I agree. I live in an area with a really cool independent music store. It's so cool it still stocks and sells tons of new vinyl. And the owner has a knack for finding rarities, imports, and other hard to find items.
Despite the fact that the store is so cool and I'm friends with the owner, I still buy the vast majority of my music from Amazon. It's fast, it's free shipping, the prices are great, and I never have to get in my car.
Small retailers like to blame P2P for their demise, that may be true, but I'd blame internet retailers first. Since P2P came out, I buy much more music as I'm exposed to much more music. But I simply have stopped buying locally.
If the evidence is as damaging as Cringely claims, then the owners of Burst will get a huge out of court settlement from Micrsoft. It the evidence isn't, then there is no story.
Does this mean that if you buy a computer without a modem and/or netcard, you don't have to pay the tax? Or does it mean that since it is "possible" to add a modem/netcard later, you have to pay the tax regardless?
If I could install OSX on one of my homebuilt systems I certainly would.
However, one of the reasons Apples are so stable is because the hardware and software is so strictly controlled. Thus, either OSX would be very unstable on the X86 platform or it would not work with most hardware. Either would be a huge disadvantage.
As you point out, Apples are expensive. If we have to take out a loan to buy one, the fact that we won't switch to OSx has nothing to do with will. It has to do with value.
However, if I could simply run OSX on cheap AMD boxes, then I wouldn't need the loan, thus it would be quite easy to switch.
You can't make the cost of the switch huge but then claim it's only a matter of will keeping people from switching.
That's my angle too. I think he was fired because he was old and was probably about to retire. They just used SETI as an excuse. I hope the guy finds a good attorney.
You're right, the RIAA WAS desparte to get Apple. But if Apple ever started to sign artists directly, cutting them out of the process, Apple will get cut.
Let's assume that right now, the top 100 artists signed exclusively to iTunes.
If that happened, the music industry would pull their entire catalogs of music from iTunes. All of the artists' current and prior hits would still be owned by the music industry, iTunes wouldn't get them. iTunes would have to wait for those one hundred artists to come up with new material to release AND pray that there was a demand for them.
The artists would have to pray that radio would still play them even though they do not have a record contract. Currently, the music industry pays a LOT of money to get songs played, will Apple or the artists start paying that?! I doubt it as they are outsiders to the payola system.
Thus, even if the best scenario happened for iTunes, and those hundred artists signed exclusively to it, it would not have any music other than independents and new songs, which are almost certainly not being played on the radio, by artists who used to be famous.
Could iTunes survive in doing that? Sure. But would those artists wise up and go back to the labels? You bet they would.
And when the two parties have practically the same opinion?! Let's face it, both parties only nominate moderates, i.e., middle of the road candiates. They both believe that what's good for corporate America is good for America. They both believe in a strong US military. Neither will affect any real change.
This reminds me of a quote someone said about choice in America. I'll do my best not to screw it up. It went something like, "In America you can walk down a supermarket isle in any city and find hundreds of different breakfast cereals, all made out of the exact same ingredients."
What you seem to be missing is that the music industry owns nearly all the popular music in the world. Thus, when and if Apple gets too big, the labels could simply refuse to provide their vast catalog of music. Or provide it at an extraordinary price.
All online music stores depend on new hits AND on the huge back catalog of songs.
I feel like an old coot for saying this, but slashdot has changed. Nowadays, I'm always seeing posts that are verifiably true, being modded as troll, posts that are on topic being modded as off topic, posts with original ideas being modded as redundant.
I don't know if it's one person with too much time on his hands, of if slashdot is getting popular enough to attract more idiots. But either way, it's certainly annoying.
Every single thing the guy says is true, exactly how does that make him a troll?!
I know it's hard to admit to the Apple converted, but Apple has NO power in the music industry. The record companies will drop Apple in a second for any reason.
First, as Melted pointed out, the music industry really doesn't earn that much money from iTunes.
And here's a second reason, that's even more important. The music industry does not want ANY service getting too popular. If one service ever got popular enough, major artists could sign directly to Apple and sell their music WITHOUT signing to a major label! The music industry will sure to bring down ANY service that starts to get that much power.
I'm going to get modded down, but I agree. If someone came up with a specific way to make an LCD monitor brighter without expending additional energy, why couldn't it be patented?!
As anyone who's read my posts here knows, I'm totally against software and business patents. But this patent certainly appears valid to me.
The car you drive is filled with valid patents which increased its cost. The same goes with your computer, your microwave oven, your TV, etc. Why is this particular patent news?
Second, you're absolutely correct, but you'd also be violating the DMCA. Welcome to the new America, where doing what is allowed by the Supreme Court is still illegal.
Once again, the risk of injury to people is NOT the reason we can sue automobile manufacturers. In every aspect of our lives other than software, if you're damagned due to the neligent act of a entity, and if that entity had a duty not to be neligent, you can use.
I'll say it again, it has NOTHING to do with people actually getting injured. If a car rams into my house because of faulty software, I can sue the manufacturer for the damages to my house. There is no requirement that I actually suffer phyical injuries.
I never said anyone died in the accident. People survive accidents and sue all the time.
Let's imagine, for example, if the car hit the toll booth. Regardless of whether anyone was injured or died, the owner of the toll booth could sue for his damages to his booth.
About a year ago I started using Mozilla. Now I use Firefox. I've never needed to use IE for anything. Where are these sites (not including those run by Microsoft of course) that force you to use IE?!
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I live in an area with a really cool independent music store. It's so cool it still stocks and sells tons of new vinyl. And the owner has a knack for finding rarities, imports, and other hard to find items.
Despite the fact that the store is so cool and I'm friends with the owner, I still buy the vast majority of my music from Amazon. It's fast, it's free shipping, the prices are great, and I never have to get in my car.
