In fact even with a routine that marries DRM to hardware, there will always be instances where the content is never completely "locked-in".
Why do I say this? Simply because computers (the digital beings that they are) are not the ones paying for use of media content in the manner that we are? Which computer do you know of today that wants to watch a movie or listen to a song? And the analog-perception beings that we are, there will always be a need to convert from the secured digital format to unsecure analog format for "playback". And therein lies the greatest weakness of any DRM technology.
Or atleast they find some way to directly bridge the gap between the digital stream of ones and zeroes within computing devices and our senses of perception.
Till then, this is all goobledegook, albeit always at a higer plane than the last time round.
Firstly, couldn't agree with you any more when you mention volumes to smoothen the cost curve.
Secondly, it's possible (as you say) that Apple might be putting across iTunes as an uprofitable business to be in. But quite frankly just saying that would surely not be enough to deter any person or company considering making an entry (as if there aren't enough already) in this space.
My point is just this.. consider yourself as one deciding on probably getting in to this business of selling music online. Would you just go by Apple's line on unprofitabilty or would you do your own number crunching?
See what I'm getting at? And anyways, if you (not you in particular -- but in fact anyone for that matter) are the kind to toe your competitors analysis, then not just this business, you shouldn't be getting into any business at all.
More important than the sheer volume of songs is the profitabilty of iTunes vs. that of Napster.
Apple is looking at iTunes, not to earn millions from pennies++ over every song they sell there, but rather to obviously profit from the hefty margins on the iPod sales they generate when they dangle the "lifestyle" and "portability" carrot "via" iPod through iTunes.
So the question is basically, even after having gotten to 5 million, just how well are those volumes working for Napster vs. the volumes that iTunes has (even is you assume for a moment that iTunes has sold just as many songs)?
The Answer: no comparison. Napster should be lagging far behind. Because iTunes revenues are miniscule compared to those from the iPod sales that iTunes generates invariably from use of its iTunes store.
You my friend are getting carried away in your quest for "open-source everywhere".
It's imperative you realise that more often than not (actually practically always) open-source has come to be for a particular solution as an option only after a proprietory solution for the same niche has already been in the offing for a while. Sometimes in function, sometimes in form.
Just some examples: 1. Unix begets Linux 2. MS_Office begets OpenOffice 3. Windows* begets multiple ergonomically inclinded GUIs based on X 4. Oracle DBs beget MySQL 5. Winamp begets XMMS...
These are just instances that came to my mind (and probably the most obvious too). There may be examples to the contrary, but to the best of my knowledge there are no "large-scale" solutions that I know of which have "first" been implemented as open-source and then aped (or not) in some proprietory form.
I might ofcourse be wrong, but I would imagine (and more importantly in the context) that it would be very hard (impossible?) for a mission-critical solution such as that of a police force to be put into use w/o some form of: 1. Quality guarantee: which suits are "brandishers" of and which "a few guys hacking away" would find tough to "certify". 2. Support to fall-back on: ditto argument.
It is however entirely possible that now, once this one solution is on the ground and ticking, we might soon see some state department make an open-source implementation of the same.
Clearly, corporate money today has the financial muscle over open-source to market/sell solutions in new avenues. Nothing wrong with that, especially if those new avenues are then paved with more open solutions.
Yes, they decided to cut the serice support for Hubble.. then -- in the face of public criticism -- spoke about possibly reviewing their decision.. and have now decided to tank Hubble anyway.
For anybody who wants to toe the current administrations line on Hubble that it is too risky to service -- sorry mate, that theory is bollocks.
Give it a thought and it's clear that this is just an blatant attempt at politicking and penny-pinching -- save a few pennies here and a few there and look we can set up a "courier" service to the moon to fetch us some more moon rocks. I'm all for space-endeavour and for satisfying the human spirit for exploration, but I fail to understand the merit of a kennedyesque initiative that cannibalises a fully functional golden goose.
And if you want to talk about the risk of using the shuttles to service Hubble, the shuttle's terrific performance record itself should be enough to catch you on the wrong foot. Given the high complexity of these missions (we're talking "rocket-science" here right?!), the risk has clearly been marginalised given that only 2 out of 100+ missions have failed -- and those too out of an avoidable complacent attitute to safety at NASA itself.
