TV as we know it is a rapidly dying market. More than half of the people I know don't have an antenna/cable/satellite TV. I haven't had a "TV" for anything other than games and DVD's for 5+ years. The quality of the content on "TV" is consistently "lowest common denominator" and it's beyond absurd to pay for TV (cable or satellite), and then have to sit through advertisements.
That has as much practical effect as the Democrats calling Iraq a mess. We know... but unless you're actually going to do something about it do us all a favor and shut up.
The Canadian government should tell the representatives of the USA it would be happy to pass and implement a Canadian version of the DCMA just as soon as the USA agrees to reciprocate and make some concessions to the rest of the free world by ratifying and implementing the Kyoto Protocol, submitting itself to the jurisdiction of the Internation Criminal Court, doing away with capital punishment and releasing all foreign detainees that have not been charged with a crime to their country of origin. That will shut our idiotic representatives up in a hurry.
Microsoft isn't completely blameless here. If Microsoft had adopted the same strategy for drivers as the OpenBSD project has (accepting either fully open drivers or no drivers), then somebody (even Microsoft) could make the drivers work on Vista.
This is yet another why open drivers built from publicly-available hardware documentation are better than binary-blob drivers.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Microsoft isn't going to force vendors to open source their drivers when they so closely guard their own code. What's good for the gander is good for the goose and all that.
You're point is well taken however. I don't see why hardware vendors don't release their source code. They can patent the hardware if it truly contains innovations and with software patents they could patent all or part of the driver if it's anything special and release the code under whatever license they deem appropriate.
If I was evaluating two pieces of expensive hardware that performed equally well I'd take the piece with open source drivers over the piece that didn't have open source drivers even if it cost more just for insurance on the investment. You'd think that having open source drivers would be a point that high end hardware manufacturers, especially new ones, could compete on.
If you want the convenience of buying tracks online from major labels then it's coming with DRM. Deal with it. If you don't want DRM, buy the CD and rip it. Problem solved. Loseless music in a format with no DRM. If you don't want to pay full price for a CD, check out your local used CD store or order a used version online from EBay, Amazon or any one of the hundreds of other similar sites.
Now that Microsoft's competition is practically dead, Microsoft is looking for ways to increase their revenue by making sure that every single license is paid for. Just like Novell was doing in the 90's.
Good, because ultimately it will be Microsoft's undoing. Small shops that were 100% Microsoft but were able to do so only by paying for what they cord afford and pirating what they couldn't will now be forced to dump Microsoft or stick with older versions of Microsoft software because the new versions are so locked down they can no longer engage in the casual copying they used to engage in to upgrade those PC's that they otherwise couldn't afford to upgrade. They'll then focus on finding less expensive or free alternatives that can integrate with the existing Microsoft software that they are running. Standards suddenly become important to these shops and they are now open to and aware of alternatives they were not open to or aware of before. Suddenly paying the Microsoft tax seems more and more ridiculous.
This is what happens when you pander to religious fruit loops - it started with the 'In God We Trust' rebrand of the US (in particular, on money) which was the thin end of the wedge and now we have a situation whereby scientists cannot even discuss things properly.
Exactly. Further, I laugh my ass off when the religious nut bags start spouting off about how immoral society is today. Have these idiots bothered to read up on history? When you hear the kind of crap that public figures used to engage in behind closed doors even as recently as the 50's and 60's these people would be shocked and outraged. JFK made Bill Clinton look like a saint in comparison. Popular culture may have been more moral in previous decades than it is today but if anything we are a much more puritanical society today than we've been. It hasn't been all that long since Coke contained actual cocaine and you could order morphine and a syringe from a mail order catalog.
Apple is great at taking an existing product or set of technologies and figuring out how to make it "just work" in a way that's intuitive and easy. You'll pay for the convenience but for an increasing number of consumers it's worth it. I have full confidence that the iPhone will be more of the same.
I used to think Apple produced nothing but overpriced junk but that was primarily because my previous exposure to their products occurred in the 90's. Then several years ago when iTunes for Windows hit I was tired of managing my music collection in other programs and looking for an easier way so I gave it a shot after hearing rave reviews from Mac users and it was such an improvement over the other software I was using that I uninstalled the other programs immediately. iTunes worked so well that I decided to go for an iPod and it was (and still is) hands down the best MP3 player I've every owned. I gave the iTMS a try and the iPod / iTunes / iTMS combination worked so well together that when the Mac Mini was announced I decided to bite the bullet and try a Mac. I liked it so much I upgraded to an iMac within 6 months and have just convinced my boss to split the cost of a MacBook Pro for use at the office and when I'm on the road. I couldn't be happier after making the switch. I've got to deal with Windows based PC's all day at work and when I get home at night I want something that will just work.
