If you think the radio and television advertising model works online for content producers in the same way it worked for broadcast, you're not paying attention.
I don't have an opinion about whether The Daily is going to make it or not. I've spent maybe 15 minutes looking at it so far (yesterday), and I'm going to give it more of a chance over the next couple of weeks while it's free. My initial thoughts weren't especially positive, but it's the content, not the business model, that didn't impress me. The content looked OK and was arranged decently, but I wasn't especially interested in most of what I saw. I didn't see that it was anything unique that I couldn't find anywhere else. If it continues to feel generic, it's going to die.
However, if it dies, it's not going to be because people won't spend $1 a week on it. If content is unique and interesting, I'll easily pony up money for a week of it that's less than the cost of a soft drink these days. Some people won't pay anything, ever, for content. But I think that's shortsighted. SOMEONE has to be paid to produce content. It doesn't just magically appear from the Content Fairy. Just as people have to be paid if you want your grass cut or your hair cut or your plumbing fixed, you have to pay the people who produce content. I don't know what the best model is for paying those people, but the idea that you can forever get content for free isn't logical or reasonable. Content companies are losing money by giving away their material on the web. That is NOT going to continue forever. Anybody who understands business understand it you can't invest massive amounts of money into something not producing a return, especially while your traditional lines of business dry up.
Those of us on the web have gotten a free product for years because we've been subsidized by the people who pay for printed and televised versions of the content. That subsidy won't last forever. SOMEONE has to find a way to get content producers paid. To simply declare that the future model is free is shortsighted and is a misunderstanding of what's happened on the web so far.
If you're going to make a claim that a product is doing well -- when almost everyone believes differently -- it's useful to bring evidence. The poster didn't give evidence for his claim. I think that's why people are questioning his assertion, not just because it's a Microsoft product.
By what metric do you claim that Windows Phone 7 is "doing just fine"? How do you know it's "done reasonably well on all carriers it's been released on"? Where are your numbers and how do you define it as doing well against the competing platforms? If you have some evidence, I would be very interested. I just haven't seen anything to support what you're saying -- and I've yet to see a single person with a Windows Phone in real life. I've yet to even hear anyone in real life even TALK about its existence. So what's your evidence?
That reply -- which is a popular one from fans of platforms without many apps -- is ignorant. It's true that there are some stupid apps, but there is an amazing diversity of very high quality apps for iOS -- and Android is way, way ahead of webOS and Blackberry in that regard, too.
Do you realize the insanity of what you're saying -- in THIS context? You're whining that Apple has terms of service for its store, when the software in question was pulled by VLC's developers because publishing it didn't comply with THEIR terms (the GPL). So the people who caused this action -- that you're supporting -- are enforcing THEIR rules. Get it? The GPL lovers are hypocrites. They don't want to give people freedom. They simply want everyone else to be forced to make the same choices that THEY do.
I write comedy -- and get paid for it -- so there's a very good chance I understand it better than you do. If your post was an example of you attempting humor, it's clear that you're not very good at it.
Are you just trolling or are you REALLY this stupid? You really can't imagine a time when an English-speaking person is in a foreign country where all the signs are printed in Spanish and you can't imagine a time when a Spanish-speaking person is visiting a country where the signs are printed in English?
How exactly is it "jumpstart[ing] the industry" to create a tablet that's trying hard to copy an iPad -- almost a year after the iPad came out and started selling millions and millions of units?
Actually, something such as this probably wasn't a typo. It was probably ignorance. Continuing to ignore this kind of ignorance creates a mass of people who can't write, can't spell and are very unclear in what they're trying to communicate. So I agree that it's worth calling attention to. We all make mistakes sometimes, and typos DO happen. But when you see "it's" over and over and over from people who think they're typing a possessive, they're not all typos.
I have a short film that's listed on IMDb and I have a personal listing there because of having written/directed it, so I've dealt with IMDb. I can tell you that it's not easy to get on their. They don't communicate with people very well. And their rating system is frequently "gamed" by people to hurt films. So I'm not crazy about them and can sympathize that they're not easy to deal with. However, it's VERY clear that there are fairly simple criteria by which IMDb determines what is a legit film. You can distribution or you can get your film into legit festivals. If you choose to exist outside of that system, IMDb has no reason to believe you're a real filmmaker. They don't pass artistic judgement. They simply say that you have to meet certain criteria to be listed. If they didn't do that, how in the world would they determine what to list? As someone who's been around the indie film world for awhile now, I can tell you that there are THOUSANDS of wannabes who are trying to get listed in order to get some credibility. So I believe the producers of this film are whiners who need to simply shut up. Of course, they might very well KNOW that they have zero chance of getting listed on IMDb, so getting geeks riled up about something on torrent not getting respect might be their real PR strategy. Either way, they seem like amateurs at best.
