"Funny, that. A democratically elected body, but one that the revolutionaries felt did not represent them. A series of laws designed to increase the wealth of the already wealthy. Intrusions by the government into private life. Does this sound like ANY government you've heard of recently?"
Re-read your history. Parliament offered the colonies representation in the British parliament; colonial leaders sympathetic to the radical (dare we say, terrorist?) Sons of Liberty "organization" refused to accept the offer of parliamentry seats. Thus Parliament stuck with the "virtual representation" for the entire Empire. Parliament had to come up with ways to pay off the imperial debt which was mainly incurred by trying to evict the French from North America (Canada) which the British North American colonists bitched about for over a century but were unable to accomplish. It took the power of the British Army and the Royal Navy to beat the French into submission in the 7 Years War (French & Indian War) which ran up the debt. The colonials prospered by removing such a large threat but refused to "pay their fair share." Ever heard that phrase before? Yeah, that was a common phrase used by leprotards like Senator Barbara Boxer in the 1990s running on platforms to "make Japan and Europe pay for their defense" that went nowhere. The people in the Empire that were being overtaxed to pay for the American colonies' defense were the English, the Welsh, the Scottish, and the Irish. The American colonies, even with the dreaded *tea tax* were paying around 1% of their incomes in terms of imperial taxation. Compare that to the end of the American Revolution where the "States" on average raised taxes 15 times what they were in the pre-Revolutionary period. And the British "gave" to the independent United States of America what the colonials bitched about for years; freedom to trade with the rest of the world without British administrative interference. What was the result? Depression. The British Empire turned around and locked the U.S. out of the imperial trade system. The economic consequences of this led to Shay's Rebellion, which is noteworthy because it ushered in the Federal System as a crackdown on such counter-revolutionary activities.
The "quartering of soldiers" is a lie. It did not happen except for Loyalist families who volunteered. Quartering referred to the practice of housing British Army soldiers in the local inns (which the inn keepers loved because it was steady income) and the colonial legislatures were forced to pay the bills since it was a defensive cost. Alarmist colonial leaders objected to keeping a standing army in the colonies since they felt it was counter to English history and their rights as Englishmen, although the British were the ones well aware that the French were itching for revenge and it was only a matter of time until the next colonial war happened.
"As to what states are "adding" this - actually only CA and NY are new to this. The article says they are joining 17 other states that ALREADY did this."
California has had it on the books for a century. This made the news last tax year. It was voluntary disclosure. The State wasted a few million mailing the stupid forms out to citizens. They collected far less than the cost of the mailings. Typical.
"XP Reloaded is designed to change that. It starts when Springboard ships and continues with a broad push to convince customers to use Microsoft's digital media technology. The company plans to release a new product, internally known as Windows XP Premium, that combines Windows XP Professional with an updated version of Windows Media Player. Premium will be available only on new PCs, not in boxes at retail. The new media player software lets online music stores -- including one that Microsoft plans to launch later this year -- snap right into the design, so that users can easily buy music from inside the player application."
So Microsoft thinks it wise to artificially limit its music store to only customers who buy new PCs with this new version of XP bundled. We all know Apple's business model for the iTunes Music Store is to push demand for their iPod. If this article is correct, Microsoft seems to think end users will be so desperate to use the Microsoft Music Store that they'll go out and buy new PCs. Fascinating. This is worthy of RIAA logic.
There are plenty of PC owners out there that strictly build their own PCs. They aren't going to go to the computer stores to buy branded PCs just to have the luxury to use the Microsoft Music Store. Just like with the Media PC scheme. There are probably a lot of users out there who would buy the "upgrade" if they didn't have to buy a whole new system. I believe this tactic was directly influenced by Apple, but the difference is, Microsoft is not Apple, even if one of the proxies is AlienWare. Its pretty pathetic that an end user has to use the *free* Linux operating system to use something like MythTV (and due note, I do not because I'm a TiVo supporter) since they don't have to go out and buy a whole new PC for similar functions via the OS. Come to think about that, the same goes for SMP support on x86 (or purchase Win2000 or WinXP Pro) or native Athlon64 support too.
"I've heard all these "ooh, media player tied to online stores=product tying=illegal." or "ooh, this shows MS doesnt care about antitrust lawsuits." Doesnt itunes come with every computer purchased with MacOSX? And doesnt itunes, by default, have ITMS (iTunes music store) capability? So how is MS now including WMP any different than apple always including Itunes+ITMS? It seems like its just the/. bias at work again."
How exactly is Apple monopolistic?
Does Apple own the Power PC processor architecture? They used to be a financial contributor, but from what I've seen, its basically an IBM and Motorola (Motorola being the short bus rider of the two) show. And it looks like IBM will be pushing mobos using PowerPC 970 (the G5) chips for Linux enthusiasts so Apple doesn't even have exclusivity on one of its compelling selling points.
Does Apple restrict retailers from bundling Yellow Dog Linux distributions with its hardware? (like Microsoft did against Digital Research's CP/M, DR-DOS, and GEM? IBM's OS/2? BeOS? Linux?). And speaking of Linux, behind the scenes, Apple isn't trying to cripple Linux distributions from running on its hardware via BIOS chipsets like Microsoft is with the "Trusted Computing" scheme either. You might also check the various operating systems XServe is certified with as well...
Does Apple build a web-browser to crush competitors that flaunts standards like Microsoft's Internet Explorer? Nope...Safari is based upon an open-source web browser (Konqueror/KHTML) for Linux, and Apple is an active code contributor.
Does Apple try to crush open source operating systems like Microsoft does with Linux? Nope. Apple's OS X is built atop Free BSD, a Unix deriviative.
Does Apple push its own instant messaging program in an effort to crush other market leaders like Microsoft does? Nope, iChat is a repackaged (industry market share leader) AOL Instant Messenger with extra nifty features.
