Even if it's printed in the EULA, it would be nice if the installer would inform you of exactly what program(s) was being installed, and that the spyware's uninstaller worked and removed it. We've seen numerous cases of spyware programs getting installed behind-the-scenes that don't have valid uninstallers to go with them.
And I'm not just talking about uninstallers for the spyware -- if I install a program that has a tagalong app bundled with it, I expect the original program to have uninstall options for those tagalong apps as well. Otherwise, it's a form of electronic littering.
I was really glad that Sly Cooper made it to the "Greatest Hits" collection. I'm thrilled that a sequel is coming, as Sly was not only a reasonably well-done game (with a beautifully rendered graphic look), but it was different from the typical platformer in that you weren't trying to kill everything in sight. Plus, there was the speed mode. It really is a game deserving of all the critics praise, and I'm glad to see that game sales weren't a deciding factor in making a sequel. (Besides, we're all waiting for Kingdom Hearts 2 as well...)
Jak1 was great. I thought Jak2 was the sell-out and unnecessary sequel. While J2 was a better game technology-wise and play-wise (read "longer"), it didn't really server any purpose in advancing the title.
On the other hand, I'm looking forward to seeing what R&C3 would do, after seeing the huge improvements made in the Commando title.
I don't see a need for a 4th title in either series on the PS2 platform... although I would guess that if #3 is wildly successful that they'll try and sell #4 with the rollout of the PS3.
Yahoo may be the company's portal brand, but will their Google-killer product actually be launched under one of the other search engine brands they now own?
Is it in Yahoo's best interest to have more than one "competing" search site to go against Google? Wouldn't it be wiser for them to incorporate it all under the Yahoo! brand instead of the divide-the-eyeballs approach of having multiple search sites?
That would be like Pepsi trying to unseat Coca-Cola by releasing PoopsiCola and PopsiCola and PeepsiCola. All of these Pepsi variants may have taken 5% market share away from Coca-Cola each, but did they also dilute any of Pepsi's market share as well? (Perhaps this is a bad example.)
SearchEngineWatch says that "today, both AltaVista and AlltheWeb continue to maintain separate indexes, and Yahoo isn't saying publicly whether this will change with the introduction of the new Yahoo Search Technology index."
Overture is a non-entity in this field, as most people do not consider paid-for search results as valid when considering whether a search engine returns accurate results or not. Paid results may be helpful and relevant, but they were purchased to be displayed alongside specific keywords anyway. Big whoop -- that just means better salespeople.
Yahoo will not be a player in the search market (with Inktomi/AltaVista/AllTheWeb) until they merge the three databases together AND clean up their search interface. One reason why Google thrives is that they have what is generally considered the best web interface ever: one text box and a submit button. You can't get confused. Searching for a person's phone number? Don't hunt for the "People Search" page, just type in their name. Want to track a FedEx? Don't go to the FedEx Tracking Search Page, just type in the tracking ID.
To paraphrase: "One input box to rule them all. One submit button to find it. One search engine to rule the world and on the Internet bind it."
While I know many people who use Yahoo for their tools (email, domain services, website hosting, calendar, address book, groups, etc), I don't know many who turn to Yahoo for their search results anymore. Google (and to a lesser extent, MSN - due to their tight Windows/IE integration for the uninitiated who haven't changed their preferences) IS becoming the defacto search engine on the web for the masses.
I think website referral logs reflect this as well. Using the y2003 visitor report from one of the websites that I manage, over 50% of search engine referrals came from Google; a little over 10% came from Yahoo. Other reports that I've reviewed offer similar findings.
As for the "slurp" name, since its been a familiar crawler for years (Inktomi), Yahoo would risk alienating some websites/website managers who would have to go adjust their Robots files just for the new name. (And let's not mention those folks who don't know how to update the Webtrends crawler ini file or their browsercap.ini files...)
On a related note: at some point, those spam-artist "Submit Your Site to 300 Search Engines" folks will be put out of business. Other than the top 7 or so, what other search engines/portals would be considered "major"? Yahoo, Google, MSN, Altavista/Teoma, All The Web, Ask Jeeves, About (out-of-date half the time), Looksmart, DMOZ. (Heck, even Lycos pulled out of search the other day)
My comment was left off the posting indicating that I noticed the change in "number of hamburgers served" message on the Google home page this morning, leading me to wonder what other changes we should be looking for today (and hence leading me to this news, albeit a press release - Search Engine Watch didn't have it mentioned on their home page at the time).
