I just spent $2000 for a 12" Powerbook. It isn't because I thought the Powerbook was cute, or because I needed a DVD burner, but because Apple has the best software and I wanted to have the best laptop in my price range to run it on (it was still waay out of what I should have paid, but I paid).
I didn't shell out all this money just so Steve Jobs could use it to port the apps I gulped down the price for over to Windows.
I can see their point, trying to increase revenue stream, but why not make the iTunes Music Store on-line via any browser and require Quicktime--which, as far as I remember, has always been multi-platform?instead of converting the crowning jewel of their OS apps to their biggest competitor?
Everyone uses the comparison of Apple and BMW (Apple, people say, has more share of the computer market). I don't necessarily like this difference, because people don't develop software for cars (which is the disadvantage of having only 3% of the market, less development). But, let me use it: iTunes to Windows is like BMW giving away their engine to Ford, it gives people who want a great car but are uneasy about the $ an excuse to buy the Ford. Likewise, iTunes on Windows gives people an excuse not to switch.
I'd guess that as-is iTunes 4 would not draw many users over from Windows, but it has the potential to. But it seems that if Apple had wanted to make money they would have put the store at www.allOSbuymusic.com, instead of built-into a proprietary software product.
On the other hand, the un-heralded feature of iTunes 4 is that it allows you (sometimes) to share over a network, if millions of Windows users started doing this, we could get a pretty good P2P file-trading network going.
But you pegged it: the balance of artist's money comes from their tour.
And, I would disagree with you that most artists--or, in fact, any 'artist' in the true sense of the word--intentionally shits up their own album with things they know are bad. While, yes, a lot of artists are force-fed singles, some get chart-toppers come when some skilled jockey in a major market finds what he thinks is a gem (like Norah Jones, whose "Come Away" is two years old, but only recently played), then force-feeds it to his listeners (Don Imus does this, though he isn't a jockey anymore).
So a lot of the album--aside from the artistic aestetic of a well-coordinated series of songs--is an attempt to get up some more 'sing-alongs' while on tour.
The problem is not stricly "formless" content though--for most people in this country it takes much longer to download a CD's worth of songs to their computer (where it becomes, as you say, "formless") than to download a CD's worth of content other people have made "formless" off the internet.
The problem isn't the form--which is easily interchangeable--but the content and, as every banters, the price. There is still no good way to good songs one-by-one without having to buy a whole CD's worth of so-so's or things you don't even want to hear.
The difference is that FOIA covers the government while the debate about security vunerabilities is in the private sector.
The analogy is a good one but let's not confuse private industry's interest in profit with our interest in an open government.
The arguement can be made that Microsoft is so vital that it has to be as equally transparent as the government is (supposed to be). But, as influencial and omnipotent as Microsoft is, it isn't government, it is owned by Bill Gates and stock holders not a voting public.
Hypertexual information, posted publicly once, can and should always be preserved, especially if it relevant to another story, as links are used as jump-points here at SlashDot.
However, because this is hypertext, another procedure needs to be followed: Content needs to be maintained. Because of the fluid nature of the web, which makes the link possible in the first place, some special actions (i e actions not taken with archival of books, magazines, newspapers, etc) need to be taken.
Here, assuming I had ultimate control over the whole thing, is what I would do:
Auto-caching any 'all rights reserved' site to prevent the Slashdot effect isn't OK, unless you have the permission of the owner.
The reason for this that the owner has put up the information with the expectation that the content will be viewed on his site but with the realization that anyone may link to it.
To undercut the owner's expectation of the content being their exclusive contribution to the web isn't ok. To link to a cache anything instead of the original document is, thus, not OK.
However, Slashdot (or whomever), may maintain a copy of the document on their computer for the future use, in case the document is removed.
Which means:
If either the document is inaccessible (because of the Slashdot effect or because the document was taken down) then the cached document should be provided on Slashdot's server.
But, the author should be contacted to both inform them of the action, as well as to find the reason of the document being taken down (inaccuracy?) and to see if the owner can or has provided another copy of the document (perhaps revised). If there is an inaccuracy and the document has been permanently removed, Slashdot should continue the caching but note the situation and attempt to correct any errors. If the document is at another URI Slashdot should removed the cached document and link to the new URI.
A special situation might arise where a revised document is at a new URI, in this case Slashdot may provide a cache of the original and also link to the revised document. This would both provide a way to see the new, accurate, revised document and to see what it was exactly that hundreds of Slashdotters were posting to (since quotations might have been extracted verbatim and used as a jump point).
However, users should take use of the copyright statement: If something is public domain or under a looser-than-typical license that would suggest the author wouldn't mind a wholesale caching, then cache the document from the get-go, but it would be appropriate to fully cite the author and the URI from which the cache was taken.
