In the ad-supported, free tier, users will be able to search the network for specific tracks, and those tracks registered with Qtrax will be made available for download in Qtrax's proprietary ".mpq" file format. Users will then be able to play the downloaded.mpq file in full-fidelity sound quality for a pre-defined number of times. Each time a consumer plays a track, the Qtrax player will also offer fans click-to-buy purchase options, as well as the opportunity to upgrade to a premium subscription service for a flat monthly fee.
Anyone else reminded of Monty Python?
Humphrey: All right, settle down. Settle down... Now, before I begin the lesson, will those of you who are playing in the match this afternoon move your clothes down onto the lower peg immediately after lunch, before you write your letter home, if you're not getting your hair cut, unless you've got a younger brother who is going out this weekend as the guest of another boy, in which case, collect his note before lunch, put it in your letter after you've had your hair cut, and make sure he moves your clothes down onto the lower peg for you. Now... Wymer: Sir? Humphrey: Yes, Wymer? Wymer: My younger brother's going out with Dibble this weekend, sir, but I'm not having my hair cut today, sir. chuckling Wymer: So, do I move my clothes down, or... Humphrey: I do wish you'd listen, Wymer. It's perfectly simple. If you're not getting your hair cut, you don't have to move your brother's clothes down to the lower peg. You simply collect his note before lunch, after you've done your scripture prep, when you've written your letter home, before rest, move your own clothes onto the lower peg, greet the visitors, and report to Mr. Viney that you've had your chit signed.
Listen, EMI. If reading a summary of your service gives me a migraine, it's unlikely I'll ever try it. So, if I've got it right...
I search for a user who has the track I'm looking for, ignore all the ads, download it in.mpq (whatever the hell that is), find a player that will play said.mpq (let me guess, your Qtrax player?), dismiss pop-up windows offering "click-to-buy purchase options", dismiss pop-up windows offering the "opportunity to upgrade to a premium subscription service for a flat monthly fee", download the track and play it a "pre-defined number of times", and then ____(?), unless I've previously signed up for a "premium subscription service", in which case I download a different version of the track (?) that either (a) plays an unlimited number of times, (b) plays until I discontinue my "premium subscription service", or (c) plays a pre-defined number of times, but more times than the free service version; unless I used the "click-to-buy purchase options", in which case...
... and that's where I suddenly stop caring. I'll just BitTorrent whatever I'm looking for, thanks. Or, if I'm feeling charitable, there's a handy little iTunes store that skips the bullshit (mostly) and just asks for 99 cents.
Sorry, EMI. Life's too short to figure out your service.
The Slashdot headline/summary is a little misleading. The test showed that Apple's FairPlay DRM caused about an 8% battery life penalty. It was the Zen Micro with the WMA DRM that caused a 25% drop in battery life. In this case, (if you HAVE to have DRM'd music), it seems Apple's scheme is the way to go.
Some people have raised the issue that they compared 192kbps WMA files with 128kbps AAC (i.e. iTMS) files. AAC, in general, sounds pretty good at 128kbps. (Geek Disclosure Time): I've run a few double-blind, multi-listener tests, and most people put 128 AAC about equal with 192 MP3 (constant bitrate). I have no idea whether 192 WMA is overkill - if that's what Napster provides, well, I'm assuming that's comparable sound quality.
I'm not an engineer, so I can't say whether or not the bitrate difference could reasonably account for that great a difference in battery drain. I will, however, note that if you choose to use a less-efficient codec, that's your fault.
Thanks for providing the voice of sanity. No scarcity = no market.
I suspect this might become a new tactic for companies that want to introduce variable pricing models for their products/services (maybe companies like Apple, Netflix, TiVo, etc.). Just say higher/lower prices are due to a "music/movie/show market", and hope that everyone failed Econ 1. Jeez, guys. If you want to charge more for some songs and less for others, just say that. Don't try to doll it up in quasi-free-market drag. That just looks lame.
Good point about this helping to market current versions of Zelda, Mario, etc.
