"The only reason HD-DVD is a competitive is because it's got the better name. Sure it'll cost lest to manufacture and be...*cough*... more compatable, Blue-Ray offers so much more, it only has a crappy name. Maybe this group can think of a better name. Any ideas? HDVD? DVD-Ultra? Super-DVD?"
Are you crazy? Blu-Ray has the catchy name. HD-DVD sounds like a naming convention nightmare. Like something someone from BMW dreamed up working the night shift and running out of other lettered combos to affix "iii" to.
When someone asks what Blu-Ray is, they'll be informed that it is "DVD's successor" along with all the benefits. In comparison, "HD-DVD" sounds like a *riced out* addition to DVD, like a Ferrari F40 wanna-be spoiler affixed to a 10 year old Honda Civic.
"Meanwhile, anybody with a fast PC can play WMV-HD, and Hollywood is not going to ignore the massive number of PC's running Windows Media Player. So I think Microsoft is just standing in the wings, watching Toshiba and Sony slug it out, and if Microsoft want this market, they have the money and the product to take it when the time is right."
*Microsoft theoretically has the money to take out Apple's QuickTime. But a lot of people prefer QuickTime's image quality.
*Microsoft theoretically has the money to beat Sony in video games. Almost 100 million Sony PS2s worldwide versus 20 million Microsoft Xboxes.
*Microsoft theoretically has the money to beat TiVo. UltimateTV failed.
*Microsoft theoretically has the money to beat AOL. After years of wasting money, MSN is still not equal to AOL in the dying dial-up ISP market.
*Microsoft theoretically has the money to beat the iPod. Over 80% of MP3 players in America are iPods.
Why would you expect Microsoft to be any different in the HD battle? If anything, Microsoft is in danger of having the Windows Media 9 codec banished from the Blu-Ray specs because the vast majority of the industry *players* prefer the H.264 codec so why would the drive manufacturers want to pay royalties for a second-and-inferior codec?
Your citation of FVD without historical context is also apparent. VCD is extremely popular in Asia but it never took off in America because Americans weren't willing to embrace a cheap sub-VHS quality picture from a disc based media.
"If the format war isn't resolved, retailers could unite behind one format and force the issue by not stocking titles that are in the other format. It would take a nearly united retail front, but it would certainly be possible and would probably be in the consumer's best interest. The guys backing the other format would change their tune rather quickly if retail sales were stagnant."
Best Buy helped kill Circuit City's DIVX DVD format scheme by refusing to stock the titles and the players in their stores and that was after Circuit City "convinced" The Good Guys to stock the machines and content in their stores. Best Buy could do it again by refusing to stock HD-DVD machines. However, they'll probably stock both formats because both will generate HDTV sales and that's something that Best Buy has been lusting after in their sales projections since 1999.
"Is the adoption (or lack thereof) of DVD-Audio/SACD due to format competition? Nope. Much like CDs, DVDs provide more than acceptable quality to the masses."
Partially. The failure of the music industry to agree on a single standard really hurt because consumers simply ignored both of them and jumped on the MP3 craze instead.
If the iTunes Music Store offered commercial tracks in ALAC (lossless) format with 5.1, they would kill off SACD and DVD-A once and for all.
"yeah, and we are in the 21st century primarily using 19th century transportation technology. It doesn't make sense but things are so stable (in an economic and cultural sense) that a radical change would require a huge destabilizing event."
Careful about the "19th Century transportation technology" comment. Fuel cells were first developed in the late 18th Century so if they replace the combustion engine in cars, we'd technically be swapping out 19th Century tech for 18th Century tech.
"I'm rooting for OS X, personally. It's funny, because I absolutely hated Mac OS = 9."
I find it neither funny nor odd. Back in the 80s, I couldn't stand the Mac platform - and its inflated cost - in comparison to the ST (and the Amiga). When both of those platforms ceased, I gave in and switched to the VHS of the industry, Windows, because it looked like Apple was nearing its end (back in 95/96). However, since OS X 10.2, I've really been rooting for OS X and Mac hardware in general.
