Well, iTunes is known for being even more expensive than albums on CD, so anybody coming from a "saving money" point of view might not be so impressed with it.
It also has a reputation for DRM, which emotion aside, is still a barrier for people who value the ability to play the music they have. Yes, it may have lenient restrictions compared to other formats, but still, it's very difficult for most of us to manipulate iTunes files on our computers. For example, how do I put tracks on my MP3 player? How do I play them in XMMS? The answer almost always involves something time-consuming and inconvenient, normally burning a CD and ripping it.
Of course, iTunes also suffers from a lack of resolution compared to the corresponding CD track, when the compression settings are such as to allow music to be downloaded over the modern internet. This is a problem for any internet distribution channel, but I believe that when you ordered CDs to be posted from MP3.com, you got audio quality that's better than a typical internet download.
As with all things, these problems have different effects on different people, but when iTunes has features unsatisfactory to (a) those interested in price, (b) those interested in freedom, and (c) those interested in audio quality, then iTunes might not be the most suitable means for music distribution.
Of course, the number of tracks that they've sold says a lot about the alternatives. Or perhaps, says a lot about the compromises people are willing to make.
"An Optisoft spokesman is quoted as saying it will be "four times" harder for copyright holders to trace infringers... Exactly how is that quantifiable?"
Increasing the key-size on some irrelevant side-channel? It's the normal way.
"The solution is exceptionally simple: When you hear a song you want, go to the store or whatever source, and buy it. You will have no problems."
I'm glad that was moderated as funny.
When you hear a song you want, go to the store or whatever source, and buy it.
- You may get a CD that fails to play in your computer.
- You may get a CD that fails to play in your CD player.
- You may get a CD with tracks that can only be accessed using Windows Media Player with DRM downloads.
- You will get a CD that scratches easily, and which you can't make backups of.
- You will get a CD at a price which was found to be illegally high by the EU.
- You will get a CD that was deemed "popular enough" by the record store. If you want a CD by an independant band, you will go to the store, ask them whether they have the CD, and they will say no. They could order it electronically and have it delivered in a few days, but then so could you.
MP3.com had the right way to buy music. Until there's another site like MP3.com, there's not really any suitable way to buy music. Sure, Amazon is good when you know which music you want, but how do you preview it?
Sure, band websites are good when they work, but Mp3.com (a) got people to use a simple website that worked, (b) used a standard uncrippled music format, (c) put everything in one place with links, and (d) showed artists how to make money by making tracks available for free download. If there's nobody to do that sort of thing, then band websites become flash-laden WMA-format crap that nobody can use, just because the people writing band websites don't know how the web works.
"Do the math... Windows costing more means that there will likely be fewer users of Windows because they can't afford it in their or their company's budget."
That sounds like a rather naive view of a company budget?
First, they pay for Windows XP Pro licenses for every PC they own, doesn't matter what it costs.
Then they pay for Office XP licenses, development tools, and other Microsoft software, for every PC they own, doesn't matter what it costs.
Then they claim that they can't afford any normal software because it's "too expensive".
Then they claim they can't afford to pay their staff properly because they don't have any money left.
"price increases steadily, security holes found repeatedly, consumer's irritation growing until they say "Well you know what Billy boy, up yours, we're switching to linux (or OS X)""
Ehh? How do we figure that one out then?
Windows is now $2-300-and-something, there've been about 8-10 large-scale worms and viruses in the last year, infecting hundreds of millions of Windows computers, and consumers have been pissed off since 1995 when they first got an operating system that was obtruse and unstable and crashed so often that it became a standing joke. And it still does, albeit now they're connected to the internet and the lack of security is causing even more irritations.
But people haven't started using linux instead. Oh no, they touch their toes and take it from Microsoft, paying more and more each year, filling up forums with bitter comments about their computer crashing, and wail to technical support every time plugging in a USB device bluescreens their PC. Hell, there've been viruses within the last year that took down vast swathes of US information infrastructure, and people still don't even know that it's possible to run a computer without MS-WindowsXP.
Sod 'em. Windows users can support their own machines, and when it breaks it breaks. If auntie can't fix her Windows PC, she should've bought a more reliable model. If a virus starts spamming from her PC, it gets taken off the internet and she can't read her email. Damn loss that is. Technical support is $80 per hour. So that's... ah yes, if it takes more than 3 hours to fix, it's a write-off. Sorry. Play again? Step 1: choose an operating system.