I also think there's a big opportunity for Nintendo to pre-emptively turn this into a cash cow. If they release their OWN "clone" system, they could clean up. They could put together a $35 bundle that had 2 controllers, a small hard drive that had all original Nintendo games, and beat the clone makers at their own game. Even if it was just all games Nintendo made, what gamer geek wouldn't see that as an attractive investment? (In fact, since so many companies that made Nintendo games are now out of business, you could probably put a fair amount of abandonware on there, too.)
I know I'd rather buy a cheap Nintendo box from, well... Nintendo than one marked "Best Quality Nintendo Wish Set" at the local flea market.
This will never happen, of course. They're more likely to re-introduce the original Nintendo at $99 and re-release all the games for $39.99, like 1988 all over again. Too bad.
You're absolutely right that most Star Wars games tied to a specific chapter of the saga sucked big donkey. Tops on my list in terms of suckage are all the lame platformers released around the same time as each of the three prequels. Obi-Wan is in a class by itself for pure wretchedness.
However, Pod Racer was the one shining exception to this rule. (Naturally, the original vector-graphics Star Wars arcade game is also exempt. Duh.) It is arguably the best thing to come out of Episode 1, but only on Nintendo 64. I heard that the PC version was garbage, so maybe that's why you hated it.
It was, quite simply, the best pure racing game on N64. Mario Kart 64 was about powerups and kart kombat; Pod Racer was more akin to Wave Race 64 (also a very good racing game in its own right) in that it was much like a futuristic racing simulator. Also, despite visual similarities, it was a much more pure racing game than the cartoon-y look-a-like Quantum Red Shift now available on X-Box.
Some (then-)Groundbreaking features:
* Vehicle Upgrades. We take it for granted in modern racing games, but Pod Racer was one of the first games to have meaningful upgrades for your racing vehicle. More than just cosmetic changes, the upgrades you bought enhanced certain aspects of your vehicle's performance (braking, acceleration, top speed, etc.). There was also emphasis on keeping your parts in balance with each other. Putting top-notch acceleration and wimpy brakes was a disasterous combination, and would actually erode your brakes over a few races. Which leads to...
* Upgrade Deterioration. A few racers in the current generation are doing this, but Pod Racer did it (AFAIK) first, and arguably best. Using turbo boost or brakes excessively during a race would degrade the part's integrity, and would reduce its effectiveness for future races. Bumping into walls (or other racers) might damage your steering unit. Blowing up? Well, that's NOT good for the repair unit's longetivity. Of course, you could repair the parts, but only to a certain point. This led to a long-view of the game. Instead of racing through the course, consequences be damned, the objective became to come in first with a Pod that would be in good enough shape to run the next race.
* Decent AI, no Computer Assistance. You know how in Burnout you can never get more than about 2 seconds ahead of your nearest opponent, but they can freakin' LAP YOU??!! I understand Burnout is an action-driven arcade game, not a simulator, but Pod Racer wisely rewarded you for careful execution. The AI was good, but not perfect; it WAS possible to catch up to the leader on the later levels. This also made 2-player competition more fulfilling -- wins were wins.
* FAST. Like, STUPID fast. As you got up to higher levels and better upgrades, the thrill got pretty intense. The only thing that's come close in terms of raw thrill was Burnout 3, but as noted that's not a racing simulator. The N64 graphics add-on was almost required, or you couldn't see the obstacles in time.
In summary, high speeds + innovative levels + real sense of danger (don't crash! don't even kiss the wall!) == Good times. Do yourself a favor, and pick up a copy for $6 at Gamestop. If you still think it's crap, I'll buy you a stick of yours.
The community here knows that there's nothing magical about the Internet. Why should CNN or Fox be restricted in what they show on cable TV, but be unrestricted in streaming live online video to me over the same damned cable?
I think your point is well intentioned, but there are a few difference between what's shown on TV and what's available on the internet:
1. Most TV news is available over public airwaves, web content is available at privately owned websites. If Bob, Fox News, or MoveOn.org want to put up something on their own website, what's the federal government's interest in regulating that?