Who knows? If Longhorn - excuse me, Vista - fails and Apple sells millions of Intel-based Macs in 2006, perhaps Dell, HP, Gateway and Sony will be forced to devote a large amount of monies to getting Linux up (or down, depending upon your perspective) to "average computer user" abilities and then the industry will once again pick up and innovation will return.
"3 Billion is not that much money country-wise, neither in the US nor Israel. It's like all of those people criticizing the NASA funding, though it really is only a insignificant amount in the budget."
I'm not criticizing NASA funding. NASA is an American agency. The $3 billion given to Israel would still be better spent in America.
I object to spending $3 billion on a nation in the Middle East that only serves as a lightning rod for hostility on the part of Muslims/Arabs/Persians against the United States and does nothing to secure a national strategic interest such as oil.
"The US Aid is about 3 billion dollars. thats less than 1.5% of the israeli budget! (revenues-wise) So next time you are saying stuff like "Tax breaks which would not be possible if the U.S. stopped financially supporting the State of Israel" know the numbers."
You proved nothing, AC. That's $3 billion that could be spent on things here in the U.S. Like, for instance, reimbursing California for the full cost of providing healthcare and emergency services for illegal immigrants that the Feds require us to offer yet they don't reimburse our State for. The money should be spent here, not in Israel.
Furthermore, if the U.S. didn't give Israel that $3 billion you cite, do you really think they could afford to give Intel a $500 + million grant? Nope.
"For $100 million, I'd want to be the first guy to have a three way in Space! (with 2 hot women - of course). I also want the exclusive rights to reproduce and sell the video."
You sound like Rick Solomon. Instead of you, I'd vote to see the MILF Hunter in space, just for the comedic value.
"For that matter, would I be the first guy to have sex in Space?"
"Also, I think the investment in Israel is a great idea. They are a strong ally and more investment will only help the cooperation."
Israel is not a strong ally of the United States. Britain is a strong ally of the United States. At the risk of sounding like a troll, Israel is an ally of the *wag the dog* variety. If you need further proof, compare the long historical cooperative relationship between the CIA and MI6 in the 20th Century (to today) with Israel's constant spying and theft of American nuclear technology. That doesn't sound like an alliance to me. Opportunism, yes.
"In return ofcourse, Israel would get hi-tech jobs, supporting industries, and expertize. I wish our politicians would look into future and invest wisely as Israel did."
But our politicians did. Their financial aid to Israel indirectly allowed this *investment* to happen in the first place. So don't thank Israeli politicians for being saavy, thank the politician action committees allied to them that successfully lobby our Congress each year for monies.
Having stated that though, I'm sure there was some financial incentive that was indirectly bankrolled by the American taxpayer that led to Atari setting up shop in the Republic of Ireland back in the day. Dell now occupies said property to my knowledge.
"Grouping these names together, you can tell that Intel Israel usually works on low-power chips and integrated chipset features (SSE, Centrino,...). That is, the heart of Intel cores is done in the U.S. They send their first generation designs to Israel for improvement and integration. Intel, as well as numerous other chip makers, have had a long tradition of development in Israel. IBM, DEC (back when they existed), Freescale all have research centers in Israel."
That's actually pretty funny. Intel Israel successfully works on low power chip solutions. Yet despite having developmental teams in Israel, IBM nor Freescale could offer similar technical feats for the G4 or G5 for Apple to use in the iBooks and PowerBooks. Consequently, a lot of Intel Israel's offerings will be in Apple Macs starting next year.
"Why does Intel always seem to locate it's new fab plants in deserts where water is scarce (they have a fab in Albuquerque as well), when fabs guzzle jillions of gallons of water a day? Israel isn't exactly a rainforest either..."