"Power has to come from batteries at night; what is the battery life under industrial temperatures (-20 to 150F, forex.) Concrete doesn't get quite that hot, but asphault does."
It's the same principle as the solar-powered LED garden lights.
(i.e. they don't work)
Not enough power per square inch, LEDs so dim they'd be out-shone by passive reflectors, batteries that last a year or two and don't like the cold. Oh, and lots of electronic parts and difficult to make.
"Problem is, where I live, we get large amounts of snow and ice building up on the roads"
Visit Scotland, and the roads get so much snow that they put poles down the sides of the road to mark where the roads go... not that you'd want to drive down at much speed if all you could see is the top of an 8-foot pole...
In Skye and in the remote roads, there're a lot of reflective plastic posts, on both sides of every corner. It's white on nearside, and red on offside, so you can see which way the road goes quite clearly. And if it's open ground, you can turn on full headlights and see the corners for miles ahead.
Re:Don't ticket me - control my car's max speed
on
Road Marker Marks You
·
· Score: 1
"As I say every time this subject comes up, I'd much rather have my car know the max speed on a given road for a given set of conditions and not be allowed to go over the max speed"
Ohh yeah, because you just know these will be trivial IR LEDs just continuously trasmitting an identifier and the speed limit.
Would be nice to implement such a system, because you could then build a remote-control to tell the car of some idiot that the speed limit is actally 20kph or something when they try to overtake you.
Or sit on a highway junction one wet day with a 50kph transmitter on a 80kph road and watch peoples' brakes send them flying off the side of the road.
"Yes, but skinnier is easier to read. That's why newspapers are split into columns."
Yet when this is carried across to newspaper websites, who constrain their text to a 300-pixel column (yes it looks as bad on a big monitor as it sounds), somehow it is not as easy to read as pages which use the full width of a monitor.
"Metric paper is cool. When I ran across another original article (about a year ago) about it, I went right out and bought some. Well, actually I didn't. Staples didn't carry it, and neither did WalMart or Office Max. The local stationers and office supply stores didn't even know what it was."
That's just plain scary, a stationary shop that doesn't stock A4 paper.
So you have to re-layout your documents when you want to print on a different-size paper, rather than just scaling it?
"I think the big question we need to ask is do we really need multiple monitor setups? Besides the obvious issue of hardware cost of multiple graphics cards and multiple monitors, you also have to consider desktop space issues."
Ironic you mention that on the day that my development computer at work is moved onto a new desk to cope with the 4 monitors (for 4 PCs, admittedly), while our game-playing PCs are filled with multiple-output graphics cards, and with outputs serving multiple monitors. Oh, and the input-selection switches so that we can show 2 channels on one monitor. And the KVM switches to choose between 8 channels on one monitor.
If only we could get around the "1 PC = 1 graphics card = 1 output = 1 monitor" philosophy, such things would be a lot more convenient, and with a lot less messy cabling...
LCDs are good though. You can get stands that hold 8 LCD monitors or so on the desktop without really using up much space.
"Hey, does anyone else keep getting a little frustrated with the fact that Google seems hell-bent on introducing new services [orkut, gmail, etc.] but they haven't really done anything about the fact that 'optimizers' have basically cracked PageRank?"
"was it just me, or was that a completely unfounded blanket statement?"
Just a standard anti-OSS troll, of the "If you ran a fortune-500 company like I do, you'd understand" variant, normally written by someone who the closest they got to a business environment was playing with crayons in their dad's office, and never seem to elaborate on why big companies "need" something that apparently they have no real use for. But then again, maybe if I were the CTO of a Fortune-500 like every kid on slashdot claims to be, rather than just someone who uses Outlook all the time at work, then I'd understand...
Okay, I don't mind the joke becoming a debate, but if it does, can I ask about this one:
"[OpenOffice.org] lacks an email client, evolution does the job fine but not everyone agrees"
Now, everyone says this, I hear it all the time, and it makes no sense. Is there someone here who could explain
Why does an office suite need an email client?