When Columbia was lost, it was followed by a constant banter about the changing culture at NASA, but if they've changed, it only to now wear their complacency on the other foot. It's apparent that they have graduated from risk aversion to planning short sightedness.
How else can you explain the fact that they are "shying" from spending a few hundred million dollars to extend by a significant percentage the life of a mission that they have initially spend billions to get rolling itself. If NASA had a wife called M@ry, I can just about see M@ry being called upon to bring the shotgun so that her hubby can shoot himself in atleast one foot.
On JWT as a replacement for Hubble, all along JWT was intended to complement Hubble, not to supplement it. And besides, JWT going to be operational only by ~2011. Twiddle-thumbs time then for all the people hoping to have put in research hours on an otherwise fully operational tool.
It's probably like the notional concept of "force-fields".. you can walk through them, but you can't fire through them.
The field deflects or absorbs high energy / high velocity particles while allowing for free passage otherwise.
Mirrored in reality today: you can drive a knife through a bullet-proof vest, you can probably also trim it with a scissor, but you can't shoot through it.
A brief bit of history: "El" was the pagan high-god of Canaan and the areas surrounding it till the time when Yahweh captured the faith of the "believers". It was quite common the Axial age to append the suffix "El" to any notion or object with a transcendent perception e.g. Jacob renamed Luz to Beth-El (the house of El) after his epiphany at that location.
I don't know about the religious inclination of the original team that created Superman, but it wouldn't be too far-fetched to assume that they were implying Kryton as habitated by beings superior to us (if not supreme-beings) and so they derived from symbolisms of the past in their naming conventions to make that ascendent connection.
You're woefully wrong when you talk about a lack of accredited facilities in India. I'm sorry to say, but it's apparent that you speak out of an unfound prejudice that discounts the quality of Indian medical institutions.
I've only recently returned from that country and how it isprogressing. This Harvard Medical associated facility is just the first of many similarly affiliated facilites coming up all over the country. John Hopkins has associates in the Indian market too.. I just can't recall their names. And there may be so many more initiatives underway that I'm not even barely aware of.
Agreed that even all this infrastructure available today doesn't amount to much, but it's more that a step in the right direction for that country.
And more importantly, for those in developed countries that can't afford to pay the high-cost of private healthcare, India offers a teriffic option to get treatment at a fraction of that cost.
... is accenuated in a system that incentivizes the theft of content in the absense of a cohesive offering made in terms of the nature of the content itself apropos the marked price demanded by the content packager (creator / distributor).
I would rather that content packagers make a case for cohesive content instead of offering content wrapped in DRM that kills the "right of fair use".
Think $10 hybrid DVDs including SACD media and band videos and live performances for that album versus what's currently available.. $16 CDs with vanilla stereo format music.
If the RIAA makes a serious attempt at convincing its members to offer value for the money they charge, they might actually succeed at curbing their file-sharing scourge. They are certainly getting nowhere with their belligerent attitude as pillagers trying desperately to defend their right to steal -- both from the artist and from the fans.
All this talk about record labels and their antics to shorthcange both musicians and fans can get a bit overbearing at times.
Why do we even need to have the record labels around today.. definitely not to keep getting milked by their overtly leechy behaviour. Record labels held some merit and actually more leeway in the time before digital distribution became a reality. But technology today can directly link content-creators and content end-consumers without the need for uneccessary overbearing control in the hands of the distributors.
Now it is only a matter of time before new technologies such as Divendo usurp the labels from their monopolistic position and return power back to the consumers and to the content creators.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree.
In fact even with a routine that marries DRM to hardware, there will always be instances where the content is never completely "locked-in".
Why do I say this? Simply because computers (the digital beings that they are) are not the ones paying for use of media content in the manner that we are? Which computer do you know of today that wants to watch a movie or listen to a song? And the analog-perception beings that we are, there will always be a need to convert from the secured digital format to unsecure analog format for "playback". And therein lies the greatest weakness of any DRM technology.