I'm starting to feel the same way about cell phones. I'm tired of all of the crap you have to put up with. I got an LG phone for Christmas and it's the best cell phone that I've ever owned but that's not saying much. My cell phone has an mp3 player, but of course you can't use the mp3s as ring tones and the user interface absolutely sucks. It's got the best built in web browser of any cell phone I've used, but it still can't display half of the web sites I try to visit properly. Admittedly it handles web sties designed for mobile browser well, but often times I need to visit a site that hasn't been designed for mobile browsers. It's supposed to work with any Micro SD trans flash stick so I purchased a 2 GB stick and, of course, it doesn't work. A little research on the Internet revealed that even though they claim any chip will work just about no one can get the 2 GB stick working. I've had enough. I want a cell phone / mp3 player combo that just works. I want to be able to easily manage my music on the phone, I want to be able to easily find the tracks I want to play, I want to be able to use any thing on the mp3 player as a ring tone. I don't want to worry about buying the wrong kind of flash memory. I want my contacts and calender to sync with my computer easily, I want a web browser that won't mangle most regular web pages. Visual voice mail will be a handy feature and the integration with Google maps looks pretty awesome as well. In short, I want something that just works. I realize that other phones will be cheaper and may have more features but I don't care. A phone can have all of the features in the world but if they are poorly implemented and/or the UI sucks what's the point? I don't have time to fiddle with crap all day long. Life's to short. I want something that will just work and I'm willing to pay for it.
I'll skip the first generation to give Apple a chance to work the kinks out and to further improve the product but as soon as the second generation of the iPhone ships I'm buying one. I'll be ready for a new phone by then and I'll be happy to shell out $500 dollars if I know that at the end of the day I'll have a cellphone that does what I need it to do and "just works". If the iPhone lasts half as long as my and holds up half as well as my 3G iPod has then it will have been well worth the money.
Joe Sixpack doesn't upgrade his operating system. Joe Sixpack doesn't know what an operating system is. Joe Sixpack will move to Vista when he buys his next PC with Vista preinstalled. This really should come as no surprise.
Windows XP Home Edition offered the stability and other improvements of Windows 2000 rolled into a consumer oriented OS. Compared to Windows 98 and (shudder) ME it was a huge improvement for consumers so it's no wonder more people wanted to upgrade to XP. What does Vista offer? A series of confusing versions to choose from, required hardware upgrades for most, software compatibility issues for many, annoying as all hell UAC prompts, Windows Software Protection Platform that can completely lock down your system if it thinks your running a pirated copy of Vista and the list goes on.
I can't think of one reason I should upgrade to Windows Vista. In fact, XP is the last version of a Microsoft OS that I will run on any PC I own. I've switched to a Mac and I couldn't be happier. I've got Boot Camp installed to play the occasional game but I find I'm spending less and less time gaming so I suspect by the time games appear that are Vista only it will no longer matter.
This has nothing to do with fair use. Google is using copyrighted material to turn a profit. We're not talking about some not for profit blogger here or a journalist sighting portions of an article on some other site to further a point. This is Google using copyrighted material to turn a profit in the form of increased advertising revenue and the company in question has every right to sue to prevent others from profiting from content that they have created.
Sony declaring Blue-Ray the winner in the HD format war is a little like Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner on the deck of the aircraft carrier during his speech after the initial invasion of Iraq. It's way, way to early to be anointing a victor here.
DRM is a huge pain in the ass for consumers and digital distribution of media that uses it is never likely to take off in the same fashion as it's physical medium counterparts unless it's easy to use and not very restrictive like Apple's FairPlay. Part of what makes FairPlay acceptable to me is the ability to burn purchased content to a CD that I can then take with me and listen to in any CD player that I wish. If FairPlay didn't have this ability I wouldn't use it. Likewise I'll never buy a "digital download" version of a movie or TV show unless I have the ability to burn that movie or show to a DVD. IMHO anything with DRM that doesn't let you burn to some kind of physical media that can then be played back on other devices (players, portables or other PC's) is essentially a rental and isn't worth it.