2. Watching campaign ads via television is a pretty passive experience. I'm watching a show, and suddenly I'm unexpectedly watching a commercial about how Senator So-And-So eats babies and burns down orphanages. That's fine, comes with the territory, but it's not like I asked to be shown a political ad. On the internet, however, if I'm reading a story about Senator So-And-So's views on an issue, it's really likely that I went looking for that information on my own.
In my experience, it's always a good idea to err on the side of more free speech rather than less. While reducing the ability of rich parties and rich people to unduly influence elections is a noble goal, campaign finance reform has been a real mixed bag vis-a-vis free speech. Maybe you can make the case for regulating political speech on television (equal time, etc.), but regulating it on the internet is asinine.
If the GOP/Dems want to prop up a bunch of phony blogs touting how great their platforms are, let them live and die based on the strength of their arguments. People will continue to read the blogs they've come to know and trust. Do you read spam blogs now? If not, why would you read a hollow party-machine political blog in the future? And if (by some minor miracle) one of these big-money blogs makes a valid, interesting point, how has that adversely impacted the free exchange of ideas?
Let anyone put up whatever website they want. We can think for ourselves.
Clearly, Apple should have provided guidelines to help keep everyone's iPod Nanos from getting scratched. I guess it falls to me to provide this valuable public service:
FWIW, in my experience, there are two kinds of people in this world. Those who know how to take care of personal electronics and those who casually throw their new toys in with their spare change. I've had the same iPod for almost 2.5 years now. Still runs fine, still without scratches, and I've taken it jogging, biking, to work, to the bathroom, across state lines, etc. I guess some people just can't have nice things.
I develop all my digital pics at Costco. which happens to also be my primary grocery-buying place. Some clear advantages:
1. New/Better developing equipment. Costco (and probably most other retailers) have developing stations FAR better than my g/f's Epson photo printer. They update their machinery every six months or so, too, so I get excellent color reproduction, high quality print paper, etc.
2. Price. I pay 12 cents a print for 4x6, or something nearly as stupid. Maybe it's 14 cents; who cares? Much less than the costs people are posting here for home photo printers. I like money, don't you?
3. Convenience. I happen to do most of my grocery shopping at Costco (love dem 12-packs of Campbell's Chunky Soup -- mmmm, MSG...). They also do developing in less than an hour, most of the time, so you can develop while you shop. And if you'd rather sit in your jammies, Costco.com will let you send your pics from your home PC for pickup in store, or they'll deliver by mail (like Snapfish, etc.). It's not 3 minutes from concept to wall art, but if you want immediate results you're gonna pay in $$$ and quality.
4. Customer Service. This may be a Costco-only thing, but they'll refund your money if you don't like your pictures FOR ANY REASON. My father (bless his tech-inept heart) once developed all 200 of his pics from Europe. Problem is, he developed the thumbnails. Costco explained his error, refunded his money, and developed the actual pics instead. Try getting Epson to send you a replacement cartridge because you did something stupid.
Of course, home printers have their uses. Off the top of my head, Costco is terrible for:
1. Blackmail/Kidnapping Photos. I'm pretty sure they've got to report this kind of thing. Besides, if you've kidnapped anyone of signifigance, you've got a hefty payday coming. 50 cent prints aren't a big expenditure for you.
2. Pictures of your naughty bits. No need to traumatize the adolescents working the shop at Costco with pictures of your wang. Plus, hard copies are so 1970s. Just post the high-res shots anonymously to craigslist like the rest of us.
Outside of these two, admittedly rare, categories, I just can't fathom why people are spending hundreds of dollars on home-developing. My two cents.
In year 3 you stop buying music... Napster you have zero songs... iTunes you have 360 songs that will play on your PC or Mac or iPod.
I totally agree. At this point, iTunes is likely to appeal to the vast majority of music listeners. However...