Does Apple push a self-serving music format to perpetuate its operating system monopoly like Microsoft? Nope. Apple's iTunes uses the AAC format, which was developed by Dolby, not Microsoft. And the iTunes Music Store is available on both the Windows and Mac platforms. Sure, we can argue it should be issued for the Linux platform as well and that the iPod should also throw in support for OGG, but those accessory issues to this argument.
Does Apple push a proprietary graphics API onto the industry like Microsoft does with D3D/DirectX? Nope, Apple supports OpenGL.
Has Apple tried to squash Adobe's PDF file format like Microsoft is trying to do via Microsoft patented XML schemes via Office 2003? Nope, Apple has thrown its support behind PDF.
Since starting and later retreating from the PDA market, has Apple tried to cripple Palm in any manner like Microsoft has? Nope, Apple has gone out of its way to support Palm OS products with native support.
Does Apple try to push its own mobile phone platform onto the industry like Microsoft? Nope. Apple in fact is the computer company that has done the most to support Bluetooth directly in its operating system. If you don't believe me, try to sync a Bluetooth equipped phone (say, a Sony Ericsson phone like the T616) on a Windows machine and then on a Mac.
Is Apple trying to muscle its way into the growing internet search business like Microsoft's designs against Google? Nope. The Safari web brower, like Mozilla FireFox, has a built-in Google Search window. I concede that there are rumors that Apple is in negotiations behind-closed-doors with Yahoo about throwing its support behind Yahoo's Search. But supporting either of these giants is different than Microsoft trying to keep its operating system monopoly from disappearing.
And despite favoring its own technology such as Firewire, it was Apple who legitimized Intel's USB platform (itself a deriviative of Atari's SIO port on the 400/800 8-bit computer line from 1979 and created by the same engineer
How exactly is this news? Hidden messages in spam? If I recall correctly, this was a plot piece from 1997's "The Saint" film. Embedding secret messages into email and cyberpr0n. C'mon, doesn't anyone remember that film? Val Kilmer playing a British character sans the British accent?:)
Cold fusion was the other plot piece to it. Damn Halliburton putting the kibosh on that...:)
"Red Hat has a few goals: bring more of SCO's actions to light and into court by putting them on the legal defensive; helping IBM by bringing these things to light and legitimizing IBM's arguments if they win; hedging their bets in case IBM loses (if IBM loses, Red Hat's in big trouble, so this pre-emptive strike may help protect them or at least raise money for their future legal defense)."
Even if IBM loses this round, IBM will definitely appeal. That means the case will be drawn out even longer, and SCO will burn through more reserve cash. They can't exactly sell any more licenses to Microsoft for funding, and if they file against more corporations, that means more costs and more distractions which probably won't generate any more cash to fund the ongoing lawsuit against IBM. Compared to SCO, IBM has the funding behind it similar to Microsoft. IBM won't settle this either; they have too much pride to settle with such an insignificant company as SCO. If they did, they'd set a precident for more insignificant companies to try to sue them over dubious claims. The truth is, IBM is going to go thermonuclear and I doubt they'll sell-out to Microsoft in the end like Time Warner and now Sun have done.
"I've tried to get into it, but it seems more difficult to jump into than Buffy. Which surprises me, because I'm a lite-Buffy fan and loved Firefly, but it just doesn't seem to translate over to Angel. Just me I guess."
Hmmm. That's interesting considering Angel generally appeals to casual Buffy fans more than the original show does/did. Seasons 1-4 are repeated on TNT at 5pm Pacific (or is it 6? I forget).
However, the drawback to TNT is that they show Seasons 3 and 4 in fullframe (pan & scan) even though they were broadcast in widescreen on the WB. The presentation suffers greatly if you've already seen those episodes in their native format. I'd highly recommend picking up the Season 1 Box Set at Worst Buy or rent them through NetFlix; I think you'd get into it quickly. My dad really disliked Buffy, but he's an Angel fan...same with most of my friends actually. Just think of Angel as "Batman as a vampire" and it clicks.
"the TiVo always has at least a dozen STTNG, Buffy, Simpsons, Futurama, or Family Guy episodes sitting around to peruse."
Hey, if you watch Buffy, please start watching "Angel," the critically acclaimed spin-off. WB Network will be monitoring the ratings when the show returns for its "final" 6 episodes in April since there is so much pressure from the fans and in the media for them to reverse the cancellation.
"I think your post is going to be somewhat of a foreshadow. I for one was very surprised when nobody blamed the DVRs right out of the gate. The TV industry has been so opposed to them all along, I had it figured it must be their fault."
No they [broadcasters] haven't. Viacom (CBS), NBC, Time Warner (via AOL), Comcast, Cox, and DirecTV (Fox) are all shareholders in TiVo.
The broadcasters drove ReplayTV into the ground because of the blatent "commercial skip" button on the remote control (although plenty of analog VCRs have the 30 second skip button too) as well as the virtually useless sharing program feature that allowed you to upload/download programs to and fro other ReplayTV owners you knew. Unfortunately, the trasmit speeds even on a broadband connection were as slow as using Kazaa at most times for the same type of functionality. But that torqued the broadcasters by interfering with their broadcasting rights to said programs and so ReplayTV as part of SonicBlue, went under.
"What do I want? I want to drive down to the video store and rent these. I heard "24" was good, I wouldn't mind renting the first season over a couple weekends. I never got to see Dr Who as a kid - I would love to rent those. I have seen a few series in the rentals (like south park) but not that many. Of course blockbuster only has so much floor space, and can only have so many DVD's, so why don't they have one megawarehouse per city that is full of all sorts of hard to find movies and episodes. Advertise it in the normal outlets and work it like inter-library loan."
Pavon, NetFlix has a pretty good selection of Doctor Who episodes on DVD. Well, for the North American market. The US always lags on the new releases compared to its home market (the UK).
The last time I was at Blockbuster, the only Doctor Who stuff on DVD were the non-cannon Peter Cushing flicks...
