You must be the most gullible person in the universe to think that a 3cm range device is meant to be a ranged device. Your devices are actually supposed to remain in full contact. You sit your cam down on the pad, and in a couple of seconds you pick it back up. There's nothing universal about it.
This may be lame, but it's not Sony's version of USB wireless.
On another note, since you set it down and pick it up pretty quick, it works like a can opener. If you nudge it half an inch and it stops working, you just put it in place and it's done in a few seconds. It's not a flaw at all. the device knows whether you want to upload your files solely because the device is in range. You don't have to push buttons or look to see what files have moved already or categorize where the files go. Once it's in range, it automates everything and you are done in a few seconds.
This has nothing to do with USB. The Sony haters are really blowing their credibility. Sony's on fire this year. Granted, I have no use for this device, but I can think of many who do. USB wireless can't compete with this, because it's entirely a different thing.
3cm is really just a proxy for 0cm. You aren't supposed to use this like wireless USB, and it's absurd to compare the too. Sony certainly isn't. This is FUD.
You set the device on the transferjet and it determines which files you haven't moved onto yet and does so. It categorizes them automatically. It's a freaking dock. It's not for keyboards or TVs or anything like that. It is certainly not a universal serial connection.
The 3cm is actually over-engineering, not under.
I think this is a stupid product, but it's great for those who are boobs with cameras and computers. I guess slashdot has run out of CES stories, so it's making them up as it goes along.
That's because this is not really a competitor for Wireless USB. Sony is not using this device to compete with USB, and whoever is behind this story probably knows it.
This transferjet is just a very slick dock. That's all it is. It automatically transfers your media when you sit your product on the station. 3cm is a proxy for 0cm, since you are supposed to just sit it down.
Sony has actually done pretty well in formats. Minidisc was very profitable, as were others.
But anyway, this story is pure FUD. This transferjet thing doesn't compete with wireless USB. It's just a different thing that also transfers data wirelessly. This transferjet was like those Kodak Easyshare camera docks. It's about automating the uploading of media files. It's not about the wireless standard.
Oh, and memory sticks are great. They are very durable, etc. I know it's fashionable to hate Sony. You're free to hate away, but I'm pretty sure this is much ado about nothing.
I honestly think you're plain wrong, but I have no evidence.
Let's assume you're right, for sake of argument.
Isn't it worth $20 to keep Vista? You can partition off 80% of your hard drive for Ubuntu, which is better for most people than Suse. And you can use Windows for those occasions that you need to (even if it's very rare, it's worth $20.
Most customers out there are going to realize this, and keep Vista while acquiring their own free distro.
Am I accusing IBM of ripping people off? No. The real reason it's only $20 off is because IBM has to spend a lot more per Suse machine to implement and support, because it's at such a lower scale. this is why I argue that Linux users whould have basic knowledge of how to install their own OS, and support their own computer. Frankly, I think everyone whould have such basic knowledge. We are tolerating too much ignorance, and it causes enormous opportunities for crappy support Geek Squads and Trojan distributors.
I'm asking folks to know how to install Linux, which I think can be pretty easy to learn. Is that really flamebait? It is just something someone disagrees with, or is it flamebait? I'm recently back to/. after years away, so maybe I just don't understand the culture here, but I think the moderating is kinda bizarre. Clue me in please.
Is it really that hard to install Linux? Jesus, man, you stick a live cd in there and click a couple of things. It's pretty damn important to understand formating drives, etc, and whatever basic stuff goes along with installing an OS.
Linux, particularly Ubuntu, is somewhat easy to use, but you will come into problems. Almost always you will need to figure something out, be it how to fix your resolution or how to get a driver, or whatever. It's not hard, but it's at the level where you probably should be capable of installing the freaking OS in teh first place.
Unless you think it's totally ok that your friends are defendant on you. You realize that, aside from these laptops, most Linux users don't get the kind of support Windows users have access to. They can't always find a friend to help, they can't go to Best Buy (no loss there, but...) and generally their vendor, ISP, etc, will not help them out.
They need to learn how to freaking install an OS. Just as everyone who drives needs to at least understand how to change oil, rotate and chance tires, etc, just so they don't get totally screwed because they are too dependant on others.