No, really. Why? I mean, I've used email for years and I've used office-suites for years, and I've never even once had the urge to say "send this document by email" from a spreadsheet menu. And as yet, my email client has never had any problems with handling spreadsheet attachments in whatever's the default application, no integration required.
In fact, I'd prefer not to have office software integrated with email, because when you send email, you have to stop and think about what the recipient might want, what's the best file format to use, and how best to reduce the size of the attachment, nevermind double-checking you're not sending something confidential in the file headers.
But people are always on the OpenOffice support lists wishing that it had an email client. Why?
Surely it's a barrier to using new software? If OpenOffice.org had an email client, you'd have to swap email clients as well as office suites to use it. Maybe you like the email client you've already got. Maybe it would cost a lot to change email clients.
It's not as if I don't have these tools available. At work I have Outlook and OfficeXP (please don't send viruses, my company probably couldn't handle them). But I've never once used the two together in any way more complex than double-clicking an attachment and the operating system will decide which program to use. I use these programs all the time, and you'd be hard pressed to find some way in which they "integrate". In fact, Visio looks more integrated with MS-Office, and it's not even a microsoft product until recently.
What is it? Is it just convenient to buy them at the same time? Do people actually use the "Save and email this file" menu? Can you preview emailed spreadsheet attachments in a tiny little Excel window? Is there some sort of email collaboration feature that I haven't seen but would change my life if it worked?
What is it about email clients that people want them to be part of an office suite?
Slashdot Mirror
"Have you checked out the iTunes Music Store?"
Well, iTunes is known for being even more expensive than albums on CD, so anybody coming from a "saving money" point of view might not be so impressed with it.
It also has a reputation for DRM, which emotion aside, is still a barrier for people who value the ability to play the music they have. Yes, it may have lenient restrictions compared to other formats, but still, it's very difficult for most of us to manipulate iTunes files on our computers. For example, how do I put tracks on my MP3 player? How do I play them in XMMS? The answer almost always involves something time-consuming and inconvenient, normally burning a CD and ripping it.
Of course, iTunes also suffers from a lack of resolution compared to the corresponding CD track, when the compression settings are such as to allow music to be downloaded over the modern internet. This is a problem for any internet distribution channel, but I believe that when you ordered CDs to be posted from MP3.com, you got audio quality that's better than a typical internet download.
As with all things, these problems have different effects on different people, but when iTunes has features unsatisfactory to (a) those interested in price, (b) those interested in freedom, and (c) those interested in audio quality, then iTunes might not be the most suitable means for music distribution.
Of course, the number of tracks that they've sold says a lot about the alternatives. Or perhaps, says a lot about the compromises people are willing to make.
"An Optisoft spokesman is quoted as saying it will be "four times" harder for copyright holders to trace infringers... Exactly how is that quantifiable?"
Increasing the key-size on some irrelevant side-channel? It's the normal way.
"The solution is exceptionally simple: When you hear a song you want, go to the store or whatever source, and buy it. You will have no problems."
I'm glad that was moderated as funny.
When you hear a song you want, go to the store or whatever source, and buy it.
- You may get a CD that fails to play in your computer.
- You may get a CD that fails to play in your CD player.
- You may get a CD with tracks that can only be accessed using Windows Media Player with DRM downloads.
- You will get a CD that scratches easily, and which you can't make backups of.
- You will get a CD at a price which was found to be illegally high by the EU.
- You will get a CD that was deemed "popular enough" by the record store. If you want a CD by an independant band, you will go to the store, ask them whether they have the CD, and they will say no. They could order it electronically and have it delivered in a few days, but then so could you.
MP3.com had the right way to buy music. Until there's another site like MP3.com, there's not really any suitable way to buy music. Sure, Amazon is good when you know which music you want, but how do you preview it?
Sure, band websites are good when they work, but Mp3.com (a) got people to use a simple website that worked, (b) used a standard uncrippled music format, (c) put everything in one place with links, and (d) showed artists how to make money by making tracks available for free download. If there's nobody to do that sort of thing, then band websites become flash-laden WMA-format crap that nobody can use, just because the people writing band websites don't know how the web works.
"Do the math ... Windows costing more means that there will likely be fewer users of Windows because they can't afford it in their or their company's budget."
That sounds like a rather naive view of a company budget?
First, they pay for Windows XP Pro licenses for every PC they own, doesn't matter what it costs.