I think most consumers agree which is why I'm tired of these DRM articles. A huge factor in any media format leap is convenience. Does anyone here really think that either CD's or DVD's would have taken off as they did if they didn't involve huge leaps in convenience for consumers? Quality played a part sure, but I'd argue it was the convenience of CD's and DVD's that really caused them to take off. Being able to leap back and forward between tracks instantly and not having to flip back and forth between sides was a huge factor in moving from tapes to CD's. Likewise the ability to skip back and forth easily through movies (and not having to rewind tapes to watch them) was a huge factor in the move from VHS tapes to DVD's. Not to mention never having to worry about a bad tape or VHS player destroying your music or movie.
A poster on Slashdot said something a while back that I completely agree with. Everyone is looking at HD-DVD and Blue-Ray, freaking out about the DRM, and wondering which will be the next big thing in video and I think they are off the mark. All that HD-DVD and Blue-Ray offer over their DVD counterparts is more space and HD content. Newsflash, most consumers don't have an HD TV and won't anytime soon. Even when there's an HD TV in every home, HD TV's are expensive and most homes have more than one TV anyway so most consumers would then probably have one HD set in the living room and regular TV's elsewhere.
I think some kind of hybrid DVR / Apple iTV kind type of box with a price point of around $200 bucks would be poised to be the next big thing in video. Consumers want a leap in convenience more than they want a leap in quality because at this point the leap in quality requires a large investment in expensive new hardware to pay real dividends. Why pay thousands of dollars for one brand new large HD TV in the living room and a bunch of HD-DVD's and/or Blue Ray discs (when you probably already own the content on DVD) who's improvements in quality can only be seen on that one expensive large TV in the house when you can spend between $600 and $700 dollars and have set top box hooked up to each TV in the house that lets you record, share with the other boxes and play back content recoded by the DVR and/or download, share with the other boxes and playback movies and TV shows that you've downloaded from the Internet.
IMHO that latter option makes a lot more sense than shelling out all that money for a new HD TV set and bunch of content in HD that I've already paid for just to get better picture quality. My point is that convenience sells. DRM that isn't convenient won't sell and DRM that is convenient will. The box that I spoke of above could be DRM'd to the hill as long as I could share the content with the other boxes, have a backup system or the ability to re-download content that I paid for if I lost it and as long as it had a simple interface and "just worked" it would be a hit much like the iPod / iTMS combination.
The RIAA and MPAA are to stupid to get it that and I have no doubt they'll DRM consumers to death and turn them off to digital distribution completely if they are left to their own devices. All they have to do is look at Napster. Napster didn't offer higher quality. Napster offered the con
The RIAA has a point but what they willfully ignore is that market forces have radically changed since the CD was introduced. Consumers today are literally overloaded when it comes to entertainment options. Hundreds of TV channels via satellite and cable, tons of movies playing in theaters, a huge collection of titles available on DVD, movies on demand, radio, satellite radio, the web, podcasts, video games and the list goes on and on.
So while the RIAA has a point that CD prices would be a lot more today if prices had kept up with the rate of inflation instead of staying relatively stagnant they fail to take into account the fact that the entertainment market has radically changed since the CD was first introduced. Consumers have a hell of a lot more entertainment options than they had even 5 to 10 years ago and CD prices need to reflect that reality.
Let market forces work. Less CS students means less qualified CS grads to fill positions which means higher salaries and benefits as companies compete for workers which means that you'll have more students interested again in CS.
You raise a very insightful point about quality and convenience. Think of the tape to CD and VHS to DVD leaps. Both new technologies had quality improvements over their predecessors but I'd argue neither would have taken off as quickly as they did (or at all) without the massive improvements in convenience. No more having to fast forward or rewind a tape or VHS movie to get to your favorite track or part of the movie, with the new format you could get where you wanted to go in a second. That was a huge factor when I moved to from tapes to CD's and it also came into play with DVD's. Rewinding a movie before you watched it or before returning it to the video store was a massive pain in the butt. You no longer had to worry about a bad player shredding the DVD or CD which was also a huge plus with both moves. Quality was more of a factor to convince me to move from VHS to DVD but you better believe that if that quality improvement didn't also include the improvements in convenience (e.g. it was still tape based or a single movie had to be split onto multiple discs) then I don't think the format would have caught on.
