Great but do you ever consider that if TIVO needs to charge $12.95/mo. on top of the box price that it (no matter how sweet) just might now be financially viable right now? I mean, that happens all the time. I could think of five great business ideas right now but weather or not they succeed will come down to if you can charge something the market will bear.
As a consumer, I wouldn't mind the 12.95 fee personally (although I am more interested in a media PC than a Tivo at this point) but as an investor I know -- without a doubt -- that the vast majority of consumers have a very hard time understanding the value. Esp. when their cable company will front them a PCR for a few dollars extra a month. Yeah, it will suck but that's the point: It will have the price point to be viable. Even if it is an inferior product.
I was a Tivo investor for years but I am 100% out of the stock now. I just don't see (as of today) what the company is doing that can fight against the generic PVR & media PC threats. Maybe the new CEO will have some ideas. Maybe he wont.
It looks to me more like the **AA will sue everything under the sun... the site that indexes the trackers, the site that hosts the trackers and the individuals that are ul/dl the files. I don't think they are thinking about bang for the buck anymore -- Their whole approach seems to have become very emotional.
I agree. I can remember when I could back up everything to 1 CD. It was huge. But the 4.5 GB of DVD space was lackluster and to be honest the numbers here are not that interesting either.
Now, if they wanted to talk about 1TB discs... then I would be thinking about replacing all the drives I own.
"The moral is: Google is a little more evil today than they were yesterday.
You mention that people did not read the article, but does it not say that Google went to court to allow your company to do just what could do before? That was what the whole Geico case was about (as you state in your frist P). So... you did or didn't want to be able to do what your company was doing?
I don't really get this & never have. I am sure that Geico doesn't want anyone to advertise under a search on their name, but why is it so crazy that say... Progressive... slips an ad in saying "Hey, get an on-line quote from us before you go with Geico". As long as it's clear that it's an ad (which it is on Google) I don't care. If I "just want to read about Geico" than I wouldn't really be looking at the ad section of Google anyway.
Why don't they? It seems like the only thing some corporations understand is backlash. The entertainment industry has more or less been following the philosophy of "Suck It, Bitch" for a while now (especially when it comes to new technologies). If it weren't for piracy you wouldn't see iTunes, etc.
It's an ugly way to do it, but progress is like that at times.
I marveled over the price NAS vs. the underlying gigs for a while but after talking to enterprise people it made more sense. When they need to deploy these out fast, it is worth the money. As for building one for 2000... yeah, there is a shit load of money in storage solutions right now BUT mostly in the enterprise space. Meaning they only want to deal with DELL, HP, IBM etc. But if you can talk to a local shop that doesn't need national coverage you can set up a custom, inexpensive RAID setup for far, far less than HP/IBM/DELL. It's just not that common that local firms need terabytes and terabytes.
I think you are correct... it's just a question of what the final percentage is. If you take away d/l movies (and music) I think the case for broadband becomes less and less.
look inside a graphics house -- A lot of people are still using CRT. LCDs have many advantages, but saying that digital imaging is better.. well, it may very well be to you, but i would have to say that is a minority opinion.
Believe me, I am well aware of versioning. But that is mostly a software question: All you have to do is tell the software to see your array and then program it the way you want it (daily for two weeks, then monthly for a year, etc.). Then you can just sync off-site with another array. The arrays themselves are stupid - it's just data to them and they will synch whatever you have and to the software it's just a storage container. To me, tape has always felt like a pain in the ass (e.g. a pain in the ass that you have to pay a lot for, pay people to operate every day and does not - outside of some classroom discussion - have any increase in reliability that the extra money would result in). If a disk goes bad, I just put in another one and go about my business. I don't even have to put my sandwich down. Everything can be looked at via a web interface and thus set to send warnings (e.g. get an email that you need a new disk). Hey, if you want to use tape - fine. It's been done forever and the results are well known. I am just saying that there are other options that are seriously overlooked.
Yeah, I agree but you would be surprised how many people think that unless you are using tape, you are not doing backup. That's it: If it's not on tape, it's not backup (the idea that tape is that reliable amazes me -- it never is more reliable than when comparing it against disk based backup... suddenly, people act like tape never corrupts). If someone is talking about one Raid 5 array and saying "I'm all set" then, yes, that is a shitty backup plan. But one set of tapes stored on-site has risks as well.