I have NO IDEA why my post is construed as flamebait. I prefer Ubuntu, and I'm not trying to denounce its use. It takes all of ten minutes to explain most of this shit to somebody. All I'm saying is, next time you give your friend Linux, walk through the installation so they understand. Because, if their like me, they're going to want to try using sevearl live cds of different linux flavors, and probably will even install another (or a newer version of the same one) eventually.
Granted, this is a laptop that will be supported. It's still kinda a waste of money in my opinion, when you can get Vista for merely $20 dollar more, and just partition a separate drive for Ubuntu (this is precisely how my thinkpad looks, except I downgraded to XP). Vista may suck, but it's worth $20 to keep the ability to run some Windows stuff.
I guess IBM might have more expenses getting Suse on these things than Vista (per laptop, since these don't scale like Windows).
If that's not the case, then this $20 savings isn't acceptable to me. If you're using Linux, you need to know how to install Linux. So like you say, let's see some unformatted hard drives or a totally free OS.
Soooo, the fact that people are willing to get something for free indicates that an item is overpriced? Not really.
I think what would indicate the price is too high is if the songs would sell enough at a lower price to make more profit overall. For example, if the 1$ song was sold at 75 cents, it would have to sell 25% more (or more likely, closer to twice as much, since some costs are fixed per song) to justify that price. I'm sure there are some focus groups used, and I'm also sure temporary price changes for some songs are used to gauge the price.
Your theory is obviously not the right one. I will let you take this Honda Accord for free, or I will et you take this Honda Accord for $3000.00. If you take the free one, there is an extremely low chance of you getting into somewhat annoying, but not extremely serious trouble. I bet a lot of people would take the free car, but this does not mean that Accords should be sold at less than $3000.
The music industry is making money right now off of online sales. And it's not better than what you can get for free, except that it's somewhat more convenient. Piracy, at least enormously, is committed by those who would not have paid money anyway. They are almost irrelevant. Sometimes, they kinda serve as advertising (I have gone to movies if the one I torrented was really good and I want to see the big-screen version, and I do buy almbums if I like its songs I get from "index of" googling. but usually, I download free stuff I don't really need to have, or stuff that I flat-out cannot even find.
Not that the industry shouldn't worry about piracy, but your argument is actually what the music industry errs to believe when it pushes DRM (believing that the only wy to compete with free is to curb how much stuff is free).
My Sony Ericsson seems to have a pretty decent OS, user interface, clean package, and seamless multimedia. It's not partnered with cell providers in any meaningful way... but why the hell would I want that?
And my phone came free with my cell phone plan. It holds 8 gbs. Right now, two movies and thousands of songs and hundreds of pictures. It can transfer content very easily to virtually any device that accepts bluetooth, IR, takes a memory stick, or has a USB port. I can put any software on it I like very easily, and Sony provides free programs on the internet. I don't have to download any of it over my cell connection.
Now, emailing on this little pad is kinda crappy, but it is also crappy on the iphone. I can get internet on my Ericsson, and it transfers to my laptop. I can leave the phone in my pocket and have a decent connection wherever I go.
In short, the points you mention are just whispy little nice things you could say about nearly anything electronic these days. None of it explains why the iphone is so trendy. The iphone is a great device solely because of its touch-screen innovations, and it's nice and large screen. That's it (but that can be a lot if you like that stuff). The interface is fine. But that's a minimal standard. The interfaces on most devices in that price range is fine. That lack of tactile sucks, but it's just matter of prioritizing. IF you send a lot of emails, you should get something else. If you like gorgeous and new tech and watching your photos, etc, wherever you go, the iphone is cool. I personally think the Sony is better at music and OS, but that's just taste.
You have to keep in mind that enormous numbers of songs have been sold, at low quality and with DRM, from itunes, at a buck a song.
So if the market will bear that cost, I think the "true price" will be significantly more than a penny, and probably even more than a dollar. I think a great song is worth more than a dollar to be able to play whenever I want.
I'll buy CDs for 18$ if I really like them. So I think the idea of pennies per song is ludicrous. It's a fake demand so folks can pirate until that demand is met.
Perhaps the nearly free idea stems from the fact that bands (generally) get almost all their money from rock concerts, and (generally) make very little from album sales. That's not fair though. Bands should make far more money from song sales.
The key is to somehow filter all the music by quality without the record labels (as if the labels were doing this well). Then the bands can make their buck per unrestricted lossless song, and the record companies can change into some sort of weak organization. It's not happening yet, and I don't know if it will happen soon. Music sales are dominated by powerful corporations right now. And much of the mystique behind popular bands are marketing, videos, etc, that often take a lot of money bands don't have.
