Why is it that Apple will license to Motorola but not to Real ? Is Steve Jobs honest when he tells stockholders that a deal with Real doesn't make 'business sense' ? What does that mean, couldn't Apple use a special "Real sucks Real bad and so pays a Real lot" license and make some easy yearly cash? Is this about Rhapsody vs. iTunes or is it about Real vs. Quicktime, or both ?
Yea, I know, all questions and no answers. Typical.
You have a point, though- I had thought not licensing Real was an Apple decision having to do with Rhapsody, but the unprofessional way Real went about 'asking' for a license pretty well blew what little chance they might have had. Likely they knew they never had a chance.
I think Real did what they've done because developing Harmony was cheaper and easier than licensing FairPlay.
their software sucks eggs, and as a company, their tactics suck even worse! There is *no* good guy in this story, just companies, one of which sucks less than the other ( Real sucks more ).
If you were Apple, what would *you* do? I'm not sure I'd direct my company to act any differently, though I'd be pressing Real to license FairPlay for a large sum of cash.
Did I say I think democrats aren't pushing copyright enforcement ?
No. I said the version of patriotism in "This Land..." is not the version of patriotism recently pushed by the Republican Party.
Perhaps it's slightly unfair of me not to criticize the Dems at the same time, but ask yourself: were our freedoms curtailed more under Clinton, or under the current administration ? You're willing to defend folks who put John Ashcroft in charge of protecting your rights ? At some point, you have to pick a lesser evil.
I am a registered voter for a party that is *neither* Democtratic nor Republican. At the same time, I will do anything I can to get G.W. out of office.
Oh, it's patriotic all right, just not in the sense that the Republican Party and big business would like to sell... it's patriotic in the good-ol'-fashion power-to-the-people *democratic* sense.
I've noticed that some mod-nazis on/. are really language-sensitve. Protect the script kiddies from obscenity!!
a shocking number of/.'ers view not reading the FA as a god-given right, too, I've seen plenty of 'please RTFA' articles get modded down.
I should clarify that I was talking about an IR *reciever* IR-to-audio device, not something to replace the Griffin, though it is cool that they showed a DYI version of that gizmo. I'd want to do it without the pocketPC. I bet you could totally do it with your PowerBook's IR port! But it'd still be cool to build the direct IR-to-audio gizmo, for those of us without Powerbooks. Sigh. Some day...
How cool can anything be that requires a PocketPC running WindowsCE ? Show me a version that uses a Linux-based device, or some cheaper IR-to-audio homebrew gadget, then I'll be impressed.
Actually, that's what this screams for- an IR *reciever* device to match the Griffin IR gadget. Griffin, are you guys paying attention here ?
I suppose it'd be even cooler if some enterprising EE type built a DYI IR send/recieve gadget for the iPod ( and provided me a schematic to copy ), now *that* would be cool. Still, you are using your iPod as a very, very expensive and not terribly intuitive remote, and can you listen to tunes while you do so ? Not unless your IR codes count as tunes... beep beepboopbop...
Interesting, sure. Cool ? well, *maybe* on/. Practical or useful ? Uh... would you do it, or would you buy ( or build ) an actual programmable remote, so you could actually *use* your iPod ?
I mean really, it's shocking how well those log curves fit.
Moore's law looks pretty well supported by these results, huh?
I do feel that GPU memory/speed specs are missing, but I can see how they might be hard to quantify, as they often don't show up in game specs in the same manner.
oh of course, I understood that... the little attached antenna on the wifi basestations certainly aren't the best, and never will be.
My point/question is that if you aren't buying the "approved" high-gain antenna, or are using one of a unknown characteristics, aren't you more obviously in violation of FCC rules, making your prosecution a bit easier?
Though, if you're using a pringles can covered in foil, I guess you're pretty obviously in violation anyway...
A part 13 device can only put out a limited amount of signal. This is why there aren't "ultra-powerful' wifi basestations that can cover super-large distances.