A man of my own mind... I have used a 3 RAID 5 setup with good results: One array for use, one for on-site backup and one off-site for backup replication. You are correct re: tape reliability and furthermore you dont' have to pay someone (daily) to fuck around with the tapes. Of couse, everytime RAID backup is mentioned, some fuddy duddy 1960's Admin get's into a hissy fit screaming "RAID isn't a backup solution" but if you can get past that you can see the awesome power of using multiple RAID arrays as a backup solution.
Staggering the ads in all 3 would probablly work much better. I don't think people pay a lot of attention to a singular ad.. in the society that we live in with all of the advertising noise out there, it's almost impossible. But, if you can, after 3 ads in different papers get a few people who read them to say "Oh yeah, this firefox thing...". Then, maybe, the idea works.
It's not like the soundtrack to a film is an independent production (e.g. "Music Inspired By...") that was self-funded and is thus looking for a return. The soundtrack is already paid for out of the film's budget. The composer, the performers, etc. are all already paid. Given how integral DVD sales are in a film's financials, I would take issue with your "icing on the cake claim". If anything, the soundtrack fits that description much more so than home viewing sales.
Out of curiousity, have you gone through the update process where they ask about verfication? I would say that to 80% of users out there the wording made it seem that verification was mandatory use the system. I doubt, very much, that users were "worried if it's legit." I really don't think that the majority of 800,000 consumers think like that.
I think you are 100% wrong and I am surprised that with all the conspiracy theorists who post here no one has really put together that MSFT is making the move towards updates only for verified, activated copies and, likely, attempting to close the non-activation loophole for volume licensed copies with Longhorn (which is how Windows is pirated today). The "we just want to make sure you didn't... er... buy a copy that was pirated" line is crap.
They have to be careful and I think they know it. If you piss off mixed sites (household or business sites that have a mix or paid-for and pirated copies) you run a serious risk of migration to Linux (as Windows - or any OS - without updates is pretty worthless). Also, you have the old "you have some type of responsibility to your code" argument that was made around SP2. Not that I think MSFT gives a shit about the idea, but as a PR idea it is of value ("MICROSOFT CODE PLAGUES INTERNET DUE TO REFUSAL OF PATCH!").
In reality, I think the recent trend towards copyright-with-an-iron-fist-double-checked will likely backfire. If every Joe User and even every Bob SuperAdmin had to pay full price (even OEM) for every single copy of Windows & Office (and Photoshop and x and y and z) out there, you would see a serious exodus to Linux and related. Fuck security, fuck philosophy... Ask you Mom to pay $500 for Office and see how she reacts (your Mother might be an OSS super-coder, so please just take the example as an example and don't be a prat). Piracy has always made commercial software pricing palpable & if the commercial software world wants to challenge that thesis, I really believe they do so at their peril.
Actually, I have thought for a while that if the OSS community wanted to heighten the Linux desktop penetration numbers, the best way would be to form a "We Hate Dirty Pirates" group and spend six/twelve months devising & implementing (for free) anti-piracy mechanisms for the Win32 platform. Come up with a killer scheme, and you would have done more than anyone for your platform.
I am pretty sure that anything that is a "public performance" requires ASCAP fees... even if it is playing the radio. I was surprised when I found this fact out as one has to wonder how many times the ASCAP thinks it should be paid for one perfomance.
well... which in bit torrent is (usually) happening at the same time, no? so they could get you for "just" downloading as you are putting chunks back...
Re:DEBATE POLL: REPLY WITH WHO YOU THINK WON!
on
Netscape Turns 10
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
What kind of fucking sicko mods poking Heather Graham as offtopic?
What I would want to see from Rackspace is one, single indication that they cared about this action. Were I Rackspace (to answer your question) I would have put something in the Press Release out that indicated that although I couldn't do anything about it, I wasn't happy about having to do this to one of my customers. I understand the corporate CYA play that Rackspace made, but I think there are other hosts in the world (and Rackspace is acatually one of the most expensive hosts around).
Are you actually trying to argue AAPLs market share via servers? Seriously? X-Servers are a fucking joke in terms of % -- irrespective of how cool Mac hardware is, etc.
Brining servers into a Mac vs. x86 argument is pretty stupid (if you are trying to argue pro-Mac, as you are).