And the press release doesn't say that they're indexing over 6B pages, so anyone who's saying that here is mistaken.
Comcast will probably up their bid to around $30 per share (or perhaps include more cash instead of a simple stock swap). Analysts don't support a stock price much higher than that.
Disney board members were hit with at least a half-dozen shareholder lawsuits filed in Los Angeles Superior Court late last week. The suits claim that Eisner, Disney president and chief operating officer Robert Iger and the rest of the board breached their fiduciary duty by failing to give adequate consideration to Comcast's offer in order to entrench themselves in their jobs.
So should Comcast walk away if Disney doesn't bite? Perhaps -- no need throwing more money down the rabbit hole (or mouse hole, in this case). Are there others who could make a run for Disney? Let's see.... Viacom has been mentioned, but ignoring the fact that they already own CBS for a moment, they've stated that they're not interested. GE is in the same boat as Viacom, but in the NBC camp. Time Warner is certainly an option, but would have to figure out which movie studio to keep in order to avoid antitrust issues. There's the "we pay cash" option with Microsoft, but that doesn't make sense unless there was a third player involved, and we all know that Microsoft wouldn't want to partner up with Steve Jobs at Pixar.... would they? Hmmmmm....
(there are other suitors mentioned in the above LATimes link, removal of pants required)
This certainly will make this next day/week fairly interesting for a few people.
It's not a "hostile" takeover bid until Comcast appeals to current Disney shareholders directly and offers them cash/stock for their shares, with the ultimate goal of Comcast purchasing and owning enough shares of the company to make direct changes to the board and/or have other immediate influence.
Keep in mind the timeline:
Comcast talks to Eisner and proposes a "merger".
Eisner, without consulting with the board or mentioning it to shareholders, declines.
Comcast goes to the press in order to be sure that the Disney board and shareholders are aware of Eisner's refusal
It ain't hostile yet. Comcast has been surprisingly calm in their discussions with the press, but I do agree with Disney's assessment that the bid was a little low... which is not unusual for an initial bid.
While Roy has been noticabley quiet over his support of the Comcast deal (other than noting that it jibes with his own comments on Eisner), Pixar has said that if Comcast were to pull the deal off that they would be more than happy to reopen negotiations.
Pixar Animation Studios may consider forming a consortium of investors to submit a counteroffer to Comcast Corp.'s $54 billion bid for the Walt Disney Co., according to the Times of London.
As you pointed out, while volumetric efficiency would be there - the cost of manufacture and difficulty in obtaining a good seal makes it prohibitively expensive to do so.
Same reason almost all of your food comes in round cans instead of square ones, including soda cans and beer cans.
Taking this one step further, did the survey pool consist solely of AOL users? I'm thinking that based on the information in the article (chat-room activity and online romance included) that this is indicative of an AOL-biased report.
On the other hand, this would also show a broader base of AOL users than the typical 10-year-old boy.
I want to invite some people over to hammer the bejesus out of a huge trackball, just like at the arcade.
Can't find it anywhere, but I read an interview recently that quoted a Golden Tee champion (perhaps it was Chris Eversole?) saying that slamming your hand into the trackball was 100% useless and had no affect on the game, other than making players who do it look like idiots. YMMV.
According to THIS news story, Nintendo IS preparing a new console.
Japanese video game maker Nintendo Co Ltd said on Tuesday it would launch a next-generation home console in 2005 or 2006 and denied a newspaper report that it would delay development of a successor to its GameCube console.
The Nihon Keizai business daily said Nintendo would delay the launch of a next-generation game machine, but the Kyoto-based company said development of the next version of the GameCube was proceeding as planned.
"Other companies aren't expected to come out with next-generation consoles until late 2005 or 2006," said Nintendo spokesman Yasuhiro Minagawa. "Our machine will be ready at the same time as the other new consoles."
Your question doesn't specify if you're using a standalong TiVo or a DirecTivo unit. Most of the answers listed here implied you're referring to the DirectTivo option.
But just in case, let's state the obvious: If you're using a Series2 Standalone TiVo, just get a USB network connector and plug the system into your home network.