I think the only thing standing in the way of your model is that portable media players aren't suited for downloading all the time. I wonder if Sony's Walkman/Ericsson will eventually try something along these lines.
You think this only amounts ot "blizzard doesn't like it"?
Isn't this more like, Blizzard made the freaking game, and they might want to make a handheld version at some point, and these people are stealing their ideas?
These coders are talented. They can make something similar, but with their own ideas. It's actually pretty hard to do, but that's exactly why it's wrong to copy. That's the rule of law. there are places that do not respect the rule of law. And that's why we have region coding, etc. I sure don't appreciate it.
I was being a bit facetious, but often these files, even nonexecutable.avis are attempts to infect systems. You might find that they demand you download their free player to play the.avi (obviously a dumb thing to do, but you did waste hours of your connection downloading the file, which is annoying enough).
Or the file might be compressed in such a way you can't tell what is in the file until you open it up.
These are just risks you have to navigate. Some are easy to avoid, some are more difficult. I'm willing to pay netflix, not only to get 1080p and lossless sound, but also to not have to worry about all the crap that is flooding torrent search engines.
But some will believe that music isn't worth their money, but is worth the effort to torrent. they will claim that they are just not willing to reward the awful quality of music with their money, rather than complaining about money.
Or, of ocurse, they will claim that the formats you can buy just aren't good enough. They will want lossless.
But, like you say, if sales of music don't pick up, and piracy doesn't decline, some in the industry will exclaim that DRM must return. Not sure that this affects the pirates very much.
Pirates: at least remove all the tags, etc, so it's not too obvious that files you share came from DRM-free stores.
Well, Toshiba lower prices below profitability because they were expecting enormous profits later.
I think part of the free market is that sometimes there are times to reap what you've sown. Using immense profits in one area to fuel innovative research in another. It's not as though all ideas are beasts running around killing eachother for limited wealth. That's not true. The market itself grows, and everyone can do better, if certain ecoomic ideas are followed.
There's no reason for Toshiba to lower prices. They will make more money by not doing so, especially since they make money on sales of Playstation 3s, etc. When a deal was made between Sony and Toshiba, both parties gave up something that, to them, was worth less than what they got. The both came out richer, and that's how the economy grows. With each fair deal, the economy gets larger.
Also, it's not as though every engineer that would lose their job if HD-DVD were made a free standard would be off to make something else innovative. Generally, you need a lot more than engineers to make new things. You need wealth too. If HD-DVD is made an open format, then there would be less wealth in electronics companies, and less research. It's simple. There would be fewer deals made, and therefore less wealth generated.
In programming, where there is less need for money, open source ideas have been enormously helpful because of the massive monopoly Microsoft has erected. I don't think this is true in the media format arena.
Price fixing, as lame as it sounds, is actually necessary. These companies, all the many that have organized together, have to know what's coming in the future. I have no problem with Toshiba making 12 billion on DVD, or Sony making 24 billion on blu-ray. That's awesome, actually. Take that money from the average joe, and make something amazing. Something like OLED TVs at 1080p, or whatever. Concentrations of wealth are not always good, but rich technology companies can be wonderful for a lot of people who didn't get rich.
I definitely do not want to see barely profitable DVD formats. Why would I? To save 100$ over the course of five years? Why would I want that? I want Sony and Toshiba to invest billions into cool tech that they think will make them richer, because I want to have access to new things that require such research investments. That's what's best for me, my friend.
But still, you didn't answer my question: do you have any blu-ray movies? Don't they disclaim that they won't work in all blu-ray movie players? Perhaps this is just lawyers being lawyers.
Certainly, this takes a huge criticism away from the HDDVD fans. If all blu-ray movies works in all blu-ray players, that's 99.99999% of satisfaction. All that other crap is generally useless and often annoying. I don't really see many people even noticing.
So, all this version crap relates to ancillary nonsense like trailers, and only slightly harms super-early adopters. And the regions are a major drag, but again, not even noticeable for most consumers.
So what is the advantage HD0DVD has that makes up for the seemingly fundamental major technical inferiorities, such as bitrate and capacity? Can someone explain to me why HD0DVD advocates chose their position? If it's for a specific set of movies, that I can understand, if it's the lame Sony bashing out there, I at least acknowledge that reality. Is there something else I'm overlooking? Price is probably all there is, but we all know Toshiba was just subsidizing. Their is no reason to believe HD DVD is really going to be much cheaper after blu-ray tools up, is there?