The article didn't mention where to enter the contest at once on AOL. You have to type in "Keyword: SPAM" to even find it. The contest does not appear on the Welcome *splash screen* once you logon AOL. You do have to be an AOL subscriber, but I'm sure that's not a problem because collectively, there's probably a few million AOL discs out there amongst all of us Slashdotters...
"and Wal-Mart (they've got the low cost structure)."
Seriously, who is going to buy downloaded music from Wal*Mart? Their store customer base for the most part is not sophisticated enough to get the download model and if they can't attract them, who are they going to attract? I won't buy from Wal*Mart based upon a savings of 10 cents per song when its in WMA format and I cannot be sure the track hasn't been edited.
I'd be willing to bet that the iTunes Music Store will receive anchoring from retailers such as Target though. Kinda like how Amazon is maintaining the online sites of several retailers now.
"Yes, this is the first casuality of the new internet bubble. Next up I think will be Napster. It will probably be bought/merged with Microsoft's forthcoming online music endeavor."
I think Apple will buy out Napster/Roxio. What a way to kill a competitor and then gain something on top of it. It would be great if Toast6 could be integrated into OS X 10.4 (or 10.5). Whereas if Microsoft were to buy Roxio, they'd be challenged if they were to incorporate Easy Media Creator into Windows Longhorn. The EU would not be happy over it.
"Reminds me of Howard Dean, and the trend to see technological change as a politically progressive force. Maybe this is not such a good idea?"
What? You attribute the collapse of Democratic support for Howard Dean as a way of advancing the argument that the internet is not revolutionary? Dean collapsed because of his crazy man scream and other gaffes, not to mention that his "I'm against Bush's war" wasn't enough of a campaign platform to rally behind.
Its actually ironic that you brought this up regarding the lack of power the internet has in toppling dictators. *The Coalition* toppled a well-known one this past year, with military might. The Military (through DARPA) created the internet, and it is integral to military operations. Therefore, the internet IS a revolutionary force that does topple dictatorships. Perhaps after the election, we'll see another regime be toppled through the same means in 2005; a regime that does have WMD beyond the shadow of a doubt - North Korea...
"iPod is not much of all their total assets--you're way off in thinking a profit margin is somehow related to a company's assets and overall total value."
How very true. Although the iPod is responsible for a lot of "good will" Apple is receiving in the press. Otherwise, that ink would be devoted to covering their "dwindeling 2% computer marketshare" and the "Apple is dying" type of story...
"First of all, Apple gets 40% of that 99 cents.. who says they're not making a profit? Apple? Yeah, just like the guys in TJ swear that you're getting such a good deal on that necklace, that their kids are going to have to skip dinner just to pay for it."
If you don't mind me asking, where did you get your figures from? From what I've read, 20 + cents (I read, 25) goes to the RIAA. 10-15 cents go to the music label. 10 cents or less goes to the artist. 10 additional cents go to cover "micropayments" to the credit card companies. 10 cents or so covers hosting charges. There were other charges I read too but am having trouble citing. What it boiled down to was Apple with 5 or 10 cents left. Under that scenario, Wal*Mart would have to even forgo that to get their price at 88 cents.
"Apple will only license Mac OS X as an exit strategy. Believe it or not Apple is a hardware company. They produce software to support hardware sales. You have to buy a computer (with associated hardware) from Apple to get OS X. Apple already has X86 versions of OS X. Apple would lose its market if it did license OS X for X86. Consumers would buy X86 Computers running OS X because of cheaper platform costs."
How many times do I have to go back and explain what I already typed clearly already?
My assertion was that Apple would license the Mac HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE. At no point did I suggest Apple license OS X for x86 to HP. Go back and reread what I typed. Yes, I am fully aware that OS X is maintained point-by-point on x86; it is codenamed "Marklar" internally. I did not suggest that at all.
I suggested Apple do a limited license to HP so that HP would also make PowerPC based OS X machines. I laid out the rationalization, basing it upon how such a deal would benefit BOTH HP AND APPLE.
It is not an exit strategy at all. It is a strategy to reduce hardware costs and spread out the developmental dollars between HP and Apple. It is a way for Apple to get more consumers into OS X and away from Windows because an HP branded PPC OS X machine sold at Best Buy would be catering to a different clientele than what Apple reaches currently.
Apple did not sell at Best Buy. There are many reasons for it. However, if an HP Mac machine started being sold at Best Buy, Joe Blow would think automatically that the Mac was no longer the "Betamax" of the computer industry and would take a second look at it. Sure, the HP machine would not be as cool as the Apple one, but it would be a new customer to OS X. And I specified it would be another customer that Apple would have a shot at selling value added solutions at, such as.Mac and iSight, etc. etc. etc.
Do people read the posts before replying to them on Slashdot?
"If you think Apple would find anything rational about sharing their crown jewels with the lumbering behemoth that is HP you've got another thing coming."
The crown jewel in revenue at Apple is the iPod. 38% profit margin; better than on any Apple Macintosh sale. If Apple is willing to share with this with HP to gain even further leverage on the MP3 player market, then it is safe to assume they would do the same on a limited basis with HP for the computers. It is the same exact argument. Fact: HP is in more retail markets than Apple. Fact: HP has many more business arrangements with Corporate America than Apple does and is more respected in those same halls.
I am not talking about blindly allowing for Mac clones, nor am I suggesting making OS X available for x86. I am advancing the proposition that Apple licenses the Mac to HP to gain a strong ally to advance the platform as well as share in the developmental costs and thereby create a credible alternative to Dell, their common enemy. Think about it this way; hasn't Apple been sharing the developmental costs of the PowerPC line with IBM AND Motorola since 1991? Me thinks I have a point.
Besides, the people who think Apple is cool will still fork out the money for Apple branded machines. And that is Apple's bread-and-butter already.