It occurred to me the other day that Apple is steering us towards the shiny (brushed) metal future that countless science fiction books, movies, TV shows, movies and conceptual art has foretold.
The clean look that surrounded factious HAL's world in 2001: A Space Odyssey is becoming Apple's reality.
The stores are just an extension of this; they have managed to create, as others have pointed out, an environment that is conducive to buying because it doesn't seem designed for selling. Yes, it shows off the products, but it doesn't show them off the obvious here's-the-damn-product way that car showrooms do, and it doesn't layer products on shelves like Wal-Mart (and most everyone else). It just sets the products up the ideal space you would want to use them, a sterile (yet warm and comfortable) studio somewhere overlooking the flying-car future of New York.
It reminds me of Gerhard Richter, the fussed-over German painter, who lives in such an environment: homely sterility.
But what Apple does is pretty much impossible for any else to replicate: They are able to create such an environment because they not only dictate what is sold (Wal-Mart does this) but because they make (i e design) most everything they sell. Additionally they set the most-always-followed president for the design of products that accompany what they make: Their human interface design stretches beyond the software that runs on their OS, it encompasses most every product and most every product box that they sell.
Because of this kinetic link not just between what they make and what they sell but what other people make for them to sell, Apple is uniquely able to create the Apple Store, something no Windows PC maker could because of the mesh that makes up not just their software or hardware world, but any front-end retail attempts.
Realistically most software isn't that big, Photoshop is about 150MB, that's a lot to download on my dial-up but who going to drop $700 after just walking into a CompuServ, if you have that money you can have it overnight with FedEx.
And most good software for the Mac comes from Shareware and Freeware developers,and I'd bet, though I couldn't verify, that the average size of those files isn't much more than 20MB.
Otherwise, with the exception of other bloated (usually for the best) by Adobe and Microsoft (which you usually order with your computer anyway) there isn't much that anyone can't download overnight on almost any connecntion, and, as someone pointed out, those times have been dropping because of the proliferation of broadband.
I think it's a neat idea but totally unecessary. Finding Mac software is very hard, especially in non-urban areas (the Circuit City didn't have a single Mac app, except, by chance, the old Diablo which was released in the same box for both OS's), but demand just isn't there for kiosks, especially not at CompuServ.
Apple would be better off having offered a super-secure, super-reliable server to download software from, instead of asking people to drive an hour to get what they could download in that time.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always liked Kottke.org, though it looks way better on a Mac I think than on Windows
themorningnews.org is nice too
I just spent $2000 for a 12" Powerbook. It isn't because I thought the Powerbook was cute, or because I needed a DVD burner, but because Apple has the best software and I wanted to have the best laptop in my price range to run it on (it was still waay out of what I should have paid, but I paid).
I didn't shell out all this money just so Steve Jobs could use it to port the apps I gulped down the price for over to Windows.
I can see their point, trying to increase revenue stream, but why not make the iTunes Music Store on-line via any browser and require Quicktime--which, as far as I remember, has always been multi-platform?instead of converting the crowning jewel of their OS apps to their biggest competitor?
Everyone uses the comparison of Apple and BMW (Apple, people say, has more share of the computer market). I don't necessarily like this difference, because people don't develop software for cars (which is the disadvantage of having only 3% of the market, less development). But, let me use it: iTunes to Windows is like BMW giving away their engine to Ford, it gives people who want a great car but are uneasy about the $ an excuse to buy the Ford. Likewise, iTunes on Windows gives people an excuse not to switch.
I'd guess that as-is iTunes 4 would not draw many users over from Windows, but it has the potential to. But it seems that if Apple had wanted to make money they would have put the store at www.allOSbuymusic.com, instead of built-into a proprietary software product.
On the other hand, the un-heralded feature of iTunes 4 is that it allows you (sometimes) to share over a network, if millions of Windows users started doing this, we could get a pretty good P2P file-trading network going.
Of course such a thing would make a splendid little cult classic of a book, but a terrible movie.
But you pegged it: the balance of artist's money comes from their tour.
And, I would disagree with you that most artists--or, in fact, any 'artist' in the true sense of the word--intentionally shits up their own album with things they know are bad. While, yes, a lot of artists are force-fed singles, some get chart-toppers come when some skilled jockey in a major market finds what he thinks is a gem (like Norah Jones, whose "Come Away" is two years old, but only recently played), then force-feeds it to his listeners (Don Imus does this, though he isn't a jockey anymore).
So a lot of the album--aside from the artistic aestetic of a well-coordinated series of songs--is an attempt to get up some more 'sing-alongs' while on tour.
You're partly right.
The problem is not stricly "formless" content though--for most people in this country it takes much longer to download a CD's worth of songs to their computer (where it becomes, as you say, "formless") than to download a CD's worth of content other people have made "formless" off the internet.
