was on it.
The statement I challenged was that Eisner has been quoted in the press as saying something. A news story in which Moore's agent claims that Eisner said it isn't even vaguely the same as the press quoting Eisner saying something. That's called hearsay. Moore's camp has consistently made this charge, but there is NO evidence (which I can find) of Eisner saying it other than the agent's contention.
Slashdot Mirror
There was nothing about this partnership that ever made good business sense, in my opinion. It was based on some vague notion that technology and the Internet were going to render traditional television irrelevant. NBC had no need for Microsoft, which is why MS ended up shouldering so much of the financial burden. It would make as little long-term sense as an ISP merging with an entertainment/media company. And who would be dumb enough to think THAT would work? :-)
I'm using Safari 2.0.2 (416.13) on OS X 10.4.3
It's the elitists like you who are always telling others how prejudiced they are, but you sound far more bigoted than the typical racists (white or black) that I've dealt with anywhere. There are good people everywhere and morons everywhere. You're clearly among the latter group -- no matter where you might live.
Microsoft might talk about integrating with other computers though standards and whatnot, but they really want to rig the integration in such a way as to cripple the non-MS systems, convincing customers that the "rational" solution is to switch everything to Windows. IMHO, of course.
There is sometimes a difference between what a word really means and what a court defines a word as meaning in a specific context. In MS's case, a court convicted the company of having a monopoly within the context of anti-trust law. The Wall Street Journal is using the word as it is actually defined by real people, which means to own ALL of a market. The newspaper is properly labeling reality, not showing evidence of bias one way or another. The fact that I detest MS and Windows doesn't keep me from seeing that the WSJ is just doing its job properly in saying "near monopoly." The moment you don't have ANY choice other than Windows in the market, it will be a monopoly. For now, though, the fact that I'm typing this on a Mac and can go buy as many non-Windows computers as I want says MS does NOT have a monopoly. Period.
I hear this same argument when it comes to viruses. As a user, I'm not as concerned with WHY my platform has advantages than I am that it DOES have advantages. For whatever the reason, the bottom line is that the Mac users can use this CD without having to resort to a bunch of hocus pocus. Windows users can't.
(Just for the record, I'm aware that there ARE other reasons other than "security through obscurity" why a Unix-based OS can be safer than Windows, but that's not my point here, so I'm not even getting into it.)
I have more than 4,000 songs on my iPod. Maybe 40 of them were bought from the iTunes Music Store. What is so difficult about dragging any MP3 file to the iTunes icon? Or inserting a CD and clicking the "import" button? I'd venture to guess that only a very small percentage of the songs on iPods were purchased from Apple.
I'm not certain whether your post is more stunningly ignorant or arrogant. You seem to assume that YOUR needs and desires about a product determine what is going to succeed in the market over the long term. Is it because you assume the world revolves around you or is it because you haven't noticed that just because geeks like a product, it doesn't necessarily fit the needs or desires of the majority of the world?
Contrary to what you assume, the real battle isn't about the actual products. It's about what the customer believes about the products. And what the customer believes is rarely the same as the assumptions made by the prophets of convergence.
The question isn't whether a product is available. The question is whether adequate numbers of people WANT it.
I think you're making two mistakes in your thinking. Only time will tell which of us is closer to what happens in the marketplace.
1) You seem to be assuming that what you want is what the typical customer wants. I don't think anybody on Slashdot is typical of what the average customer wants, at least in relation to technical products.
2) You're looking at it as a technical challenge, but it's much more related to what is in the mind of the prospect than it is about the actual product. The geeky mind likes the idea of a bunch of complex functions jammed into one device, but the mind of the consumer wants simplicity. (Just as an aside, isn't it interesting that the MP3 players that also have radios and other functions built in aren't leading the market? The one with the most simplicity is leading.)
A LOT of money has been spent trying to make convergence devices work, and a lot more money will be spent in the future. That's because it SOUNDS so rational. It sounds as though the market MUST love this. In reality, divergence works better than convergence.
As I said, only time will tell which view will prevail. A study of what really happens in product categories suggests that money spent on convergence is mostly wasted captial, though.
On my browser, I grab the lower right corner and drag the window to whatever size I want. Maybe your browser doesn't have this advanced feature? :-)
Convergence sounds so logical when you put it into a business plan. It sounds so great when you ask people if it's what they want. "Do you want one device that cooks your meals, washes the dishes AND entertains you while you eat?" Sure, they say. In the real world, though, convergence devices almost never work in the long run.
I used to believe the convergence myth just as much as the next guy, but a marketing guru by the name of Al Ries convinced me otherwise. If you'd like to see his take on why convergence isn't going to happen, go to this page and click on, "The Convergence Bubble."
http://www.ries.com/Articles/index.cfm?Page=adage
I'm glad that SOMEBODY else still knows that. It doesn't even make sense with the plural added.
