He is voicing his opinion that he prefers to reward the creators, you know, like copyright law intended. It's perfectly reasonable to also prefer to pick up used copies provided it is legal. But used copies only compensate the first (or second or third etc) buyer, and those proceeds do not go to the creator and cannot, by definition, encourage him (or her) to invest in making new games.
Your phone just gives you a code to use in conjunction with your login and your password. If your phone is stolen, then you assume your keys are compromised, and you get in touch with your authentication provider and get them to revoke all unused keys.
For someone to be able to access all your accounts, they will need to steal your phone, get your other login credentials (which are hopefully in your head), and do it before you get the keys revoked.
Additionally, this is meant to protect against keyloggers and the like to ensure that any keys they intercept are, almost by definition, useless, because they have already been used.
Here's an idea. Why can't we build a mechanism to use your mobile phone as the other factor. You pay your provider to provide the service for you, and you get a new key each time you use the last one. So if I log on some website and use the key, I automatically get a new one on my phone. I could even receive them in tens to cater for situations where I might be out of network.
When did work become a bad thing? For kids. How is it a bad thing to encourage your kids to develop a good work ethic? Of course, kids should have time to play and rest and enjoy their childhood, but I am sure those kids who see their parents work, and who work alongside them in their family businesses genuinely respect their parents efforts and learn from their parents the value of godo honest labour. Terrible that!
Why is it a problem for you to wait a few hours for a download. You need to go out and buy a UMD game, or get someone else to deliver it for you. With a decent connection, a download s always quicker and more convenient!
That's not a position held by most people. Most people would probably like to buy Apple products but they are generally expensive. And Apple is doing very well, as are many companies making proprietary products (Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Nokia) and not many are making a lot of money using open source technology/software.
The new iPhone just sold 3 million in 3 weeks, 3 times more than the original was able to in 70 days. It has sold faster, and is being returned at a slower rate. That is proof positive that your assertions are not being supported by facts. Fact is,even on Consumer Reports, a neutral site, iPhones are reported to have the highest satisfaction levels of smartphones. So this future you are talking about is not looking more likely just yet.
The musician isn't claiming to be entitled to your money. Rather, you are claiming that he is subjecting you to advertising in the form of a recording and therefore you don't need to pay him to listen and own a copy of the recording. If you don't think you should pay for a recording, then don't listen to it. You can obviously do without it, so just do without. But don't require musicians to entertain you on your terms.
Way to construct a strawman! People bought iPhones because they enabled them to do more with fewer "features". That is the essence of "less is more". The only significant missing features on the original iPhone for me were 3G and, in retrospect, the lack of an app store. People are voting with their wallets and handing money over to apple at a record clip. Apple is obviously doing Many things right.
Apple don't treat their customers like idiots. They understand their target customers very well, and produce products that largely meet their needs better than the competition.
Re:the rules of economics still applies
on
The End of Free
·
· Score: 1
This is essentially the reason we have copyright. I can spend 10 years writing a book, carefully going over every chapter and making sure my story is good, and enjoyable for my target audience. But back then, anyone with a printing press could just print and sell my book and I not make a dime. There is something wrong with that, and that is the reason we have copyright. It is a good compromise to me: make a deal with the creator and pay him to distribute the work. You need incentives so that this content can be produced.
Because the few who exceed the cap really abuse the system. I will put this in some perspective. I had an iPhone 3GS for a year, during which time, on my unlimited service, I downloaded 1.3GB of data. A 750MB cap does not affect me, especially since whenever I am at home, I automatically switch to wifi. nd a point of correction about O2, they always had a fair usage policy. The only people complaining are those who used to download a lot. Why should the 99% of the population pay more to cater for the 1% who want to download an absurd amount?
So Google kicked iPhones into 3rd place now did it. Can you back that up with some facts. The ones I have seen suggest Apple still sells more phones than Android. That may and probably will change in the future. And oh, Google makes a phone, the Nexus one, and the iPhone handily beats it in sales.
Nokia is the company issuing profit warnings at the moment. Nokia realises, as much as if not more than Apple, that the dumbphone market and the low end smartphone and 'feature'-phone markets are not terribly profitable. Don't get me wrong, Nokia is still a dangerous competitor, and in a market this young, things can change overnight, so the early leaders could find themselves increaingly pegged back. But Nokia's current position is more of a crutch.