"I haven't looked at HP laptops recently, but it's reasonable to assume that they're cheaper than an equivalent Apple. Therefore, if HP sold computers wiht OS X, I probably would have bought from them instead of Apple. I believe that historically Apple has refused to allow mac clones because of people like me, and that they will continue in the same way."
Well, take into account what you have used to base your arguments. Are HP laptops cheaper than Mac laptops? Yes. On a pure MHZ/GHZ scale, they are. Why is this? Because Intel/AMD chips are generally cheaper because of volume.
If HP and Apple were both procuring the same resources together, that being PPC chips, they would drop in price. Apple would actually increase their profits per machine sold because their costs would be reduced.
Furthermore, you yourself said you purchased an iBook strictly because of OS X. You are a switcher; you aren't Apple's bread-and-butter-continuously-upgrading-to-the-nex t-best-thing-from-Apple that the company relies upon. While Apple would be competing with HP for new OS X converts, they wouldn't be competing for their core customers for the most part. Ergo, Apple has little to lose over my proposition and much more to gain.
Besides, if they can do a focused license with HP on the iPod, which they generate the largest profit margin from (38% per unit sold) than from any other item in their arsenal, then it would not be a losing proposition to do a limited license with HP.
And, I bring this up again...HP could help with the developmental cost of OS X. That is why my suggestion is not damaging to Apple like the typical "cloning" suggestion most people make, ala what happened with Power Computing and Umax, no name companies that competed with Apple for the very same customers.
"Most of these people can't fight back. It takes alot of money just to hire someone and show up in court let alone all the time needed before hand. $3,000 is cheap compair what it will cost to fight this and in the end you may still end up owning the RIAA."
Represent yourself in court. Its called "per se."
After you present your rational evidence, politely ask the judge to dismiss the case.
"Everyone bitched about how piracy was the only option since the RIAA didn't want to allow tracks to be sold online. You've been able to buy individual tracks music online now. It's not like you have to buy albums full of filler tracks anymore. Either stop listening to major label music or pay the $0.99 per track."
You could still defend yourself. All you'd have to do is explain to the judge that the songs you downloaded were not available on the commercial sites. If you don't believe me, check out how many albums are only available as "partial albums." You can't buy any of The Beatles stuff through any of the commercial services. Furthermore, if you download bootleg tracks, you are actually frustrating the bootleggers themselves because they cannot make any profit off the sharing of their wares.
When the judge asks you why you didn't just buy the audio CD at a store and then rip an MP3 copy for yourself, you show him (or her) the news reports off AP and other sources indicating that the music industry is now selling audio CDs that do not meet the requirements demanded by the Compact Disc license created by Philips. They are now made to defeat copying and ripping. You yourself do not have the resources to make sure every single CD available at Best Buy is an actual Compact Disc because the RIAA has tainted the supply chain. You bring up the store return policies that prohibit you from returning the CD after you opened it. You also mention parts of the DMCA that are openly hostile to "fair use." You also bring up the price fixing case the FTC had against the RIAA and the music stores that was settled with the RIAA or the stores not admitting guilt.
A reasonable prudent person (RPP) could do all of that in court. The RPP could also cart their PC to the court and physically show the judge that none of the music files were even on the PC. Is the RIAA's attorney going to run a file analysis on the hard drive to find any fragments of deleted files? Doubtful. The end result is the RIAA will come up looking stupid in court and you will have the case dismissed against you. Easy.
"First HP goes with Apple for music (iTunes and HP iPod) and now they are trying out Linux... that's twice microsoft has been bested in favor of open standards. I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but go HP!"
Before I get modded down or flamed for writing this, I think it would be the sanest thing for HP to put forward a rational suggestion to Apple for them to license the Mac platform to HP. And here is my reasoning:
1. Longhorn is in developmental hell. The more setbacks Microsoft suffers PR wise regarding security issues and the more applications like iTunes shows up Microsoft developed "solutions", the more PC manufacturers dependent upon Windows suffer. On the other hand, OS X keeps improving, and even the hardest Apple basher on Slashdot has to admit this begrudgingly.
2. The Media Center PC experiment is not prime-time yet. And its only a matter of time before TiVo throws down the gauntlet at Microsoft on IP violations just as its done to Echostar (DishNetwork).
3. As long as Dell is Microsoft's preferred vendor, HP is going to come up on the short end.
4. Linux is not prime-time for Joe Six-Pack. Even the great Mandrake distribution suffers from the same problem as do all other Linux distributions...the availability of known game releases and consumer friendly titles on the store shelf.
Now compare that to the OS X platform.
If HP jumped in and became the SOLE Mac hardware and software licensee, this is what would happen:
1. Component prices would fall for the Mac side of the business, thereby improving both Apple and HP's costs.
2. Consumers gun-shy about buying a Mac over a PC would evaporate because it is no longer locked to a single vendor.
3. The demographic for HP consumer customers is not generally the same as an Apple customer. So there is not a large chance of Apple actually suffering from defections. If anything, Apple would be sure to gain marketshare because HP would legitimize the OS X platform for corporate America.
4. Even if HP did "steal" some Apple customers, Apple would still have a bigger chance at grabbing them with value-added purchases like.Mac subscriptions, iSight, etc.
5. HP's Unix team could directly contribute to OS X. Its not like HP would be a disaster of a "cloner" like what Dell would be. Well, maybe after all the SCO mess is cleared up to be on the safe side.
Of course, HP would have to overcome their reluctance of purchasing microprocessors from IBM (maybe part of the deal would be that IBM had to license the G5 line to Motorola). Apple would have to overcome their licensing reluctance and actually sit down and analyze the fact that HP is no Umax or Power Computing. Apple has come a long ways with the iPod licensing; I would hope they could do they same here.
Slashdot Mirror
"Funny, that. A democratically elected body, but one that the revolutionaries felt did not represent them. A series of laws designed to increase the wealth of the already wealthy. Intrusions by the government into private life. Does this sound like ANY government you've heard of recently?"