Then they pay for Office XP licenses, development tools, and other Microsoft software, for every PC they own, doesn't matter what it costs.
Then they claim that they can't afford any normal software because it's "too expensive".
Then they claim they can't afford to pay their staff properly because they don't have any money left.
"They have every right to adjust their prices to reflect these additional costs."
So now it's official? When you buy a microsoft product, you're directly funding illegal activity?
"price increases steadily, security holes found repeatedly, consumer's irritation growing until they say "Well you know what Billy boy, up yours, we're switching to linux (or OS X)""
Ehh? How do we figure that one out then?
Windows is now $2-300-and-something, there've been about 8-10 large-scale worms and viruses in the last year, infecting hundreds of millions of Windows computers, and consumers have been pissed off since 1995 when they first got an operating system that was obtruse and unstable and crashed so often that it became a standing joke. And it still does, albeit now they're connected to the internet and the lack of security is causing even more irritations.
But people haven't started using linux instead. Oh no, they touch their toes and take it from Microsoft, paying more and more each year, filling up forums with bitter comments about their computer crashing, and wail to technical support every time plugging in a USB device bluescreens their PC. Hell, there've been viruses within the last year that took down vast swathes of US information infrastructure, and people still don't even know that it's possible to run a computer without MS-WindowsXP.
Sod 'em. Windows users can support their own machines, and when it breaks it breaks. If auntie can't fix her Windows PC, she should've bought a more reliable model. If a virus starts spamming from her PC, it gets taken off the internet and she can't read her email. Damn loss that is. Technical support is $80 per hour. So that's... ah yes, if it takes more than 3 hours to fix, it's a write-off. Sorry. Play again? Step 1: choose an operating system.
"Power has to come from batteries at night; what is the battery life under industrial temperatures (-20 to 150F, forex.) Concrete doesn't get quite that hot, but asphault does."
It's the same principle as the solar-powered LED garden lights.
(i.e. they don't work)
Not enough power per square inch, LEDs so dim they'd be out-shone by passive reflectors, batteries that last a year or two and don't like the cold. Oh, and lots of electronic parts and difficult to make.
Reflectors are good though.
"Problem is, where I live, we get large amounts of snow and ice building up on the roads"
Visit Scotland, and the roads get so much snow that they put poles down the sides of the road to mark where the roads go... not that you'd want to drive down at much speed if all you could see is the top of an 8-foot pole...
In Skye and in the remote roads, there're a lot of reflective plastic posts, on both sides of every corner. It's white on nearside, and red on offside, so you can see which way the road goes quite clearly. And if it's open ground, you can turn on full headlights and see the corners for miles ahead.
"As I say every time this subject comes up, I'd much rather have my car know the max speed on a given road for a given set of conditions and not be allowed to go over the max speed"
Ohh yeah, because you just know these will be trivial IR LEDs just continuously trasmitting an identifier and the speed limit.
Would be nice to implement such a system, because you could then build a remote-control to tell the car of some idiot that the speed limit is actally 20kph or something when they try to overtake you.
Or sit on a highway junction one wet day with a 50kph transmitter on a 80kph road and watch peoples' brakes send them flying off the side of the road.
Nice idea, if you're not a motorist.
"Now, the A10, which boasts a considerable firing rate off it's cannon already slows down a bit when firing..."
A bit?
A lot.
"South Africa faced no security threat that required the deterrance of nuclear weapons to justify their expense."
Compared to western countries which need their nuclear weapons to deter who, exactly?
"That just isn't true. I, like every other slashdotter, don't want to pay for my cool software tools."
Exactly who are you speaking for? Many of us are quite happy to pay for Free Software.
"Yes, but skinnier is easier to read. That's why newspapers are split into columns."
Yet when this is carried across to newspaper websites, who constrain their text to a 300-pixel column (yes it looks as bad on a big monitor as it sounds), somehow it is not as easy to read as pages which use the full width of a monitor.
"Metric paper is cool. When I ran across another original article (about a year ago) about it, I went right out and bought some. Well, actually I didn't. Staples didn't carry it, and neither did WalMart or Office Max. The local stationers and office supply stores didn't even know what it was."
That's just plain scary, a stationary shop that doesn't stock A4 paper.