Small retailers like to blame P2P for their demise, that may be true, but I'd blame internet retailers first. Since P2P came out, I buy much more music as I'm exposed to much more music. But I simply have stopped buying locally.
At best it'll only kill off the current music industry.
If the evidence is as damaging as Cringely claims, then the owners of Burst will get a huge out of court settlement from Micrsoft. It the evidence isn't, then there is no story.
Does this mean that if you buy a computer without a modem and/or netcard, you don't have to pay the tax? Or does it mean that since it is "possible" to add a modem/netcard later, you have to pay the tax regardless?
Linux was designed to run on various hardware, Apple's OSX was not. That's the difference!
If I could install OSX on one of my homebuilt systems I certainly would.
However, one of the reasons Apples are so stable is because the hardware and software is so strictly controlled. Thus, either OSX would be very unstable on the X86 platform or it would not work with most hardware. Either would be a huge disadvantage.
As you point out, Apples are expensive. If we have to take out a loan to buy one, the fact that we won't switch to OSx has nothing to do with will. It has to do with value.
However, if I could simply run OSX on cheap AMD boxes, then I wouldn't need the loan, thus it would be quite easy to switch.
You can't make the cost of the switch huge but then claim it's only a matter of will keeping people from switching.
That's my angle too. I think he was fired because he was old and was probably about to retire. They just used SETI as an excuse. I hope the guy finds a good attorney.
You're right, the RIAA WAS desparte to get Apple. But if Apple ever started to sign artists directly, cutting them out of the process, Apple will get cut.
Let's assume that right now, the top 100 artists signed exclusively to iTunes.
If that happened, the music industry would pull their entire catalogs of music from iTunes. All of the artists' current and prior hits would still be owned by the music industry, iTunes wouldn't get them. iTunes would have to wait for those one hundred artists to come up with new material to release AND pray that there was a demand for them.
The artists would have to pray that radio would still play them even though they do not have a record contract. Currently, the music industry pays a LOT of money to get songs played, will Apple or the artists start paying that?! I doubt it as they are outsiders to the payola system.
Thus, even if the best scenario happened for iTunes, and those hundred artists signed exclusively to it, it would not have any music other than independents and new songs, which are almost certainly not being played on the radio, by artists who used to be famous.
Could iTunes survive in doing that? Sure. But would those artists wise up and go back to the labels? You bet they would.
And when the two parties have practically the same opinion?! Let's face it, both parties only nominate moderates, i.e., middle of the road candiates. They both believe that what's good for corporate America is good for America. They both believe in a strong US military. Neither will affect any real change.
This reminds me of a quote someone said about choice in America. I'll do my best not to screw it up. It went something like, "In America you can walk down a supermarket isle in any city and find hundreds of different breakfast cereals, all made out of the exact same ingredients."
What you seem to be missing is that the music industry owns nearly all the popular music in the world. Thus, when and if Apple gets too big, the labels could simply refuse to provide their vast catalog of music. Or provide it at an extraordinary price.
All online music stores depend on new hits AND on the huge back catalog of songs.
I feel like an old coot for saying this, but slashdot has changed. Nowadays, I'm always seeing posts that are verifiably true, being modded as troll, posts that are on topic being modded as off topic, posts with original ideas being modded as redundant.
I don't know if it's one person with too much time on his hands, of if slashdot is getting popular enough to attract more idiots. But either way, it's certainly annoying.
Every single thing the guy says is true, exactly how does that make him a troll?!
I know it's hard to admit to the Apple converted, but Apple has NO power in the music industry. The record companies will drop Apple in a second for any reason.
First, as Melted pointed out, the music industry really doesn't earn that much money from iTunes.
And here's a second reason, that's even more important. The music industry does not want ANY service getting too popular. If one service ever got popular enough, major artists could sign directly to Apple and sell their music WITHOUT signing to a major label! The music industry will sure to bring down ANY service that starts to get that much power.
I'm going to get modded down, but I agree. If someone came up with a specific way to make an LCD monitor brighter without expending additional energy, why couldn't it be patented?!
As anyone who's read my posts here knows, I'm totally against software and business patents. But this patent certainly appears valid to me.
The car you drive is filled with valid patents which increased its cost. The same goes with your computer, your microwave oven, your TV, etc. Why is this particular patent news?
Redundant?! Gee, I don't remember posting my agreement more than once.
I agree, Google easily could have registered gbrowser.com merely to keep anyone else from getting it.
First, I have NO idea why this post is off topic.
Second, you're absolutely correct, but you'd also be violating the DMCA. Welcome to the new America, where doing what is allowed by the Supreme Court is still illegal.
Once again, the risk of injury to people is NOT the reason we can sue automobile manufacturers. In every aspect of our lives other than software, if you're damagned due to the neligent act of a entity, and if that entity had a duty not to be neligent, you can use.
I'll say it again, it has NOTHING to do with people actually getting injured. If a car rams into my house because of faulty software, I can sue the manufacturer for the damages to my house. There is no requirement that I actually suffer phyical injuries.
I never said anyone died in the accident. People survive accidents and sue all the time.
Let's imagine, for example, if the car hit the toll booth. Regardless of whether anyone was injured or died, the owner of the toll booth could sue for his damages to his booth.
If you put crappy software in a car and it causes an accident, the manufacturer can be sued.
But if you put it in a server, which crashes, bringing down your entire business, you cannot sue the manufacturer.
Can someone explain to me the difference?!
When Asia even kicks our asses in criminal behavior!
For Corporate Concerns!
About a year ago I started using Mozilla. Now I use Firefox. I've never needed to use IE for anything. Where are these sites (not including those run by Microsoft of course) that force you to use IE?!
Damn you're good!