There is a monopoly (oligarchy perhaps?) when the RIAA is in control. Most "indie" labels are distributed by a major and thus are indirectly RIAA controlled entities. The ones that are not are sometimes regional, mostly small market labels that serve a particular genre of music. You won't find the small labels' items on the shelves of many mainstream stores because of the RIAA and their distribution deals with retailers.
Small mom&pop record stores are the best bet, but then it depends on where you live. The internet is helping this regional lock-in problem, but it still has a ways to go before the truly independent labels are on the same footing as the "indie" labels with RIAA-backed distribution deals with the majors. When that happens, we'll most likely see a shrinkage of RIAA influence across the board, because their traditional means of control is through their distribution network that has been built over many decades. It won't go down without a fight, either.
It's hard to avoid the RIAA when it comes to music these days without a little effort, and with the deck stacked against non-RIAA labels, it probably won't change much until the alternative forms of distribution take off...
I would agree that healthy competition existed in the music industry if we hadn't read about the recent collusion lawsuit among the majors, (keeping prices artificially high), and not to mention that some labels maintain a vertical monopoly from the recording to the front retail which stacks their product above all else.... not that it's a terribly bad thing for a company to have its own stores, just don't expect competition....
I would love for competition to exist in its purest form. We'd see a very different billboard chart if that was the case. Just like when Soundscan, rather than "word of the retailer", showed how the album sales really were.
Big Labels will not cater to their customers. They firmly believe that they know what you want, and will try to make you think you do want it... just like any good marketeer... The difference is how they go about it.
yep, because you could make an audio CD of it and re-rip it back to your iTunes library and voila! No DRM.:)
Anything more restrictive than that will be kicked to the curb... wonder why the subscription-model online stores are floundering? Guess it really is about how much restriction people will take...
That's assuming Valve kills steam out of the goodness of their hearts. If Valve (heaven forbid) dies as a company... how much do you think the banks will send out the "patch" once steam goes dark? Just a "what-if" scenario. I mean, there might be verbage in the agreement that covers this, but you never know with these things...
And I'm not saying it will ever happen to Valve, but this sort of thing just makes me feel uneasy in general about ALL "delivered" content. What happens when they die? If I buy a boxed version of a game, and company X goes out of business (there have been quite a few)... I don't want to have to worry about the "unlock" code that keeps my game that I have a legitimate copy of playable.
Just a thought... This service is merely rental, of course, which opens up a whole new can of worms...
It's possibly the only viable reason for some. It wasn't (and really couldn't have been) the only viable reason for me.
1. The iPod has been nothing but superior in terms of quality for me and everyone I know that also owns one. I have replaced the battery on my 2nd Gen iPod and it still runs like a champ after heavy use. ($29 replacement complete with tool.) For me, that adds value right off the bat. If it had sucked, of course, I'd be out a little more money, and it would make future purchases doubtful, but that aside, it was a no-brainer for me to keep with the same brand that has been consistently good for me in both desktops and music players.
2. Even at 1/3 the price, it's a gamble moving away from what I know to be consistent quality. I don't choose to do that.
And a distant 3. iTunes store integration. I had an iPod already, so that wasn't high on my list.
So for me, it was more than iTunes Store integration. Will I buy another iPod? Of course. Will I buy another flash-based player? Doubtful, since the one I have serves its purpose, but when it does die out, the purpose will not necessarily need to be filled by a flash player anymore. It might, but then again, I think a Mini would do the trick for me.
You just did a search based on price, and if that is your criteria, sure, the iPod will lose. If that's your only criteria, though, you're going to get some really crappy *cough*Creative*cough* players.
Nothing really, except the quality of the iPod line in general and the ability to play my iTunes store purchased songs.
I'll pay $100 for something that works correctly, consistently, and play all my library. It's not THAT much more expensive than comparable players, really.
If it were solely about price, Creative would be mopping the floor with Apple.
"The opinions expressed are mine and mine only. They do not represent the opinions of my friends, my family, my employer, or the guy I bought my lunch from."
Since you don't represent anyone but yourself... is it a stretch to think that I don't?