Are there some charlatans out there? Of course. Are there also legitimate treatments that the U.S. FDA just doesn't recognize yet? Of course. Why is it a good thing to take away people's freedom to decide for themselves which is which? Experts are frequently wrong. If people have the money to pay for treatments -- even if some of us think they're bad ideas -- why do we have the right to tell them what they can do with their money? It's arrogant to make that decision for them.
If you're not familiar with Thurrott, take a look at his reactions to the iPad. After having had my own iPad 3G for eight days, I'd say that the impressions that he wrote in this article almost had to be based more on hatred for Apple than any real evaluation of the iPad itself. In his summary in the last couple of paragraphs, he makes clear that he doesn't see the iPad as anything important. He wrote: "Anyone who believes this thing is a game changer is a tool. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is." I honestly just don't think he "gets" what Apple is doing. Of course, when Microsoft releases its copy of the iPad, he will praise it to the heavens.
http://www.winsupersite.com/alt/ipad_firstimpressions.asp
I happen to think that anyone with a halfway functional brain can see that the iPad hasn't been out long enough to be affecting netbooks (or much of anything else) yet. The iPad MIGHT very well have a big impact on netbook sales. Who knows? We have to wait and look at real sales figures. But when it comes to analyzing the question, the last person to trust is Paul Thurrott. To call the man an "expert" on much of anything is giving him far too much credit. He's more of a Redmond sycophant than anything else. He clearly doesn't "get" anything that Apple has been doing for the past few years. Taking Thurrott's opinion about anything Apple-related is like trusting Karl Rove's evaluation of the Democratic Party. If a person is heavily invested in seeing the world in a certain way, he's not really capable of seeing something contrary. Based on Thurrott's track record with Apple, he's not the person anyone should turn to as an expert on this matter, IMO.
I have no idea what Google plans for this software, so I might be surprised. With that said, though, it seems to me that this is the sort of software demo that impresses people who are already expert users of the current desktop metaphor. While that might include all of us who would read a site such as Slashdot, the VAST majority of people don't fall into that category. In my experience, most of them are already confused by the current file systems we use -- and software such as this simply takes the same metaphor and makes it more complicated.
I think that what Apple is doing with the iPad (and iPhone) makes more sense. They're hiding the file system, which upsets and terrifies many geeks. Since we've been using this particular abstraction (and the ones that came with DOS-based systems before this), it's natural for us to think in terms of files. For most normal people, I suspect the approach that Apple is taking is more natural. Regardless of whether Apple has the right approach or not, though, I think the next-generation systems require a rethinking of the paradigm that we're comfortable with. It's time to make more of the OS transparent to the user in SOME way. Doing what BumpTop does merely adds bells and whistles (and a cool demo factor) to what already exists, IMO. I don't believe it will ever lead to anything that will be popular with people outside of geek circles.
You can't possibly be stupid enough to think that making a perfunctory phone call (even if he's telling the truth) relieved him of the obligation not to sell someone else's property. That's not the way the law works. Whoever the thief was clearly knew what he had and he sold it to Gizmodo because he knew its value. An honest man would have at least given it to the bartender at the bar when it was found. Period.
So why do you assert that Apple's software approval process "will kill it"? Since you're making a sweeping dismissal of the company you say is the No. 1 contender, doesn't that deserve SOME logical argument? You might not LIKE Apple's software approval process, but can you point to any valid evidence that it's stopping substantial numbers of companies from developing for the iPhone/iPod touch/iPad platform? The massive number of apps for the platform points to the notion that ISVs are flocking to the platform. So what in the world is your statement based on?
There are plenty of people who want phones. There are plenty of people who are serious gamers. But the market of people who would make that factor (serious gaming capabilities) the overriding factor in purchasing a phone would be very, very small. To even take the question seriously suggests that you're among a tiny minority who thinks that heavy-duty games are important to a much higher percentage of the population than is actually the case.
WSJ reports that it's NOT competition for iTunes
on
Google To Take On iTunes?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The Wall Street Journal's story says that the plan will allow people to buy FROM iTunes and Amazon. According to this version, Google is just providing a link to the music providers when it comes to the purchase.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487423504899680.html
If you're not a WSJ subscriber, copy the first sentence of the article and Google it. The link from there will allow you to read the whole thing.
I didn't address what you're saying, so it's not necessarily relevant to my point. The post I was replying to made a broad statement about contracts in general, not to certain potentially untenable provisions in contracts. It's a fool's game to try to argue (especially on here) which contract terms are reasonable and which are not, so I won't do that. But when somebody is foolish enough to broadly advocate that "the masses" violate contracts, well, that's so stupid that it's worth a brief rebuttal.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think the radio and television advertising model works online for content producers in the same way it worked for broadcast, you're not paying attention.