Re-read your history. Parliament offered the colonies representation in the British parliament; colonial leaders sympathetic to the radical (dare we say, terrorist?) Sons of Liberty "organization" refused to accept the offer of parliamentry seats. Thus Parliament stuck with the "virtual representation" for the entire Empire. Parliament had to come up with ways to pay off the imperial debt which was mainly incurred by trying to evict the French from North America (Canada) which the British North American colonists bitched about for over a century but were unable to accomplish. It took the power of the British Army and the Royal Navy to beat the French into submission in the 7 Years War (French & Indian War) which ran up the debt. The colonials prospered by removing such a large threat but refused to "pay their fair share." Ever heard that phrase before? Yeah, that was a common phrase used by leprotards like Senator Barbara Boxer in the 1990s running on platforms to "make Japan and Europe pay for their defense" that went nowhere. The people in the Empire that were being overtaxed to pay for the American colonies' defense were the English, the Welsh, the Scottish, and the Irish. The American colonies, even with the dreaded *tea tax* were paying around 1% of their incomes in terms of imperial taxation. Compare that to the end of the American Revolution where the "States" on average raised taxes 15 times what they were in the pre-Revolutionary period. And the British "gave" to the independent United States of America what the colonials bitched about for years; freedom to trade with the rest of the world without British administrative interference. What was the result? Depression. The British Empire turned around and locked the U.S. out of the imperial trade system. The economic consequences of this led to Shay's Rebellion, which is noteworthy because it ushered in the Federal System as a crackdown on such counter-revolutionary activities.
The "quartering of soldiers" is a lie. It did not happen except for Loyalist families who volunteered. Quartering referred to the practice of housing British Army soldiers in the local inns (which the inn keepers loved because it was steady income) and the colonial legislatures were forced to pay the bills since it was a defensive cost. Alarmist colonial leaders objected to keeping a standing army in the colonies since they felt it was counter to English history and their rights as Englishmen, although the British were the ones well aware that the French were itching for revenge and it was only a matter of time until the next colonial war happened.
"As to what states are "adding" this - actually only CA and NY are new to this. The article says they are joining 17 other states that ALREADY did this."
California has had it on the books for a century. This made the news last tax year. It was voluntary disclosure. The State wasted a few million mailing the stupid forms out to citizens. They collected far less than the cost of the mailings. Typical.
From the article:
"XP Reloaded is designed to change that. It starts when Springboard ships and continues with a broad push to convince customers to use Microsoft's digital media technology. The company plans to release a new product, internally known as Windows XP Premium, that combines Windows XP Professional with an updated version of Windows Media Player. Premium will be available only on new PCs, not in boxes at retail. The new media player software lets online music stores -- including one that Microsoft plans to launch later this year -- snap right into the design, so that users can easily buy music from inside the player application."
So Microsoft thinks it wise to artificially limit its music store to only customers who buy new PCs with this new version of XP bundled. We all know Apple's business model for the iTunes Music Store is to push demand for their iPod. If this article is correct, Microsoft seems to think end users will be so desperate to use the Microsoft Music Store that they'll go out and buy new PCs. Fascinating. This is worthy of RIAA logic.
There are plenty of PC owners out there that strictly build their own PCs. They aren't going to go to the computer stores to buy branded PCs just to have the luxury to use the Microsoft Music Store. Just like with the Media PC scheme. There are probably a lot of users out there who would buy the "upgrade" if they didn't have to buy a whole new system. I believe this tactic was directly influenced by Apple, but the difference is, Microsoft is not Apple, even if one of the proxies is AlienWare. Its pretty pathetic that an end user has to use the *free* Linux operating system to use something like MythTV (and due note, I do not because I'm a TiVo supporter) since they don't have to go out and buy a whole new PC for similar functions via the OS. Come to think about that, the same goes for SMP support on x86 (or purchase Win2000 or WinXP Pro) or native Athlon64 support too.
"I've heard all these "ooh, media player tied to online stores=product tying=illegal." or "ooh, this shows MS doesnt care about antitrust lawsuits." Doesnt itunes come with every computer purchased with MacOSX? And doesnt itunes, by default, have ITMS (iTunes music store) capability? So how is MS now including WMP any different than apple always including Itunes+ITMS? It seems like its just the /. bias at work again."
How exactly is Apple monopolistic?
Does Apple own the Power PC processor architecture? They used to be a financial contributor, but from what I've seen, its basically an IBM and Motorola (Motorola being the short bus rider of the two) show. And it looks like IBM will be pushing mobos using PowerPC 970 (the G5) chips for Linux enthusiasts so Apple doesn't even have exclusivity on one of its compelling selling points.
Does Apple restrict retailers from bundling Yellow Dog Linux distributions with its hardware? (like Microsoft did against Digital Research's CP/M, DR-DOS, and GEM? IBM's OS/2? BeOS? Linux?). And speaking of Linux, behind the scenes, Apple isn't trying to cripple Linux distributions from running on its hardware via BIOS chipsets like Microsoft is with the "Trusted Computing" scheme either. You might also check the various operating systems XServe is certified with as well...
Does Apple build a web-browser to crush competitors that flaunts standards like Microsoft's Internet Explorer? Nope...Safari is based upon an open-source web browser (Konqueror/KHTML) for Linux, and Apple is an active code contributor.
Does Apple try to crush open source operating systems like Microsoft does with Linux? Nope. Apple's OS X is built atop Free BSD, a Unix deriviative.
Does Apple push its own instant messaging program in an effort to crush other market leaders like Microsoft does? Nope, iChat is a repackaged (industry market share leader) AOL Instant Messenger with extra nifty features.
