The market is 1994 is nothing like it is today. Apple would be fighting an uphill battle against 3 companies, and what could Apple provide that one of the other big 3 don't already?
Apple can do absolutely nothing. They don't have a platform to build a system around with an existing game base (like MS did) and they don't have a network of developers that will create games for a brand new platform (like Sony has.) So speculating about an Apple gaming comsole is a complete waste of time.
What kind of person owns a 20" LCD but not a 20" TV? You have to work pretty hard to find a 20" TV these days.
The average TV is probably 24 to 27", and the average monitor is probably still 17" or less. I can't think of a single person I know (except people that down own a TV) who owns a computer screen larger than the TV they own. Unless there's a way to watch these movies on my TV, I wouldn't pay $ for a movie that would only play on my computer.
For fuck's sake, blogging is not "the media" any more than me telling my friends about the CD I just bought is "the media." Am I the only person who puts absolutely no stock in what some schmuck on the internet has to say? Or at least, take it with great big grains of salt?
But you're making the huge assumption that you know more than a security company does about installing an alarm. If that's the case, then by all means doing it yourself is the way to go. Most people don't.
Obviously if you can do a better job yourself than another company can, you should. But it's just hubris to think that doing anything yourself will result in a better system than something professional.
Much like "more people voted for Bush than any other president in history!"
They don't bother to mention that the #2 vote-getter in history was the person he was running against. When more people play/vote on he whole the number of people playing/voting for any one item goes up. Who would have thought!
If you can get in to manage the camera's preferences, you can switch from ActiveX to Java video. Hopefully they've locked down the setup page, but you never know.
I work with IP video surveillance (among other things) for a living.
This is a good example of why you SHOULD trust some other company. Chances are that company knows more than you do about setting up a system. Choosing the right people to work with is obviously important. I wouldn't trust myself to set up an alarm system for my offices, I would hire someone who knew what they were doing.
Most of the good cameras out there have built-in webservers. Sending motion JPEG over a network from the embedded webserver on the camera is the most common and efficient way to manage a larger camera installation, especially if you are recording. If you have a school district with 10 sites, 5 cameras each, using a network video system and central recording is a fraction of the cost of a traditional CCTV or even DVR (digital recording of analog cameras) setup. Configuring the camera incorrectly leads to problems like this, taking a step backwards to CCTV or other technology is not the answer.
I haven't noticed a change in the quality of the phones in the last 5-7 years, at least in my experience. I've had a couple nokias that I have beat the living crap out of, and never had one fail on me. The basic nokias seem to hold up great.
Apple has historically let other products work with iTunes (most Rio devices), actually, no one did because there was no demand. And every online store has exclusive marketing arrangements. They are simply a retail music store.
So you're telling me that Any software manufacturer should be forced to allow any company to play its content? Why can't we sue Sony for only allowing Playstations to play Playstation games?
You don't seem to be able to differentiate between a company exercising control over its own products, and control over the market. iTunes and the iPod are not the MP3 market they are just products, especially if you consider the larger picture of all digital music players.
Do you know what a monopoly is? It is not excessive market share or success in a market. It is control( or the ability to control) of a market. Not control of a single product, or even market dominance of said product.
Apple is not a monopoly in any market or market segment. MP3 players? No, they make a couple popular ones, but they are barely the overall majority and have no control whatsoever. Online music? No, they don't control the market at all. They have the most popular service, but does Apple's service or actions control or attempt to control any other company's efforts? Not that I've ever seen.
I'm really curious what you think Apple has a monopoly on.
No legitimate music site is allowed to sell songs in any of those formats. So other music sites cannot inter-operate with the iPod, unless they break their license agreement with the RIAA.
And that is Apple's fault? They don't have to design the iPod to work with its competitors products, any more than Ferrari has to design cars that work with Ford engine components.
I am sure many people will disagree with you, especially when they consider the fact that Apple currently controls 87% of the on-line music market. When you have that much control over a market, your moves as a company are watched and you are not allowed to try to prevent competition like Apple does. Apple won't license their protected AAC and made a big stink when Real legally reverse engineered the format to allow their sold music to work on a iPod.
Since when does market share equal control over a market? I don't see any "control" the market or dictate anything about it. Apple is simply reselling someone's product (music) They do not restrict anyone's access to the online market, and their vendors (the labels) are free to make deals with other people, which they do. Apple does not control the market for music, and nothing they do seeks to keep other people out of the market. Apple protecting its own product has no affect on the ability of another company to offer its own format and service. If Apple was forcing the record companies to only sell music through iTunes, you would have a point, but they don't do that (aside from a handful of exclusive singles, etc.)
Apple doesn't produce music, they are reselling a product that is freely available through many many other channels. Apple is not restricting those other channels in the least... so where is the monopoly? A monopoly would be Apple licensing the rights to sell certain music online and not permitting other companies to sell the same product. As far as I've seen, Apple has never used its position in the online music sales biz to force any other companies to change their offerings or "control" distribution of music.
In the end, Apple makes two products that work well together, and they happen to be the most popular products on the market. There is nothing about their products or approach that keeps other people from competing in the market. The fact that people can not interoperate with Apple's products is not a monopolistic issue at all, especially since Apple is not even the company providing one half of the equation (the music) they are simply selling it.
"Not licensing their protected AAC format is anti-competitive."
So? There's nothing illegal about being anti-competitive when you're not a monopoly, and Apple isn't one.