Sure, you can buy or rig any antenna you want, but you're violating part 13, and if someone was catching interference from you and could track you down, they could ( in theory ) take you to court to make you stop flooding the spectrum and overpowering their own part 13 devices. And you could face FCC fines, I guess.
In fact, now that I've read TFA, this ruling doesn't help uncertified antennas at all. In fact, you can expect certified antennas to be more expensive and of more limited types, as uncertified ones are basically now for lawbreakers only, unless maybe they're spec'd to be at *lower* gain than certified ones ( kinda hard to tell from the article, it may be that you're actually only safe with certified antennas ). We'll probably see less variety in antennas now, actually.
While I'm confused by the FCC actually maybe doing something sensical, does this maybe make it easier to prosecute if you *aren't* using an antenna from the "approved" list, i.e. the pringles can?
I mean, sure, if you can show your antenna is lower-gain than the approved one, no problem... but then, why would you have switched to your lower-gain one?
No, I didn't RTFA. Anything with FCC in the title makes my head hurt.
While I have to agree that breaking up the AT&T monopoly was not really the *only* way to deal with the problems the state-sponsored monopoly was causing, I do have to say that the breakup was fueled to a large extent by the management's own stupid, money-grubbing policies.
Seriously, even with the political momentum behind the privitization of public utilities, would such a move have been popular had AT&T not been requiring that we buy our phones from them? Think about how stupid that sounds today. MS is bad, but at least you have the *option* to install other software on your computer, even if it's hard to buy one without their OS!
Some day there will be a monopoly which will understand that it can continue to make money and have a monopoly just as long as it's willing to give it's users *exactly* what they want.
The alternative to breaking up AT&T would have been more regulation of AT&T... which neither the management nor political leadership wanted. A smart management would have caved on the areas that might have required regulation, or would have *asked* for more regulation "just so we know what is OK to do". But the execs hadn't learned the difference between running a state-sanctioned utility and running a strictly-for-profit corporation in biz school, which is really too bad, because they managed to loose their government-sponsored monopoly as a result of their actions.
Then again, having a free-market-type system working in the space of telecom has helped *some* consumers, though mostly large corporations, as usual.
The reviewer wanted a way to control the playlist from the stereo which seems to be missing a point to me, but whatever, that's what they wanted. IMHO, hey, if that's what you want, set up the stream from your laptop, and use that as the 'remote', eh? Or, as Apple has already suggested, wait for someone to make one. It's coming.
The reviewer said they had a hard time coming up with a score due to the fact that the Airport Extreme does at least 3 somewhat different things ( music streaming, 802.11g bridge, 803.11g USB print server ). Personally, I think they miss the point that the last two are common wifi device features, and the third is a cool innovation for something so cheap and includes actual Wifi features.
I don't see a display making sense unless you're looking for a hard-drive-holding device that does everything music ( i.e. a true stereo component ), and as for a remote, while a good idea, would require IR reciever placement and protocols for controlling iTunes remotely, which are probably in the works, but won't be ready too soon... I'd certainly be willing to use my playlists ( especially with Party Shuffle ) and just chill with that. Do you really want to sit on your couch and interactively pick this tune or that tune? I just want nice music playing in the background, generally...
The reason this would be an unfair tax is that it's a tax on transmitters, but not a license for spectrum use.
The cell-phone frequency example cited in the article puts Joe Japanese Wifi User on par with cell companies. However, cell companies get a slice of spectrum *licensed*, all to themselves. If they find someone transmitting on that frequency other than themselves, they can order them to shut down, and/or take them to court.
Joe Wifi User gets no such protection. If two guys buy Wifi base stations and set them up next to each other, they both 'payed for the use of the spectrum' and get exactly the same ( no ) protection for the money they've paid. It's just an extra, specific tax on wifi equipment, not any sort of 'spectrum use' fee. A spectrum use fee implies a protected license to use that spectrum. Wifi ain't like that, we're all using the *same* range of frequencies.
I can't believe all the idiots on/.... They're talking about an extra tax on wifi hardware, not on "usage" per se. The tax would be at time of sale. RTFA, people.