If you'll ever clarify your thinking, you'll figure out that the government you hold so dear is nothing but a sanitized version of the street thug. You go right ahead with your irrational smugness in the meantime, but neither you nor "society" -- which is nothing but an artificial construction -- has any right to claim my time or my money.
I give a lot of money to charitable causes that help other people, but it's because I CHOOSE to. I volunteer time at a homeless shelter and at a prison ministry that helps convicts to learn life skills they'll need once they're out, but it's because I CHOOSE to. Anybody who claims that he or she is OWED my money or my time is claiming the right to enslave me against my will. I don't accept that anyone has the right to make me his slave without my consent. Of course, governments take my money against my will now, but it's only because they're able to back up their claims with the threat of force -- just as any street thug might.
Taxing a person to pay for goods or services going to other people IS theft. If a gang of thugs takes money from one person to give it to another, it's called theft. If government does the same thing, we sanitize it by calling it taxation. Either way, it's theft.
So if you take money from someone else to pay off a person's debt and steal money from other people to pay for the guy's health care, THAT is what freedom is? Were you a consultant for Orwell with that Newspeak thing? :-)
I believe that Apple is switching to Intel because Steve Jobs was kidnapped by aliens and taken to the Mother Ship. While he was there, he was brainwashed and ordered to switch Macs to Intel's X86 architecture. So he did. End of story.
:-)
OK. So there might not be any evidence to support my theory, but there's at least as much evidence to support mine as there is to support the rest of the theories I've been reading. They're ALL just pure speculation, including my little green men.
The reason to use digital videotape is because it's cheap and is a good storage medium.
You really should figure out what the word, "forgery," actually means.
On the main point, though, it's difficult to say with certainty whether this is the wave of the future or just a novelty. Anyone who says he KNOWS is just guessing. After all, many movie people were CERTAIN that sound in movies was just a novelty that would pass in time.
How difficult is it to understand the original point of contention here? The poster I originally responded to claimed that Eisner had been QUOTED in the media as saying he was afraid of losing tax breaks if Disney distributed the film. There is still ZERO evidence of such a quote from Eisner. If you or others would like to debate whether he MIGHT have said such a thing in a private conversation, go ahead, but it is not the point I questioned. I challenged a simple statement which I believed to be very mistaken. So far, the pro-Moore people have simply posted statements quoting Moore's AGENT as making the charge, which isn't even VAGUELY the same thing as a quote from Eisner.
No one here has shown ANY statement which has been credibly shown to be from Eisner or any other Disney rep making the statement which was alleged. You don't seem to understand the difference between a person making a statement and having his enemy allege that he made a statement.
I don't know of anyone in the media who would accept that Eisner has been "quoted" as saying this based on the fact that Moore's agent said so. When I was a newspaper reporter (and later editor), we would obviously quote one person as claiming that someone said something (which the NYT did), but we would never claim that the second person DID say something. It's just not credible. By that logic, I can claim to have had a conversation with John Kerry in which he said that George Bush is a great president -- and then quote myself as proof that it was said.
You can reasonably argue about whether this was Eisner's motivation for his action (although it's sheer speculatioin), but that isn't what I disagreed with in my original post. I challenged the notion that Eisner had been quoted as saying he was afraid of losing tax breaks. It seems as though Moore's agent's charge has been repeated enough that some people BELIEVE that Eisner said it, and I see no evidence to believe that's true.
The thing that bothers me in debates such as this one is that most people (regardless of political beliefs) end up being intellectually dishonest in order to support their positions. The left thinks the right has a monopoly on that and the right thinks the same in reverse. I think it's just a basic human tendency regardless of your beliefs, but I think it's sad how we have to demonize our opponents in so many cases. The fact of the matter is that there are many very good and honest leftists who believe every word they're saying, and there are also many very good and honest right-wingers who believe every word they're saying. I think the motives of most on both sides for believing what they believe is much more pure and honest than the other side believes.
The funniest thing about the whole debate about the Disney angle is that Disney could have shelved the film and made sure it was never shown if the company had decided to. I don't imagine it was under any contractural obligation to release the film or sell it to someone else. The fact that Eisner was willing to sell it (on terms which I understand to be quite favorable to the Weinsteins) is evidence to me that he wasn't concerned with the political content -- as long as someone else's name was on it.
Quoting Moore's agent as making a claim is NOT the same thing as providing a quote from Eisner. Not even close.
The statement I challenged was that Eisner has been quoted in the press as saying something. A news story in which Moore's agent claims that Eisner said it isn't even vaguely the same as the press quoting Eisner saying something. That's called hearsay. Moore's camp has consistently made this charge, but there is NO evidence (which I can find) of Eisner saying it other than the agent's contention.