Using your post's logic, perhaps Intel should locate a plant at Antartica and consequently prevent the worldwide sea level rise caused by the melting away of Antartica's ice. That would be good corporate citizenship in practice...:)
"I don't believe that. I think this has to do more with that half a billion dollar grant Intel will be getting from the government of Israel and possible tax breaks."
Tax breaks which would not be possible if the U.S. stopped financially (and militarily)supporting the State of Israel. So technically, the U.S. government through its foreign policy is supporting this outsourcing. However, considering the power of the pro-Israel political action committee(s), I doubt this will be mentioned the next time Democrats raise the issue of outsourcing against the President and his economic policies. Instead, they'll bash India and China (and score approval points while doing so in the polls) while approving the continuation of such aid that leads to virtual job losses amongst the tech community here in the States. And consequently, more American college students will elect for a major in physical education over computer sciences.
"It would be nice if the movie industry embrassed Linux enough that I could legally play back my DVD's with it. I don't plan on buying HD-DVD or BluRay disks anytime soon because I don't want to buy anything that prohibits me from playing back on my computer."
Apple is a member of the Blu-Ray alliance. Just buy an Intel-based Apple Mac next year with a Blu-Ray drive and you'll be covered. You'll have to upgrade to access that Blu-Ray disc anyways, so you might as well spend some cash on a decent setup with a great OS bundled with it to boot.
"Rubbish! AllOfMp3.com do all transactions in US dollars. I am sure that the artists can request to receive their royalties in dollars too."
That may be true and the compensation may be done in dollars, but that still does not refute the fact that the organization is meant to be the authority for royalty collection in Russia, and not elsewhere. Thus if you aren't in Russia, then purchasing the tracks are not licensed in your territory.
"I WISH there were legal FLAC downloads somewhere so I wouldn't have such a limited selection. With that said, it is sad that I can "steal" something with a higher quality than that of what I can "buy", and to be honest that is my sole reason for "stealing"."
Then write to Apple and chime in on offering the iTunes Music Store tracks in ALAC, which is their version of lossless FLAC. Strip the DRM from it (I'm sure Hymn would be updated for ALAC+Fairplay files) and then convert it over to pure FLAC or Ogg or whatever else you'd like. That would be more constructive. Actually, owning shares (www.oneshare.com, www.sharebuilder.com) and lobbying that opinion would be even more constructive.
"AllOfMp3.com pays royalties to an authority which redistributes the money to the artists."
In theory, that is true. But where is the proof the Russian agency assigned that task is actually compensating the artists? Besides, that Russian organization is licensed for that task in Russia, not the U.S., Canada, or the EU. Royalty percentages in Rubles versus Dollars (or Euros) is not exactly fair.
"Theres far less distribution and packaging cost, the record companies dont even handle the servers for downloading. Were not getting all the goodies that come with a CD so why should we have to pay $9.99 for a downloaded album?"
While I totally agree with your sentiment, there would be others that would claim the high cost is a convenience charge. Plus, with CDs shipping with DRM, the online purchase is a convenient way for you to get the track(s) onto your iPod whereas if you buy the CD, you run the risk of not easily being able to transfer said tracks to your MP3 portable. It reminds me a lot of Ticketmaster. I do not know if this is still their practice, but Ticketmaster would charge convenience charges if you purchased tickets online or via telephone, and still would charge you a similar fee to purchase the tickets at a retail outlet. Double dipping, or "all your base are belong to us," so to speak.
"For me: DRM. If I'm going to be paying someone for music, I want it in basically the same flexibility that I would get off a CD. Lossless and with the ability to exercise my fair use."
The only problem with this logic is DRM is being applied to CDs now more frequently. Fair use is moot if the companies enact copy protection schemes on the media thanks to the DMCA here in America, and its foreign siblings.
