Both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray were proprietary, patent- and DRM-laden standards.... For once, the technically best format (Blu-Ray) won.
I'll just let these two sentences stand next to each other. They're too good.:)
It's not that Sony beat HD DVD which undermines your argument, it's that Blu-ray is a horrible technology, mostly exactly because it's DRM-laden. The blue laser is nice, the DRM and all the crap that goes onto a typical Blu-ray disc is not. What won is simply one of the two evils. Therefore, choosing Blu-ray as an "open" technology to show how good Sony is in using open technologies is just... let's call it a bad example.
Both are very closed, but one is a lot more open than the other (the PS3)
So one sucks less than the other, that doesn't make it a great example for "open".
whereas the post I was responding to was claiming that Sony uses proprietary formats.
Because the PS3 is the only device Sony is selling?
Great, when Hollywood will start distributing movies in any DRM-free form you'll be able to play them on the PS3. It supports a lot of DRM-free formats.
I don't care that I can play un-DRM'd content on a PS3. I don't have a PS3. But I do have to live with the restrictions of DRM'd Blu-ray discs, which gained in popularity thanks to such arguments as "well, it plays even on your game console, so what are you complaining about?" And Sony is a huge part of Hollywood. If they wanted to, they could distribute non-DRM'd content. Because Sony is a huge content distributor. And they are exactly the ones that insist on DRM.
Thanks for the ad-hominem attack. It's about the fifth one I've got today for posting a positive comment about a product of Sony.
I don't really have anything against Sony, believe me or not. But your defense, based virtually entirely on a single product, the PS3, is just too delicious.
But curiously, Sony are the only ones that get bashed here on Slashdot.
Oh, you must come back on the Apple-bash and Microsoft-hate days, it's fun then.
2. Stop supporting CSS, AACS, HDCP and other forms of DRM
That is, stop playing DVD, Blu-Rays, and drop the ability to connect to HDMI and DVI displays?
That's the point, come up with a frickin' format that does not use DRM and distribute movies in said format (Sony is a mayor distributor and user of DRM'd formats).
If you don't like the above mentioned technologies, you can play unprotected media and connect the PS3 via SCART, VGA or component cables anyway.
We know you love your PS3, but why do the rest of us have to put up with crippled discs we want to play elsewhere?
Also, comparing two very specific systems which are by definition very closed (gaming consoles) and a music player (which I guess you're going for with that Apple jibe) is hardly an objective comparison in the big picture. If that's all you know about these respective companies, fine, but please stay in your mom's basement.
What you're not understanding is that that isn't where the money "comes from" by any sensible reasoning, unless you want to argue that the money the home construction company makes "comes from" the bank...
I am not saying that, so why are you? I'm saying the business within Google that makes the money is its advertising business. Google's advertising business makes them their money. The construction company's construction business makes them their money. Why is this such a clear cut case for the construction company but such a complicated topic for Google? There are many businesses within Google, the one that makes the money is the advertising business, which finances all of the other businesses Google engages in. Maybe Google's advertising business would not exist without the other interesting products Google produces, that is beside the point. Of course they go hand in hand. But Google gets its money from advertisers by selling ad space to them. The users of Google's products do not physically pay money to Google, advertisers do. Advertisers physically pay money to Google's advertising business unit. How thick do you have to be to try to deny that? And I don't care what you think I implied by that or how people may perceive this statement. It's a plain simple fact. Disprove this fact. Not by straw man comparisons to hypothetical unrelated businesses or analogies, but by disproving that Google makes money from ads. That's all I said and that's all I have to say about this topic.
The only surprising thing here is that it took so long for such an easy work-around to come to light.
Exactly, come to light. The real terrorists have been doing this for years. And they have some ass kicking to do now, 'cause this little punk revealed the trick.
I may be wrong, but I'm sensing that you may not particularly like this car. That may just be me reading too much between your lines though, I tend to do this sometimes. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
The money does not come from ads, it comes through ads. Advertising is like a loan.
So is Google in the loan business, or what?
The advertiser pays for the product the user is buying, then the user pays the advertiser back (non-monetarily).
That doesn't make any sense. The advertiser (say, Ford) pays an ad agency (say, Google) for ad space in the hope that it'll bring more consumers (you) that are buying its products. The consumer (you) pays the advertiser (Ford) back very monetarily, otherwise there'd be no point in it for the advertiser. The non-monetary exchange is between the ad space provider (also Google, and others) and the consumer (you).
Maybe, just maybe, by "advertiser" you meant the ad agency. Let's try to substitute that:
Google pays for the car that you are buying, then you pay Google back (non-monetarily).