Besides, anyone can interoperate with the iPod all they want, just use MP3, AIFF, or WAV (or AAC). Should Apple be forced to open a format for no particular legal reason other than their success? I don't see any other company in an open market being forced to let the competition use their technology. Apple is not in a monopolistic position, they don't have to play with a handicap.
I fail to see what people think Apple has a monopoly on. Most if not all of the songs available through the store can be bought in at least 2-3 other medias, digital or otherwise. If Apple controlled all digital music distribution you might have a point, but they don't
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't the camera have to support this as well? Time to stock up on digital cameras before they all ship with AutoPrivacyBlur(TM) technology.
The market is 1994 is nothing like it is today. Apple would be fighting an uphill battle against 3 companies, and what could Apple provide that one of the other big 3 don't already?
Next question.
The average TV is probably 24 to 27", and the average monitor is probably still 17" or less. I can't think of a single person I know (except people that down own a TV) who owns a computer screen larger than the TV they own. Unless there's a way to watch these movies on my TV, I wouldn't pay $ for a movie that would only play on my computer.
3 so far, and it's not even 8am... *hick* it's going to be a long day at work if I have to keep this up. Good thing it's Friday.
So you can connect to a TV that has HDMI and get a full HD picture. vs. S-vid., etc.
For fuck's sake, blogging is not "the media" any more than me telling my friends about the CD I just bought is "the media." Am I the only person who puts absolutely no stock in what some schmuck on the internet has to say? Or at least, take it with great big grains of salt?
Which is exactly what everything Paul writes can be described as. He's a shill, pure and simple.
Obviously if you can do a better job yourself than another company can, you should. But it's just hubris to think that doing anything yourself will result in a better system than something professional.
That's funny, I don't recall saying anything good or bad about bush winning. I was simply pointing out the ridiculousness of some statistics.
They don't bother to mention that the #2 vote-getter in history was the person he was running against. When more people play/vote on he whole the number of people playing/voting for any one item goes up. Who would have thought!
Exactly. That's the kind of things that any reputable security or networking firm would suggest. A VLAN and/or separate non-public IP space.
Preemptive strike... kill the pool-boy now.
If you can get in to manage the camera's preferences, you can switch from ActiveX to Java video. Hopefully they've locked down the setup page, but you never know.
This is a good example of why you SHOULD trust some other company. Chances are that company knows more than you do about setting up a system. Choosing the right people to work with is obviously important. I wouldn't trust myself to set up an alarm system for my offices, I would hire someone who knew what they were doing.
Most of the good cameras out there have built-in webservers. Sending motion JPEG over a network from the embedded webserver on the camera is the most common and efficient way to manage a larger camera installation, especially if you are recording. If you have a school district with 10 sites, 5 cameras each, using a network video system and central recording is a fraction of the cost of a traditional CCTV or even DVR (digital recording of analog cameras) setup. Configuring the camera incorrectly leads to problems like this, taking a step backwards to CCTV or other technology is not the answer.
Of course it's good, they know where to find spyware and viruses because they're the ones that created them!!@# [/tinfoilhat]
I haven't noticed a change in the quality of the phones in the last 5-7 years, at least in my experience. I've had a couple nokias that I have beat the living crap out of, and never had one fail on me. The basic nokias seem to hold up great.
So you're telling me that Any software manufacturer should be forced to allow any company to play its content? Why can't we sue Sony for only allowing Playstations to play Playstation games?
You don't seem to be able to differentiate between a company exercising control over its own products, and control over the market. iTunes and the iPod are not the MP3 market they are just products, especially if you consider the larger picture of all digital music players.
Yes, but it plays Britney Spears songs!
Ringtones are a multi-billion dollar a year industry, which makes me incredibly sad.
Seriously, if you are tired of new features taking up battery life, then don't use the feature or buy a phone with it.
Apple is not a monopoly in any market or market segment. MP3 players? No, they make a couple popular ones, but they are barely the overall majority and have no control whatsoever. Online music? No, they don't control the market at all. They have the most popular service, but does Apple's service or actions control or attempt to control any other company's efforts? Not that I've ever seen.
I'm really curious what you think Apple has a monopoly on.
Does that make them inherently wrong? MS is a Monopoly, Apple is not, making all other arguments moot.
Apple doesn't produce music, they are reselling a product that is freely available through many many other channels. Apple is not restricting those other channels in the least... so where is the monopoly? A monopoly would be Apple licensing the rights to sell certain music online and not permitting other companies to sell the same product. As far as I've seen, Apple has never used its position in the online music sales biz to force any other companies to change their offerings or "control" distribution of music.
In the end, Apple makes two products that work well together, and they happen to be the most popular products on the market. There is nothing about their products or approach that keeps other people from competing in the market. The fact that people can not interoperate with Apple's products is not a monopolistic issue at all, especially since Apple is not even the company providing one half of the equation (the music) they are simply selling it.
So? There's nothing illegal about being anti-competitive when you're not a monopoly, and Apple isn't one.
Besides, anyone can interoperate with the iPod all they want, just use MP3, AIFF, or WAV (or AAC). Should Apple be forced to open a format for no particular legal reason other than their success? I don't see any other company in an open market being forced to let the competition use their technology. Apple is not in a monopolistic position, they don't have to play with a handicap.
I fail to see what people think Apple has a monopoly on. Most if not all of the songs available through the store can be bought in at least 2-3 other medias, digital or otherwise. If Apple controlled all digital music distribution you might have a point, but they don't