If you truly want the music scene changed, then use iTunes. The more tracks Apple sells, the more powerful it will become when renegotiating contracts with the music labels (Apple said "no" to the various labels - Universal Music Group - who insisted the single track prices go up to $1.50). That or we could be in line to see plenty of established artists break from their labels and sell their wares directly on iTunes which quite possibly would translate to lower music prices for us fans/consumers. And that's a shift I want to see in the next 5 years.
"Here in the bay area, we actually got one of our old stations back. Live 105 used to be great, but got taken over or something a few years back and began to really suck. Then, more recently, I was forced to listen to the radio for a while, and when I switched over they were actually playing decent "alternative" music. They also use that recorded song name thing after playing the music, but it's pretty helpful because they play music that isn't repeated every ten minutes, and I like actually knowing what every song is. Anyway, I'm really glad to have the old station back. I like to imagine that one day an executive walked into the Live 105 office and said, "Hey, remember how we didn't used to suck? We should try that again, you know, as a gimmick." Either way, good for them. It was depressing living in San Francisco without a good rock station.*"
Funny you should mention Live 105, the originator of the *modern rock* format. The same thing happened at KWOD 106(.5) here in Sacramento. Back around 1991, KWOD tried to be the Live 105 of Sacramento, and succeeded for a few years. Then it became a suckfest for the most part. Just a couple of months ago, the parent company (Entercom) sacked all the DJs and went to a more *iPod* like modern rock format. Its much easier to listen to these days, although its still an experiment-in-progress.
Sactown does not have a good college radio scene. That's because CSU Sacramento owns two FM stations but won't turn them over to the student body to run. Instead, they farm one station out to NPR and another for jazz. Thus the only college station remotely near the town is KDVS at UC Davis which means spotty coverage for the Greater Sac Metro area.
Slashdot Mirror
"They really screwed themselves by pulling out."
Sounds like a Yogi Berra comment (yogi-ism) about a sex act.
"The only reason HD-DVD is a competitive is because it's got the better name. Sure it'll cost lest to manufacture and be...*cough*... more compatable, Blue-Ray offers so much more, it only has a crappy name. Maybe this group can think of a better name. Any ideas? HDVD? DVD-Ultra? Super-DVD?"
Are you crazy? Blu-Ray has the catchy name. HD-DVD sounds like a naming convention nightmare. Like something someone from BMW dreamed up working the night shift and running out of other lettered combos to affix "iii" to.
When someone asks what Blu-Ray is, they'll be informed that it is "DVD's successor" along with all the benefits. In comparison, "HD-DVD" sounds like a *riced out* addition to DVD, like a Ferrari F40 wanna-be spoiler affixed to a 10 year old Honda Civic.
"Meanwhile, anybody with a fast PC can play WMV-HD, and Hollywood is not going to ignore the massive number of PC's running Windows Media Player. So I think Microsoft is just standing in the wings, watching Toshiba and Sony slug it out, and if Microsoft want this market, they have the money and the product to take it when the time is right."
*Microsoft theoretically has the money to take out Apple's QuickTime. But a lot of people prefer QuickTime's image quality.
*Microsoft theoretically has the money to beat Sony in video games. Almost 100 million Sony PS2s worldwide versus 20 million Microsoft Xboxes.
*Microsoft theoretically has the money to beat TiVo. UltimateTV failed.
*Microsoft theoretically has the money to beat AOL. After years of wasting money, MSN is still not equal to AOL in the dying dial-up ISP market.
*Microsoft theoretically has the money to beat the iPod. Over 80% of MP3 players in America are iPods.
Why would you expect Microsoft to be any different in the HD battle? If anything, Microsoft is in danger of having the Windows Media 9 codec banished from the Blu-Ray specs because the vast majority of the industry *players* prefer the H.264 codec so why would the drive manufacturers want to pay royalties for a second-and-inferior codec?
Your citation of FVD without historical context is also apparent. VCD is extremely popular in Asia but it never took off in America because Americans weren't willing to embrace a cheap sub-VHS quality picture from a disc based media.
