Right, but didn't you missed the point? The PS3 isn't worth the price b/c games/software are what spearheads a popular console, not hardware. We have yet to see extraordinary titles that take advantage of today's hardware capabilities. The two worlds of software/hardware are markets of different tastes and attitudes. Gaming development is the combined effort of artificial intelligence, theatrical storylines, physics, etc. Hardware seems to be much more simple than creating a mind, a plot and a world. Yes, we are capable of producing better games - the problem comes when the industry doesn't create the right incentive for the proliferation of independent development.
The scientific revolution is causing us to rethink much of who and what we think we are. This may sound far fetched, but it happens in a way in which we don't take for granted. Just like the notion of property is twisted with the free software community and its idea of the right to distribute rather than exclude, here we see what appears to be yet another struggle to redefine social components: privacy. To be a bit sarcastic, the implications of all of this struggle of redefinition are BEYOND revolutionary. Of course we must want to change. The amazing thing is that the scientific revolution appears to be pealing away traditional discriminatory judgments that haunts our society. The Unites States is THE ground for one to study the implication of all of this. I think concepts like porn, or smoking weed, will change because of the sci. revolution. The above post by Reziac highlights the plot. It is not really the scientific revolution redefining who we are but simply we learning through the scientific revolution, we becoming better judges, in hope to dismantle fabricated morals, codes of conducts and human behavior. One must be young spirited and humble to believe and act in favor of this process of self-discovery. Long live weed and your homebrew porn!
Shit, I forgot to comment on the fact that perhaps all of this takeover by the rich is happening so they can, in their tems, "patch" the grieve that stimulates a would-be depression 1-8 years from now. To help get past this stream of bloody river, they are uniting. Very thoughtful, makes me happy.
Fuck I've been sitting here trying to reason why competitive companies would be willing to lock a share price from one of their operations. Isn't it illegal for the government to allow an alliance in an industry that needs to stay competitive?
Fuck, it's the end. The company name is 3? The service is called X-Series. And I'm living in a joke, right??! Someone allowed the (1) creation of the ultimate fortress in the history of business technology. Hopefully not! (2) the UK, a country without a Constitution, can now be the place to begin tracing activities of human beings. Excuse? Yes, you're not being monitored, you're loosing privacy under any suspecting evidence of wrongdoings. Why, it's Terrorism, of course... Again! The cost? Zero, everything is being privatized. They all win, because there is a contract from 'Tres' with a term to commit to all who delivers. Ask for the contract, it exists. Suckers. Now we sink because Osama said so and the rich listened.
I think the question is whether the business would benifit to open source, and then how much "open source" you want to make it - I think its utopian to have pure open source as a normal business model.
It's important to strictly define what your business is. Nike, presumably a running show manufacturer, does not make shoes - it only designs, distributes and markets them. Nike is primarily a service company. In this case, if Nike wanted to apply an open source model, it wouldn't do so with the manufacturing process (again, it outsources this phase), and certainly wouldn't want to open source its distribution and marketing processes. The design process is the only benificial area of Nike that could be "open source". So you can see how not much has been changed out of the entire company (only 33%), and yet it could have revolutionary outcomes. I think that's why open source is so cool. Of course, this is all theoretical, b/c if Nike did this, they would be positioning their product differently, and we don't know if they want this or not. Anyone cares to expand on this if it were to happen of another company doing it before Nike?
Below are some of my notes from ITConversations.com to help clarify what is pure open source. Its very informative and strictly objective talk, with speakers focusing on the SOFTWARE industry and the pros/cons of open source.
sorry for typos
---------------
Source: ITC - OSBC 2005 Speaker: Larry Augustine
BIG QUESTION:
WHERE DO CORPORATIONS SPEND THEIR MONEY?
*Many industries, especially software development, spend more on sales and marketing than they do in development.
Where is the efficiency in the model? Its more about selling than creating?
In open source model, good users will come because the product is great
Its not about features, but about maintainance and support - features should be for free.