Just get a grip and try to learn that this site has lots of differing opinions. Otherwise, you're going to be an angry young (or old) person. M$ is funny, you don't think so... your opinion is noted. Nothing to see here, move along.
You'll live longer if you don't worry so much. I read the GP post and remembered Microsoft's past litigation strategies (remember Lindows?) and well, it was funny and since this is NEW.. we're going to have to wait and SEE what happens, aren't we? The GP never stated anything as fact, he was just stating how MS oh wait, M$ really is. So get over it.
Simple, even YOU can figure that out.
I didn't attack you, martyr. You decided it was cute to correct my posting in true troll form (if you don't have anything to say, correct 'em!)
M$ is funny. I like it... and you don't. Point taken.
Get over yourself. The GP speculated, and the fact that they haven't is FACT.
The fact that they MIGHT is speculation and it, like most opinions, are just that, opinions. They have NOT said they will not puruse litigation, nor have they said they will. So, like everything discussed about this whole demented thread is SPECULATION. Look it up, it'll help you better than your word-a-day calendar.
Please find a more intellectual forum to post on, since obviously you're too smart for the likes of Slashdot.
Thanks for the schooling, jackass. Next time, school someone who needs it.
I am NOT speaking for the OSS community. THAT is a stretch of logic....
That would be ideal, absolutely. Targeted ads that would show something I might buy. Trouble is, they mine the data and get an incomplete picture of who you really are. It would take much more intrusive questioning (since you're already giving up most of your personal information for free anyway) to get at what makes you tick. I won't sign up for it, because they don't need to know. It's never ever any of their business, and if they happen to figure it out by accident, well neat. But if they require more and more information and intrusive, bothersome questioning... they won't ever find out.
Getting it right is the holy grail of advertising. I'd rather them take the cup that makes them turn into a skeleton than the real one if they must intrude more into my life to get it right.
Adblock + paper shredder + good junk email filter = no advertising.:)
For me, not exactly. The Creative QC is terrible. I wouldn't consider one at half the price over a competing Apple player. I have a shuffle, and even if the Muvo is the quintessential "best" player Creative's got, that's not saying much. I'd rather pay a little more for something that works than something that "might" work.
Creative's never going to gain any market share trying to add 340 features to a device. They are going to lose it by putting out shoddy merchandise. You can't compete solely on price when what you pay for from Creative isn't worth the price with which they're undercutting Apple.
Which could've been solved by using an open document format. Like I said before the article also mentioned the Freedom Info act or something like that.. open standards should've been the solution to comply with Information freedom.;)
No, actually, according to the article, the deployment of "solutions" (read: applets and things) in StarOffice, optimized for Open Source software, was causing problems of accessibility in other departments. According to the article:
"It was also more difficult to configure the open-source software so that police officers could access their files from any police station."
It, like you said, costs "more" to implement parallel solutions in certain instances simply because while supporting both, it's never easiest to take into consideration making things play nice together.
It's always "I want to use feature X", but product Y doesn't support feature X. So they return to products that support feature X, rather than doing a little homework and providing a solution that works best for all the systems. Deploying a mixed network is always more difficult, but it isn't impossible, and with a little effort, could be more efficient and better in the long run for everyone by removing Microsoft's stranglehold on the vertical monopoly. (like their stifling hold on "Office" standards.)
I would rather have none of the features I don't need and the ability to use my files and documents how I see fit, rather than allowing Microsoft to dictate what I can and cannot do with my own data. Text files may be something Johnny Windows users don't like because it doesn't have "pretty fonts" and such, but you can bet long after Microsoft is dead, those text files will still be accessible. And since this whole thing is about complying with some sort of "Freedom of Information Act of 2002", I'd have thought it better to look long-term rather than going back to Microsoft without the lube. Honestly, can anyone name a "feature" of Microsoft Office that is so grand, living without it will bring the world to a halt? Well, let's just say one that couldn't be duplicated with a little bit of effort using open standards and free software. (Convenience is a curse sometimes...)
It sounds as though Microsoft's "solution" is simply "well, the other folks are doing it..." And no matter who you are, that's never the ideal solution....
And yes, as an engineer, I detest Office. So take what I say with that bias in mind.