"If the format war isn't resolved, retailers could unite behind one format and force the issue by not stocking titles that are in the other format. It would take a nearly united retail front, but it would certainly be possible and would probably be in the consumer's best interest. The guys backing the other format would change their tune rather quickly if retail sales were stagnant."
Best Buy helped kill Circuit City's DIVX DVD format scheme by refusing to stock the titles and the players in their stores and that was after Circuit City "convinced" The Good Guys to stock the machines and content in their stores. Best Buy could do it again by refusing to stock HD-DVD machines. However, they'll probably stock both formats because both will generate HDTV sales and that's something that Best Buy has been lusting after in their sales projections since 1999.
"Is the adoption (or lack thereof) of DVD-Audio/SACD due to format competition? Nope. Much like CDs, DVDs provide more than acceptable quality to the masses."
Partially. The failure of the music industry to agree on a single standard really hurt because consumers simply ignored both of them and jumped on the MP3 craze instead.
If the iTunes Music Store offered commercial tracks in ALAC (lossless) format with 5.1, they would kill off SACD and DVD-A once and for all.
"yeah, and we are in the 21st century primarily using 19th century transportation technology. It doesn't make sense but things are so stable (in an economic and cultural sense) that a radical change would require a huge destabilizing event."
Careful about the "19th Century transportation technology" comment. Fuel cells were first developed in the late 18th Century so if they replace the combustion engine in cars, we'd technically be swapping out 19th Century tech for 18th Century tech.
"I'm rooting for OS X, personally. It's funny, because I absolutely hated Mac OS = 9."
I find it neither funny nor odd. Back in the 80s, I couldn't stand the Mac platform - and its inflated cost - in comparison to the ST (and the Amiga). When both of those platforms ceased, I gave in and switched to the VHS of the industry, Windows, because it looked like Apple was nearing its end (back in 95/96). However, since OS X 10.2, I've really been rooting for OS X and Mac hardware in general.
Who knows? If Longhorn - excuse me, Vista - fails and Apple sells millions of Intel-based Macs in 2006, perhaps Dell, HP, Gateway and Sony will be forced to devote a large amount of monies to getting Linux up (or down, depending upon your perspective) to "average computer user" abilities and then the industry will once again pick up and innovation will return.
"Yeah right, ask the Open Group what they think about that. Is every mp3 player an iPod too?"
:)
Over 80% of them are here in the States.
Granted, I really don't like that argument if you substitute the word "MP3" with "personal computer" and "iPod" with "Microsoft Windows."
"3 Billion is not that much money country-wise, neither in the US nor Israel. It's like all of those people criticizing the NASA funding, though it really is only a insignificant amount in the budget."
I'm not criticizing NASA funding. NASA is an American agency. The $3 billion given to Israel would still be better spent in America.
I object to spending $3 billion on a nation in the Middle East that only serves as a lightning rod for hostility on the part of Muslims/Arabs/Persians against the United States and does nothing to secure a national strategic interest such as oil.
"The US Aid is about 3 billion dollars.
thats less than 1.5% of the israeli budget! (revenues-wise) So next time you are saying stuff like "Tax breaks which would not be possible if the U.S. stopped financially supporting the State of Israel" know the numbers."
You proved nothing, AC. That's $3 billion that could be spent on things here in the U.S. Like, for instance, reimbursing California for the full cost of providing healthcare and emergency services for illegal immigrants that the Feds require us to offer yet they don't reimburse our State for. The money should be spent here, not in Israel.
Furthermore, if the U.S. didn't give Israel that $3 billion you cite, do you really think they could afford to give Intel a $500 + million grant? Nope.
Now that's something I'd contribute $10 towards. I'm sure many other Americans would do the same.
"For $100 million, I'd want to be the first guy to have a three way in Space! (with 2 hot women - of course). I also want the exclusive rights to reproduce and sell the video."
You sound like Rick Solomon. Instead of you, I'd vote to see the MILF Hunter in space, just for the comedic value.