Slashdot Mirror
iPod minis only have 4gig hard drives, you don't think those will show up in cell phones soon?
A 2-gig drive already costs less than $50, so see what happens in a year or two... I guess it all depends on what your definition of soon is...
Why is it that Apple will license to Motorola but not to Real ? Is Steve Jobs honest when he tells stockholders that a deal with Real doesn't make 'business sense' ? What does that mean, couldn't Apple use a special "Real sucks Real bad and so pays a Real lot" license and make some easy yearly cash? Is this about Rhapsody vs. iTunes or is it about Real vs. Quicktime, or both ?
Yea, I know, all questions and no answers. Typical.
You have a point, though- I had thought not licensing Real was an Apple decision having to do with Rhapsody, but the unprofessional way Real went about 'asking' for a license pretty well blew what little chance they might have had. Likely they knew they never had a chance.
I think Real did what they've done because developing Harmony was cheaper and easier than licensing FairPlay.
If you were Apple, what would *you* do? I'm not sure I'd direct my company to act any differently, though I'd be pressing Real to license FairPlay for a large sum of cash.
in a very real sense.
Errr... I guess I'll take the test tomorrow, when pages on their webserver take less than 6 minutes to load...
No. I said the version of patriotism in "This Land..." is not the version of patriotism recently pushed by the Republican Party.
Perhaps it's slightly unfair of me not to criticize the Dems at the same time, but ask yourself: were our freedoms curtailed more under Clinton, or under the current administration ? You're willing to defend folks who put John Ashcroft in charge of protecting your rights ? At some point, you have to pick a lesser evil.
I am a registered voter for a party that is *neither* Democtratic nor Republican. At the same time, I will do anything I can to get G.W. out of office.
No doubt. Between TiVo and the Mars Rovers, if it's about cool, this game is over.
Oh, it's patriotic all right, just not in the sense that the Republican Party and big business would like to sell... it's patriotic in the good-ol'-fashion power-to-the-people *democratic* sense.
a shocking number of /.'ers view not reading the FA as a god-given right, too, I've seen plenty of 'please RTFA' articles get modded down.
I should clarify that I was talking about an IR *reciever* IR-to-audio device, not something to replace the Griffin, though it is cool that they showed a DYI version of that gizmo. I'd want to do it without the pocketPC. I bet you could totally do it with your PowerBook's IR port! But it'd still be cool to build the direct IR-to-audio gizmo, for those of us without Powerbooks. Sigh. Some day...
Show me a version that uses a Linux-based device, or some cheaper IR-to-audio homebrew gadget, then I'll be impressed.
Actually, that's what this screams for- an IR *reciever* device to match the Griffin IR gadget. Griffin, are you guys paying attention here ?
I suppose it'd be even cooler if some enterprising EE type built a DYI IR send/recieve gadget for the iPod ( and provided me a schematic to copy ), now *that* would be cool. Still, you are using your iPod as a very, very expensive and not terribly intuitive remote, and can you listen to tunes while you do so ? Not unless your IR codes count as tunes... beep beepboopbop...
Interesting, sure. Cool ? well, *maybe* on /.
Practical or useful ? Uh... would you do it, or would you buy ( or build ) an actual programmable remote, so you could actually *use* your iPod ?
Now, show me a version using a Linux handheld, or a cheaper IR-to-audio gizmo, then I'll be impressed.
Moore's law looks pretty well supported by these results, huh?
I do feel that GPU memory/speed specs are missing, but I can see how they might be hard to quantify, as they often don't show up in game specs in the same manner.
Thanks for the link, that's very cool.
antenna swap must be performed by an authorized installer? Hahahahahaha... yea, everyone does that... what does it take to be 'authorized'?!?
My point/question is that if you aren't buying the "approved" high-gain antenna, or are using one of a unknown characteristics, aren't you more obviously in violation of FCC rules, making your prosecution a bit easier?
Though, if you're using a pringles can covered in foil, I guess you're pretty obviously in violation anyway...
that's the weirdest headline I've read in a long, long time... who is keeping Turner out of the business, Comcast and DirecTV??