There may be a way for Napster to one-up iTunes and still keep the subscription-based model (and associated recurring revenue) that they're so keen on: Allow your $15 per month subscription fee to be used as credit towards single song purchases from Napster (i.e. 15 songs per month). Above and beyond that, you pay $.99 per song. If you don't use your "credit" for that month, it disappears (like cellphone minutes).
This is good middle ground for those who want to own the music and those who want the library of a subscription service. Each month you're a subscriber, you get to keep 15 of the best songs you heard that month. If your subscription lapses, those "credited" songs are yours forever.
On the MS/Napster side, the worst they'll do with any given customer per month is iTunes-like profits for 15 songs. (side note: I suspect that the average -- stress average -- iTunes customer buys fewer than 15 songs per month, so this is already relatively brisk business). If the customer doesn't elect to use their "credit" for that month, then they make more money.
They'll probably operate at break-even or loss for the first few months (everyone will use all their "credit" for the first few months), but eventually they'll start coming out ahead -- remember how you got Netflix thinking you were going to watch 12 movies a month? Six months later, you found "Legally Blonde 2" buried underneath some magazines on the couch. Netflix wins. Same idea.
This kind of hybrid plan is the only thing that might seriously tempt me away from iTunes. It's also the only plan I can think of that is economically viable for both sides.
*font=sarcasm* Who are the marketing geniuses at Sony?!? */font*
The same talented crew who named their product the "NW-HD1". Right now, we're all talking about iPod-Killers. NW-HD1-Killer sounds like someone leaked the name of a droid from Episode 3.
And let's face it, Google won the mindshare a long time ago.
While I and (probably) most others at/. agree wholeheartedly with this assessment, not everyone else in the real world agrees. Important example...
I have friends doing investment banking at places like Merril Lynch -- they're ALL trying to pick the winner of the new search technology battle. Apparently, senior market analysts only really see three contenders for the throne. Here's the battle as they see it:
* Yahoo!: Best name brand recognition. Most additional services. They've acquired promising new search technology (Overture, I think it's called?).
* MSN: Direct quote from analyst: "Microsoft always puts something competitive in the marketplace." Lots of capital to back up R&D. Generally accepted wisdom that MS realizes that they're behind schedule on conquering the internet, so they're going to push extra-super-double hard to make their search tech great.
* Google: Sure, best tech right now, but (again, direct quote) "They seem like a good aquisition target in 5 years." Some feelings that the IPO may be overhyped on Wall Street, and that it may hurt Google more than it helps.
The crucial point is that many of these powerful, intelligent people are betting against Google in the long-term battle. While you and I may think their reasons are total hogwash (Yahoo may have the most additional services, but Google's are universally better, etc.), these people are planning on throwing lots of investment money at Yahoo! and MS. Does more money = Better search tech? In the long run, maybe. Summary: Google might lose because "conventional wisdom" may be sending money to their competitors.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone else reminded of Monty Python?
Listen, EMI. If reading a summary of your service gives me a migraine, it's unlikely I'll ever try it. So, if I've got it right...
I search for a user who has the track I'm looking for, ignore all the ads, download it in
Sorry, EMI. Life's too short to figure out your service.
A good summary of the CNet study is at http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13193.
The Slashdot headline/summary is a little misleading. The test showed that Apple's FairPlay DRM caused about an 8% battery life penalty. It was the Zen Micro with the WMA DRM that caused a 25% drop in battery life. In this case, (if you HAVE to have DRM'd music), it seems Apple's scheme is the way to go.
Some people have raised the issue that they compared 192kbps WMA files with 128kbps AAC (i.e. iTMS) files. AAC, in general, sounds pretty good at 128kbps. (Geek Disclosure Time): I've run a few double-blind, multi-listener tests, and most people put 128 AAC about equal with 192 MP3 (constant bitrate). I have no idea whether 192 WMA is overkill - if that's what Napster provides, well, I'm assuming that's comparable sound quality.
I'm not an engineer, so I can't say whether or not the bitrate difference could reasonably account for that great a difference in battery drain. I will, however, note that if you choose to use a less-efficient codec, that's your fault.
Thanks for providing the voice of sanity. No scarcity = no market.