I'm so happy that Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast is releasing this exciting new game! I can't wait to go to my local mall and buy it while browsing other great games that are available! (Settlers of Catan! Casino items! 136 different versions of Monopoly! Apples to Apples expansion pack #1802! A chess set shaped like the Simpsons!)
Oh wait, Hasbro is closing all their Wizards of the Coast stores, making it near impossible to find decent games locally anymore. Never mind.
I'm betting that this is a redundant question, but I didn't find a related thread so I'll risk asking it.
Looking around online, I found an article from TeenWire about the Dos and Don'ts of Downloading, which states that "It's also legal to download music that you've already paid for. Let's say you loaned your copy of System of a Down's Toxicity to your friend, but he totally scratched it up. In this case, it's legal for you to go on Kazaa and download the entire album to replace your ruined copy, since you already own the CD."
So if the RIAA raids you after they've noticed you've downloaded 1000 songs, it would be okay as long as you physically had the CDs, cassettes, vinyl, 8-tracks in your possession? In discussions with others, everyone seems to believe that THIS is considered "fair use" but it really is a gray area right now.
If TeenWire owner Planned Parenthood says so, it must be true, right? Has this aspect of P2P been legally declared to be true in the US?
...one of the main reasons that most people (and by "people", I really mean "parents") purchased the PS2 when it originally came out. It is certainly less of a factor today now that we're reaching market saturation, but it is still something to be considered.
Parents who have already sunk a few hundred dollars into the PS2 should be pleased to know that the money they spent on games won't go to waste if those games could still be played on the PS3. Granted, the kids may continue to keep the PS2 hooked up to the TV, but maybe they won't. It's a selling point.
How many people were able to convince their wives/girlfriends/significant others/parents that buying a PS2 was a good thing because it ALSO was a DVD player? It may not have been the best DVD player available, but it does the job. And at the time, DVD players were going for $150 or so [numbers out of a hat], which made the "real" cost of a PS2 that much cheaper in the minds of the purchasing decision makers.
Sony's already announced that the PS3 will be able to play PS2 games. When the PS3 is released, even if the initial set of games aren't wonderful kids could still tell their parents that they can still play GTAx on it. Not that they will or won't, but they could if they wanted to.
And you know what? There were some PS1 games that were never released for the PS2, and for people who never had a PS1 in the first place, this was a good thing. (You Don't Know Jack, various pinball games, Caesars Palace Casino - to name a few).
I see backwards compatibility as being really important as we move forward with the next series of game consoles. Imagine the uproar if Win95/98 couldn't run DOS programs. Or WinME couldn't run Win98 programs. Or needing a completely new version of Office just because you went to WinXP. Microsoft's been down this road before -- they MUST know what they're talking about, right?
Exactly the reason why TiVo -- if it is going to be viewed as a valuable addition to the normal Nielsen process -- needs to report not only what is taped but what is watched (and in some cases, when it's watched) as well.
There's no reason why, at the end of the "week", "season", "month", or whatever time period Nielsen uses that they can't generate an overall impression of how popular that one episode of "Bert Goes To The Moon" really was. Sure, their overnight numbers (gathered from Tivo and PeopleMeter methods) can be used to generate immediate numbers -- but there's no reason why those numbers can't be adjusted later after the rest of the data from the TiVos comes in.
It's like the movie companies releasing their "weekend box office" reports early Sunday morning. They certainly don't know what their Sunday numbers are going to look like, and even after they release numbers on Monday there's still a chance that those figures would be adjusted again later in the week (as happened just a few weeks ago with some movie or other).
And if you don't get around to watching "Bert Goes to the Carnival" in time to be counted in the official report, then you won't be counted at all.
As others have pointed out, this is old news. Take a gander:
Investor's Business Daily (body-cavity search required) said on Jan 15, 2004 that "... Nielsen has been tracking TiVo use since August 2002, but it hasn't released any findings publicly."
USAToday is featuring TiVo popularity information in their television listings: "On Wednesday January 28 USA TODAY
unveils an enhanced package of television ratings coverage in the LIFE
section, including a monthly listing of the Top 10 most rated programs based
on an analysis of anonymous, aggregate data from 20,000 TiVo households."
TiVo reporting aggregate TV viewing habits is no different from cable companies being able to tell what channels you're choosing to watch on your digital cable box, from websites gathering referrer and browser information from visitors, or movie studios talking about what the largest grossing movies were over the weekend.