A part 13 device can only put out a limited amount of signal. This is why there aren't "ultra-powerful' wifi basestations that can cover super-large distances.
Sure, you can buy or rig any antenna you want, but you're violating part 13, and if someone was catching interference from you and could track you down, they could ( in theory ) take you to court to make you stop flooding the spectrum and overpowering their own part 13 devices. And you could face FCC fines, I guess.
In fact, now that I've read TFA, this ruling doesn't help uncertified antennas at all. In fact, you can expect certified antennas to be more expensive and of more limited types, as uncertified ones are basically now for lawbreakers only, unless maybe they're spec'd to be at *lower* gain than certified ones ( kinda hard to tell from the article, it may be that you're actually only safe with certified antennas ). We'll probably see less variety in antennas now, actually.
I mean, sure, if you can show your antenna is lower-gain than the approved one, no problem... but then, why would you have switched to your lower-gain one?
No, I didn't RTFA. Anything with FCC in the title makes my head hurt.
Seriously, even with the political momentum behind the privitization of public utilities, would such a move have been popular had AT&T not been requiring that we buy our phones from them? Think about how stupid that sounds today. MS is bad, but at least you have the *option* to install other software on your computer, even if it's hard to buy one without their OS!
Some day there will be a monopoly which will understand that it can continue to make money and have a monopoly just as long as it's willing to give it's users *exactly* what they want.
The alternative to breaking up AT&T would have been more regulation of AT&T... which neither the management nor political leadership wanted. A smart management would have caved on the areas that might have required regulation, or would have *asked* for more regulation "just so we know what is OK to do". But the execs hadn't learned the difference between running a state-sanctioned utility and running a strictly-for-profit corporation in biz school, which is really too bad, because they managed to loose their government-sponsored monopoly as a result of their actions.
Then again, having a free-market-type system working in the space of telecom has helped *some* consumers, though mostly large corporations, as usual.
The reviewer said they had a hard time coming up with a score due to the fact that the Airport Extreme does at least 3 somewhat different things ( music streaming, 802.11g bridge, 803.11g USB print server ). Personally, I think they miss the point that the last two are common wifi device features, and the third is a cool innovation for something so cheap and includes actual Wifi features.
I don't see a display making sense unless you're looking for a hard-drive-holding device that does everything music ( i.e. a true stereo component ), and as for a remote, while a good idea, would require IR reciever placement and protocols for controlling iTunes remotely, which are probably in the works, but won't be ready too soon... I'd certainly be willing to use my playlists ( especially with Party Shuffle ) and just chill with that. Do you really want to sit on your couch and interactively pick this tune or that tune? I just want nice music playing in the background, generally...
it's on the sale of hardware.
Of course, RTFA, and you might notice it mentions that.
The reason this would be an unfair tax is that it's a tax on transmitters, but not a license for spectrum use.
The cell-phone frequency example cited in the article puts Joe Japanese Wifi User on par with cell companies. However, cell companies get a slice of spectrum *licensed*, all to themselves. If they find someone transmitting on that frequency other than themselves, they can order them to shut down, and/or take them to court.
Joe Wifi User gets no such protection. If two guys buy Wifi base stations and set them up next to each other, they both 'payed for the use of the spectrum' and get exactly the same ( no ) protection for the money they've paid. It's just an extra, specific tax on wifi equipment, not any sort of 'spectrum use' fee. A spectrum use fee implies a protected license to use that spectrum. Wifi ain't like that, we're all using the *same* range of frequencies.
I can't believe all the idiots on /. ...
They're talking about an extra tax on wifi hardware, not on "usage" per se. The tax would be at time of sale. RTFA, people.
And he is a damn cute little bugger, too, ain't he?
It's vaguely interesting, even if I'll never be able to afford either. A few highlights :
ViewSonic : 22.2" 3840x2400 $6,000
Apple : 29.7" 2560 x 1600 $3,300
The ViewSonic page is completely devoid of response time stats... any ideas why?
What application requires that kind of pixel density, by the way?
That's all we need, lunar trailer parks...