I said the status quo was unprovable and wrong in this instance. I never advocated anything else. Sony does not prove the status quo, they just follow it... And blindly in most cases.
You stand on your side, I'll stand on mine.
The claim that "we've always done it this way" is somehow proving an idea is facetious. That's just what Sony is doing.
Prove they are losing money to homebrew. You can't, and neither can Sony. It's a guess based on a prejudicial view of their market which stems from a corporate culture that puts faith in many claims like these. All of which have specious arguments and flawed "studies" full of statistical voodoo that is meant to make the shareholders believe what the corporation wants them to believe. Sony's not going bankrupt because someone figured out a way to play NESTER off the memory stick. And there is no mountain of data derived from a formula to prove it does.
Sales being in jeopardy due to homebrew is more conjecture than anything I've said. There is no quantitative proof that they lose any money from the use of homebrew emus and the sort (I won't get into UMD piracy at this point because that falls under an entirely new set of prejudices and arguments) It's assumed. And we all know what that leads to.
You can lie with statistics just as easily. (There's an excellent book entitled "How to Lie With Statistics" that really makes one think... Amazon carries it...)
They (Sony) are not betting on a conventional method with verifiable results based on facts and measurable results. They are toeing the line most corporations have been shackled with since the dawn of the digital age... and that line is just as unproven as anything else that has been said.
Sony's just too old and set in its ways to change...
My original point was that they can safely ignore the "problem" and still show a verifiable savings based on NOT funneling as much money and manpower into anti-piracy and whatnot. That IS verifable on the balance sheet.
They aren't saving _that_ much money from licensing fees by locking out the homebrew people. There is not a rampant tide of unlicensed developers "robbing" Sony of licensing fees here. The thread asked how to prove it can save the company money, or benefit the bottom line. It can also benefit Sony in the grand scheme of things with mindshare... something they lose each time they lock down the PSP.
I'm not saying they need to promote the "hackability" of the PSP, just let it bubble in the niche that it is, and they might be surprised how it positively affects market share. And it would save them R&D dollars they normally would use to combat this by allowing a balance to be achieved between homebrew and licensed developers.
It does them little good to spend so much energy in the long run stamping out a few people who might reverse-engineer their product to play Atari 2600 ROMs (or whatever) on it. Those who want to will always find a way. Kinda like crippled CDs.:)
It doesn't have to, if you think about it. They're spending money trying to combat the homebrew market (and region-free "piracy" or whatnot), which is costing them dollars to do, when they could just turn a blind eye to the "problem", they can save money and concentrate on making some decent titles for the thing. That's a definite bottom line savings. Even a CEO can do the math on that one. I suppose in the mindset of "piracy" one could argue that Sony's just coveting their IP...
Sony's got a great product that is again hampered by a proprietary disc format... And if they continue to rehash PS2 games for it, they're losing out on a grand opportunity to at least get some good market share in the handheld arena (in Nintendo's backyard...)
I've got two games for mine (Lumines and Untold Legends) and the horizon doesn't look all that grand, despite Sony's proclamation at launch. I want some decent RPGs (there's one or two coming, but it's been a while since launch...:) heh..)
Ah well... at least I got Spiderman 2 on UMD. heh.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a monopoly (oligarchy perhaps?) when the RIAA is in control. Most "indie" labels are distributed by a major and thus are indirectly RIAA controlled entities. The ones that are not are sometimes regional, mostly small market labels that serve a particular genre of music. You won't find the small labels' items on the shelves of many mainstream stores because of the RIAA and their distribution deals with retailers.
Small mom&pop record stores are the best bet, but then it depends on where you live. The internet is helping this regional lock-in problem, but it still has a ways to go before the truly independent labels are on the same footing as the "indie" labels with RIAA-backed distribution deals with the majors. When that happens, we'll most likely see a shrinkage of RIAA influence across the board, because their traditional means of control is through their distribution network that has been built over many decades. It won't go down without a fight, either.
It's hard to avoid the RIAA when it comes to music these days without a little effort, and with the deck stacked against non-RIAA labels, it probably won't change much until the alternative forms of distribution take off...