Or atleast they find some way to directly bridge the gap between the digital stream of ones and zeroes within computing devices and our senses of perception.
Till then, this is all goobledegook, albeit always at a higer plane than the last time round.
Firstly, couldn't agree with you any more when you mention volumes to smoothen the cost curve.
Secondly, it's possible (as you say) that Apple might be putting across iTunes as an uprofitable business to be in. But quite frankly just saying that would surely not be enough to deter any person or company considering making an entry (as if there aren't enough already) in this space.
My point is just this.. consider yourself as one deciding on probably getting in to this business of selling music online. Would you just go by Apple's line on unprofitabilty or would you do your own number crunching?
See what I'm getting at? And anyways, if you (not you in particular -- but in fact anyone for that matter) are the kind to toe your competitors analysis, then not just this business, you shouldn't be getting into any business at all.
More important than the sheer volume of songs is the profitabilty of iTunes vs. that of Napster.
Apple is looking at iTunes, not to earn millions from pennies++ over every song they sell there, but rather to obviously profit from the hefty margins on the iPod sales they generate when they dangle the "lifestyle" and "portability" carrot "via" iPod through iTunes.
So the question is basically, even after having gotten to 5 million, just how well are those volumes working for Napster vs. the volumes that iTunes has (even is you assume for a moment that iTunes has sold just as many songs)?
The Answer: no comparison. Napster should be lagging far behind. Because iTunes revenues are miniscule compared to those from the iPod sales that iTunes generates invariably from use of its iTunes store.
Only stating the obvious.
You my friend are getting carried away in your quest for "open-source everywhere".
...
It's imperative you realise that more often than not (actually practically always) open-source has come to be for a particular solution as an option only after a proprietory solution for the same niche has already been in the offing for a while. Sometimes in function, sometimes in form.
Just some examples:
1. Unix begets Linux
2. MS_Office begets OpenOffice
3. Windows* begets multiple ergonomically inclinded GUIs based on X
4. Oracle DBs beget MySQL
5. Winamp begets XMMS
These are just instances that came to my mind (and probably the most obvious too). There may be examples to the contrary, but to the best of my knowledge there are no "large-scale" solutions that I know of which have "first" been implemented as open-source and then aped (or not) in some proprietory form.
I might ofcourse be wrong, but I would imagine (and more importantly in the context) that it would be very hard (impossible?) for a mission-critical solution such as that of a police force to be put into use w/o some form of:
1. Quality guarantee: which suits are "brandishers" of and which "a few guys hacking away" would find tough to "certify".
2. Support to fall-back on: ditto argument.
It is however entirely possible that now, once this one solution is on the ground and ticking, we might soon see some state department make an open-source implementation of the same.
Clearly, corporate money today has the financial muscle over open-source to market/sell solutions in new avenues. Nothing wrong with that, especially if those new avenues are then paved with more open solutions.
damn .. was complacent to preview and a html_tag ate my text in an anyways misplaced comment!
see: otherwise.
... rallied after it was announced that they had lost the bid for purchase of that ATT segment to Cingular.
A lot of relieved Vodafone investors (or potential investors for that matter) then who it seems didn't have much confidence in the ATT buyout.
Now, next try for Vodaphone: Vivendi.
..
A lot of relieved Vodafone investors then -- or potential investors for that matter -- who it seems didn't have much confidence in the ATT buyout.
Now, next try for Vodaphone: Vivendi.
Yes, they decided to cut the serice support for Hubble.. then -- in the face of public criticism -- spoke about possibly reviewing their decision.. and have now decided to tank Hubble anyway.
For anybody who wants to toe the current administrations line on Hubble that it is too risky to service -- sorry mate, that theory is bollocks.
Give it a thought and it's clear that this is just an blatant attempt at politicking and penny-pinching -- save a few pennies here and a few there and look we can set up a "courier" service to the moon to fetch us some more moon rocks. I'm all for space-endeavour and for satisfying the human spirit for exploration, but I fail to understand the merit of a kennedyesque initiative that cannibalises a fully functional golden goose.