I suspect this might become a new tactic for companies that want to introduce variable pricing models for their products/services (maybe companies like Apple, Netflix, TiVo, etc.). Just say higher/lower prices are due to a "music/movie/show market", and hope that everyone failed Econ 1. Jeez, guys. If you want to charge more for some songs and less for others, just say that. Don't try to doll it up in quasi-free-market drag. That just looks lame.
Good point about this helping to market current versions of Zelda, Mario, etc.
I also think there's a big opportunity for Nintendo to pre-emptively turn this into a cash cow. If they release their OWN "clone" system, they could clean up. They could put together a $35 bundle that had 2 controllers, a small hard drive that had all original Nintendo games, and beat the clone makers at their own game. Even if it was just all games Nintendo made, what gamer geek wouldn't see that as an attractive investment? (In fact, since so many companies that made Nintendo games are now out of business, you could probably put a fair amount of abandonware on there, too.)
I know I'd rather buy a cheap Nintendo box from, well... Nintendo than one marked "Best Quality Nintendo Wish Set" at the local flea market.
This will never happen, of course. They're more likely to re-introduce the original Nintendo at $99 and re-release all the games for $39.99, like 1988 all over again. Too bad.
You're absolutely right that most Star Wars games tied to a specific chapter of the saga sucked big donkey. Tops on my list in terms of suckage are all the lame platformers released around the same time as each of the three prequels. Obi-Wan is in a class by itself for pure wretchedness.
However, Pod Racer was the one shining exception to this rule. (Naturally, the original vector-graphics Star Wars arcade game is also exempt. Duh.) It is arguably the best thing to come out of Episode 1, but only on Nintendo 64. I heard that the PC version was garbage, so maybe that's why you hated it.
It was, quite simply, the best pure racing game on N64. Mario Kart 64 was about powerups and kart kombat; Pod Racer was more akin to Wave Race 64 (also a very good racing game in its own right) in that it was much like a futuristic racing simulator. Also, despite visual similarities, it was a much more pure racing game than the cartoon-y look-a-like Quantum Red Shift now available on X-Box.
Some (then-)Groundbreaking features:
* Vehicle Upgrades. We take it for granted in modern racing games, but Pod Racer was one of the first games to have meaningful upgrades for your racing vehicle. More than just cosmetic changes, the upgrades you bought enhanced certain aspects of your vehicle's performance (braking, acceleration, top speed, etc.). There was also emphasis on keeping your parts in balance with each other. Putting top-notch acceleration and wimpy brakes was a disasterous combination, and would actually erode your brakes over a few races. Which leads to...
* Upgrade Deterioration. A few racers in the current generation are doing this, but Pod Racer did it (AFAIK) first, and arguably best. Using turbo boost or brakes excessively during a race would degrade the part's integrity, and would reduce its effectiveness for future races. Bumping into walls (or other racers) might damage your steering unit. Blowing up? Well, that's NOT good for the repair unit's longetivity. Of course, you could repair the parts, but only to a certain point. This led to a long-view of the game. Instead of racing through the course, consequences be damned, the objective became to come in first with a Pod that would be in good enough shape to run the next race.
* Decent AI, no Computer Assistance. You know how in Burnout you can never get more than about 2 seconds ahead of your nearest opponent, but they can freakin' LAP YOU??!! I understand Burnout is an action-driven arcade game, not a simulator, but Pod Racer wisely rewarded you for careful execution. The AI was good, but not perfect; it WAS possible to catch up to the leader on the later levels. This also made 2-player competition more fulfilling -- wins were wins.
* FAST. Like, STUPID fast. As you got up to higher levels and better upgrades, the thrill got pretty intense. The only thing that's come close in terms of raw thrill was Burnout 3, but as noted that's not a racing simulator. The N64 graphics add-on was almost required, or you couldn't see the obstacles in time.
In summary, high speeds + innovative levels + real sense of danger (don't crash! don't even kiss the wall!) == Good times. Do yourself a favor, and pick up a copy for $6 at Gamestop. If you still think it's crap, I'll buy you a stick of yours.