Does Apple push a self-serving music format to perpetuate its operating system monopoly like Microsoft? Nope. Apple's iTunes uses the AAC format, which was developed by Dolby, not Microsoft. And the iTunes Music Store is available on both the Windows and Mac platforms. Sure, we can argue it should be issued for the Linux platform as well and that the iPod should also throw in support for OGG, but those accessory issues to this argument.
Does Apple push a proprietary graphics API onto the industry like Microsoft does with D3D/DirectX? Nope, Apple supports OpenGL.
Has Apple tried to squash Adobe's PDF file format like Microsoft is trying to do via Microsoft patented XML schemes via Office 2003? Nope, Apple has thrown its support behind PDF.
Since starting and later retreating from the PDA market, has Apple tried to cripple Palm in any manner like Microsoft has? Nope, Apple has gone out of its way to support Palm OS products with native support.
Does Apple try to push its own mobile phone platform onto the industry like Microsoft? Nope. Apple in fact is the computer company that has done the most to support Bluetooth directly in its operating system. If you don't believe me, try to sync a Bluetooth equipped phone (say, a Sony Ericsson phone like the T616) on a Windows machine and then on a Mac.
Is Apple trying to muscle its way into the growing internet search business like Microsoft's designs against Google? Nope. The Safari web brower, like Mozilla FireFox, has a built-in Google Search window. I concede that there are rumors that Apple is in negotiations behind-closed-doors with Yahoo about throwing its support behind Yahoo's Search. But supporting either of these giants is different than Microsoft trying to keep its operating system monopoly from disappearing.
And despite favoring its own technology such as Firewire, it was Apple who legitimized Intel's USB platform (itself a deriviative of Atari's SIO port on the 400/800 8-bit computer line from 1979 and created by the same engineer
How exactly is this news? Hidden messages in spam? If I recall correctly, this was a plot piece from 1997's "The Saint" film. Embedding secret messages into email and cyberpr0n. C'mon, doesn't anyone remember that film? Val Kilmer playing a British character sans the British accent? :)
:)
Cold fusion was the other plot piece to it. Damn Halliburton putting the kibosh on that...
"Red Hat has a few goals: bring more of SCO's actions to light and into court by putting them on the legal defensive; helping IBM by bringing these things to light and legitimizing IBM's arguments if they win; hedging their bets in case IBM loses (if IBM loses, Red Hat's in big trouble, so this pre-emptive strike may help protect them or at least raise money for their future legal defense)."
Even if IBM loses this round, IBM will definitely appeal. That means the case will be drawn out even longer, and SCO will burn through more reserve cash. They can't exactly sell any more licenses to Microsoft for funding, and if they file against more corporations, that means more costs and more distractions which probably won't generate any more cash to fund the ongoing lawsuit against IBM. Compared to SCO, IBM has the funding behind it similar to Microsoft. IBM won't settle this either; they have too much pride to settle with such an insignificant company as SCO. If they did, they'd set a precident for more insignificant companies to try to sue them over dubious claims. The truth is, IBM is going to go thermonuclear and I doubt they'll sell-out to Microsoft in the end like Time Warner and now Sun have done.
Head over to www.savingangel.org to see just how devoted the fanbase is for Angel...
"I've tried to get into it, but it seems more difficult to jump into than Buffy. Which surprises me, because I'm a lite-Buffy fan and loved Firefly, but it just doesn't seem to translate over to Angel. Just me I guess."
Hmmm. That's interesting considering Angel generally appeals to casual Buffy fans more than the original show does/did. Seasons 1-4 are repeated on TNT at 5pm Pacific (or is it 6? I forget).
However, the drawback to TNT is that they show Seasons 3 and 4 in fullframe (pan & scan) even though they were broadcast in widescreen on the WB. The presentation suffers greatly if you've already seen those episodes in their native format. I'd highly recommend picking up the Season 1 Box Set at Worst Buy or rent them through NetFlix; I think you'd get into it quickly. My dad really disliked Buffy, but he's an Angel fan...same with most of my friends actually. Just think of Angel as "Batman as a vampire" and it clicks.
"I'm 57 and I never have and never will vote Republican. Or Democratic."
:0
Doesn't that translate to "I don't vote"?
"the TiVo always has at least a dozen STTNG, Buffy, Simpsons, Futurama, or Family Guy episodes sitting around to peruse."
Hey, if you watch Buffy, please start watching "Angel," the critically acclaimed spin-off. WB Network will be monitoring the ratings when the show returns for its "final" 6 episodes in April since there is so much pressure from the fans and in the media for them to reverse the cancellation.
"I think your post is going to be somewhat of a foreshadow. I for one was very surprised when nobody blamed the DVRs right out of the gate. The TV industry has been so opposed to them all along, I had it figured it must be their fault."
No they [broadcasters] haven't. Viacom (CBS), NBC, Time Warner (via AOL), Comcast, Cox, and DirecTV (Fox) are all shareholders in TiVo.
The broadcasters drove ReplayTV into the ground because of the blatent "commercial skip" button on the remote control (although plenty of analog VCRs have the 30 second skip button too) as well as the virtually useless sharing program feature that allowed you to upload/download programs to and fro other ReplayTV owners you knew. Unfortunately, the trasmit speeds even on a broadband connection were as slow as using Kazaa at most times for the same type of functionality. But that torqued the broadcasters by interfering with their broadcasting rights to said programs and so ReplayTV as part of SonicBlue, went under.
"What do I want? I want to drive down to the video store and rent these. I heard "24" was good, I wouldn't mind renting the first season over a couple weekends. I never got to see Dr Who as a kid - I would love to rent those. I have seen a few series in the rentals (like south park) but not that many. Of course blockbuster only has so much floor space, and can only have so many DVD's, so why don't they have one megawarehouse per city that is full of all sorts of hard to find movies and episodes. Advertise it in the normal outlets and work it like inter-library loan."
Pavon, NetFlix has a pretty good selection of Doctor Who episodes on DVD. Well, for the North American market. The US always lags on the new releases compared to its home market (the UK).