Wow. I mean. Wow! That'd be awesome! I'm in!
OK, let's forget this obviously confused statement.
If Google doesn't make money from the advertisers, but in some roundabout way from its users through ads, then... I am producing and selling websites for a living. The people that pay me for it are getting their money from selling their products. As a regular consumer I may be buying their products. So... am I paying for my own work? Yes! And No! If you follow the chain of money further than one immediate step then guess what, everybody is in everybody's business, because money goes round and round.
Oh wait, here's another one:
The main business of a home construction company is not home mortgages.
No, because they don't make any money from the fact that the house is paid for by a mortgage. The construction company makes the same money whether they're paid in cash or through a mortgage. The bank makes money on the mortgage. So it's clearly the bank that's in the mortgage business, because they're selling mortgages. The construction company is selling houses. And, guess what, Google is selling ad space. That's what they're selling. Ad space. Give ad space, take money for it. How much simpler can it get?
You're still conflating the business with the party who happened to be the last one to touch the money. The main business of a home construction company is not home mortgages. The fact that the bank is the one who physically supplies the money for the house does not make the bank the customer.
The money does not come from ads, it comes through ads. [snip]
You're really just mincing words and concepts here. The home construction company has a very simple business model: build house, get money for it from the guy who buys the house. Where that guy physically gets the money from is irrelevant. Google's business model is pretty simple as well: build products, sell ad space on those products, get money from advertisers. They get the money from the advertisers, where those advertisers get their money from and whether this whole advertising thing actually works as it's supposed to in theory is irrelevant. Google sells ad space and gets money for it. And they even resell those ads to third-parties who sell ad space, which makes them an ad agency. Which places them very squarely in the ad business.
Yes, they are also in the email/search/video/whatever business. Companies can be in more business than one. That's fine. And if they'd ever get rid of the ad business and try to make their money elsewhere, then they'd be in some other business. But that's hypothetical and doesn't change the fact that today all their money comes from their ad business. Whether they want people to think that or whether they prefer people to pay more attention to their search business doesn't matter. And again, I'm saying this without any negative meaning. Any negative meaning you are putting into the word "ad business" comes exclusively from yourself.
If you want analogies: Microsoft is in the search business as well. They're also in the game console business and the car appliance business. But their main business is the desktop operating system and office productivity software business. That's where they make virtually all their money. Most of their other projects either make virtually no profit or are loss leaders. And that's all I'm saying.
The reason people make a big deal about it is that it's a propaganda point: If they're an advertising company then they must be disreputable shysters like Donald Draper out to mislead you with into buying shit you don't need with money you don't have.
I have never said or even implied anything like this. I stated that Google is making its money from ads. Which is a fact. And that's all I said. I even said that that's neither good nor evil nor anything else, it's simply a fact. You're confusing what I'm actually saying and what you think I'm saying.
I'll just guess that "these guys" includes me, so I'll respond with:
Whoever said anything about hating? It's you guys that get all emotional, when all we (gee, did this really turn into an us-vs-them?) are saying is that Google makes (virtually) all its money from ads. And that's totally fine. I don't have a problem with that. I like using Google-made stuff. Why can't I matter-of-factly state that the money for all the Google stuff I'm using is coming from ads? Is that a dirty secret somehow?
Let me put this another way: Goals and objectives are not the same as "main business".
I am in the business of flipping hamburgers, but my real "objective" is to send my kids to school with the money I earn doing so. That doesn't mean I'm in the business of sending my kids to school.
Google's "objective" may well be to make a better world for all humans by creating useful online tools. But they're getting their money to do so from their main business: advertising.
Just like microsoft and apples main goal is to get you to hand them money directly.
And that's exactly the difference. Google gets its money from advertisers. In fact 99% of their money comes from advertisers. That makes their main business ads. Period. Fact. End of story. Microsoft's business is selling software. Apple's business is selling hardware. Google's business is selling ads. Business == where the money comes from. Yes, Google also does a lot of other stuff with the money they make from ads. I never said otherwise. It's just not their main business. All the other stuff they do helps them to make more money from ads, which helps them make more stuff. If they drop the ad business, they're out of business entirely, because they couldn't pay the bills anymore.
How can you possibly argue that they're not in the advertising business? Their main business is advertising. It's a fact. And that's all I said. They get (virtually) no revenue from anything else they're doing. That doesn't mean they're not doing anything else, just that their main business is in advertising.
But between discontinuing all the services vs. discontinuing all the ads and finding some other method to monetize the services, the latter is obviously preferable.
Preferable to you and me, obviously. Ask the shareholders though.