I hate sensationalist crap like this. Vista won't require a hardware upgrade for relatively new systems unless you want to experience all of it's bells and whistles. IMHO that's beside the point completely since most consumers will stick with the operating system they have until they buy a new PC that will be preloaded with Vista anyway. I know I'm in no rush to upgrade our systems where I work (and I'll never do it at home since I ditched my PC a year ago in favor of a Mac). I won't even bother taking a look at Vista until it's been on the market for two years. Let others deal with the inevitable bugs, security issues, driver problems and software compatibility issues. I'll stick with XP as long as possible. I just don't see very compelling businesses reasons to justify an upgrade to Vista. I see a lot more reasons for consumers to make the leap but as I mentioned above they'll do so whether they need to or not when they buy their next PC.
The bottom line is that web based applications blow compared to their OS based counterparts. You'll never, ever convince me to go the software as a service route for the important software that I depend on. Why you ask? Control. Just a few weeks ago out of the blue a software vendor that produces a really nice service management package that integrates with the accounting package that my company resells, trains and does consulting work with was purchased by a competitor. Most of the existing employees save a couple of developers and support rep's were fired, development on the service management package was stopped and the package is now in maintenance mode (bug fixes only). Existing customers will be transitioned to the product that is offered by the now former competitor.
Stuff like this happens all the time in the software industry. I won't take the chance that one day the web application that I depend on will be purchased by another competing vendor and shut down while we're "transitioned" to some other product. At least with software tied to an OS you can decide if you'll upgrade your applications. Existing clients in my example above are screwed, but not as badly as they would have been if they'd been using a Web application. If they are happy with their software as it functions today they aren't forced to upgrade to anything. They'll never be a new version of the service management package but at least they'll be able to run what they've currently got for the foreseeable future and can make any future software change at a time and date of their choosing to a product of their choosing.
I don't think people who push the idea of software as a service get that. There are certain kinds of applications that I don't have any problem going the software as a service route with. Things like personnel e-mail, tax preparation software, the account and portfolio management applications provided by my financial institution, etc. Those kinds of applications are ready made for the software as a service model. It's mostly in the consumer space where I see software as a service being an option. You'll never convince me go that way with the software that we depend on at my company. Things like our office suite, our accounting system, our CRM system. Those applications and the data that they contain are two important for us to ever consider going the software as a service route.
They are called DVR's and they've already changed TV for those of us who have them. The only real difference is that in 5 years I'll likely be able to cancel my subscription to my cable provider and download and pay for only the content that I want to watch. Be it movies or TV shows. I'll probably also be able to stream most live sporting events. Although I've got to say, mainstream TV isn't going anywhere anytime soon. To many people aren't technical enough to do the setup that's required for this kind of thing today. My money is on Apple being the first company to really make an easy to use set top box with lots of available content for download. Although there is something to be said for being able to click through the various channels and find some random show you wouldn't otherwise think to look for or watch. If studio's were wise they'd make the first several episodes of new TV shows available for free with ads to allow viewers to sample the content before deciding if they want to subscribe to the rest of the series. Another issue is HD content and the bandwidth that will be required if you want to download existing content and to stream live content in HD. I love football and I especially love to watch it in HD. I'd need enough bandwidth to stream games in HD before you could really convince me to cancel my cable subscription and go the download / stream only route. I don't know if I see that happening in 5 years. I'm thinking it will be more like 7 - 10.
The *IAA wastes so much time, energy and ultimately money on various DRM implementations and the end result is always the same. The DRM is eventually cracked so those who want to pirate material can and do yet the DRM is cumbersome enough to upset and turn off a certain percentage of legitimate customers.
My roommate purchased an HDTV a few years ago before the HDCP standard emerged and he recently bought a Playstation 3. He was seriously pissed when he found out he couldn't watch Blue Ray Discs at the highest resolution because his TV wasn't compatible.
Things like this only serve to alienate legitimate consumers who are already inclined to pay for the product. The pirates just wait for the DRM to be cracked.
The *IAA wastes so much time, energy and ultimately money on various DRM implementations and the end result is always the same. The DRM is eventually cracked so those who want to pirate material can and do yet the DRM is cumbersome enough to upset and turn off a certain percentage of legitimate customers.