I welcome TiVo's use of aggregate (*not personalized*) gathering of data for reporting to the networks. With luck, this could result in the networks deciding to keep certain shows that have high record/replay/time-shift value instead of cancelling them because nobody wants to watch those shows exactly when the networks choose to air them. If my TiVo usage can help dictate the types of shows that the networks will (or won't) air, then this is a win for all of us.
Obviously, Blockbuster had a booming business when they rented VHS tapes, as most people didn't own movies (since the studios had placed very high purchase prices on the tapes).
Now that DVDs are easily gotten for $10 or so, a lot of people have turned to buying movies instead of renting them. The concept is that while it is slightly more expensive to buy than rent - by just a few dollars - they now have a movie they can watch whenever or as often as they'd like.
Has anyone else noticed if Blockbuster's rental business has dropped as more and more people get DVD players in their houses? If this trend keeps up, I wouldn't be surprised if Blockbuster ends up filing for bankruptcy eventually. (People don't even buy their movies at Blockbuster, since their prices are usually higher than the big box retailers.)
How does Blockbuster need to change to still stay in competitive?
Disney certainly has dropped the biggest ball they were juggling by letting Pixar slip away. It's not just the movies that Pixar was developing, but everything associated with licensing the characters and creating additional theme park experiences that Disney will miss out on.
But one of Disney's more popular rides now is "Buzz Lightyear", a modern shooting gallery disguised as a ride through space. Would this ride be as popular if it had some generic theme instead of Buzz? In this case, being able to use the Pixar characters did enhance the ride experience, but is not critical to the basic enjoyment of the ride (ditto the Men in Black ride at USF, same concept). Disney certainly could have created this ride without Pixar.
But let's look at a different movie company that also does not have their own distribution arm: LucasFilm. They rely on other studios (20th Century Fox, for example) to distribute their movies for a small cut. They also retain all the rights to the sequels and all merchandising/licensing rights. I could see Pixar moving into a LucasFilm-like business structure, giving them the ability to completely control how their characters are used. It wouldn't mean that Disney would be blocked out from being able to license characters, it just may make it more expensive for them to bid to do so.
One drawback to having Pixar adopt that business model is that they believe that people flock to their films because they're "Pixar" movies. People do not flock to LucasFilm movies because they're from "LucasFilm", but because they're a franchise (Star Wars, Indiana Jones) film.
Yes, the Pixar name carries a bit of cache right now but does middle-America know the difference between "Pixar" and "Disney" when it comes down to who created the movie? How many folks flock to these movies because of the Disney name? What about those folks who then go to the Disney parks and get the reinforcement of the Disney name when they see Buzz and Woody walking around?
Perhaps a better example: how many people know that Shrek comes from Dreamworks? Would this mean that the next time Dreamworks releases a non-Shrek movie... and is able to market it without using "from the makers of Shrek" in the new movie's tagline... would folks go to see it just because it's from Dreamworks?
Of course this could all be some sort of bargaining ploy by both parties. Time will tell. The interesting point would be if Pixar lets slip that they refused to sign because of Eisner... and with Disney's stockholder vote coming up in the next few weeks, this could have been a setup for Roy to use to show shareholders and the board the type of issues that Eisner allegedly brings with him.
Part of the current Pixar deal is that Disney has the rights to use characters and sequels from the features developed on the original films of the deal.
Toy Story 2 was originally supposed to go straight-to-video and therefore is not part of the original distribution deal. Once the Disney execs saw an early version of the film, they asked Pixar to expand on the story so it could be released as a full-length movie.
Considering how much money Pixar *did* make with TS2, I certainly wouldn't say that Pixar did it for free. I see your point, regarding that it was a movie that got distributed outside of their "feature" clause in the contract, but it certainly does fall under one of the clauses.
By now you probably have heard that there's a new version (MyDoom.B) that is also making it's way across the Internet, this time supposedly targeting Microsoft.
According to Symantec, this version now modifies your HOSTS file to try and disable the user from being able to reach antivirus websites.
Among other entries in the HOSTS file are Doubleclick, FastClick, and some other advertising-related companies. Should I be concerned or happy that the virus may make surfing the web a little bit better by doing this?
Slashdot Mirror
And I'm not just talking about uninstallers for the spyware -- if I install a program that has a tagalong app bundled with it, I expect the original program to have uninstall options for those tagalong apps as well. Otherwise, it's a form of electronic littering.