"For that matter, would I be the first guy to have sex in Space?"
James Bond, in *Moonraker*.
"Also, I think the investment in Israel is a great idea. They are a strong ally and more investment will only help the cooperation."
Israel is not a strong ally of the United States. Britain is a strong ally of the United States. At the risk of sounding like a troll, Israel is an ally of the *wag the dog* variety. If you need further proof, compare the long historical cooperative relationship between the CIA and MI6 in the 20th Century (to today) with Israel's constant spying and theft of American nuclear technology. That doesn't sound like an alliance to me. Opportunism, yes.
"In return ofcourse, Israel would get hi-tech jobs, supporting industries, and expertize. I wish our politicians would look into future and invest wisely as Israel did."
But our politicians did. Their financial aid to Israel indirectly allowed this *investment* to happen in the first place. So don't thank Israeli politicians for being saavy, thank the politician action committees allied to them that successfully lobby our Congress each year for monies.
Having stated that though, I'm sure there was some financial incentive that was indirectly bankrolled by the American taxpayer that led to Atari setting up shop in the Republic of Ireland back in the day. Dell now occupies said property to my knowledge.
"Grouping these names together, you can tell that Intel Israel usually works on low-power chips and integrated chipset features (SSE, Centrino, ...). That is, the heart of Intel cores is done in the U.S. They send their first generation designs to Israel for improvement and integration. Intel, as well as numerous other chip makers, have had a long tradition of development in Israel. IBM, DEC (back when they existed), Freescale all have research centers in Israel."
That's actually pretty funny. Intel Israel successfully works on low power chip solutions. Yet despite having developmental teams in Israel, IBM nor Freescale could offer similar technical feats for the G4 or G5 for Apple to use in the iBooks and PowerBooks. Consequently, a lot of Intel Israel's offerings will be in Apple Macs starting next year.
"Why does Intel always seem to locate it's new fab plants in deserts where water is scarce (they have a fab in Albuquerque as well), when fabs guzzle jillions of gallons of water a day? Israel isn't exactly a rainforest either..."
:)
Using your post's logic, perhaps Intel should locate a plant at Antartica and consequently prevent the worldwide sea level rise caused by the melting away of Antartica's ice. That would be good corporate citizenship in practice...
"I don't believe that. I think this has to do more with that half a billion dollar grant Intel will be getting from the government of Israel and possible tax breaks."
Tax breaks which would not be possible if the U.S. stopped financially (and militarily)supporting the State of Israel. So technically, the U.S. government through its foreign policy is supporting this outsourcing. However, considering the power of the pro-Israel political action committee(s), I doubt this will be mentioned the next time Democrats raise the issue of outsourcing against the President and his economic policies. Instead, they'll bash India and China (and score approval points while doing so in the polls) while approving the continuation of such aid that leads to virtual job losses amongst the tech community here in the States. And consequently, more American college students will elect for a major in physical education over computer sciences.
"But the writers and the execs are using macs or pcs, I guarantee you that, locked into place by the likes of Final Draft."
Then why not lobby the company behind Final Draft to release a Linux version?
"It would be nice if the movie industry embrassed Linux enough that I could legally play back my DVD's with it. I don't plan on buying HD-DVD or BluRay disks anytime soon because I don't want to buy anything that prohibits me from playing back on my computer."
Apple is a member of the Blu-Ray alliance. Just buy an Intel-based Apple Mac next year with a Blu-Ray drive and you'll be covered. You'll have to upgrade to access that Blu-Ray disc anyways, so you might as well spend some cash on a decent setup with a great OS bundled with it to boot.
"Rubbish! AllOfMp3.com do all transactions in US dollars. I am sure that the artists can request to receive their royalties in dollars too."
That may be true and the compensation may be done in dollars, but that still does not refute the fact that the organization is meant to be the authority for royalty collection in Russia, and not elsewhere. Thus if you aren't in Russia, then purchasing the tracks are not licensed in your territory.