They say HD DVD is more similar to DVD. Does this mean long-term or short-term savings? And how much were those HD-DVD players before Toshiba subsidy?
Until the 1950s, the states all had fairly different laws regulating what is a contract, what to do whent here is no contract, what kind of promises become part of the warranty, and what kinds of rules govern this or that aspect of deals.
To encourage more deal making, uniform rules were suggested, and 49 states adopted the UCC is one form or another so that contract practices were fluid and consistent. Technically, Louisiana went a different way, but largely is in line with other states.
The UCC is totally optional for state legislators. You see these types of model codes attempted in most legal fields. The Model Penal Code, for example, was not adopted by even a single state (though the military uses it). The UCC is probably the most successful example of these kinds of reform, but have little to do with federalism per se.
I was just being flippant. While technically La. didn't adopt the UCC like the 49 other states did, all the states are subtly different, and LA. is close enough in most areas.
As you say, the UCC is state law. It isn't related to Federal legislation to regulate interstate commerce. UCC applies to everyday people and businesses in the transactions they make.
I agree that early adopters should expect this sort of problem. But that totally contradicts your other statement that early adopters are going to have to replace their devices.
And it's not clear that all that early blu-ray devices lack are extra features. Do you own a blu-ray disc? It probably has a warning that it doesn't work in early blu-ray players. Why?
While it's always wise to save your money if it's tight, that's not a very good answer. If someone pays good money for a blu-ray player, it ought to work. IF it doesn't that's unfair, and probably breach. That thing wasn't advertised as a temporary blu-ray player.
Time will tell, and the people running blu-ray seem smart enough to deal with this problem correctly.
The blu-ray is harder to rip and transfer. Most consumers don't want to do that. Sucks for me, but the average person does not want to backup their collection of 25 gb, nearly invincible discs. Also, blu-rays actually permit you to transfer the movie to portable devices or memory sticks, so the consumer is actually getting more use. Also, the regions are twice as big, if that matters to more than a handful of people.
Is blu-ray worse on drm than HD DVD? Yeah. But the customer didn't care, and we need one format. Hd DVD became more of a roadblock to buying movies than anything else, an obvious parry to attempt to screw up the disc selling market so Microsoft could jump in with downloadable rentals. Another example of that company trying to destroy competitors instead of competing with better products. In a fair world, this HD DVD crap would be another billion dollar lawsuit.
As soon as MS got behind HD DVD, the studios knew that HD DVD would not win. As soon as it took the lead, MS would hamper it to keep the race going as long as possible. Only blu-ray could win, as soon as MS got in the ring. So really, MS killed HD DVD, and also ripped off all those people buying players and Toshiba for subsidizing them.
Why didn't DVD fail, then. I burn dvds, but the vast majority of folks out there could care less.
Laserdisk failed because it was stupid. Huge fragile discs? Lame. DVDs are easy to buy and carry around, and work well. I don't think they took off because of DVD burners, to say the very least.
What's wrong with getting a PS3? Frankly, everyone sticking with the 360 is the last thing you should want if you like novel games. MS is probably not going to go about dominating the game world the way Sony did, with so many oddball games.
the 360 is certainly the best system now, and it's sure humbled an arrogant Sony, but the Japanese are better at this, and I think that's ok. German cars and Japanese electronics. The best thing for you and me is for there to be three strong competing console brands, so gamers don't get ripped off by MS's subscription model or whatever they have planned to get all those billions back.
Do you think any of Bill's circle are willing to tell him that Vista is a total mess? Probably not. Bill Gates no longer needs to know the bad stuff, he's not in charge anyway.
I wanted to buy a laptop yesterday, and the kid at Fry's told me they just didn't have any laptops with XP anymore, but I should be happy to take Vista, because it's so much safer. Except, I'm not an idiot, so XP is actually really safe enough for me, and 170% faster, and works with all my software. Can't blame MS for moving forward or whatever they are doing, but I'm glad there are some alternatives for my computer if I can get a fast laptop with no OS on it.
Slashdot Mirror
You must be the most gullible person in the universe to think that a 3cm range device is meant to be a ranged device. Your devices are actually supposed to remain in full contact. You sit your cam down on the pad, and in a couple of seconds you pick it back up. There's nothing universal about it.