Cheers.
The community here knows that there's nothing magical about the Internet. Why should CNN or Fox be restricted in what they show on cable TV, but be unrestricted in streaming live online video to me over the same damned cable?
I think your point is well intentioned, but there are a few difference between what's shown on TV and what's available on the internet:
1. Most TV news is available over public airwaves, web content is available at privately owned websites. If Bob, Fox News, or MoveOn.org want to put up something on their own website, what's the federal government's interest in regulating that?
2. Watching campaign ads via television is a pretty passive experience. I'm watching a show, and suddenly I'm unexpectedly watching a commercial about how Senator So-And-So eats babies and burns down orphanages. That's fine, comes with the territory, but it's not like I asked to be shown a political ad. On the internet, however, if I'm reading a story about Senator So-And-So's views on an issue, it's really likely that I went looking for that information on my own.
In my experience, it's always a good idea to err on the side of more free speech rather than less. While reducing the ability of rich parties and rich people to unduly influence elections is a noble goal, campaign finance reform has been a real mixed bag vis-a-vis free speech. Maybe you can make the case for regulating political speech on television (equal time, etc.), but regulating it on the internet is asinine.
If the GOP/Dems want to prop up a bunch of phony blogs touting how great their platforms are, let them live and die based on the strength of their arguments. People will continue to read the blogs they've come to know and trust. Do you read spam blogs now? If not, why would you read a hollow party-machine political blog in the future? And if (by some minor miracle) one of these big-money blogs makes a valid, interesting point, how has that adversely impacted the free exchange of ideas?
Let anyone put up whatever website they want. We can think for ourselves.
Clearly, Apple should have provided guidelines to help keep everyone's iPod Nanos from getting scratched. I guess it falls to me to provide this valuable public service:
3 . / show/70's_badluck.wav.
1. Do not keep iPod Nano in the same pocket as your keys.
2. Do not run over iPod Nano with your car: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/nano.ars/
3. Do not use iPod Nano to scratch off your lottery tickets. Invest in a quarter, instead.
4. Do not keep iPod Nano in the same pocket as your keys, dumbass: http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/tombstone/839
5. Do not gnaw nervously on iPod Nano.
and finally...
6. Maybe think about investing in a $20 ultra-thin case for iPod Nano: http://www.speckproducts.com/nano-skintight.html.
FWIW, in my experience, there are two kinds of people in this world. Those who know how to take care of personal electronics and those who casually throw their new toys in with their spare change. I've had the same iPod for almost 2.5 years now. Still runs fine, still without scratches, and I've taken it jogging, biking, to work, to the bathroom, across state lines, etc. I guess some people just can't have nice things.
I develop all my digital pics at Costco. which happens to also be my primary grocery-buying place. Some clear advantages:
1. New/Better developing equipment. Costco (and probably most other retailers) have developing stations FAR better than my g/f's Epson photo printer. They update their machinery every six months or so, too, so I get excellent color reproduction, high quality print paper, etc.
2. Price. I pay 12 cents a print for 4x6, or something nearly as stupid. Maybe it's 14 cents; who cares? Much less than the costs people are posting here for home photo printers. I like money, don't you?
3. Convenience. I happen to do most of my grocery shopping at Costco (love dem 12-packs of Campbell's Chunky Soup -- mmmm, MSG...). They also do developing in less than an hour, most of the time, so you can develop while you shop. And if you'd rather sit in your jammies, Costco.com will let you send your pics from your home PC for pickup in store, or they'll deliver by mail (like Snapfish, etc.). It's not 3 minutes from concept to wall art, but if you want immediate results you're gonna pay in $$$ and quality.
4. Customer Service. This may be a Costco-only thing, but they'll refund your money if you don't like your pictures FOR ANY REASON. My father (bless his tech-inept heart) once developed all 200 of his pics from Europe. Problem is, he developed the thumbnails. Costco explained his error, refunded his money, and developed the actual pics instead. Try getting Epson to send you a replacement cartridge because you did something stupid.