I would agree that healthy competition existed in the music industry if we hadn't read about the recent collusion lawsuit among the majors, (keeping prices artificially high), and not to mention that some labels maintain a vertical monopoly from the recording to the front retail which stacks their product above all else.... not that it's a terribly bad thing for a company to have its own stores, just don't expect competition....
I would love for competition to exist in its purest form. We'd see a very different billboard chart if that was the case. Just like when Soundscan, rather than "word of the retailer", showed how the album sales really were.
Big Labels will not cater to their customers. They firmly believe that they know what you want, and will try to make you think you do want it... just like any good marketeer... The difference is how they go about it.
Are you bored? We GET that its not live.... Unless you're looking for traffic reports and weather alerts, WHY WOULD YOU CARE?
yep, because you could make an audio CD of it and re-rip it back to your iTunes library and voila! No DRM. :)
Anything more restrictive than that will be kicked to the curb... wonder why the subscription-model online stores are floundering? Guess it really is about how much restriction people will take...
You have to get the empires separately in this new delivery scheme.
"Do you want to download the Babylonians? (Y/N)"
"Error: Babylonians not found. Please reboot."
That's assuming Valve kills steam out of the goodness of their hearts. If Valve (heaven forbid) dies as a company... how much do you think the banks will send out the "patch" once steam goes dark? Just a "what-if" scenario. I mean, there might be verbage in the agreement that covers this, but you never know with these things...
And I'm not saying it will ever happen to Valve, but this sort of thing just makes me feel uneasy in general about ALL "delivered" content. What happens when they die? If I buy a boxed version of a game, and company X goes out of business (there have been quite a few)... I don't want to have to worry about the "unlock" code that keeps my game that I have a legitimate copy of playable.
Just a thought... This service is merely rental, of course, which opens up a whole new can of worms...
It's possibly the only viable reason for some. It wasn't (and really couldn't have been) the only viable reason for me.
1. The iPod has been nothing but superior in terms of quality for me and everyone I know that also owns one. I have replaced the battery on my 2nd Gen iPod and it still runs like a champ after heavy use. ($29 replacement complete with tool.) For me, that adds value right off the bat. If it had sucked, of course, I'd be out a little more money, and it would make future purchases doubtful, but that aside, it was a no-brainer for me to keep with the same brand that has been consistently good for me in both desktops and music players.
2. Even at 1/3 the price, it's a gamble moving away from what I know to be consistent quality. I don't choose to do that.
And a distant 3. iTunes store integration. I had an iPod already, so that wasn't high on my list.
So for me, it was more than iTunes Store integration. Will I buy another iPod? Of course. Will I buy another flash-based player? Doubtful, since the one I have serves its purpose, but when it does die out, the purpose will not necessarily need to be filled by a flash player anymore. It might, but then again, I think a Mini would do the trick for me.
You just did a search based on price, and if that is your criteria, sure, the iPod will lose. If that's your only criteria, though, you're going to get some really crappy *cough*Creative*cough* players.
Nothing really, except the quality of the iPod line in general and the ability to play my iTunes store purchased songs.
I'll pay $100 for something that works correctly, consistently, and play all my library. It's not THAT much more expensive than comparable players, really.
If it were solely about price, Creative would be mopping the floor with Apple.
Let's hope not. My solaris box at work has really good fun with the context menus on LabVIEW 7.1... brings the window server to a grinding halt....
That doesn't happen on the Windows/Mac/Linux version.
Oh I forgot:
From your bio:
"The opinions expressed are mine and mine only. They do not represent the opinions of my friends, my family, my employer, or the guy I bought my lunch from."
Since you don't represent anyone but yourself... is it a stretch to think that I don't?
Guess not. Have a nice day.
Just get a grip and try to learn that this site has lots of differing opinions. Otherwise, you're going to be an angry young (or old) person. M$ is funny, you don't think so... your opinion is noted. Nothing to see here, move along.
You'll live longer if you don't worry so much. I read the GP post and remembered Microsoft's past litigation strategies (remember Lindows?) and well, it was funny and since this is NEW.. we're going to have to wait and SEE what happens, aren't we? The GP never stated anything as fact, he was just stating how MS oh wait, M$ really is. So get over it.
