Is it possible for people to submit a story without loading it with buzzwords (Apple, iPhone, etc.) just to increase the chances of it being posted despite the fact that the story isn't actually about Apple, the iPhone, or anything of the sort. It's about Palm. Sure, I know that new cool thing is to hate on Apple, the iPhone, iTunes, and the like, but this story isn't about any of that. Want to post a story about Apple, the iPhone, iTunes, and the problems associated with them? Go for it - submit the story. But, if your submitting something about Palm (or Microsoft or whatever), let's keep it focused on the actual subject of the submission.
Of course they denied it. If it got out that they were looking to buy NBC Universal, the stock price would rise thereby increasing the purchase price as speculators bought up stock in the hopes of a big payday when the buyout came around. That would be something they'd want to avoid.
This case shows there are solutions to the problem Carol Shloss faced other than simple capitulation
Yes - the solution is to be lucky enough to find a lawyer that's willing allow their bill to get up to $400,000 but settle for $240,000 just so they can fight a legal battle that shouldn't be in front of the courts anyways. Almost half a million to fight a battle in which she was obviously right? It's wrong that that fight occurred at all... Thank goodness her lawyer was willing to go the distance.
Why would anyone issue a challenge like that over netbooks for students? Unhackable? Bullshit! Some hacker out there is going to take that as a challenge and hack into the thing in, I'm guessing, less than a week. And some poor student is going to have his netbook hacked because some nimrod decided to talk smack about how awesome-sauce these netbooks are and described it a "unhackable." Unreal...
It's a p2p program that uses a similar principle to vastly increase user anonymity. Currently, the only downside of the program (that I've noticed) is that it is in such minimal usage. The ant-like functionality of it, however, is really quite intelligent.
As a graphic designer, allow me to simplify things - EVERY image published has been altered with photo manipulation software. Whether it's as minimal as colour adjustment or removing some insignificant blemishes from the image to outright "enhancing" of the image. EVERY image has been manipulated. Trust me.
How about a better example that has existed for much longer than an iPod - American cars. Cars used to be built to last. Most owners could conceivably own a vehicle until _they_ decided to replace it. Now, north American cars have a built in expiration date - pretty much as soon as the warranty runs out, the vehicle begins to systematically fall apart, thereby forcing the owner to buy a new vehicle.
I know it's fun to hate on Apple and all but, let's be real, north American auto makers have been working with planned obsolescence for a long time now.
Not to mention that Apple hardware lasts a HELL of a lot longer than a vast majority of comparable products from other companies. There are exceptions that prove the rule and anecdotal evidence that people can raise to the contrary but, on average, Apple's products last a respectably long time.
You're right. Some pay more because they pay month-to-month ($15/month) while others pay for longer (reducing it to $13/month for a six month subscription) while some lucky bastiches don't pay at all. $12 a month, however, is a reasonable _average_ for the point of discussion.
For me, the main reason that commercial products often (not always) trump open source products is simple: the commercial products are designed with the end user in mind and are generally easier and more elegant to use. Open source products are often designed by "hardcore geeks" (air quoting to denote that's not intended as an insult - just to give a sense of what I mean). They are often more concerned with getting the guts of a program working correctly which often results in a well-made program but, because use is a tertiary concern, in most cases, it lacks an ease of use that most users (well, me, in this case) seek.
Think of how often we've seen someone ask a question about how to do "this" or "that" with some linux distro and the resulting answer is very complex and requires an above-average level of computer comfort? The answer may be easy for someone who knows what they're doing and the answer may achieve exactly what the person wants. Heck, the answer may unlock even more potential beyond what the person expected. But, that ease of use is lacking.
Once the open source community makes a strong effort to focus on the end user's experience with the program - when they start to think more like Apple, in a way - I think they will find more people becoming comfortable with and sticking with open source options. Until then, people will drift back to the programs that are easy to use, even if they are somewhat technologically inferior.
Like I said, about the netbook, "unlikely to be announced at an iPod-focused show but I could hope". And what would a Mac tablet be than just a larger iPod Touch? I mean, really, double (plus a smidge) the dimensions of it and beef up the insides so it can run OSX (or a more powerful version of mobile OSX) and, presto, you've got a Mac tablet that most people would love to own. I'd say a tablet could certainly be within the sphere, as you say, of Mac's iPods. Honestly, if I could buy an iPod Touch that was twice the size but with the same specs, otherwise, I'd jump at it. A larger screen alone would be exciting. And I'm pretty certain that, if Apple decided to go the "iPod Touch on steroids" route for a tablet, they'd do more than just double the size of the screen so that'd make it damn exciting for me (and probably a lot of other people).
Let's see - more powerful. My Touch is 8 gig. The current ones go up to 64 gig. I suppose I should have been more accurate and said "more space" but I figured you got the idea. I guess I was wrong.