The last time I was at Blockbuster, the only Doctor Who stuff on DVD were the non-cannon Peter Cushing flicks...
The article didn't mention where to enter the contest at once on AOL. You have to type in "Keyword: SPAM" to even find it. The contest does not appear on the Welcome *splash screen* once you logon AOL. You do have to be an AOL subscriber, but I'm sure that's not a problem because collectively, there's probably a few million AOL discs out there amongst all of us Slashdotters...
"and Wal-Mart (they've got the low cost structure)."
Seriously, who is going to buy downloaded music from Wal*Mart? Their store customer base for the most part is not sophisticated enough to get the download model and if they can't attract them, who are they going to attract? I won't buy from Wal*Mart based upon a savings of 10 cents per song when its in WMA format and I cannot be sure the track hasn't been edited.
I'd be willing to bet that the iTunes Music Store will receive anchoring from retailers such as Target though. Kinda like how Amazon is maintaining the online sites of several retailers now.
"Yes, this is the first casuality of the new internet bubble. Next up I think will be Napster. It will probably be bought/merged with Microsoft's forthcoming online music endeavor."
I think Apple will buy out Napster/Roxio. What a way to kill a competitor and then gain something on top of it. It would be great if Toast6 could be integrated into OS X 10.4 (or 10.5). Whereas if Microsoft were to buy Roxio, they'd be challenged if they were to incorporate Easy Media Creator into Windows Longhorn. The EU would not be happy over it.
"Reminds me of Howard Dean, and the trend to see technological change as a politically progressive force. Maybe this is not such a good idea?"
What? You attribute the collapse of Democratic support for Howard Dean as a way of advancing the argument that the internet is not revolutionary? Dean collapsed because of his crazy man scream and other gaffes, not to mention that his "I'm against Bush's war" wasn't enough of a campaign platform to rally behind.
Its actually ironic that you brought this up regarding the lack of power the internet has in toppling dictators. *The Coalition* toppled a well-known one this past year, with military might. The Military (through DARPA) created the internet, and it is integral to military operations. Therefore, the internet IS a revolutionary force that does topple dictatorships. Perhaps after the election, we'll see another regime be toppled through the same means in 2005; a regime that does have WMD beyond the shadow of a doubt - North Korea...
"iPod is not much of all their total assets--you're way off in thinking a profit margin is somehow related to a company's assets and overall total value."
How very true. Although the iPod is responsible for a lot of "good will" Apple is receiving in the press. Otherwise, that ink would be devoted to covering their "dwindeling 2% computer marketshare" and the "Apple is dying" type of story...
"First of all, Apple gets 40% of that 99 cents.. who says they're not making a profit? Apple? Yeah, just like the guys in TJ swear that you're getting such a good deal on that necklace, that their kids are going to have to skip dinner just to pay for it."
If you don't mind me asking, where did you get your figures from? From what I've read, 20 + cents (I read, 25) goes to the RIAA. 10-15 cents go to the music label. 10 cents or less goes to the artist. 10 additional cents go to cover "micropayments" to the credit card companies. 10 cents or so covers hosting charges. There were other charges I read too but am having trouble citing. What it boiled down to was Apple with 5 or 10 cents left. Under that scenario, Wal*Mart would have to even forgo that to get their price at 88 cents.
"Apple will only license Mac OS X as an exit strategy. Believe it or not Apple is a hardware company. They produce software to support hardware sales. You have to buy a computer (with associated hardware) from Apple to get OS X. Apple already has X86 versions of OS X. Apple would lose its market if it did license OS X for X86. Consumers would buy X86 Computers running OS X because of cheaper platform costs."
.Mac and iSight, etc. etc. etc.
How many times do I have to go back and explain what I already typed clearly already?
My assertion was that Apple would license the Mac HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE. At no point did I suggest Apple license OS X for x86 to HP. Go back and reread what I typed. Yes, I am fully aware that OS X is maintained point-by-point on x86; it is codenamed "Marklar" internally. I did not suggest that at all.
I suggested Apple do a limited license to HP so that HP would also make PowerPC based OS X machines. I laid out the rationalization, basing it upon how such a deal would benefit BOTH HP AND APPLE.
It is not an exit strategy at all. It is a strategy to reduce hardware costs and spread out the developmental dollars between HP and Apple. It is a way for Apple to get more consumers into OS X and away from Windows because an HP branded PPC OS X machine sold at Best Buy would be catering to a different clientele than what Apple reaches currently.
Apple did not sell at Best Buy. There are many reasons for it. However, if an HP Mac machine started being sold at Best Buy, Joe Blow would think automatically that the Mac was no longer the "Betamax" of the computer industry and would take a second look at it. Sure, the HP machine would not be as cool as the Apple one, but it would be a new customer to OS X. And I specified it would be another customer that Apple would have a shot at selling value added solutions at, such as
Do people read the posts before replying to them on Slashdot?
"If you think Apple would find anything rational about sharing their crown jewels with the lumbering behemoth that is HP you've got another thing coming."
The crown jewel in revenue at Apple is the iPod. 38% profit margin; better than on any Apple Macintosh sale. If Apple is willing to share with this with HP to gain even further leverage on the MP3 player market, then it is safe to assume they would do the same on a limited basis with HP for the computers. It is the same exact argument. Fact: HP is in more retail markets than Apple. Fact: HP has many more business arrangements with Corporate America than Apple does and is more respected in those same halls.
I am not talking about blindly allowing for Mac clones, nor am I suggesting making OS X available for x86. I am advancing the proposition that Apple licenses the Mac to HP to gain a strong ally to advance the platform as well as share in the developmental costs and thereby create a credible alternative to Dell, their common enemy. Think about it this way; hasn't Apple been sharing the developmental costs of the PowerPC line with IBM AND Motorola since 1991? Me thinks I have a point.
Besides, the people who think Apple is cool will still fork out the money for Apple branded machines. And that is Apple's bread-and-butter already.