And if you want to talk about the risk of using the shuttles to service Hubble, the shuttle's terrific performance record itself should be enough to catch you on the wrong foot. Given the high complexity of these missions (we're talking "rocket-science" here right?!), the risk has clearly been marginalised given that only 2 out of 100+ missions have failed -- and those too out of an avoidable complacent attitute to safety at NASA itself.
When Columbia was lost, it was followed by a constant banter about the changing culture at NASA, but if they've changed, it only to now wear their complacency on the other foot. It's apparent that they have graduated from risk aversion to planning short sightedness.
How else can you explain the fact that they are "shying" from spending a few hundred million dollars to extend by a significant percentage the life of a mission that they have initially spend billions to get rolling itself. If NASA had a wife called M@ry, I can just about see M@ry being called upon to bring the shotgun so that her hubby can shoot himself in atleast one foot.
On JWT as a replacement for Hubble, all along JWT was intended to complement Hubble, not to supplement it. And besides, JWT going to be operational only by ~2011. Twiddle-thumbs time then for all the people hoping to have put in research hours on an otherwise fully operational tool.
It's probably like the notional concept of "force-fields".. you can walk through them, but you can't fire through them.
The field deflects or absorbs high energy / high velocity particles while allowing for free passage otherwise.
Mirrored in reality today: you can drive a knife through a bullet-proof vest, you can probably also trim it with a scissor, but you can't shoot through it.
I agree with your inference on the Jewish tinge.
A brief bit of history: "El" was the pagan high-god of Canaan and the areas surrounding it till the time when Yahweh captured the faith of the "believers". It was quite common the Axial age to append the suffix "El" to any notion or object with a transcendent perception e.g. Jacob renamed Luz to Beth-El (the house of El) after his epiphany at that location.
I don't know about the religious inclination of the original team that created Superman, but it wouldn't be too far-fetched to assume that they were implying Kryton as habitated by beings superior to us (if not supreme-beings) and so they derived from symbolisms of the past in their naming conventions to make that ascendent connection.
You're woefully wrong when you talk about a lack of accredited facilities in India. I'm sorry to say, but it's apparent that you speak out of an unfound prejudice that discounts the quality of Indian medical institutions.
I've only recently returned from that country and how it is progressing. This Harvard Medical associated facility is just the first of many similarly affiliated facilites coming up all over the country. John Hopkins has associates in the Indian market too.. I just can't recall their names. And there may be so many more initiatives underway that I'm not even barely aware of.
Agreed that even all this infrastructure available today doesn't amount to much, but it's more that a step in the right direction for that country.
And more importantly, for those in developed countries that can't afford to pay the high-cost of private healthcare, India offers a teriffic option to get treatment at a fraction of that cost.
Outsorced to a keyboard?
Is it Indian??
.. in the merged entity if this deal is / was to go through.
According to the letter on the Comcast website, Comcast would hold a 58% stake versus 42% for Disney shareholders.
hmm..
... is accenuated in a system that incentivizes the theft of content in the absense of a cohesive offering made in terms of the nature of the content itself apropos the marked price demanded by the content packager (creator / distributor).
.. $16 CDs with vanilla stereo format music.
I would rather that content packagers make a case for cohesive content instead of offering content wrapped in DRM that kills the "right of fair use".
Think $10 hybrid DVDs including SACD media and band videos and live performances for that album versus what's currently available
If the RIAA makes a serious attempt at convincing its members to offer value for the money they charge, they might actually succeed at curbing their file-sharing scourge. They are certainly getting nowhere with their belligerent attitude as pillagers trying desperately to defend their right to steal -- both from the artist and from the fans.
All this talk about record labels and their antics to shorthcange both musicians and fans can get a bit overbearing at times.
Why do we even need to have the record labels around today.. definitely not to keep getting milked by their overtly leechy behaviour. Record labels held some merit and actually more leeway in the time before digital distribution became a reality. But technology today can directly link content-creators and content end-consumers without the need for uneccessary overbearing control in the hands of the distributors.
Now it is only a matter of time before new technologies such as Divendo usurp the labels from their monopolistic position and return power back to the consumers and to the content creators.