Better. Take a look at the first gen Touch and the second gen and you'll already see that the second gen is better. Bluetooth and a mic, for example. Add in a camera and those three would be significant upgrades over what I currently have and enjoy.
I'm sorry if that's a difficult concept to grasp - the first gen iPod Touch is great. The second gen is damn nice, but not quite enough for me to justify upgrading. Add a camera and the incentive reaches the tipping point and would then be worth it. It would be better. Not a difficult concept to grasp so do your best with it.
You've never upgraded a piece of technology that you already own to a newer, better, more powerful version? I have a first gen Touch so getting a 3rd gen (in an imaginary world where it was announced) would be an _upgrade_ over what I currently have. Not sure why it seems unusual that someone would upgrade...
I'm a big Apple fan and love the iPod. I have a classic and a Touch and I was really looking forward to today's announcements. I was hopeful for things like a tablet (iPod Touch but bigger) or a netbook (unlikely to be announced at an iPod-focused show but I could hope) or an iPod Touch with a camera or some similarly cool announcement, after seeing that there was actually very little in the way of new stuff being announced, I must confess, I'm kinda disappointed. Actually, not kinda - I am disappointed.
Yes, the nano with a camera is cool and all but, if I'm going to buy a new iPod, it'll be a newer, better Touch, not something "less." Ah well...
Director of Mimic, Blade 2, Hellboy, Hellboy 2, and Pan's Labyrinth.
I'm quite happy with him as director of The Hobbit as his body of work is excellent. And, yes, it will have a vastly different feel from the LotR trilogy. And that's not a bad thing given his vision for fantasy/faerie tales is beautiful.
And, if you're a big enough fan of Apple's elegant UI design, he's wrong. But, if you hate Apple, he's right. But... I think you get my point.
There will be tons of anecdotal evidence supporting or refuting his claim but the simple fact remains - it's an incredibly similar claim, with the exact same anecdotal evidence supporting and refuting, that has been made about the iPod a thousand times before. And we know how those claims played out.
No, I'm not claiming the iPhone is untouchable. No, I'm not claiming it's perfect (I don't own one despite wanting one very much - the contract terms through Rogers (in Canada) are so unfavourable that I'd rather do without). I'm not claiming that it's the best smart phone available nor am I claiming that there aren't other smart phones that are better, for a variety of reasons. What I am claiming is that when someone says "here's the iPhone-killer", I immediately shunt virtually everything that follows into the same category as posts about iPod-killers, which is to say I ignore them.
If people need to hype their product by claiming it's an iPhone-killer, then it probably isn't. The iPhone-killer won't need to sell itself as such - it will just come out and be more successful than the iPhone, on it's own merits.
While I think ljaszcza's claim of precedent is flimsy, at best, I do hope that Sony is absolutely smashed in court over this. This is _commercial_ piracy. This is piracy-for-profit. If non-commercial piracy between individuals carries penalties of tens-of-thousands of dollars per song then commercial piracy damn well carry a significantly heftier fine. After all, _THIS_ is the sort of thing that copyright law is intended to protect against - someone making money off of someone else's work without their permission. _THIS_ is what the law is supposed to protect against. With a hint of luck, the law will actually do something about it rather than look the other way.
Wouldn't it be nice if the group involved in drafting ACTA were made aware of this. After all, I'm sure Sony has been involved in "suggesting" elements of the ACTA proposal so I'm sure any punishments they've suggested they would be comfortable with paying...
I'm convinced we can clean up the Internet in 10 years...
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Oh gawd, that's rich. One of the funniest jokes I've read in a long time. Hysterical. Hopefully I'll see this guy at next year's Montreal Comedy Festival. Awesome comedian!
How do people like that get into the position of VP of anything? A bold statement that indicates such a complete and utter lack of possibility... Unreal.
The problem is there are lots of artists that want the money. Until they decide to stop feeding the trolls (to use an internet-ism), the big labels will continue to hold a lot of power. Hopefully, as time passes, the financial difference between "signed to a label" and "released independently using the various tools available to indie artists" will shrink sufficiently that more and more artists will decide it's not worth selling their souls to make some music exec rich. Once that happens, I believe we'll enter a new era of music and it will be very, very, very good.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it possible for people to submit a story without loading it with buzzwords (Apple, iPhone, etc.) just to increase the chances of it being posted despite the fact that the story isn't actually about Apple, the iPhone, or anything of the sort. It's about Palm. Sure, I know that new cool thing is to hate on Apple, the iPhone, iTunes, and the like, but this story isn't about any of that. Want to post a story about Apple, the iPhone, iTunes, and the problems associated with them? Go for it - submit the story. But, if your submitting something about Palm (or Microsoft or whatever), let's keep it focused on the actual subject of the submission.