Jak1 was great. I thought Jak2 was the sell-out and unnecessary sequel. While J2 was a better game technology-wise and play-wise (read "longer"), it didn't really server any purpose in advancing the title.
On the other hand, I'm looking forward to seeing what R&C3 would do, after seeing the huge improvements made in the Commando title. I don't see a need for a 4th title in either series on the PS2 platform... although I would guess that if #3 is wildly successful that they'll try and sell #4 with the rollout of the PS3.
That would be like Pepsi trying to unseat Coca-Cola by releasing PoopsiCola and PopsiCola and PeepsiCola. All of these Pepsi variants may have taken 5% market share away from Coca-Cola each, but did they also dilute any of Pepsi's market share as well? (Perhaps this is a bad example.)
SearchEngineWatch says that "today, both AltaVista and AlltheWeb continue to maintain separate indexes, and Yahoo isn't saying publicly whether this will change with the introduction of the new Yahoo Search Technology index."
Overture is a non-entity in this field, as most people do not consider paid-for search results as valid when considering whether a search engine returns accurate results or not. Paid results may be helpful and relevant, but they were purchased to be displayed alongside specific keywords anyway. Big whoop -- that just means better salespeople.
Yahoo will not be a player in the search market (with Inktomi/AltaVista/AllTheWeb) until they merge the three databases together AND clean up their search interface. One reason why Google thrives is that they have what is generally considered the best web interface ever: one text box and a submit button. You can't get confused. Searching for a person's phone number? Don't hunt for the "People Search" page, just type in their name. Want to track a FedEx? Don't go to the FedEx Tracking Search Page, just type in the tracking ID.
To paraphrase: "One input box to rule them all. One submit button to find it. One search engine to rule the world and on the Internet bind it."
I think website referral logs reflect this as well. Using the y2003 visitor report from one of the websites that I manage, over 50% of search engine referrals came from Google; a little over 10% came from Yahoo. Other reports that I've reviewed offer similar findings.
As for the "slurp" name, since its been a familiar crawler for years (Inktomi), Yahoo would risk alienating some websites/website managers who would have to go adjust their Robots files just for the new name. (And let's not mention those folks who don't know how to update the Webtrends crawler ini file or their browsercap.ini files...)
On a related note: at some point, those spam-artist "Submit Your Site to 300 Search Engines" folks will be put out of business. Other than the top 7 or so, what other search engines/portals would be considered "major"? Yahoo, Google, MSN, Altavista/Teoma, All The Web, Ask Jeeves, About (out-of-date half the time), Looksmart, DMOZ. (Heck, even Lycos pulled out of search the other day)
And the press release doesn't say that they're indexing over 6B pages, so anyone who's saying that here is mistaken.
Two key points:
- Comcast will probably up their bid to around $30 per share (or perhaps include more cash instead of a simple stock swap). Analysts don't support a stock price much higher than that.
- Disney board members were hit with at least a half-dozen shareholder lawsuits filed in Los Angeles Superior Court late last week. The suits claim that Eisner, Disney president and chief operating officer Robert Iger and the rest of the board breached their fiduciary duty by failing to give adequate consideration to Comcast's offer in order to entrench themselves in their jobs.
So should Comcast walk away if Disney doesn't bite? Perhaps -- no need throwing more money down the rabbit hole (or mouse hole, in this case). Are there others who could make a run for Disney? Let's see.... Viacom has been mentioned, but ignoring the fact that they already own CBS for a moment, they've stated that they're not interested. GE is in the same boat as Viacom, but in the NBC camp. Time Warner is certainly an option, but would have to figure out which movie studio to keep in order to avoid antitrust issues. There's the "we pay cash" option with Microsoft, but that doesn't make sense unless there was a third player involved, and we all know that Microsoft wouldn't want to partner up with Steve Jobs at Pixar.... would they? Hmmmmm....(there are other suitors mentioned in the above LATimes link, removal of pants required)
This certainly will make this next day/week fairly interesting for a few people.
Keep in mind the timeline:
- Comcast talks to Eisner and proposes a "merger".
- Eisner, without consulting with the board or mentioning it to shareholders, declines.