Slashdot Mirror
As a consumer, I wouldn't mind the 12.95 fee personally (although I am more interested in a media PC than a Tivo at this point) but as an investor I know -- without a doubt -- that the vast majority of consumers have a very hard time understanding the value. Esp. when their cable company will front them a PCR for a few dollars extra a month. Yeah, it will suck but that's the point: It will have the price point to be viable. Even if it is an inferior product.
I was a Tivo investor for years but I am 100% out of the stock now. I just don't see (as of today) what the company is doing that can fight against the generic PVR & media PC threats. Maybe the new CEO will have some ideas. Maybe he wont.
It looks to me more like the **AA will sue everything under the sun ... the site that indexes the trackers, the site that hosts the trackers and the individuals that are ul/dl the files. I don't think they are thinking about bang for the buck anymore -- Their whole approach seems to have become very emotional.
Now, if they wanted to talk about 1TB discs ... then I would be thinking about replacing all the drives I own.
You mention that people did not read the article, but does it not say that Google went to court to allow your company to do just what could do before? That was what the whole Geico case was about (as you state in your frist P). So ... you did or didn't want to be able to do what your company was doing?
I don't really get this & never have. I am sure that Geico doesn't want anyone to advertise under a search on their name, but why is it so crazy that say ... Progressive ... slips an ad in saying "Hey, get an on-line quote from us before you go with Geico". As long as it's clear that it's an ad (which it is on Google) I don't care. If I "just want to read about Geico" than I wouldn't really be looking at the ad section of Google anyway.
Why don't they? It seems like the only thing some corporations understand is backlash. The entertainment industry has more or less been following the philosophy of "Suck It, Bitch" for a while now (especially when it comes to new technologies). If it weren't for piracy you wouldn't see iTunes, etc.
It's an ugly way to do it, but progress is like that at times.
I marveled over the price NAS vs. the underlying gigs for a while but after talking to enterprise people it made more sense. When they need to deploy these out fast, it is worth the money. As for building one for 2000 ... yeah, there is a shit load of money in storage solutions right now BUT mostly in the enterprise space. Meaning they only want to deal with DELL, HP, IBM etc. But if you can talk to a local shop that doesn't need national coverage you can set up a custom, inexpensive RAID setup for far, far less than HP/IBM/DELL. It's just not that common that local firms need terabytes and terabytes.
I think you are correct ... it's just a question of what the final percentage is. If you take away d/l movies (and music) I think the case for broadband becomes less and less.
look inside a graphics house -- A lot of people are still using CRT. LCDs have many advantages, but saying that digital imaging is better .. well, it may very well be to you, but i would have to say that is a minority opinion.
Believe me, I am well aware of versioning. But that is mostly a software question: All you have to do is tell the software to see your array and then program it the way you want it (daily for two weeks, then monthly for a year, etc.). Then you can just sync off-site with another array. The arrays themselves are stupid - it's just data to them and they will synch whatever you have and to the software it's just a storage container. To me, tape has always felt like a pain in the ass (e.g. a pain in the ass that you have to pay a lot for, pay people to operate every day and does not - outside of some classroom discussion - have any increase in reliability that the extra money would result in). If a disk goes bad, I just put in another one and go about my business. I don't even have to put my sandwich down. Everything can be looked at via a web interface and thus set to send warnings (e.g. get an email that you need a new disk). Hey, if you want to use tape - fine. It's been done forever and the results are well known. I am just saying that there are other options that are seriously overlooked.
Yeah, I agree but you would be surprised how many people think that unless you are using tape, you are not doing backup. That's it: If it's not on tape, it's not backup (the idea that tape is that reliable amazes me -- it never is more reliable than when comparing it against disk based backup ... suddenly, people act like tape never corrupts). If someone is talking about one Raid 5 array and saying "I'm all set" then, yes, that is a shitty backup plan. But one set of tapes stored on-site has risks as well.
A man of my own mind ... I have used a 3 RAID 5 setup with good results: One array for use, one for on-site backup and one off-site for backup replication. You are correct re: tape reliability and furthermore you dont' have to pay someone (daily) to fuck around with the tapes. Of couse, everytime RAID backup is mentioned, some fuddy duddy 1960's Admin get's into a hissy fit screaming "RAID isn't a backup solution" but if you can get past that you can see the awesome power of using multiple RAID arrays as a backup solution.