This may be lame, but it's not Sony's version of USB wireless.
On another note, since you set it down and pick it up pretty quick, it works like a can opener. If you nudge it half an inch and it stops working, you just put it in place and it's done in a few seconds. It's not a flaw at all. the device knows whether you want to upload your files solely because the device is in range. You don't have to push buttons or look to see what files have moved already or categorize where the files go. Once it's in range, it automates everything and you are done in a few seconds.
This has nothing to do with USB. The Sony haters are really blowing their credibility. Sony's on fire this year. Granted, I have no use for this device, but I can think of many who do. USB wireless can't compete with this, because it's entirely a different thing.
3cm is really just a proxy for 0cm. You aren't supposed to use this like wireless USB, and it's absurd to compare the too. Sony certainly isn't. This is FUD.
You set the device on the transferjet and it determines which files you haven't moved onto yet and does so. It categorizes them automatically. It's a freaking dock. It's not for keyboards or TVs or anything like that. It is certainly not a universal serial connection.
The 3cm is actually over-engineering, not under.
I think this is a stupid product, but it's great for those who are boobs with cameras and computers. I guess slashdot has run out of CES stories, so it's making them up as it goes along.
That's because this is not really a competitor for Wireless USB. Sony is not using this device to compete with USB, and whoever is behind this story probably knows it.
This transferjet is just a very slick dock. That's all it is. It automatically transfers your media when you sit your product on the station. 3cm is a proxy for 0cm, since you are supposed to just sit it down.
To compare this with wireless USB is ridiculous.
Sony has actually done pretty well in formats. Minidisc was very profitable, as were others.
But anyway, this story is pure FUD. This transferjet thing doesn't compete with wireless USB. It's just a different thing that also transfers data wirelessly. This transferjet was like those Kodak Easyshare camera docks. It's about automating the uploading of media files. It's not about the wireless standard.
Oh, and memory sticks are great. They are very durable, etc. I know it's fashionable to hate Sony. You're free to hate away, but I'm pretty sure this is much ado about nothing.
I honestly think you're plain wrong, but I have no evidence.
/. after years away, so maybe I just don't understand the culture here, but I think the moderating is kinda bizarre. Clue me in please.
Let's assume you're right, for sake of argument.
Isn't it worth $20 to keep Vista? You can partition off 80% of your hard drive for Ubuntu, which is better for most people than Suse. And you can use Windows for those occasions that you need to (even if it's very rare, it's worth $20.
Most customers out there are going to realize this, and keep Vista while acquiring their own free distro.
Am I accusing IBM of ripping people off? No. The real reason it's only $20 off is because IBM has to spend a lot more per Suse machine to implement and support, because it's at such a lower scale. this is why I argue that Linux users whould have basic knowledge of how to install their own OS, and support their own computer. Frankly, I think everyone whould have such basic knowledge. We are tolerating too much ignorance, and it causes enormous opportunities for crappy support Geek Squads and Trojan distributors.
I'm asking folks to know how to install Linux, which I think can be pretty easy to learn. Is that really flamebait? It is just something someone disagrees with, or is it flamebait? I'm recently back to
Is it really that hard to install Linux? Jesus, man, you stick a live cd in there and click a couple of things. It's pretty damn important to understand formating drives, etc, and whatever basic stuff goes along with installing an OS.
Linux, particularly Ubuntu, is somewhat easy to use, but you will come into problems. Almost always you will need to figure something out, be it how to fix your resolution or how to get a driver, or whatever. It's not hard, but it's at the level where you probably should be capable of installing the freaking OS in teh first place.
Unless you think it's totally ok that your friends are defendant on you. You realize that, aside from these laptops, most Linux users don't get the kind of support Windows users have access to. They can't always find a friend to help, they can't go to Best Buy (no loss there, but...) and generally their vendor, ISP, etc, will not help them out.
They need to learn how to freaking install an OS. Just as everyone who drives needs to at least understand how to change oil, rotate and chance tires, etc, just so they don't get totally screwed because they are too dependant on others.
I have NO IDEA why my post is construed as flamebait. I prefer Ubuntu, and I'm not trying to denounce its use. It takes all of ten minutes to explain most of this shit to somebody. All I'm saying is, next time you give your friend Linux, walk through the installation so they understand. Because, if their like me, they're going to want to try using sevearl live cds of different linux flavors, and probably will even install another (or a newer version of the same one) eventually.