I don't have an opinion about whether The Daily is going to make it or not. I've spent maybe 15 minutes looking at it so far (yesterday), and I'm going to give it more of a chance over the next couple of weeks while it's free. My initial thoughts weren't especially positive, but it's the content, not the business model, that didn't impress me. The content looked OK and was arranged decently, but I wasn't especially interested in most of what I saw. I didn't see that it was anything unique that I couldn't find anywhere else. If it continues to feel generic, it's going to die. However, if it dies, it's not going to be because people won't spend $1 a week on it. If content is unique and interesting, I'll easily pony up money for a week of it that's less than the cost of a soft drink these days. Some people won't pay anything, ever, for content. But I think that's shortsighted. SOMEONE has to be paid to produce content. It doesn't just magically appear from the Content Fairy. Just as people have to be paid if you want your grass cut or your hair cut or your plumbing fixed, you have to pay the people who produce content. I don't know what the best model is for paying those people, but the idea that you can forever get content for free isn't logical or reasonable. Content companies are losing money by giving away their material on the web. That is NOT going to continue forever. Anybody who understands business understand it you can't invest massive amounts of money into something not producing a return, especially while your traditional lines of business dry up. Those of us on the web have gotten a free product for years because we've been subsidized by the people who pay for printed and televised versions of the content. That subsidy won't last forever. SOMEONE has to find a way to get content producers paid. To simply declare that the future model is free is shortsighted and is a misunderstanding of what's happened on the web so far.
So what? If the editors don't think it's worth posting, they won't.
There's no such thing as a "Superbowl." It's two words. Super Bowl.
If you're going to make a claim that a product is doing well -- when almost everyone believes differently -- it's useful to bring evidence. The poster didn't give evidence for his claim. I think that's why people are questioning his assertion, not just because it's a Microsoft product.
By what metric do you claim that Windows Phone 7 is "doing just fine"? How do you know it's "done reasonably well on all carriers it's been released on"? Where are your numbers and how do you define it as doing well against the competing platforms? If you have some evidence, I would be very interested. I just haven't seen anything to support what you're saying -- and I've yet to see a single person with a Windows Phone in real life. I've yet to even hear anyone in real life even TALK about its existence. So what's your evidence?
That reply -- which is a popular one from fans of platforms without many apps -- is ignorant. It's true that there are some stupid apps, but there is an amazing diversity of very high quality apps for iOS -- and Android is way, way ahead of webOS and Blackberry in that regard, too.
Do you realize the insanity of what you're saying -- in THIS context? You're whining that Apple has terms of service for its store, when the software in question was pulled by VLC's developers because publishing it didn't comply with THEIR terms (the GPL). So the people who caused this action -- that you're supporting -- are enforcing THEIR rules. Get it? The GPL lovers are hypocrites. They don't want to give people freedom. They simply want everyone else to be forced to make the same choices that THEY do.
I write comedy -- and get paid for it -- so there's a very good chance I understand it better than you do. If your post was an example of you attempting humor, it's clear that you're not very good at it.
Are you just trolling or are you REALLY this stupid? You really can't imagine a time when an English-speaking person is in a foreign country where all the signs are printed in Spanish and you can't imagine a time when a Spanish-speaking person is visiting a country where the signs are printed in English?
How exactly is it "jumpstart[ing] the industry" to create a tablet that's trying hard to copy an iPad -- almost a year after the iPad came out and started selling millions and millions of units?
Actually, something such as this probably wasn't a typo. It was probably ignorance. Continuing to ignore this kind of ignorance creates a mass of people who can't write, can't spell and are very unclear in what they're trying to communicate. So I agree that it's worth calling attention to. We all make mistakes sometimes, and typos DO happen. But when you see "it's" over and over and over from people who think they're typing a possessive, they're not all typos.
I have a short film that's listed on IMDb and I have a personal listing there because of having written/directed it, so I've dealt with IMDb. I can tell you that it's not easy to get on their. They don't communicate with people very well. And their rating system is frequently "gamed" by people to hurt films. So I'm not crazy about them and can sympathize that they're not easy to deal with. However, it's VERY clear that there are fairly simple criteria by which IMDb determines what is a legit film. You can distribution or you can get your film into legit festivals. If you choose to exist outside of that system, IMDb has no reason to believe you're a real filmmaker. They don't pass artistic judgement. They simply say that you have to meet certain criteria to be listed. If they didn't do that, how in the world would they determine what to list? As someone who's been around the indie film world for awhile now, I can tell you that there are THOUSANDS of wannabes who are trying to get listed in order to get some credibility. So I believe the producers of this film are whiners who need to simply shut up. Of course, they might very well KNOW that they have zero chance of getting listed on IMDb, so getting geeks riled up about something on torrent not getting respect might be their real PR strategy. Either way, they seem like amateurs at best.