But you're confusing the monetization strategy with the business.
If you have a web service with a specific purpose and are monetizing it by putting a $nameOfAgency ad on it, then you're pretty clearly not in the ad business. If you are both the web service and the ad agency, then you're arguably in the ad business. You are arguably also in the $typeOfWebService business, but your money is exclusively coming from the ad business.
Now, if you take away the search engine and just have a page with ads on it, do they still make money?
Of course. Because Google ads are all over the place, not only on google.com/search. Should they ever decide to get out of one of those two, I'm pretty sure they'd rather get out of the search business than the ad business.
Again, they are doing a lot of stuff. Besides search they also do email, video, social networks and god knows what else. But the only real monetization strategy for virtually all of those "businesses" is ads. Their business is in building interesting stuff that people want to use, so they can get eyeballs on their ads, so they can pay for building interesting stuff that people want to use, so **STACKOVERFLOW**.
Their money, plain and simple, is coming from ads. That's therefore their main business, period. That doesn't mean it's evil, or good, or anything else. It's their reality.
I love knee-jerk responses just as much as the next guy, but please slowly read again what I wrote.
Does Google make any money from letting you search the web for free? No. Does Google make shitloads of money from displaying ads next to those free search results? Hell yeah.
Hold on, hold on, you're saying people don't actually work at 100% theoretical capacity 100% of their official work time? That they, like, ramp up on Mondays and wind down on Fridays? That they, like, cannot go from 0 to 100 instantly when coming into work and back down to 0 instantly when leaving? That they're, like, humans, not robots?
Woah, woah, stop the presses, this is a mayor breakthrough!
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, which is exactly why the over-DRM'd crap formats are all the more infuriating.
Both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray were proprietary, patent- and DRM-laden standards. ... For once, the technically best format (Blu-Ray) won.
I'll just let these two sentences stand next to each other. They're too good. :)
It's not that Sony beat HD DVD which undermines your argument, it's that Blu-ray is a horrible technology, mostly exactly because it's DRM-laden. The blue laser is nice, the DRM and all the crap that goes onto a typical Blu-ray disc is not. What won is simply one of the two evils. Therefore, choosing Blu-ray as an "open" technology to show how good Sony is in using open technologies is just... let's call it a bad example.
Both are very closed, but one is a lot more open than the other (the PS3)
So one sucks less than the other, that doesn't make it a great example for "open".
whereas the post I was responding to was claiming that Sony uses proprietary formats.
Because the PS3 is the only device Sony is selling?
Great, when Hollywood will start distributing movies in any DRM-free form you'll be able to play them on the PS3. It supports a lot of DRM-free formats.
I don't care that I can play un-DRM'd content on a PS3. I don't have a PS3. But I do have to live with the restrictions of DRM'd Blu-ray discs, which gained in popularity thanks to such arguments as "well, it plays even on your game console, so what are you complaining about?" And Sony is a huge part of Hollywood. If they wanted to, they could distribute non-DRM'd content. Because Sony is a huge content distributor. And they are exactly the ones that insist on DRM.
Thanks for the ad-hominem attack. It's about the fifth one I've got today for posting a positive comment about a product of Sony.
I don't really have anything against Sony, believe me or not. But your defense, based virtually entirely on a single product, the PS3, is just too delicious.
But curiously, Sony are the only ones that get bashed here on Slashdot.
Oh, you must come back on the Apple-bash and Microsoft-hate days, it's fun then.
That is, stop playing DVD, Blu-Rays, and drop the ability to connect to HDMI and DVI displays?
That's the point, come up with a frickin' format that does not use DRM and distribute movies in said format (Sony is a mayor distributor and user of DRM'd formats).
If you don't like the above mentioned technologies, you can play unprotected media and connect the PS3 via SCART, VGA or component cables anyway.
We know you love your PS3, but why do the rest of us have to put up with crippled discs we want to play elsewhere?
It's not that Sony, like Google, is plotting to insert DRM into the open standard that governs the Web.
No, because they've already inserted their DRM everywhere that matters to them.
Done. Seven years ago. And by the way, did Apple and other phone manufacturers issue any apology for installing CarrierIQ...
Interesting that you'd pick the one company by name that was the least weasel-worded about what it did and didn't use CarrieIQ for.
And guess who designed Blu-ray and shoveled tons of money into the project to push it into the market to destroy to rival HD DVD format: Sony. Learn your history.
Also, comparing two very specific systems which are by definition very closed (gaming consoles) and a music player (which I guess you're going for with that Apple jibe) is hardly an objective comparison in the big picture. If that's all you know about these respective companies, fine, but please stay in your mom's basement.