Granted, this is a laptop that will be supported. It's still kinda a waste of money in my opinion, when you can get Vista for merely $20 dollar more, and just partition a separate drive for Ubuntu (this is precisely how my thinkpad looks, except I downgraded to XP). Vista may suck, but it's worth $20 to keep the ability to run some Windows stuff.
I guess IBM might have more expenses getting Suse on these things than Vista (per laptop, since these don't scale like Windows).
If that's not the case, then this $20 savings isn't acceptable to me. If you're using Linux, you need to know how to install Linux. So like you say, let's see some unformatted hard drives or a totally free OS.
Soooo, the fact that people are willing to get something for free indicates that an item is overpriced? Not really.
I think what would indicate the price is too high is if the songs would sell enough at a lower price to make more profit overall. For example, if the 1$ song was sold at 75 cents, it would have to sell 25% more (or more likely, closer to twice as much, since some costs are fixed per song) to justify that price. I'm sure there are some focus groups used, and I'm also sure temporary price changes for some songs are used to gauge the price.
Your theory is obviously not the right one. I will let you take this Honda Accord for free, or I will et you take this Honda Accord for $3000.00. If you take the free one, there is an extremely low chance of you getting into somewhat annoying, but not extremely serious trouble. I bet a lot of people would take the free car, but this does not mean that Accords should be sold at less than $3000.
The music industry is making money right now off of online sales. And it's not better than what you can get for free, except that it's somewhat more convenient. Piracy, at least enormously, is committed by those who would not have paid money anyway. They are almost irrelevant. Sometimes, they kinda serve as advertising (I have gone to movies if the one I torrented was really good and I want to see the big-screen version, and I do buy almbums if I like its songs I get from "index of" googling. but usually, I download free stuff I don't really need to have, or stuff that I flat-out cannot even find.
Not that the industry shouldn't worry about piracy, but your argument is actually what the music industry errs to believe when it pushes DRM (believing that the only wy to compete with free is to curb how much stuff is free).
My Sony Ericsson seems to have a pretty decent OS, user interface, clean package, and seamless multimedia. It's not partnered with cell providers in any meaningful way... but why the hell would I want that?
And my phone came free with my cell phone plan. It holds 8 gbs. Right now, two movies and thousands of songs and hundreds of pictures. It can transfer content very easily to virtually any device that accepts bluetooth, IR, takes a memory stick, or has a USB port. I can put any software on it I like very easily, and Sony provides free programs on the internet. I don't have to download any of it over my cell connection.
Now, emailing on this little pad is kinda crappy, but it is also crappy on the iphone. I can get internet on my Ericsson, and it transfers to my laptop. I can leave the phone in my pocket and have a decent connection wherever I go.
In short, the points you mention are just whispy little nice things you could say about nearly anything electronic these days. None of it explains why the iphone is so trendy. The iphone is a great device solely because of its touch-screen innovations, and it's nice and large screen. That's it (but that can be a lot if you like that stuff). The interface is fine. But that's a minimal standard. The interfaces on most devices in that price range is fine. That lack of tactile sucks, but it's just matter of prioritizing. IF you send a lot of emails, you should get something else. If you like gorgeous and new tech and watching your photos, etc, wherever you go, the iphone is cool. I personally think the Sony is better at music and OS, but that's just taste.
You have to keep in mind that enormous numbers of songs have been sold, at low quality and with DRM, from itunes, at a buck a song.
So if the market will bear that cost, I think the "true price" will be significantly more than a penny, and probably even more than a dollar. I think a great song is worth more than a dollar to be able to play whenever I want.
I'll buy CDs for 18$ if I really like them. So I think the idea of pennies per song is ludicrous. It's a fake demand so folks can pirate until that demand is met.
Perhaps the nearly free idea stems from the fact that bands (generally) get almost all their money from rock concerts, and (generally) make very little from album sales. That's not fair though. Bands should make far more money from song sales.
The key is to somehow filter all the music by quality without the record labels (as if the labels were doing this well). Then the bands can make their buck per unrestricted lossless song, and the record companies can change into some sort of weak organization. It's not happening yet, and I don't know if it will happen soon. Music sales are dominated by powerful corporations right now. And much of the mystique behind popular bands are marketing, videos, etc, that often take a lot of money bands don't have.