My roommate purchased an HDTV a few years ago before the HDCP standard emerged and he recently bought a Playstation 3. He was seriously pissed when he found out he couldn't watch Blue Ray Discs at the highest resolution because his TV wasn't compatible.
Things like this only serve to alienate legitimate consumers who are already inclined to pay for the product. The pirates just wait for the DRM to be cracked.
Slashdot Mirror
Since no consumer that this product is aimed would have the know how to setup a MythTV box, don't hold your breath waiting for a call.
That has as much practical effect as the Democrats calling Iraq a mess. We know ... but unless you're actually going to do something about it do us all a favor and shut up.
Flash is now fairly cheap, it's in widespread use and it's a known quantity. Good luck trying to replace it.
The Canadian government should tell the representatives of the USA it would be happy to pass and implement a Canadian version of the DCMA just as soon as the USA agrees to reciprocate and make some concessions to the rest of the free world by ratifying and implementing the Kyoto Protocol, submitting itself to the jurisdiction of the Internation Criminal Court, doing away with capital punishment and releasing all foreign detainees that have not been charged with a crime to their country of origin. That will shut our idiotic representatives up in a hurry.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Microsoft isn't going to force vendors to open source their drivers when they so closely guard their own code. What's good for the gander is good for the goose and all that.
You're point is well taken however. I don't see why hardware vendors don't release their source code. They can patent the hardware if it truly contains innovations and with software patents they could patent all or part of the driver if it's anything special and release the code under whatever license they deem appropriate.
If I was evaluating two pieces of expensive hardware that performed equally well I'd take the piece with open source drivers over the piece that didn't have open source drivers even if it cost more just for insurance on the investment. You'd think that having open source drivers would be a point that high end hardware manufacturers, especially new ones, could compete on.
If you want the convenience of buying tracks online from major labels then it's coming with DRM. Deal with it. If you don't want DRM, buy the CD and rip it. Problem solved. Loseless music in a format with no DRM. If you don't want to pay full price for a CD, check out your local used CD store or order a used version online from EBay, Amazon or any one of the hundreds of other similar sites.
Good, because ultimately it will be Microsoft's undoing. Small shops that were 100% Microsoft but were able to do so only by paying for what they cord afford and pirating what they couldn't will now be forced to dump Microsoft or stick with older versions of Microsoft software because the new versions are so locked down they can no longer engage in the casual copying they used to engage in to upgrade those PC's that they otherwise couldn't afford to upgrade. They'll then focus on finding less expensive or free alternatives that can integrate with the existing Microsoft software that they are running. Standards suddenly become important to these shops and they are now open to and aware of alternatives they were not open to or aware of before. Suddenly paying the Microsoft tax seems more and more ridiculous.
Exactly. Further, I laugh my ass off when the religious nut bags start spouting off about how immoral society is today. Have these idiots bothered to read up on history? When you hear the kind of crap that public figures used to engage in behind closed doors even as recently as the 50's and 60's these people would be shocked and outraged. JFK made Bill Clinton look like a saint in comparison. Popular culture may have been more moral in previous decades than it is today but if anything we are a much more puritanical society today than we've been. It hasn't been all that long since Coke contained actual cocaine and you could order morphine and a syringe from a mail order catalog.
Apple is great at taking an existing product or set of technologies and figuring out how to make it "just work" in a way that's intuitive and easy. You'll pay for the convenience but for an increasing number of consumers it's worth it. I have full confidence that the iPhone will be more of the same.
I used to think Apple produced nothing but overpriced junk but that was primarily because my previous exposure to their products occurred in the 90's. Then several years ago when iTunes for Windows hit I was tired of managing my music collection in other programs and looking for an easier way so I gave it a shot after hearing rave reviews from Mac users and it was such an improvement over the other software I was using that I uninstalled the other programs immediately. iTunes worked so well that I decided to go for an iPod and it was (and still is) hands down the best MP3 player I've every owned. I gave the iTMS a try and the iPod / iTunes / iTMS combination worked so well together that when the Mac Mini was announced I decided to bite the bullet and try a Mac. I liked it so much I upgraded to an iMac within 6 months and have just convinced my boss to split the cost of a MacBook Pro for use at the office and when I'm on the road. I couldn't be happier after making the switch. I've got to deal with Windows based PC's all day at work and when I get home at night I want something that will just work.