Giving a feature a name is a good way to market the feature. It's not a special word. It's a name. Just like samsung makes a big deal about having AMOLED screens, or Philips markets TVs with a PixelPlus feature. It allows you to talk about the feature without boring your audience with technical details. And it's pretty good naming. It's easy for the audience to make the connection between the human retina and the screen, so Apple is creating a good association between the device and the name. The only thing it says about their average customer is that they are not nerds, and want the device's benefits explained to them in an easy way, and do not really care for the technical jargon.
I think Android's popularity might have more to do with it being available on more devices, including much cheaper devices. Even then, the single model iPhone is still outselling it (counting different capacity iPhones as one model of course). You overestimate the average consumer's ability to care about things such as being able to run software from anywhere.
The fact some devices makers seem to love listing their features confirms the way they view the market. Secondly, I don't think Apple need to be dominant in the market to be wildly successful. Android's market share is divided among a fair number of manufactures, with an even larger number of unique devices. Apple has lower development costs per iPhone sold, higher margins, and can therefore survive on a much smaller market share. Apple isn't just chasing volume. if anything, they probably appreciate that once smartphones become mass market devices, they would rather be in the market for premium smartphones rather than just smartphones. I am not Apple's CEO, but I think if Apple can sustain sales of 50 million iPhones a year, they would be very happy indeed if they typically make $100 in profit on each (which they can do because they do not have many models of phones to design and support). They are in the business of chasing profits, not market share.
Except that is not what Apple is saying. And lets get some context in this. Music sales are very front loaded. A very large percentage of music gets sold in the first few days of sale. Exclusivity arrangements are unacceptable for that reason. In any case, all Apple is saying is thta it won't promote the music that is given exclusively to Amazon. They will still sell it. It probably undermines the exclusivity arrangements and that is probably the point. Why should Apple advertise content that it only available at a competitor.
Behind which competitor? All different Android phones? All models of Blackberry? Or all other smartphones put together? Apple has one product in the samrtphone space. Do you know how much it's competitors would kill to have 21% of the market with exactly one model of phone?
Slashdot Mirror
Strawman alert!!!!
He is voicing his opinion that he prefers to reward the creators, you know, like copyright law intended. It's perfectly reasonable to also prefer to pick up used copies provided it is legal. But used copies only compensate the first (or second or third etc) buyer, and those proceeds do not go to the creator and cannot, by definition, encourage him (or her) to invest in making new games.
Your phone just gives you a code to use in conjunction with your login and your password. If your phone is stolen, then you assume your keys are compromised, and you get in touch with your authentication provider and get them to revoke all unused keys. For someone to be able to access all your accounts, they will need to steal your phone, get your other login credentials (which are hopefully in your head), and do it before you get the keys revoked. Additionally, this is meant to protect against keyloggers and the like to ensure that any keys they intercept are, almost by definition, useless, because they have already been used.
Here's an idea. Why can't we build a mechanism to use your mobile phone as the other factor. You pay your provider to provide the service for you, and you get a new key each time you use the last one. So if I log on some website and use the key, I automatically get a new one on my phone. I could even receive them in tens to cater for situations where I might be out of network.
It's so easy and so secure, I cannot understand why nobody else seems to do this.
Because it's easier and more sane to just create a really secure password.
When did work become a bad thing? For kids. How is it a bad thing to encourage your kids to develop a good work ethic? Of course, kids should have time to play and rest and enjoy their childhood, but I am sure those kids who see their parents work, and who work alongside them in their family businesses genuinely respect their parents efforts and learn from their parents the value of godo honest labour. Terrible that!
Why is it a problem for you to wait a few hours for a download. You need to go out and buy a UMD game, or get someone else to deliver it for you. With a decent connection, a download s always quicker and more convenient!
...swing voters.
That's not a position held by most people. Most people would probably like to buy Apple products but they are generally expensive. And Apple is doing very well, as are many companies making proprietary products (Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Nokia) and not many are making a lot of money using open source technology/software. The new iPhone just sold 3 million in 3 weeks, 3 times more than the original was able to in 70 days. It has sold faster, and is being returned at a slower rate. That is proof positive that your assertions are not being supported by facts. Fact is,even on Consumer Reports, a neutral site, iPhones are reported to have the highest satisfaction levels of smartphones. So this future you are talking about is not looking more likely just yet.
The musician isn't claiming to be entitled to your money. Rather, you are claiming that he is subjecting you to advertising in the form of a recording and therefore you don't need to pay him to listen and own a copy of the recording. If you don't think you should pay for a recording, then don't listen to it. You can obviously do without it, so just do without. But don't require musicians to entertain you on your terms.