I think the only thing standing in the way of your model is that portable media players aren't suited for downloading all the time. I wonder if Sony's Walkman/Ericsson will eventually try something along these lines.
You're right: this would be more profitable.
You think this only amounts ot "blizzard doesn't like it"?
Isn't this more like, Blizzard made the freaking game, and they might want to make a handheld version at some point, and these people are stealing their ideas?
These coders are talented. They can make something similar, but with their own ideas. It's actually pretty hard to do, but that's exactly why it's wrong to copy. That's the rule of law. there are places that do not respect the rule of law. And that's why we have region coding, etc. I sure don't appreciate it.
I was being a bit facetious, but often these files, even nonexecutable .avis are attempts to infect systems. You might find that they demand you download their free player to play the.avi (obviously a dumb thing to do, but you did waste hours of your connection downloading the file, which is annoying enough).
Or the file might be compressed in such a way you can't tell what is in the file until you open it up.
These are just risks you have to navigate. Some are easy to avoid, some are more difficult. I'm willing to pay netflix, not only to get 1080p and lossless sound, but also to not have to worry about all the crap that is flooding torrent search engines.
Such a great point.
But some will believe that music isn't worth their money, but is worth the effort to torrent. they will claim that they are just not willing to reward the awful quality of music with their money, rather than complaining about money.
Or, of ocurse, they will claim that the formats you can buy just aren't good enough. They will want lossless.
But, like you say, if sales of music don't pick up, and piracy doesn't decline, some in the industry will exclaim that DRM must return. Not sure that this affects the pirates very much.
Pirates: at least remove all the tags, etc, so it's not too obvious that files you share came from DRM-free stores.
Well, Toshiba lower prices below profitability because they were expecting enormous profits later.
I think part of the free market is that sometimes there are times to reap what you've sown. Using immense profits in one area to fuel innovative research in another. It's not as though all ideas are beasts running around killing eachother for limited wealth. That's not true. The market itself grows, and everyone can do better, if certain ecoomic ideas are followed.
There's no reason for Toshiba to lower prices. They will make more money by not doing so, especially since they make money on sales of Playstation 3s, etc. When a deal was made between Sony and Toshiba, both parties gave up something that, to them, was worth less than what they got. The both came out richer, and that's how the economy grows. With each fair deal, the economy gets larger.
Also, it's not as though every engineer that would lose their job if HD-DVD were made a free standard would be off to make something else innovative. Generally, you need a lot more than engineers to make new things. You need wealth too. If HD-DVD is made an open format, then there would be less wealth in electronics companies, and less research. It's simple. There would be fewer deals made, and therefore less wealth generated.
In programming, where there is less need for money, open source ideas have been enormously helpful because of the massive monopoly Microsoft has erected. I don't think this is true in the media format arena.
Price fixing, as lame as it sounds, is actually necessary. These companies, all the many that have organized together, have to know what's coming in the future. I have no problem with Toshiba making 12 billion on DVD, or Sony making 24 billion on blu-ray. That's awesome, actually. Take that money from the average joe, and make something amazing. Something like OLED TVs at 1080p, or whatever. Concentrations of wealth are not always good, but rich technology companies can be wonderful for a lot of people who didn't get rich.
I definitely do not want to see barely profitable DVD formats. Why would I? To save 100$ over the course of five years? Why would I want that? I want Sony and Toshiba to invest billions into cool tech that they think will make them richer, because I want to have access to new things that require such research investments. That's what's best for me, my friend.
A quick google leads me to believe you're right.
But still, you didn't answer my question: do you have any blu-ray movies? Don't they disclaim that they won't work in all blu-ray movie players? Perhaps this is just lawyers being lawyers.
Certainly, this takes a huge criticism away from the HDDVD fans. If all blu-ray movies works in all blu-ray players, that's 99.99999% of satisfaction. All that other crap is generally useless and often annoying. I don't really see many people even noticing.
So, all this version crap relates to ancillary nonsense like trailers, and only slightly harms super-early adopters. And the regions are a major drag, but again, not even noticeable for most consumers.
So what is the advantage HD0DVD has that makes up for the seemingly fundamental major technical inferiorities, such as bitrate and capacity? Can someone explain to me why HD0DVD advocates chose their position? If it's for a specific set of movies, that I can understand, if it's the lame Sony bashing out there, I at least acknowledge that reality. Is there something else I'm overlooking? Price is probably all there is, but we all know Toshiba was just subsidizing. Their is no reason to believe HD DVD is really going to be much cheaper after blu-ray tools up, is there?