"I haven't looked at HP laptops recently, but it's reasonable to assume that they're cheaper than an equivalent Apple. Therefore, if HP sold computers wiht OS X, I probably would have bought from them instead of Apple. I believe that historically Apple has refused to allow mac clones because of people like me, and that they will continue in the same way."
x t-best-thing-from-Apple that the company relies upon. While Apple would be competing with HP for new OS X converts, they wouldn't be competing for their core customers for the most part. Ergo, Apple has little to lose over my proposition and much more to gain.
Well, take into account what you have used to base your arguments. Are HP laptops cheaper than Mac laptops? Yes. On a pure MHZ/GHZ scale, they are. Why is this? Because Intel/AMD chips are generally cheaper because of volume.
If HP and Apple were both procuring the same resources together, that being PPC chips, they would drop in price. Apple would actually increase their profits per machine sold because their costs would be reduced.
Furthermore, you yourself said you purchased an iBook strictly because of OS X. You are a switcher; you aren't Apple's bread-and-butter-continuously-upgrading-to-the-ne
Besides, if they can do a focused license with HP on the iPod, which they generate the largest profit margin from (38% per unit sold) than from any other item in their arsenal, then it would not be a losing proposition to do a limited license with HP.
And, I bring this up again...HP could help with the developmental cost of OS X. That is why my suggestion is not damaging to Apple like the typical "cloning" suggestion most people make, ala what happened with Power Computing and Umax, no name companies that competed with Apple for the very same customers.
"How exactly does that put you on high moral ground?"
It doesn't. It levels the playing field.
"Most of these people can't fight back. It takes alot of money just to hire someone and show up in court let alone all the time needed before hand. $3,000 is cheap compair what it will cost to fight this and in the end you may still end up owning the RIAA."
Represent yourself in court. Its called "per se."
After you present your rational evidence, politely ask the judge to dismiss the case.
"Everyone bitched about how piracy was the only option since the RIAA didn't want to allow tracks to be sold online. You've been able to buy individual tracks music online now. It's not like you have to buy albums full of filler tracks anymore. Either stop listening to major label music or pay the $0.99 per track."
You could still defend yourself. All you'd have to do is explain to the judge that the songs you downloaded were not available on the commercial sites. If you don't believe me, check out how many albums are only available as "partial albums." You can't buy any of The Beatles stuff through any of the commercial services. Furthermore, if you download bootleg tracks, you are actually frustrating the bootleggers themselves because they cannot make any profit off the sharing of their wares.
When the judge asks you why you didn't just buy the audio CD at a store and then rip an MP3 copy for yourself, you show him (or her) the news reports off AP and other sources indicating that the music industry is now selling audio CDs that do not meet the requirements demanded by the Compact Disc license created by Philips. They are now made to defeat copying and ripping. You yourself do not have the resources to make sure every single CD available at Best Buy is an actual Compact Disc because the RIAA has tainted the supply chain. You bring up the store return policies that prohibit you from returning the CD after you opened it. You also mention parts of the DMCA that are openly hostile to "fair use." You also bring up the price fixing case the FTC had against the RIAA and the music stores that was settled with the RIAA or the stores not admitting guilt.
A reasonable prudent person (RPP) could do all of that in court. The RPP could also cart their PC to the court and physically show the judge that none of the music files were even on the PC. Is the RIAA's attorney going to run a file analysis on the hard drive to find any fragments of deleted files? Doubtful. The end result is the RIAA will come up looking stupid in court and you will have the case dismissed against you. Easy.
"First HP goes with Apple for music (iTunes and HP iPod) and now they are trying out Linux... that's twice microsoft has been bested in favor of open standards. I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but go HP!"
.Mac subscriptions, iSight, etc.
Before I get modded down or flamed for writing this, I think it would be the sanest thing for HP to put forward a rational suggestion to Apple for them to license the Mac platform to HP. And here is my reasoning:
1. Longhorn is in developmental hell. The more setbacks Microsoft suffers PR wise regarding security issues and the more applications like iTunes shows up Microsoft developed "solutions", the more PC manufacturers dependent upon Windows suffer. On the other hand, OS X keeps improving, and even the hardest Apple basher on Slashdot has to admit this begrudgingly.
2. The Media Center PC experiment is not prime-time yet. And its only a matter of time before TiVo throws down the gauntlet at Microsoft on IP violations just as its done to Echostar (DishNetwork).
3. As long as Dell is Microsoft's preferred vendor, HP is going to come up on the short end.
4. Linux is not prime-time for Joe Six-Pack. Even the great Mandrake distribution suffers from the same problem as do all other Linux distributions...the availability of known game releases and consumer friendly titles on the store shelf.
Now compare that to the OS X platform.
If HP jumped in and became the SOLE Mac hardware and software licensee, this is what would happen:
1. Component prices would fall for the Mac side of the business, thereby improving both Apple and HP's costs.
2. Consumers gun-shy about buying a Mac over a PC would evaporate because it is no longer locked to a single vendor.
3. The demographic for HP consumer customers is not generally the same as an Apple customer. So there is not a large chance of Apple actually suffering from defections. If anything, Apple would be sure to gain marketshare because HP would legitimize the OS X platform for corporate America.
4. Even if HP did "steal" some Apple customers, Apple would still have a bigger chance at grabbing them with value-added purchases like
5. HP's Unix team could directly contribute to OS X. Its not like HP would be a disaster of a "cloner" like what Dell would be. Well, maybe after all the SCO mess is cleared up to be on the safe side.
Of course, HP would have to overcome their reluctance of purchasing microprocessors from IBM (maybe part of the deal would be that IBM had to license the G5 line to Motorola). Apple would have to overcome their licensing reluctance and actually sit down and analyze the fact that HP is no Umax or Power Computing. Apple has come a long ways with the iPod licensing; I would hope they could do they same here.