Staggering the ads in all 3 would probablly work much better. I don't think people pay a lot of attention to a singular ad .. in the society that we live in with all of the advertising noise out there, it's almost impossible. But, if you can, after 3 ads in different papers get a few people who read them to say "Oh yeah, this firefox thing ...". Then, maybe, the idea works.
It's not like the soundtrack to a film is an independent production (e.g. "Music Inspired By ...") that was self-funded and is thus looking for a return. The soundtrack is already paid for out of the film's budget. The composer, the performers, etc. are all already paid. Given how integral DVD sales are in a film's financials, I would take issue with your "icing on the cake claim". If anything, the soundtrack fits that description much more so than home viewing sales.
Out of curiousity, have you gone through the update process where they ask about verfication? I would say that to 80% of users out there the wording made it seem that verification was mandatory use the system. I doubt, very much, that users were "worried if it's legit." I really don't think that the majority of 800,000 consumers think like that.
I think you are 100% wrong and I am surprised that with all the conspiracy theorists who post here no one has really put together that MSFT is making the move towards updates only for verified, activated copies and, likely, attempting to close the non-activation loophole for volume licensed copies with Longhorn (which is how Windows is pirated today). The "we just want to make sure you didn't ... er ... buy a copy that was pirated" line is crap.
... Ask you Mom to pay $500 for Office and see how she reacts (your Mother might be an OSS super-coder, so please just take the example as an example and don't be a prat). Piracy has always made commercial software pricing palpable & if the commercial software world wants to challenge that thesis, I really believe they do so at their peril.
They have to be careful and I think they know it. If you piss off mixed sites (household or business sites that have a mix or paid-for and pirated copies) you run a serious risk of migration to Linux (as Windows - or any OS - without updates is pretty worthless). Also, you have the old "you have some type of responsibility to your code" argument that was made around SP2. Not that I think MSFT gives a shit about the idea, but as a PR idea it is of value ("MICROSOFT CODE PLAGUES INTERNET DUE TO REFUSAL OF PATCH!").
In reality, I think the recent trend towards copyright-with-an-iron-fist-double-checked will likely backfire. If every Joe User and even every Bob SuperAdmin had to pay full price (even OEM) for every single copy of Windows & Office (and Photoshop and x and y and z) out there, you would see a serious exodus to Linux and related. Fuck security, fuck philosophy
Actually, I have thought for a while that if the OSS community wanted to heighten the Linux desktop penetration numbers, the best way would be to form a "We Hate Dirty Pirates" group and spend six/twelve months devising & implementing (for free) anti-piracy mechanisms for the Win32 platform. Come up with a killer scheme, and you would have done more than anyone for your platform.
No fooling. I've never heard anyone wish they could be part of the mess known as a modern-day corporate merger. It is almost like a S&M fetish.
I am pretty sure that anything that is a "public performance" requires ASCAP fees ... even if it is playing the radio. I was surprised when I found this fact out as one has to wonder how many times the ASCAP thinks it should be paid for one perfomance.
well ... which in bit torrent is (usually) happening at the same time, no? so they could get you for "just" downloading as you are putting chunks back ...
What kind of fucking sicko mods poking Heather Graham as offtopic?
Honestly couldn't agree more. The entire thing is just ... odd.
What I would want to see from Rackspace is one, single indication that they cared about this action. Were I Rackspace (to answer your question) I would have put something in the Press Release out that indicated that although I couldn't do anything about it, I wasn't happy about having to do this to one of my customers. I understand the corporate CYA play that Rackspace made, but I think there are other hosts in the world (and Rackspace is acatually one of the most expensive hosts around).
Are you actually trying to argue AAPLs market share via servers? Seriously? X-Servers are a fucking joke in terms of % -- irrespective of how cool Mac hardware is, etc.
Brining servers into a Mac vs. x86 argument is pretty stupid (if you are trying to argue pro-Mac, as you are).
Thank you for posting this. It was actually interesting.
On the times I've been there I found the people who work there to be cheerful and to do their job diligently.
/. ID less-than 2650.
... My God.
Okay, now I know you are lying.
Anonymous Coward with a
Wow, you really are a fucking wanker