So you have to re-layout your documents when you want to print on a different-size paper, rather than just scaling it?
"Overseas Indian Mirror anyone? This would be a useful item to offshore."
So now even political lobbying needs to be done from offshore servers?
"What makes you so sure it is Windows's fault, and not some crappy printer drivers?"
Either way it's proprietary software causing the problem.
"I think the big question we need to ask is do we really need multiple monitor setups? Besides the obvious issue of hardware cost of multiple graphics cards and multiple monitors, you also have to consider desktop space issues."
Ironic you mention that on the day that my development computer at work is moved onto a new desk to cope with the 4 monitors (for 4 PCs, admittedly), while our game-playing PCs are filled with multiple-output graphics cards, and with outputs serving multiple monitors. Oh, and the input-selection switches so that we can show 2 channels on one monitor. And the KVM switches to choose between 8 channels on one monitor.
If only we could get around the "1 PC = 1 graphics card = 1 output = 1 monitor" philosophy, such things would be a lot more convenient, and with a lot less messy cabling...
LCDs are good though. You can get stands that hold 8 LCD monitors or so on the desktop without really using up much space.
"Hey, does anyone else keep getting a little frustrated with the fact that Google seems hell-bent on introducing new services [orkut, gmail, etc.] but they haven't really done anything about the fact that 'optimizers' have basically cracked PageRank?"
Optimiz...? LOOK AT THAT! (points-->)
Choice quote, generally:
"There are a million and one tools to block banner ads and popup ads, but not one to block google text ads."
"of course, artists create art whether or not they are in art class"
Yeah, it's all to do with copyrights and patents apparently. Otherwise they'd become builders.
"he is hoping to generate $64 million"
Generate?
There is no "generate" about it. I think the phrase he's searching for is: "hoping to take $64 million"
"was it just me, or was that a completely unfounded blanket statement?"
Just a standard anti-OSS troll, of the "If you ran a fortune-500 company like I do, you'd understand" variant, normally written by someone who the closest they got to a business environment was playing with crayons in their dad's office, and never seem to elaborate on why big companies "need" something that apparently they have no real use for. But then again, maybe if I were the CTO of a Fortune-500 like every kid on slashdot claims to be, rather than just someone who uses Outlook all the time at work, then I'd understand...
"but in Japan, posession or production of items is prohibited when it is known they will be used for illegal purposes."
So why not apply the same principles to Microsoft Windows, which is designed to enable the spread of illegal viruses?
Okay, I don't mind the joke becoming a debate, but if it does, can I ask about this one:
"[OpenOffice.org] lacks an email client, evolution does the job fine but not everyone agrees"
Now, everyone says this, I hear it all the time, and it makes no sense. Is there someone here who could explain
Why does an office suite need an email client?
No, really. Why? I mean, I've used email for years and I've used office-suites for years, and I've never even once had the urge to say "send this document by email" from a spreadsheet menu. And as yet, my email client has never had any problems with handling spreadsheet attachments in whatever's the default application, no integration required.
In fact, I'd prefer not to have office software integrated with email, because when you send email, you have to stop and think about what the recipient might want, what's the best file format to use, and how best to reduce the size of the attachment, nevermind double-checking you're not sending something confidential in the file headers.
But people are always on the OpenOffice support lists wishing that it had an email client. Why?
Surely it's a barrier to using new software? If OpenOffice.org had an email client, you'd have to swap email clients as well as office suites to use it. Maybe you like the email client you've already got. Maybe it would cost a lot to change email clients.
It's not as if I don't have these tools available. At work I have Outlook and OfficeXP (please don't send viruses, my company probably couldn't handle them). But I've never once used the two together in any way more complex than double-clicking an attachment and the operating system will decide which program to use. I use these programs all the time, and you'd be hard pressed to find some way in which they "integrate". In fact, Visio looks more integrated with MS-Office, and it's not even a microsoft product until recently.
What is it? Is it just convenient to buy them at the same time? Do people actually use the "Save and email this file" menu? Can you preview emailed spreadsheet attachments in a tiny little Excel window? Is there some sort of email collaboration feature that I haven't seen but would change my life if it worked?
What is it about email clients that people want them to be part of an office suite?
"I am just glad that with him in jail there will be more security."
Ha ha, very good!
Can we put that in "joke of the day"?