I'm starting to feel the same way about cell phones. I'm tired of all of the crap you have to put up with. I got an LG phone for Christmas and it's the best cell phone that I've ever owned but that's not saying much. My cell phone has an mp3 player, but of course you can't use the mp3s as ring tones and the user interface absolutely sucks. It's got the best built in web browser of any cell phone I've used, but it still can't display half of the web sites I try to visit properly. Admittedly it handles web sties designed for mobile browser well, but often times I need to visit a site that hasn't been designed for mobile browsers. It's supposed to work with any Micro SD trans flash stick so I purchased a 2 GB stick and, of course, it doesn't work. A little research on the Internet revealed that even though they claim any chip will work just about no one can get the 2 GB stick working. I've had enough. I want a cell phone / mp3 player combo that just works. I want to be able to easily manage my music on the phone, I want to be able to easily find the tracks I want to play, I want to be able to use any thing on the mp3 player as a ring tone. I don't want to worry about buying the wrong kind of flash memory. I want my contacts and calender to sync with my computer easily, I want a web browser that won't mangle most regular web pages. Visual voice mail will be a handy feature and the integration with Google maps looks pretty awesome as well. In short, I want something that just works. I realize that other phones will be cheaper and may have more features but I don't care. A phone can have all of the features in the world but if they are poorly implemented and/or the UI sucks what's the point? I don't have time to fiddle with crap all day long. Life's to short. I want something that will just work and I'm willing to pay for it.
I'll skip the first generation to give Apple a chance to work the kinks out and to further improve the product but as soon as the second generation of the iPhone ships I'm buying one. I'll be ready for a new phone by then and I'll be happy to shell out $500 dollars if I know that at the end of the day I'll have a cellphone that does what I need it to do and "just works". If the iPhone lasts half as long as my and holds up half as well as my 3G iPod has then it will have been well worth the money.
Joe Sixpack doesn't upgrade his operating system. Joe Sixpack doesn't know what an operating system is. Joe Sixpack will move to Vista when he buys his next PC with Vista preinstalled. This really should come as no surprise.
Windows XP Home Edition offered the stability and other improvements of Windows 2000 rolled into a consumer oriented OS. Compared to Windows 98 and (shudder) ME it was a huge improvement for consumers so it's no wonder more people wanted to upgrade to XP. What does Vista offer? A series of confusing versions to choose from, required hardware upgrades for most, software compatibility issues for many, annoying as all hell UAC prompts, Windows Software Protection Platform that can completely lock down your system if it thinks your running a pirated copy of Vista and the list goes on.
I can't think of one reason I should upgrade to Windows Vista. In fact, XP is the last version of a Microsoft OS that I will run on any PC I own. I've switched to a Mac and I couldn't be happier. I've got Boot Camp installed to play the occasional game but I find I'm spending less and less time gaming so I suspect by the time games appear that are Vista only it will no longer matter.
This has nothing to do with fair use. Google is using copyrighted material to turn a profit. We're not talking about some not for profit blogger here or a journalist sighting portions of an article on some other site to further a point. This is Google using copyrighted material to turn a profit in the form of increased advertising revenue and the company in question has every right to sue to prevent others from profiting from content that they have created.
Sony declaring Blue-Ray the winner in the HD format war is a little like Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner on the deck of the aircraft carrier during his speech after the initial invasion of Iraq. It's way, way to early to be anointing a victor here.