Of course, home printers have their uses. Off the top of my head, Costco is terrible for:
1. Blackmail/Kidnapping Photos. I'm pretty sure they've got to report this kind of thing. Besides, if you've kidnapped anyone of signifigance, you've got a hefty payday coming. 50 cent prints aren't a big expenditure for you.
2. Pictures of your naughty bits. No need to traumatize the adolescents working the shop at Costco with pictures of your wang. Plus, hard copies are so 1970s. Just post the high-res shots anonymously to craigslist like the rest of us.
Outside of these two, admittedly rare, categories, I just can't fathom why people are spending hundreds of dollars on home-developing. My two cents.
I won't speculate on what will happen, but I think either eventual harmony or inevitable conflict would be accelerated by something of this magnitude.
So this will either make things eventually better or inevitably worse?
Good to know.
*head explodes*
In year 3 you stop buying music... Napster you have zero songs... iTunes you have 360 songs that will play on your PC or Mac or iPod.
I totally agree. At this point, iTunes is likely to appeal to the vast majority of music listeners. However...
There may be a way for Napster to one-up iTunes and still keep the subscription-based model (and associated recurring revenue) that they're so keen on: Allow your $15 per month subscription fee to be used as credit towards single song purchases from Napster (i.e. 15 songs per month). Above and beyond that, you pay $.99 per song. If you don't use your "credit" for that month, it disappears (like cellphone minutes).
This is good middle ground for those who want to own the music and those who want the library of a subscription service. Each month you're a subscriber, you get to keep 15 of the best songs you heard that month. If your subscription lapses, those "credited" songs are yours forever.
On the MS/Napster side, the worst they'll do with any given customer per month is iTunes-like profits for 15 songs. (side note: I suspect that the average -- stress average -- iTunes customer buys fewer than 15 songs per month, so this is already relatively brisk business). If the customer doesn't elect to use their "credit" for that month, then they make more money.
They'll probably operate at break-even or loss for the first few months (everyone will use all their "credit" for the first few months), but eventually they'll start coming out ahead -- remember how you got Netflix thinking you were going to watch 12 movies a month? Six months later, you found "Legally Blonde 2" buried underneath some magazines on the couch. Netflix wins. Same idea.
This kind of hybrid plan is the only thing that might seriously tempt me away from iTunes. It's also the only plan I can think of that is economically viable for both sides.
*font=sarcasm* Who are the marketing geniuses at Sony?!? */font*
The same talented crew who named their product the "NW-HD1". Right now, we're all talking about iPod-Killers. NW-HD1-Killer sounds like someone leaked the name of a droid from Episode 3.
And let's face it, Google won the mindshare a long time ago.
/. agree wholeheartedly with this assessment, not everyone else in the real world agrees. Important example...
While I and (probably) most others at
I have friends doing investment banking at places like Merril Lynch -- they're ALL trying to pick the winner of the new search technology battle. Apparently, senior market analysts only really see three contenders for the throne. Here's the battle as they see it:
* Yahoo!: Best name brand recognition. Most additional services. They've acquired promising new search technology (Overture, I think it's called?).
* MSN: Direct quote from analyst: "Microsoft always puts something competitive in the marketplace." Lots of capital to back up R&D. Generally accepted wisdom that MS realizes that they're behind schedule on conquering the internet, so they're going to push extra-super-double hard to make their search tech great.
* Google: Sure, best tech right now, but (again, direct quote) "They seem like a good aquisition target in 5 years." Some feelings that the IPO may be overhyped on Wall Street, and that it may hurt Google more than it helps.
The crucial point is that many of these powerful, intelligent people are betting against Google in the long-term battle. While you and I may think their reasons are total hogwash (Yahoo may have the most additional services, but Google's are universally better, etc.), these people are planning on throwing lots of investment money at Yahoo! and MS. Does more money = Better search tech? In the long run, maybe. Summary: Google might lose because "conventional wisdom" may be sending money to their competitors.