- Comcast goes to the press in order to be sure that the Disney board and shareholders are aware of Eisner's refusal
It ain't hostile yet. Comcast has been surprisingly calm in their discussions with the press, but I do agree with Disney's assessment that the bid was a little low... which is not unusual for an initial bid.While Roy has been noticabley quiet over his support of the Comcast deal (other than noting that it jibes with his own comments on Eisner), Pixar has said that if Comcast were to pull the deal off that they would be more than happy to reopen negotiations.
More interesting is SFGate's article about Pixar's interest in the deal:
Same reason almost all of your food comes in round cans instead of square ones, including soda cans and beer cans.
On the other hand, this would also show a broader base of AOL users than the typical 10-year-old boy.
Move along, nothing more to see here.
But just in case, let's state the obvious: If you're using a Series2 Standalone TiVo, just get a USB network connector and plug the system into your home network.
Oh wait, Hasbro is closing all their Wizards of the Coast stores, making it near impossible to find decent games locally anymore. Never mind.
Looking around online, I found an article from TeenWire about the Dos and Don'ts of Downloading, which states that "It's also legal to download music that you've already paid for. Let's say you loaned your copy of System of a Down's Toxicity to your friend, but he totally scratched it up. In this case, it's legal for you to go on Kazaa and download the entire album to replace your ruined copy, since you already own the CD."
So if the RIAA raids you after they've noticed you've downloaded 1000 songs, it would be okay as long as you physically had the CDs, cassettes, vinyl, 8-tracks in your possession? In discussions with others, everyone seems to believe that THIS is considered "fair use" but it really is a gray area right now.
If TeenWire owner Planned Parenthood says so, it must be true, right? Has this aspect of P2P been legally declared to be true in the US?
- Red = Warmer
- White = Colder
- Green = No Change
- Blinking = Precipitation coming
It was simple, but it worked.A history of the Weatherball
I haven't been by that area for years, so I don't know if the Weatherballs are still there or not. Bueller?
Parents who have already sunk a few hundred dollars into the PS2 should be pleased to know that the money they spent on games won't go to waste if those games could still be played on the PS3. Granted, the kids may continue to keep the PS2 hooked up to the TV, but maybe they won't. It's a selling point.
How many people were able to convince their wives/girlfriends/significant others/parents that buying a PS2 was a good thing because it ALSO was a DVD player? It may not have been the best DVD player available, but it does the job. And at the time, DVD players were going for $150 or so [numbers out of a hat], which made the "real" cost of a PS2 that much cheaper in the minds of the purchasing decision makers.
Sony's already announced that the PS3 will be able to play PS2 games. When the PS3 is released, even if the initial set of games aren't wonderful kids could still tell their parents that they can still play GTAx on it. Not that they will or won't, but they could if they wanted to.
And you know what? There were some PS1 games that were never released for the PS2, and for people who never had a PS1 in the first place, this was a good thing. (You Don't Know Jack, various pinball games, Caesars Palace Casino - to name a few).
I see backwards compatibility as being really important as we move forward with the next series of game consoles. Imagine the uproar if Win95/98 couldn't run DOS programs. Or WinME couldn't run Win98 programs. Or needing a completely new version of Office just because you went to WinXP. Microsoft's been down this road before -- they MUST know what they're talking about, right?
There's no reason why, at the end of the "week", "season", "month", or whatever time period Nielsen uses that they can't generate an overall impression of how popular that one episode of "Bert Goes To The Moon" really was. Sure, their overnight numbers (gathered from Tivo and PeopleMeter methods) can be used to generate immediate numbers -- but there's no reason why those numbers can't be adjusted later after the rest of the data from the TiVos comes in.
It's like the movie companies releasing their "weekend box office" reports early Sunday morning. They certainly don't know what their Sunday numbers are going to look like, and even after they release numbers on Monday there's still a chance that those figures would be adjusted again later in the week (as happened just a few weeks ago with some movie or other).
And if you don't get around to watching "Bert Goes to the Carnival" in time to be counted in the official report, then you won't be counted at all.
Investor's Business Daily (body-cavity search required) said on Jan 15, 2004 that "... Nielsen has been tracking TiVo use since August 2002, but it hasn't released any findings publicly."
USAToday is featuring TiVo popularity information in their television listings: "On Wednesday January 28 USA TODAY unveils an enhanced package of television ratings coverage in the LIFE section, including a monthly listing of the Top 10 most rated programs based on an analysis of anonymous, aggregate data from 20,000 TiVo households."