I know. I know. I must be new here...
Of course they denied it. If it got out that they were looking to buy NBC Universal, the stock price would rise thereby increasing the purchase price as speculators bought up stock in the hopes of a big payday when the buyout came around. That would be something they'd want to avoid.
It amuses me to see you use "there" and "their" in the same post yet incorrectly each time.
Translation = it's cheaper to bribe one judge than 12 jurors.
I joke! I joke!
kinda...
This case shows there are solutions to the problem Carol Shloss faced other than simple capitulation
Yes - the solution is to be lucky enough to find a lawyer that's willing allow their bill to get up to $400,000 but settle for $240,000 just so they can fight a legal battle that shouldn't be in front of the courts anyways. Almost half a million to fight a battle in which she was obviously right? It's wrong that that fight occurred at all... Thank goodness her lawyer was willing to go the distance.
Why would anyone issue a challenge like that over netbooks for students? Unhackable? Bullshit! Some hacker out there is going to take that as a challenge and hack into the thing in, I'm guessing, less than a week. And some poor student is going to have his netbook hacked because some nimrod decided to talk smack about how awesome-sauce these netbooks are and described it a "unhackable." Unreal...
but does anyone knows of a product that actually use such a principle for real?
Yes. Ants
It's a p2p program that uses a similar principle to vastly increase user anonymity. Currently, the only downside of the program (that I've noticed) is that it is in such minimal usage. The ant-like functionality of it, however, is really quite intelligent.
I'd like to see a show of hands - who here thinks this will actually come to pass?
Anyone? Anyone?
Yeah. That's what I thought...
As a graphic designer, allow me to simplify things - EVERY image published has been altered with photo manipulation software. Whether it's as minimal as colour adjustment or removing some insignificant blemishes from the image to outright "enhancing" of the image. EVERY image has been manipulated. Trust me.
How about a better example that has existed for much longer than an iPod - American cars. Cars used to be built to last. Most owners could conceivably own a vehicle until _they_ decided to replace it. Now, north American cars have a built in expiration date - pretty much as soon as the warranty runs out, the vehicle begins to systematically fall apart, thereby forcing the owner to buy a new vehicle.
I know it's fun to hate on Apple and all but, let's be real, north American auto makers have been working with planned obsolescence for a long time now.
Not to mention that Apple hardware lasts a HELL of a lot longer than a vast majority of comparable products from other companies. There are exceptions that prove the rule and anecdotal evidence that people can raise to the contrary but, on average, Apple's products last a respectably long time.
You're right. Some pay more because they pay month-to-month ($15/month) while others pay for longer (reducing it to $13/month for a six month subscription) while some lucky bastiches don't pay at all. $12 a month, however, is a reasonable _average_ for the point of discussion.
For me, the main reason that commercial products often (not always) trump open source products is simple: the commercial products are designed with the end user in mind and are generally easier and more elegant to use. Open source products are often designed by "hardcore geeks" (air quoting to denote that's not intended as an insult - just to give a sense of what I mean). They are often more concerned with getting the guts of a program working correctly which often results in a well-made program but, because use is a tertiary concern, in most cases, it lacks an ease of use that most users (well, me, in this case) seek.
Think of how often we've seen someone ask a question about how to do "this" or "that" with some linux distro and the resulting answer is very complex and requires an above-average level of computer comfort? The answer may be easy for someone who knows what they're doing and the answer may achieve exactly what the person wants. Heck, the answer may unlock even more potential beyond what the person expected. But, that ease of use is lacking.
Once the open source community makes a strong effort to focus on the end user's experience with the program - when they start to think more like Apple, in a way - I think they will find more people becoming comfortable with and sticking with open source options. Until then, people will drift back to the programs that are easy to use, even if they are somewhat technologically inferior.
Like I said, about the netbook, "unlikely to be announced at an iPod-focused show but I could hope". And what would a Mac tablet be than just a larger iPod Touch? I mean, really, double (plus a smidge) the dimensions of it and beef up the insides so it can run OSX (or a more powerful version of mobile OSX) and, presto, you've got a Mac tablet that most people would love to own. I'd say a tablet could certainly be within the sphere, as you say, of Mac's iPods. Honestly, if I could buy an iPod Touch that was twice the size but with the same specs, otherwise, I'd jump at it. A larger screen alone would be exciting. And I'm pretty certain that, if Apple decided to go the "iPod Touch on steroids" route for a tablet, they'd do more than just double the size of the screen so that'd make it damn exciting for me (and probably a lot of other people).
Let's see - more powerful. My Touch is 8 gig. The current ones go up to 64 gig. I suppose I should have been more accurate and said "more space" but I figured you got the idea. I guess I was wrong.