Simple, even YOU can figure that out.
I didn't attack you, martyr. You decided it was cute to correct my posting in true troll form (if you don't have anything to say, correct 'em!)
M$ is funny. I like it... and you don't. Point taken.
School is now closed, troll.
Get over yourself. The GP speculated, and the fact that they haven't is FACT.
The fact that they MIGHT is speculation and it, like most opinions, are just that, opinions. They have NOT said they will not puruse litigation, nor have they said they will. So, like everything discussed about this whole demented thread is SPECULATION. Look it up, it'll help you better than your word-a-day calendar.
Please find a more intellectual forum to post on, since obviously you're too smart for the likes of Slashdot.
Thanks for the schooling, jackass. Next time, school someone who needs it.
I am NOT speaking for the OSS community. THAT is a stretch of logic....
That would be ideal, absolutely. Targeted ads that would show something I might buy. Trouble is, they mine the data and get an incomplete picture of who you really are. It would take much more intrusive questioning (since you're already giving up most of your personal information for free anyway) to get at what makes you tick. I won't sign up for it, because they don't need to know. It's never ever any of their business, and if they happen to figure it out by accident, well neat. But if they require more and more information and intrusive, bothersome questioning... they won't ever find out.
:)
Getting it right is the holy grail of advertising. I'd rather them take the cup that makes them turn into a skeleton than the real one if they must intrude more into my life to get it right.
Adblock + paper shredder + good junk email filter = no advertising.
For me, not exactly. The Creative QC is terrible. I wouldn't consider one at half the price over a competing Apple player. I have a shuffle, and even if the Muvo is the quintessential "best" player Creative's got, that's not saying much. I'd rather pay a little more for something that works than something that "might" work.
Creative's never going to gain any market share trying to add 340 features to a device. They are going to lose it by putting out shoddy merchandise. You can't compete solely on price when what you pay for from Creative isn't worth the price with which they're undercutting Apple.
No sale for me.
The day ain't over....
The key word here is "YET."
When they don't... great. You can dance around and claim to be right and put "nyah nyah!" at the end of all your posts...
Until that time, you're speculating as much as the GP did.
And yes it is M$.. because MS is a disease.. and associating that disease with microsoft is being mean to the disease.
Nah, we'll just mod you -1 for being an uninformed nitwit.
I HAVE a Creative player... and an iPod. Something you no doubt do not. The creative player is not better, just cheaper.
you are "technically" spouting some line from the marketing department of Creative, but that's fine. As long as you know you're wrong.
Which could've been solved by using an open document format. Like I said before the article also mentioned the Freedom Info act or something like that.. open standards should've been the solution to comply with Information freedom. ;)
Ironic, wouldn't you say?
So their dedicated IT department is out there fighting along side the officers?
:P
Wow... they must REALLY be strapped for personnel.
Oh that is very true. But think of the benefits in the long term of doing so... The shackles of windows and vendor lock-in would be eliminated.
;)
;) It's all about mindshare. :)
Plus you can sleep better at night knowing you're not making Bill G. any richer.
And if you work it right, the 10,000 little features might never be missed.
No, actually, according to the article, the deployment of "solutions" (read: applets and things) in StarOffice, optimized for Open Source software, was causing problems of accessibility in other departments. According to the article:
"It was also more difficult to configure the open-source software so that police officers could access their files from any police station."
It, like you said, costs "more" to implement parallel solutions in certain instances simply because while supporting both, it's never easiest to take into consideration making things play nice together.
It's always "I want to use feature X", but product Y doesn't support feature X. So they return to products that support feature X, rather than doing a little homework and providing a solution that works best for all the systems. Deploying a mixed network is always more difficult, but it isn't impossible, and with a little effort, could be more efficient and better in the long run for everyone by removing Microsoft's stranglehold on the vertical monopoly. (like their stifling hold on "Office" standards.)