DRM is a huge pain in the ass for consumers and digital distribution of media that uses it is never likely to take off in the same fashion as it's physical medium counterparts unless it's easy to use and not very restrictive like Apple's FairPlay. Part of what makes FairPlay acceptable to me is the ability to burn purchased content to a CD that I can then take with me and listen to in any CD player that I wish. If FairPlay didn't have this ability I wouldn't use it. Likewise I'll never buy a "digital download" version of a movie or TV show unless I have the ability to burn that movie or show to a DVD. IMHO anything with DRM that doesn't let you burn to some kind of physical media that can then be played back on other devices (players, portables or other PC's) is essentially a rental and isn't worth it. I think most consumers agree which is why I'm tired of these DRM articles. A huge factor in any media format leap is convenience. Does anyone here really think that either CD's or DVD's would have taken off as they did if they didn't involve huge leaps in convenience for consumers? Quality played a part sure, but I'd argue it was the convenience of CD's and DVD's that really caused them to take off. Being able to leap back and forward between tracks instantly and not having to flip back and forth between sides was a huge factor in moving from tapes to CD's. Likewise the ability to skip back and forth easily through movies (and not having to rewind tapes to watch them) was a huge factor in the move from VHS tapes to DVD's. Not to mention never having to worry about a bad tape or VHS player destroying your music or movie. A poster on Slashdot said something a while back that I completely agree with. Everyone is looking at HD-DVD and Blue-Ray, freaking out about the DRM, and wondering which will be the next big thing in video and I think they are off the mark. All that HD-DVD and Blue-Ray offer over their DVD counterparts is more space and HD content. Newsflash, most consumers don't have an HD TV and won't anytime soon. Even when there's an HD TV in every home, HD TV's are expensive and most homes have more than one TV anyway so most consumers would then probably have one HD set in the living room and regular TV's elsewhere. I think some kind of hybrid DVR / Apple iTV kind type of box with a price point of around $200 bucks would be poised to be the next big thing in video. Consumers want a leap in convenience more than they want a leap in quality because at this point the leap in quality requires a large investment in expensive new hardware to pay real dividends. Why pay thousands of dollars for one brand new large HD TV in the living room and a bunch of HD-DVD's and/or Blue Ray discs (when you probably already own the content on DVD) who's improvements in quality can only be seen on that one expensive large TV in the house when you can spend between $600 and $700 dollars and have set top box hooked up to each TV in the house that lets you record, share with the other boxes and play back content recoded by the DVR and/or download, share with the other boxes and playback movies and TV shows that you've downloaded from the Internet. IMHO that latter option makes a lot more sense than shelling out all that money for a new HD TV set and bunch of content in HD that I've already paid for just to get better picture quality. My point is that convenience sells. DRM that isn't convenient won't sell and DRM that is convenient will. The box that I spoke of above could be DRM'd to the hill as long as I could share the content with the other boxes, have a backup system or the ability to re-download content that I paid for if I lost it and as long as it had a simple interface and "just worked" it would be a hit much like the iPod / iTMS combination. The RIAA and MPAA are to stupid to get it that and I have no doubt they'll DRM consumers to death and turn them off to digital distribution completely if they are left to their own devices. All they have to do is look at Napster. Napster didn't offer higher quality. Napster offered the con
The RIAA has a point but what they willfully ignore is that market forces have radically changed since the CD was introduced. Consumers today are literally overloaded when it comes to entertainment options. Hundreds of TV channels via satellite and cable, tons of movies playing in theaters, a huge collection of titles available on DVD, movies on demand, radio, satellite radio, the web, podcasts, video games and the list goes on and on.
So while the RIAA has a point that CD prices would be a lot more today if prices had kept up with the rate of inflation instead of staying relatively stagnant they fail to take into account the fact that the entertainment market has radically changed since the CD was first introduced. Consumers have a hell of a lot more entertainment options than they had even 5 to 10 years ago and CD prices need to reflect that reality.
Let market forces work. Less CS students means less qualified CS grads to fill positions which means higher salaries and benefits as companies compete for workers which means that you'll have more students interested again in CS.
You raise a very insightful point about quality and convenience. Think of the tape to CD and VHS to DVD leaps. Both new technologies had quality improvements over their predecessors but I'd argue neither would have taken off as quickly as they did (or at all) without the massive improvements in convenience. No more having to fast forward or rewind a tape or VHS movie to get to your favorite track or part of the movie, with the new format you could get where you wanted to go in a second. That was a huge factor when I moved to from tapes to CD's and it also came into play with DVD's. Rewinding a movie before you watched it or before returning it to the video store was a massive pain in the butt. You no longer had to worry about a bad player shredding the DVD or CD which was also a huge plus with both moves. Quality was more of a factor to convince me to move from VHS to DVD but you better believe that if that quality improvement didn't also include the improvements in convenience (e.g. it was still tape based or a single movie had to be split onto multiple discs) then I don't think the format would have caught on.