And you can read more about Nielsen partnering with TiVo from a while back.
TiVo reporting aggregate TV viewing habits is no different from cable companies being able to tell what channels you're choosing to watch on your digital cable box, from websites gathering referrer and browser information from visitors, or movie studios talking about what the largest grossing movies were over the weekend.
I welcome TiVo's use of aggregate (*not personalized*) gathering of data for reporting to the networks. With luck, this could result in the networks deciding to keep certain shows that have high record/replay/time-shift value instead of cancelling them because nobody wants to watch those shows exactly when the networks choose to air them. If my TiVo usage can help dictate the types of shows that the networks will (or won't) air, then this is a win for all of us.
Obviously, Blockbuster had a booming business when they rented VHS tapes, as most people didn't own movies (since the studios had placed very high purchase prices on the tapes).
Now that DVDs are easily gotten for $10 or so, a lot of people have turned to buying movies instead of renting them. The concept is that while it is slightly more expensive to buy than rent - by just a few dollars - they now have a movie they can watch whenever or as often as they'd like.
Has anyone else noticed if Blockbuster's rental business has dropped as more and more people get DVD players in their houses? If this trend keeps up, I wouldn't be surprised if Blockbuster ends up filing for bankruptcy eventually. (People don't even buy their movies at Blockbuster, since their prices are usually higher than the big box retailers.)
How does Blockbuster need to change to still stay in competitive?
Disney certainly has dropped the biggest ball they were juggling by letting Pixar slip away. It's not just the movies that Pixar was developing, but everything associated with licensing the characters and creating additional theme park experiences that Disney will miss out on.
But one of Disney's more popular rides now is "Buzz Lightyear", a modern shooting gallery disguised as a ride through space. Would this ride be as popular if it had some generic theme instead of Buzz? In this case, being able to use the Pixar characters did enhance the ride experience, but is not critical to the basic enjoyment of the ride (ditto the Men in Black ride at USF, same concept). Disney certainly could have created this ride without Pixar.
But let's look at a different movie company that also does not have their own distribution arm: LucasFilm. They rely on other studios (20th Century Fox, for example) to distribute their movies for a small cut. They also retain all the rights to the sequels and all merchandising/licensing rights. I could see Pixar moving into a LucasFilm-like business structure, giving them the ability to completely control how their characters are used. It wouldn't mean that Disney would be blocked out from being able to license characters, it just may make it more expensive for them to bid to do so.
One drawback to having Pixar adopt that business model is that they believe that people flock to their films because they're "Pixar" movies. People do not flock to LucasFilm movies because they're from "LucasFilm", but because they're a franchise (Star Wars, Indiana Jones) film.
Yes, the Pixar name carries a bit of cache right now but does middle-America know the difference between "Pixar" and "Disney" when it comes down to who created the movie? How many folks flock to these movies because of the Disney name? What about those folks who then go to the Disney parks and get the reinforcement of the Disney name when they see Buzz and Woody walking around?
Perhaps a better example: how many people know that Shrek comes from Dreamworks? Would this mean that the next time Dreamworks releases a non-Shrek movie... and is able to market it without using "from the makers of Shrek" in the new movie's tagline... would folks go to see it just because it's from Dreamworks?
Of course this could all be some sort of bargaining ploy by both parties. Time will tell. The interesting point would be if Pixar lets slip that they refused to sign because of Eisner... and with Disney's stockholder vote coming up in the next few weeks, this could have been a setup for Roy to use to show shareholders and the board the type of issues that Eisner allegedly brings with him.
Toy Story 2 was originally supposed to go straight-to-video and therefore is not part of the original distribution deal. Once the Disney execs saw an early version of the film, they asked Pixar to expand on the story so it could be released as a full-length movie.
Considering how much money Pixar *did* make with TS2, I certainly wouldn't say that Pixar did it for free. I see your point, regarding that it was a movie that got distributed outside of their "feature" clause in the contract, but it certainly does fall under one of the clauses.
According to Symantec, this version now modifies your HOSTS file to try and disable the user from being able to reach antivirus websites.
Among other entries in the HOSTS file are Doubleclick, FastClick, and some other advertising-related companies. Should I be concerned or happy that the virus may make surfing the web a little bit better by doing this?
"This parchment intentionally left blank."