I would rather have none of the features I don't need and the ability to use my files and documents how I see fit, rather than allowing Microsoft to dictate what I can and cannot do with my own data. Text files may be something Johnny Windows users don't like because it doesn't have "pretty fonts" and such, but you can bet long after Microsoft is dead, those text files will still be accessible. And since this whole thing is about complying with some sort of "Freedom of Information Act of 2002", I'd have thought it better to look long-term rather than going back to Microsoft without the lube. Honestly, can anyone name a "feature" of Microsoft Office that is so grand, living without it will bring the world to a halt? Well, let's just say one that couldn't be duplicated with a little bit of effort using open standards and free software. (Convenience is a curse sometimes...)
It sounds as though Microsoft's "solution" is simply "well, the other folks are doing it..." And no matter who you are, that's never the ideal solution....
And yes, as an engineer, I detest Office. So take what I say with that bias in mind.
I said the status quo was unprovable and wrong in this instance. I never advocated anything else. Sony does not prove the status quo, they just follow it... And blindly in most cases.
You stand on your side, I'll stand on mine.
The claim that "we've always done it this way" is somehow proving an idea is facetious. That's just what Sony is doing.
Prove they are losing money to homebrew. You can't, and neither can Sony. It's a guess based on a prejudicial view of their market which stems from a corporate culture that puts faith in many claims like these. All of which have specious arguments and flawed "studies" full of statistical voodoo that is meant to make the shareholders believe what the corporation wants them to believe. Sony's not going bankrupt because someone figured out a way to play NESTER off the memory stick. And there is no mountain of data derived from a formula to prove it does.
Sales being in jeopardy due to homebrew is more conjecture than anything I've said. There is no quantitative proof that they lose any money from the use of homebrew emus and the sort (I won't get into UMD piracy at this point because that falls under an entirely new set of prejudices and arguments) It's assumed. And we all know what that leads to.
You can lie with statistics just as easily. (There's an excellent book entitled "How to Lie With Statistics" that really makes one think... Amazon carries it...)
They (Sony) are not betting on a conventional method with verifiable results based on facts and measurable results. They are toeing the line most corporations have been shackled with since the dawn of the digital age... and that line is just as unproven as anything else that has been said.
Sony's just too old and set in its ways to change...
My original point was that they can safely ignore the "problem" and still show a verifiable savings based on NOT funneling as much money and manpower into anti-piracy and whatnot. That IS verifable on the balance sheet.
They aren't saving _that_ much money from licensing fees by locking out the homebrew people. There is not a rampant tide of unlicensed developers "robbing" Sony of licensing fees here. The thread asked how to prove it can save the company money, or benefit the bottom line. It can also benefit Sony in the grand scheme of things with mindshare... something they lose each time they lock down the PSP.
:)
I'm not saying they need to promote the "hackability" of the PSP, just let it bubble in the niche that it is, and they might be surprised how it positively affects market share. And it would save them R&D dollars they normally would use to combat this by allowing a balance to be achieved between homebrew and licensed developers.
It does them little good to spend so much energy in the long run stamping out a few people who might reverse-engineer their product to play Atari 2600 ROMs (or whatever) on it. Those who want to will always find a way. Kinda like crippled CDs.
It doesn't have to, if you think about it. They're spending money trying to combat the homebrew market (and region-free "piracy" or whatnot), which is costing them dollars to do, when they could just turn a blind eye to the "problem", they can save money and concentrate on making some decent titles for the thing. That's a definite bottom line savings. Even a CEO can do the math on that one. I suppose in the mindset of "piracy" one could argue that Sony's just coveting their IP...
:) heh..)
Sony's got a great product that is again hampered by a proprietary disc format... And if they continue to rehash PS2 games for it, they're losing out on a grand opportunity to at least get some good market share in the handheld arena (in Nintendo's backyard...)
I've got two games for mine (Lumines and Untold Legends) and the horizon doesn't look all that grand, despite Sony's proclamation at launch. I want some decent RPGs (there's one or two coming, but it's been a while since launch...
Ah well... at least I got Spiderman 2 on UMD. heh.
Then why do you advocate silencing them?
Clue, meet LordKazan... wait.. come back!
The fact of the matter is, you have no rebuttal but to tell them to shut up, so in effect, you've lost.
Thank you... come again.
Then don't listen.
Change the channel.
Leave.
Works both ways, Mr. Intolerant.