Yeah, that's actually a bit of a problem. Canadians really need to get a little more creative in naming their daughters.
I name mine after girls that I actually laid. And I'm running a data center for Google.
Ba-dum-bum.
So you're running Linux on Bob?
That's quite confusing indeed...
It originated from a long forgotten time when I can't get laid.
Too bad your freudian slip of mixing past and present tense gave you away.
What you're not understanding is that that isn't where the money "comes from" by any sensible reasoning, unless you want to argue that the money the home construction company makes "comes from" the bank...
I am not saying that, so why are you? I'm saying the business within Google that makes the money is its advertising business. Google's advertising business makes them their money. The construction company's construction business makes them their money. Why is this such a clear cut case for the construction company but such a complicated topic for Google? There are many businesses within Google, the one that makes the money is the advertising business, which finances all of the other businesses Google engages in. Maybe Google's advertising business would not exist without the other interesting products Google produces, that is beside the point. Of course they go hand in hand. But Google gets its money from advertisers by selling ad space to them. The users of Google's products do not physically pay money to Google, advertisers do. Advertisers physically pay money to Google's advertising business unit. How thick do you have to be to try to deny that? And I don't care what you think I implied by that or how people may perceive this statement. It's a plain simple fact. Disprove this fact. Not by straw man comparisons to hypothetical unrelated businesses or analogies, but by disproving that Google makes money from ads. That's all I said and that's all I have to say about this topic.
The only surprising thing here is that it took so long for such an easy work-around to come to light.
Exactly, come to light. The real terrorists have been doing this for years. And they have some ass kicking to do now, 'cause this little punk revealed the trick.
Did you mean: sign language for the hearing impaired?
I may be wrong, but I'm sensing that you may not particularly like this car.
That may just be me reading too much between your lines though, I tend to do this sometimes.
Sorry if I misunderstood you.
"I see" said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw.
Oh wait, I have another one on this:
The money does not come from ads, it comes through ads. Advertising is like a loan.
So is Google in the loan business, or what?
The advertiser pays for the product the user is buying, then the user pays the advertiser back (non-monetarily).
That doesn't make any sense. The advertiser (say, Ford) pays an ad agency (say, Google) for ad space in the hope that it'll bring more consumers (you) that are buying its products. The consumer (you) pays the advertiser (Ford) back very monetarily, otherwise there'd be no point in it for the advertiser. The non-monetary exchange is between the ad space provider (also Google, and others) and the consumer (you).
Maybe, just maybe, by "advertiser" you meant the ad agency. Let's try to substitute that:
Google pays for the car that you are buying, then you pay Google back (non-monetarily).
Wow. I mean. Wow! That'd be awesome! I'm in!
OK, let's forget this obviously confused statement.
If Google doesn't make money from the advertisers, but in some roundabout way from its users through ads, then...
I am producing and selling websites for a living. The people that pay me for it are getting their money from selling their products. As a regular consumer I may be buying their products. So... am I paying for my own work? Yes! And No! If you follow the chain of money further than one immediate step then guess what, everybody is in everybody's business, because money goes round and round.
Oh wait, here's another one:
The main business of a home construction company is not home mortgages.
No, because they don't make any money from the fact that the house is paid for by a mortgage. The construction company makes the same money whether they're paid in cash or through a mortgage. The bank makes money on the mortgage. So it's clearly the bank that's in the mortgage business, because they're selling mortgages. The construction company is selling houses.
And, guess what, Google is selling ad space. That's what they're selling. Ad space. Give ad space, take money for it. How much simpler can it get?
BTW, did you see this story? http://www.edbott.com/weblog/2012/03/at-google-advertising-is-crowding-out-search-results/
You're still conflating the business with the party who happened to be the last one to touch the money. The main business of a home construction company is not home mortgages. The fact that the bank is the one who physically supplies the money for the house does not make the bank the customer.
The money does not come from ads, it comes through ads. [snip]
You're really just mincing words and concepts here. The home construction company has a very simple business model: build house, get money for it from the guy who buys the house. Where that guy physically gets the money from is irrelevant. Google's business model is pretty simple as well: build products, sell ad space on those products, get money from advertisers. They get the money from the advertisers, where those advertisers get their money from and whether this whole advertising thing actually works as it's supposed to in theory is irrelevant. Google sells ad space and gets money for it. And they even resell those ads to third-parties who sell ad space, which makes them an ad agency. Which places them very squarely in the ad business.