Are there some charlatans out there? Of course. Are there also legitimate treatments that the U.S. FDA just doesn't recognize yet? Of course. Why is it a good thing to take away people's freedom to decide for themselves which is which? Experts are frequently wrong. If people have the money to pay for treatments -- even if some of us think they're bad ideas -- why do we have the right to tell them what they can do with their money? It's arrogant to make that decision for them.
If you're not familiar with Thurrott, take a look at his reactions to the iPad. After having had my own iPad 3G for eight days, I'd say that the impressions that he wrote in this article almost had to be based more on hatred for Apple than any real evaluation of the iPad itself. In his summary in the last couple of paragraphs, he makes clear that he doesn't see the iPad as anything important. He wrote: "Anyone who believes this thing is a game changer is a tool. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is." I honestly just don't think he "gets" what Apple is doing. Of course, when Microsoft releases its copy of the iPad, he will praise it to the heavens. http://www.winsupersite.com/alt/ipad_firstimpressions.asp
I happen to think that anyone with a halfway functional brain can see that the iPad hasn't been out long enough to be affecting netbooks (or much of anything else) yet. The iPad MIGHT very well have a big impact on netbook sales. Who knows? We have to wait and look at real sales figures. But when it comes to analyzing the question, the last person to trust is Paul Thurrott. To call the man an "expert" on much of anything is giving him far too much credit. He's more of a Redmond sycophant than anything else. He clearly doesn't "get" anything that Apple has been doing for the past few years. Taking Thurrott's opinion about anything Apple-related is like trusting Karl Rove's evaluation of the Democratic Party. If a person is heavily invested in seeing the world in a certain way, he's not really capable of seeing something contrary. Based on Thurrott's track record with Apple, he's not the person anyone should turn to as an expert on this matter, IMO.
I have no idea what Google plans for this software, so I might be surprised. With that said, though, it seems to me that this is the sort of software demo that impresses people who are already expert users of the current desktop metaphor. While that might include all of us who would read a site such as Slashdot, the VAST majority of people don't fall into that category. In my experience, most of them are already confused by the current file systems we use -- and software such as this simply takes the same metaphor and makes it more complicated. I think that what Apple is doing with the iPad (and iPhone) makes more sense. They're hiding the file system, which upsets and terrifies many geeks. Since we've been using this particular abstraction (and the ones that came with DOS-based systems before this), it's natural for us to think in terms of files. For most normal people, I suspect the approach that Apple is taking is more natural. Regardless of whether Apple has the right approach or not, though, I think the next-generation systems require a rethinking of the paradigm that we're comfortable with. It's time to make more of the OS transparent to the user in SOME way. Doing what BumpTop does merely adds bells and whistles (and a cool demo factor) to what already exists, IMO. I don't believe it will ever lead to anything that will be popular with people outside of geek circles.
You can't possibly be stupid enough to think that making a perfunctory phone call (even if he's telling the truth) relieved him of the obligation not to sell someone else's property. That's not the way the law works. Whoever the thief was clearly knew what he had and he sold it to Gizmodo because he knew its value. An honest man would have at least given it to the bartender at the bar when it was found. Period.
When you have to explain that you're not scared about a trend that could hurt your product, it means you ARE scared of the trend. :-)
So why do you assert that Apple's software approval process "will kill it"? Since you're making a sweeping dismissal of the company you say is the No. 1 contender, doesn't that deserve SOME logical argument? You might not LIKE Apple's software approval process, but can you point to any valid evidence that it's stopping substantial numbers of companies from developing for the iPhone/iPod touch/iPad platform? The massive number of apps for the platform points to the notion that ISVs are flocking to the platform. So what in the world is your statement based on?
Because we all know that adding a SIM card is the only change you'd have to make to turn a PSP into a phone. RIght? ;-)
There are plenty of people who want phones. There are plenty of people who are serious gamers. But the market of people who would make that factor (serious gaming capabilities) the overriding factor in purchasing a phone would be very, very small. To even take the question seriously suggests that you're among a tiny minority who thinks that heavy-duty games are important to a much higher percentage of the population than is actually the case.
The Wall Street Journal's story says that the plan will allow people to buy FROM iTunes and Amazon. According to this version, Google is just providing a link to the music providers when it comes to the purchase. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487423504899680.html If you're not a WSJ subscriber, copy the first sentence of the article and Google it. The link from there will allow you to read the whole thing.
Would you kindly point out where I said that? And when you find that I didn't say what you're alleging, will you please apologize?
I didn't address what you're saying, so it's not necessarily relevant to my point. The post I was replying to made a broad statement about contracts in general, not to certain potentially untenable provisions in contracts. It's a fool's game to try to argue (especially on here) which contract terms are reasonable and which are not, so I won't do that. But when somebody is foolish enough to broadly advocate that "the masses" violate contracts, well, that's so stupid that it's worth a brief rebuttal.