Way to construct a strawman! People bought iPhones because they enabled them to do more with fewer "features". That is the essence of "less is more". The only significant missing features on the original iPhone for me were 3G and, in retrospect, the lack of an app store. People are voting with their wallets and handing money over to apple at a record clip. Apple is obviously doing Many things right. Apple don't treat their customers like idiots. They understand their target customers very well, and produce products that largely meet their needs better than the competition.
"Fine". Seriously!? And here I thought it was...
This is essentially the reason we have copyright. I can spend 10 years writing a book, carefully going over every chapter and making sure my story is good, and enjoyable for my target audience. But back then, anyone with a printing press could just print and sell my book and I not make a dime. There is something wrong with that, and that is the reason we have copyright. It is a good compromise to me: make a deal with the creator and pay him to distribute the work. You need incentives so that this content can be produced.
If you can live without it, then do so.
Because the few who exceed the cap really abuse the system. I will put this in some perspective. I had an iPhone 3GS for a year, during which time, on my unlimited service, I downloaded 1.3GB of data. A 750MB cap does not affect me, especially since whenever I am at home, I automatically switch to wifi. nd a point of correction about O2, they always had a fair usage policy. The only people complaining are those who used to download a lot. Why should the 99% of the population pay more to cater for the 1% who want to download an absurd amount?
You mean like Skype?
So Google kicked iPhones into 3rd place now did it. Can you back that up with some facts. The ones I have seen suggest Apple still sells more phones than Android. That may and probably will change in the future. And oh, Google makes a phone, the Nexus one, and the iPhone handily beats it in sales.
Customers aren't necessarily the people paying the money, at least, not directly. Google users are paying Google indirectly.
Nokia is the company issuing profit warnings at the moment. Nokia realises, as much as if not more than Apple, that the dumbphone market and the low end smartphone and 'feature'-phone markets are not terribly profitable. Don't get me wrong, Nokia is still a dangerous competitor, and in a market this young, things can change overnight, so the early leaders could find themselves increaingly pegged back. But Nokia's current position is more of a crutch.
Giving a feature a name is a good way to market the feature. It's not a special word. It's a name. Just like samsung makes a big deal about having AMOLED screens, or Philips markets TVs with a PixelPlus feature. It allows you to talk about the feature without boring your audience with technical details. And it's pretty good naming. It's easy for the audience to make the connection between the human retina and the screen, so Apple is creating a good association between the device and the name. The only thing it says about their average customer is that they are not nerds, and want the device's benefits explained to them in an easy way, and do not really care for the technical jargon.
I think Android's popularity might have more to do with it being available on more devices, including much cheaper devices. Even then, the single model iPhone is still outselling it (counting different capacity iPhones as one model of course). You overestimate the average consumer's ability to care about things such as being able to run software from anywhere.
The fact some devices makers seem to love listing their features confirms the way they view the market. Secondly, I don't think Apple need to be dominant in the market to be wildly successful. Android's market share is divided among a fair number of manufactures, with an even larger number of unique devices. Apple has lower development costs per iPhone sold, higher margins, and can therefore survive on a much smaller market share. Apple isn't just chasing volume. if anything, they probably appreciate that once smartphones become mass market devices, they would rather be in the market for premium smartphones rather than just smartphones. I am not Apple's CEO, but I think if Apple can sustain sales of 50 million iPhones a year, they would be very happy indeed if they typically make $100 in profit on each (which they can do because they do not have many models of phones to design and support). They are in the business of chasing profits, not market share.
Except that is not what Apple is saying. And lets get some context in this. Music sales are very front loaded. A very large percentage of music gets sold in the first few days of sale. Exclusivity arrangements are unacceptable for that reason. In any case, all Apple is saying is thta it won't promote the music that is given exclusively to Amazon. They will still sell it. It probably undermines the exclusivity arrangements and that is probably the point. Why should Apple advertise content that it only available at a competitor.
Get some facts straight. Apple _offer_ their browser to you when you download/update iTunes. They don't shove it down your throat.
Yes, let's all use anecdotes as evidence. We really believe you now!
Behind which competitor? All different Android phones? All models of Blackberry? Or all other smartphones put together? Apple has one product in the samrtphone space. Do you know how much it's competitors would kill to have 21% of the market with exactly one model of phone?
I think he should sue Monsato for contaminating his crop with their genes.