The problem isn't the form--which is easily interchangeable--but the content and, as every banters, the price. There is still no good way to good songs one-by-one without having to buy a whole CD's worth of so-so's or things you don't even want to hear.
The difference is that FOIA covers the government while the debate about security vunerabilities is in the private sector.
The analogy is a good one but let's not confuse private industry's interest in profit with our interest in an open government.
The arguement can be made that Microsoft is so vital that it has to be as equally transparent as the government is (supposed to be). But, as influencial and omnipotent as Microsoft is, it isn't government, it is owned by Bill Gates and stock holders not a voting public.
Hypertexual information, posted publicly once, can and should always be preserved, especially if it relevant to another story, as links are used as jump-points here at SlashDot.
However, because this is hypertext, another procedure needs to be followed: Content needs to be maintained. Because of the fluid nature of the web, which makes the link possible in the first place, some special actions (i e actions not taken with archival of books, magazines, newspapers, etc) need to be taken.
Here, assuming I had ultimate control over the whole thing, is what I would do:
Auto-caching any 'all rights reserved' site to prevent the Slashdot effect isn't OK, unless you have the permission of the owner.
The reason for this that the owner has put up the information with the expectation that the content will be viewed on his site but with the realization that anyone may link to it.
To undercut the owner's expectation of the content being their exclusive contribution to the web isn't ok. To link to a cache anything instead of the original document is, thus, not OK.
However, Slashdot (or whomever), may maintain a copy of the document on their computer for the future use, in case the document is removed.
Which means:
If either the document is inaccessible (because of the Slashdot effect or because the document was taken down) then the cached document should be provided on Slashdot's server.
But, the author should be contacted to both inform them of the action, as well as to find the reason of the document being taken down (inaccuracy?) and to see if the owner can or has provided another copy of the document (perhaps revised). If there is an inaccuracy and the document has been permanently removed, Slashdot should continue the caching but note the situation and attempt to correct any errors. If the document is at another URI Slashdot should removed the cached document and link to the new URI.
A special situation might arise where a revised document is at a new URI, in this case Slashdot may provide a cache of the original and also link to the revised document. This would both provide a way to see the new, accurate, revised document and to see what it was exactly that hundreds of Slashdotters were posting to (since quotations might have been extracted verbatim and used as a jump point).
However, users should take use of the copyright statement: If something is public domain or under a looser-than-typical license that would suggest the author wouldn't mind a wholesale caching, then cache the document from the get-go, but it would be appropriate to fully cite the author and the URI from which the cache was taken.
It occurred to me the other day that Apple is steering us towards the shiny (brushed) metal future that countless science fiction books, movies, TV shows, movies and conceptual art has foretold.
The clean look that surrounded factious HAL's world in 2001: A Space Odyssey is becoming Apple's reality.
The stores are just an extension of this; they have managed to create, as others have pointed out, an environment that is conducive to buying because it doesn't seem designed for selling. Yes, it shows off the products, but it doesn't show them off the obvious here's-the-damn-product way that car showrooms do, and it doesn't layer products on shelves like Wal-Mart (and most everyone else). It just sets the products up the ideal space you would want to use them, a sterile (yet warm and comfortable) studio somewhere overlooking the flying-car future of New York.
It reminds me of Gerhard Richter, the fussed-over German painter, who lives in such an environment: homely sterility.
But what Apple does is pretty much impossible for any else to replicate: They are able to create such an environment because they not only dictate what is sold (Wal-Mart does this) but because they make (i e design) most everything they sell. Additionally they set the most-always-followed president for the design of products that accompany what they make: Their human interface design stretches beyond the software that runs on their OS, it encompasses most every product and most every product box that they sell.
Because of this kinetic link not just between what they make and what they sell but what other people make for them to sell, Apple is uniquely able to create the Apple Store, something no Windows PC maker could because of the mesh that makes up not just their software or hardware world, but any front-end retail attempts.
Realistically most software isn't that big, Photoshop is about 150MB, that's a lot to download on my dial-up but who going to drop $700 after just walking into a CompuServ, if you have that money you can have it overnight with FedEx.
And most good software for the Mac comes from Shareware and Freeware developers,and I'd bet, though I couldn't verify, that the average size of those files isn't much more than 20MB.
Otherwise, with the exception of other bloated (usually for the best) by Adobe and Microsoft (which you usually order with your computer anyway) there isn't much that anyone can't download overnight on almost any connecntion, and, as someone pointed out, those times have been dropping because of the proliferation of broadband.
I think it's a neat idea but totally unecessary. Finding Mac software is very hard, especially in non-urban areas (the Circuit City didn't have a single Mac app, except, by chance, the old Diablo which was released in the same box for both OS's), but demand just isn't there for kiosks, especially not at CompuServ.
Apple would be better off having offered a super-secure, super-reliable server to download software from, instead of asking people to drive an hour to get what they could download in that time.