They say HD DVD is more similar to DVD. Does this mean long-term or short-term savings? And how much were those HD-DVD players before Toshiba subsidy?
Until the 1950s, the states all had fairly different laws regulating what is a contract, what to do whent here is no contract, what kind of promises become part of the warranty, and what kinds of rules govern this or that aspect of deals.
To encourage more deal making, uniform rules were suggested, and 49 states adopted the UCC is one form or another so that contract practices were fluid and consistent. Technically, Louisiana went a different way, but largely is in line with other states.
The UCC is totally optional for state legislators. You see these types of model codes attempted in most legal fields. The Model Penal Code, for example, was not adopted by even a single state (though the military uses it). The UCC is probably the most successful example of these kinds of reform, but have little to do with federalism per se.
I was just being flippant. While technically La. didn't adopt the UCC like the 49 other states did, all the states are subtly different, and LA. is close enough in most areas.
As you say, the UCC is state law. It isn't related to Federal legislation to regulate interstate commerce. UCC applies to everyday people and businesses in the transactions they make.
I agree that early adopters should expect this sort of problem. But that totally contradicts your other statement that early adopters are going to have to replace their devices.
And it's not clear that all that early blu-ray devices lack are extra features. Do you own a blu-ray disc? It probably has a warning that it doesn't work in early blu-ray players. Why?
While it's always wise to save your money if it's tight, that's not a very good answer. If someone pays good money for a blu-ray player, it ought to work. IF it doesn't that's unfair, and probably breach. That thing wasn't advertised as a temporary blu-ray player.
Time will tell, and the people running blu-ray seem smart enough to deal with this problem correctly.
Uniform Commercial Code was never adopted in Louisiana. QFT.
The blu-ray is harder to rip and transfer. Most consumers don't want to do that. Sucks for me, but the average person does not want to backup their collection of 25 gb, nearly invincible discs. Also, blu-rays actually permit you to transfer the movie to portable devices or memory sticks, so the consumer is actually getting more use. Also, the regions are twice as big, if that matters to more than a handful of people.
Is blu-ray worse on drm than HD DVD? Yeah. But the customer didn't care, and we need one format. Hd DVD became more of a roadblock to buying movies than anything else, an obvious parry to attempt to screw up the disc selling market so Microsoft could jump in with downloadable rentals. Another example of that company trying to destroy competitors instead of competing with better products. In a fair world, this HD DVD crap would be another billion dollar lawsuit.
As soon as MS got behind HD DVD, the studios knew that HD DVD would not win. As soon as it took the lead, MS would hamper it to keep the race going as long as possible. Only blu-ray could win, as soon as MS got in the ring. So really, MS killed HD DVD, and also ripped off all those people buying players and Toshiba for subsidizing them.
Why didn't DVD fail, then. I burn dvds, but the vast majority of folks out there could care less.
Laserdisk failed because it was stupid. Huge fragile discs? Lame. DVDs are easy to buy and carry around, and work well. I don't think they took off because of DVD burners, to say the very least.
What's wrong with getting a PS3? Frankly, everyone sticking with the 360 is the last thing you should want if you like novel games. MS is probably not going to go about dominating the game world the way Sony did, with so many oddball games.
the 360 is certainly the best system now, and it's sure humbled an arrogant Sony, but the Japanese are better at this, and I think that's ok. German cars and Japanese electronics. The best thing for you and me is for there to be three strong competing console brands, so gamers don't get ripped off by MS's subscription model or whatever they have planned to get all those billions back.
What's really crazy here is not that this is the same AC who posted the gross link above, but that he really means what he says.
Make sure you teach your kids the value of self esteem.
The more you know ---*
Do you think any of Bill's circle are willing to tell him that Vista is a total mess? Probably not. Bill Gates no longer needs to know the bad stuff, he's not in charge anyway.
I wanted to buy a laptop yesterday, and the kid at Fry's told me they just didn't have any laptops with XP anymore, but I should be happy to take Vista, because it's so much safer. Except, I'm not an idiot, so XP is actually really safe enough for me, and 170% faster, and works with all my software. Can't blame MS for moving forward or whatever they are doing, but I'm glad there are some alternatives for my computer if I can get a fast laptop with no OS on it.