I hate sensationalist crap like this. Vista won't require a hardware upgrade for relatively new systems unless you want to experience all of it's bells and whistles. IMHO that's beside the point completely since most consumers will stick with the operating system they have until they buy a new PC that will be preloaded with Vista anyway. I know I'm in no rush to upgrade our systems where I work (and I'll never do it at home since I ditched my PC a year ago in favor of a Mac). I won't even bother taking a look at Vista until it's been on the market for two years. Let others deal with the inevitable bugs, security issues, driver problems and software compatibility issues. I'll stick with XP as long as possible. I just don't see very compelling businesses reasons to justify an upgrade to Vista. I see a lot more reasons for consumers to make the leap but as I mentioned above they'll do so whether they need to or not when they buy their next PC.
The bottom line is that web based applications blow compared to their OS based counterparts. You'll never, ever convince me to go the software as a service route for the important software that I depend on. Why you ask? Control. Just a few weeks ago out of the blue a software vendor that produces a really nice service management package that integrates with the accounting package that my company resells, trains and does consulting work with was purchased by a competitor. Most of the existing employees save a couple of developers and support rep's were fired, development on the service management package was stopped and the package is now in maintenance mode (bug fixes only). Existing customers will be transitioned to the product that is offered by the now former competitor.
Stuff like this happens all the time in the software industry. I won't take the chance that one day the web application that I depend on will be purchased by another competing vendor and shut down while we're "transitioned" to some other product. At least with software tied to an OS you can decide if you'll upgrade your applications. Existing clients in my example above are screwed, but not as badly as they would have been if they'd been using a Web application. If they are happy with their software as it functions today they aren't forced to upgrade to anything. They'll never be a new version of the service management package but at least they'll be able to run what they've currently got for the foreseeable future and can make any future software change at a time and date of their choosing to a product of their choosing.
I don't think people who push the idea of software as a service get that. There are certain kinds of applications that I don't have any problem going the software as a service route with. Things like personnel e-mail, tax preparation software, the account and portfolio management applications provided by my financial institution, etc. Those kinds of applications are ready made for the software as a service model. It's mostly in the consumer space where I see software as a service being an option. You'll never convince me go that way with the software that we depend on at my company. Things like our office suite, our accounting system, our CRM system. Those applications and the data that they contain are two important for us to ever consider going the software as a service route.
They are called DVR's and they've already changed TV for those of us who have them. The only real difference is that in 5 years I'll likely be able to cancel my subscription to my cable provider and download and pay for only the content that I want to watch. Be it movies or TV shows. I'll probably also be able to stream most live sporting events. Although I've got to say, mainstream TV isn't going anywhere anytime soon. To many people aren't technical enough to do the setup that's required for this kind of thing today. My money is on Apple being the first company to really make an easy to use set top box with lots of available content for download. Although there is something to be said for being able to click through the various channels and find some random show you wouldn't otherwise think to look for or watch. If studio's were wise they'd make the first several episodes of new TV shows available for free with ads to allow viewers to sample the content before deciding if they want to subscribe to the rest of the series. Another issue is HD content and the bandwidth that will be required if you want to download existing content and to stream live content in HD. I love football and I especially love to watch it in HD. I'd need enough bandwidth to stream games in HD before you could really convince me to cancel my cable subscription and go the download / stream only route. I don't know if I see that happening in 5 years. I'm thinking it will be more like 7 - 10.
The *IAA wastes so much time, energy and ultimately money on various DRM implementations and the end result is always the same. The DRM is eventually cracked so those who want to pirate material can and do yet the DRM is cumbersome enough to upset and turn off a certain percentage of legitimate customers.
My roommate purchased an HDTV a few years ago before the HDCP standard emerged and he recently bought a Playstation 3. He was seriously pissed when he found out he couldn't watch Blue Ray Discs at the highest resolution because his TV wasn't compatible.
Things like this only serve to alienate legitimate consumers who are already inclined to pay for the product. The pirates just wait for the DRM to be cracked.
That should fit nicely somewhere in the middle of my useless fucking ideas index!
The *IAA wastes so much time, energy and ultimately money on various DRM implementations and the end result is always the same. The DRM is eventually cracked so those who want to pirate material can and do yet the DRM is cumbersome enough to upset and turn off a certain percentage of legitimate customers.
My roommate purchased an HDTV a few years ago before the HDCP standard emerged and he recently bought a Playstation 3. He was seriously pissed when he found out he couldn't watch Blue Ray Discs at the highest resolution because his TV wasn't compatible.
Things like this only serve to alienate legitimate consumers who are already inclined to pay for the product. The pirates just wait for the DRM to be cracked.
You may not but plenty of consumers have already proven they will..