Better. Take a look at the first gen Touch and the second gen and you'll already see that the second gen is better. Bluetooth and a mic, for example. Add in a camera and those three would be significant upgrades over what I currently have and enjoy.
I'm sorry if that's a difficult concept to grasp - the first gen iPod Touch is great. The second gen is damn nice, but not quite enough for me to justify upgrading. Add a camera and the incentive reaches the tipping point and would then be worth it. It would be better. Not a difficult concept to grasp so do your best with it.
You've never upgraded a piece of technology that you already own to a newer, better, more powerful version? I have a first gen Touch so getting a 3rd gen (in an imaginary world where it was announced) would be an _upgrade_ over what I currently have. Not sure why it seems unusual that someone would upgrade...
I'm a big Apple fan and love the iPod. I have a classic and a Touch and I was really looking forward to today's announcements. I was hopeful for things like a tablet (iPod Touch but bigger) or a netbook (unlikely to be announced at an iPod-focused show but I could hope) or an iPod Touch with a camera or some similarly cool announcement, after seeing that there was actually very little in the way of new stuff being announced, I must confess, I'm kinda disappointed. Actually, not kinda - I am disappointed.
Yes, the nano with a camera is cool and all but, if I'm going to buy a new iPod, it'll be a newer, better Touch, not something "less." Ah well...
Guillermo del Toro: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0868219/
Director of Mimic, Blade 2, Hellboy, Hellboy 2, and Pan's Labyrinth.
I'm quite happy with him as director of The Hobbit as his body of work is excellent. And, yes, it will have a vastly different feel from the LotR trilogy. And that's not a bad thing given his vision for fantasy/faerie tales is beautiful.
In a way, if you're a big enough geek he's right.
And, if you're a big enough fan of Apple's elegant UI design, he's wrong. But, if you hate Apple, he's right. But... I think you get my point.
There will be tons of anecdotal evidence supporting or refuting his claim but the simple fact remains - it's an incredibly similar claim, with the exact same anecdotal evidence supporting and refuting, that has been made about the iPod a thousand times before. And we know how those claims played out.
No, I'm not claiming the iPhone is untouchable. No, I'm not claiming it's perfect (I don't own one despite wanting one very much - the contract terms through Rogers (in Canada) are so unfavourable that I'd rather do without). I'm not claiming that it's the best smart phone available nor am I claiming that there aren't other smart phones that are better, for a variety of reasons. What I am claiming is that when someone says "here's the iPhone-killer", I immediately shunt virtually everything that follows into the same category as posts about iPod-killers, which is to say I ignore them.
If people need to hype their product by claiming it's an iPhone-killer, then it probably isn't. The iPhone-killer won't need to sell itself as such - it will just come out and be more successful than the iPhone, on it's own merits.
Your post reminds me of the hundreds of "the iPod is dead, here is its successor" posts that I read back in the day.
I'm just sayin'.
While I think ljaszcza's claim of precedent is flimsy, at best, I do hope that Sony is absolutely smashed in court over this. This is _commercial_ piracy. This is piracy-for-profit. If non-commercial piracy between individuals carries penalties of tens-of-thousands of dollars per song then commercial piracy damn well carry a significantly heftier fine. After all, _THIS_ is the sort of thing that copyright law is intended to protect against - someone making money off of someone else's work without their permission. _THIS_ is what the law is supposed to protect against. With a hint of luck, the law will actually do something about it rather than look the other way.
Wouldn't it be nice if the group involved in drafting ACTA were made aware of this. After all, I'm sure Sony has been involved in "suggesting" elements of the ACTA proposal so I'm sure any punishments they've suggested they would be comfortable with paying...
I'm convinced we can clean up the Internet in 10 years...
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Oh gawd, that's rich. One of the funniest jokes I've read in a long time. Hysterical. Hopefully I'll see this guy at next year's Montreal Comedy Festival. Awesome comedian!
How do people like that get into the position of VP of anything? A bold statement that indicates such a complete and utter lack of possibility... Unreal.
The problem is there are lots of artists that want the money. Until they decide to stop feeding the trolls (to use an internet-ism), the big labels will continue to hold a lot of power. Hopefully, as time passes, the financial difference between "signed to a label" and "released independently using the various tools available to indie artists" will shrink sufficiently that more and more artists will decide it's not worth selling their souls to make some music exec rich. Once that happens, I believe we'll enter a new era of music and it will be very, very, very good.
After reading that summary and the completely transparent hatred for Sony in it I and forced to say that, yes, Glyn is Moody. ;)
Or it's all an indication that the movies and music being released right now suck and people don't even want to watch or listen for free...
I wish people could be fired for writing in all caps. That would get rid of a lot of dead wood around here...