Yes, they are also in the email/search/video/whatever business. Companies can be in more business than one. That's fine. And if they'd ever get rid of the ad business and try to make their money elsewhere, then they'd be in some other business. But that's hypothetical and doesn't change the fact that today all their money comes from their ad business. Whether they want people to think that or whether they prefer people to pay more attention to their search business doesn't matter. And again, I'm saying this without any negative meaning. Any negative meaning you are putting into the word "ad business" comes exclusively from yourself.
If you want analogies: Microsoft is in the search business as well. They're also in the game console business and the car appliance business. But their main business is the desktop operating system and office productivity software business. That's where they make virtually all their money. Most of their other projects either make virtually no profit or are loss leaders. And that's all I'm saying.
Only one problem with all you're saying:
The reason people make a big deal about it is that it's a propaganda point: If they're an advertising company then they must be disreputable shysters like Donald Draper out to mislead you with into buying shit you don't need with money you don't have.
I have never said or even implied anything like this. I stated that Google is making its money from ads. Which is a fact. And that's all I said. I even said that that's neither good nor evil nor anything else, it's simply a fact. You're confusing what I'm actually saying and what you think I'm saying.
I'll just guess that "these guys" includes me, so I'll respond with:
Whoever said anything about hating? It's you guys that get all emotional, when all we (gee, did this really turn into an us-vs-them?) are saying is that Google makes (virtually) all its money from ads. And that's totally fine. I don't have a problem with that. I like using Google-made stuff. Why can't I matter-of-factly state that the money for all the Google stuff I'm using is coming from ads? Is that a dirty secret somehow?
Let me put this another way: Goals and objectives are not the same as "main business".
I am in the business of flipping hamburgers, but my real "objective" is to send my kids to school with the money I earn doing so. That doesn't mean I'm in the business of sending my kids to school.
Google's "objective" may well be to make a better world for all humans by creating useful online tools. But they're getting their money to do so from their main business: advertising.
Just like microsoft and apples main goal is to get you to hand them money directly.
And that's exactly the difference. Google gets its money from advertisers. In fact 99% of their money comes from advertisers. That makes their main business ads. Period. Fact. End of story. Microsoft's business is selling software. Apple's business is selling hardware. Google's business is selling ads. Business == where the money comes from. Yes, Google also does a lot of other stuff with the money they make from ads. I never said otherwise. It's just not their main business. All the other stuff they do helps them to make more money from ads, which helps them make more stuff. If they drop the ad business, they're out of business entirely, because they couldn't pay the bills anymore.
Let me put this another way:
Ninety-nine percent of Google's revenue is derived from its advertising programs.
How can you possibly argue that they're not in the advertising business?
Their main business is advertising. It's a fact. And that's all I said. They get (virtually) no revenue from anything else they're doing. That doesn't mean they're not doing anything else, just that their main business is in advertising.
But between discontinuing all the services vs. discontinuing all the ads and finding some other method to monetize the services, the latter is obviously preferable.
Preferable to you and me, obviously. Ask the shareholders though.
But you're confusing the monetization strategy with the business.
If you have a web service with a specific purpose and are monetizing it by putting a $nameOfAgency ad on it, then you're pretty clearly not in the ad business.
If you are both the web service and the ad agency, then you're arguably in the ad business. You are arguably also in the $typeOfWebService business, but your money is exclusively coming from the ad business.
Now, if you take away the search engine and just have a page with ads on it, do they still make money?
Of course. Because Google ads are all over the place, not only on google.com/search.
Should they ever decide to get out of one of those two, I'm pretty sure they'd rather get out of the search business than the ad business.
Again, they are doing a lot of stuff. Besides search they also do email, video, social networks and god knows what else. But the only real monetization strategy for virtually all of those "businesses" is ads. Their business is in building interesting stuff that people want to use, so they can get eyeballs on their ads, so they can pay for building interesting stuff that people want to use, so **STACKOVERFLOW**.
Their money, plain and simple, is coming from ads. That's therefore their main business, period. That doesn't mean it's evil, or good, or anything else. It's their reality.
I love knee-jerk responses just as much as the next guy, but please slowly read again what I wrote.
Does Google make any money from letting you search the web for free? No.
Does Google make shitloads of money from displaying ads next to those free search results? Hell yeah.
So which one is their business?
Hold on, hold on, you're saying people don't actually work at 100% theoretical capacity 100% of their official work time? That they, like, ramp up on Mondays and wind down on Fridays? That they, like, cannot go from 0 to 100 instantly when coming into work and back down to 0 instantly when leaving? That they're, like, humans, not robots?
Woah, woah, stop the presses, this is a mayor breakthrough!