"I WISH there were legal FLAC downloads somewhere so I wouldn't have such a limited selection. With that said, it is sad that I can "steal" something with a higher quality than that of what I can "buy", and to be honest that is my sole reason for "stealing"."
Then write to Apple and chime in on offering the iTunes Music Store tracks in ALAC, which is their version of lossless FLAC. Strip the DRM from it (I'm sure Hymn would be updated for ALAC+Fairplay files) and then convert it over to pure FLAC or Ogg or whatever else you'd like. That would be more constructive. Actually, owning shares (www.oneshare.com, www.sharebuilder.com) and lobbying that opinion would be even more constructive.
"AllOfMp3.com pays royalties to an authority which redistributes the money to the artists."
In theory, that is true. But where is the proof the Russian agency assigned that task is actually compensating the artists? Besides, that Russian organization is licensed for that task in Russia, not the U.S., Canada, or the EU. Royalty percentages in Rubles versus Dollars (or Euros) is not exactly fair.
"Theres far less distribution and packaging cost, the record companies dont even handle the servers for downloading. Were not getting all the goodies that come with a CD so why should we have to pay $9.99 for a downloaded album?"
While I totally agree with your sentiment, there would be others that would claim the high cost is a convenience charge. Plus, with CDs shipping with DRM, the online purchase is a convenient way for you to get the track(s) onto your iPod whereas if you buy the CD, you run the risk of not easily being able to transfer said tracks to your MP3 portable. It reminds me a lot of Ticketmaster. I do not know if this is still their practice, but Ticketmaster would charge convenience charges if you purchased tickets online or via telephone, and still would charge you a similar fee to purchase the tickets at a retail outlet. Double dipping, or "all your base are belong to us," so to speak.
"For me: DRM. If I'm going to be paying someone for music, I want it in basically the same flexibility that I would get off a CD. Lossless and with the ability to exercise my fair use."
The only problem with this logic is DRM is being applied to CDs now more frequently. Fair use is moot if the companies enact copy protection schemes on the media thanks to the DMCA here in America, and its foreign siblings.
If you truly want the music scene changed, then use iTunes. The more tracks Apple sells, the more powerful it will become when renegotiating contracts with the music labels (Apple said "no" to the various labels - Universal Music Group - who insisted the single track prices go up to $1.50). That or we could be in line to see plenty of established artists break from their labels and sell their wares directly on iTunes which quite possibly would translate to lower music prices for us fans/consumers. And that's a shift I want to see in the next 5 years.
"Here in the bay area, we actually got one of our old stations back. Live 105 used to be great, but got taken over or something a few years back and began to really suck. Then, more recently, I was forced to listen to the radio for a while, and when I switched over they were actually playing decent "alternative" music. They also use that recorded song name thing after playing the music, but it's pretty helpful because they play music that isn't repeated every ten minutes, and I like actually knowing what every song is.
Anyway, I'm really glad to have the old station back. I like to imagine that one day an executive walked into the Live 105 office and said, "Hey, remember how we didn't used to suck? We should try that again, you know, as a gimmick." Either way, good for them. It was depressing living in San Francisco without a good rock station.*"
Funny you should mention Live 105, the originator of the *modern rock* format. The same thing happened at KWOD 106(.5) here in Sacramento. Back around 1991, KWOD tried to be the Live 105 of Sacramento, and succeeded for a few years. Then it became a suckfest for the most part. Just a couple of months ago, the parent company (Entercom) sacked all the DJs and went to a more *iPod* like modern rock format. Its much easier to listen to these days, although its still an experiment-in-progress.
Sactown does not have a good college radio scene. That's because CSU Sacramento owns two FM stations but won't turn them over to the student body to run. Instead, they farm one station out to NPR and another for jazz. Thus the only college station remotely near the town is KDVS at UC Davis which means spotty coverage for the Greater Sac Metro area.