-----
Source: ITC - OSBC 2005 Speaker: Geoffrey Moore
open source movement is more like a services model than anything ever
OPEN SOURCE MAIN ROLE: commoratize context processes so that people can extract their resources from context and repurpose them for core. argument: function of open source is to essencially vacuum mission critical content off the table.
sharing is actually good for capitalism because you're not goint to be spending money on stuff that doesnt differenciate.
its about: reducing risk, lowering cost getting more productivity out of the services businesses
the two on top are about individual accountability (self or achievement) --- you're thinking about your personal self in relation to the world on the lower ones (Affiliation/Order/Security) --- you're thinking about the group's relationship to the world
when u manage companies, the ones at the top holds individuals accountable for outcomes and companies at the bottom hold the team accountable for the outcomes the companies on the right pays more attention Actuality - the numbers, did you make quota - the approach is to make things happen the cultures on the left pays more attention to aspiration or possibilities (can do cultures as opposed to did do cultures)
open source is all about "you can let it happen"
with open source, the power has gone to the left side
How Open Source Suceeds:
-possibilities as opposed to actualities
-collaborative/active trust (u give before you receive)
-pacience (if you run out of t
Frankly, after looking over a bunch of MMORPGs (WoW, CoV, Planetside, AO, EVE, Auto Assault) I'm not impressed. The only truly different one is EVE and I don't have the time to have a second career which seems to be about the only way to really get into that game.
B/c of the above post, I went to watch the trailer of EVE ("the world's largest game universe" - ouuu!!). It seems like a mix of infinite stock market analysis, a customizable space simulator, and an ecosystem filled with duties to fulfill in order to preserve the game's food chain. ("In a nutshell, EVE can be described as an alternative reality!") - says the FAQ.
The whole thing is a mess - the main problem is also the industry's biggest impulse in sales; it's obvious and highly discouraging to the attempting consumer: games are unproductive and extremely time consuming. Right, many see it as a form of relaxation, but there is room to grow! We seem to be sitting in a cage and abide to old and stupid market rules!
For example, take away the fact of unexplored markets and money to be made. Tell everybody to go fuck themselves; you're in it for a personal revolution, not for money. The barrier gaming hasn't yet overcome is to take all this modern history we have behind us (investment and economics, strategy and management, science and engineering)... whatever set of combination fits best... of course these subjects have interesting and basic in-depth concepts - and making a learning experience out of them. In a game. Be it GTA or not.
On the April issue of Wired, Will Wright wrote Dream Machines, an intriguing highlight on the power and the potential this industry holds. Unfortunately, consumers just play and eat up on the junk that gets thrown at them, so the power to revolutionize is in the hands of eccentric developers.
I'd think they would be tired of drawing endless monsters by now.
I remember watching "The High Cost of Low Price" and my professor kidda leaned toward Walmart's efforts in being #1 in operation effectiveness. I kidda agree with her, also taking into consideration that somebody has to do that job, and that someone is Walmart. I think the various problems Walmart has overseas is very much a mix of them being so big and local authorities not paying too much attention, being that in the short run they get to make some money too.
But here is an article explaining about a phenomenon that is not so new under today's hyper-commercialized society. It is also visible in other media when, for example, big advertisers have a big say on how television programs get produced to suit their demands. I think it's all completely absurd, and really just made me change my whole perspective towards the Walmart discussion. This article is by far the best example of Walmart's lack of social responsibility - it might not be so obvious of a social problem right now because they are gearing their sales to the mass, but it is true nevertheless. On the other hand, it's a catch-22 for them, being that if they were to sell crazy, different, innovative, vulgar or explicit games, it would be completely unorthodox under their policy, and thus they would not be fully effective in their operation - after all, the numbers said so.
So here's the catch: do they harm/offend the rest of the culture (ex: me) who don't consider themselves 'the mass' by controlling what kind of games gets produced (only the ordinary ones), or do they keep doing their calculations for as long as things become more apparent to the general public - because it will, maybe not now however. The outward effect of this is tremendous. Imagine if our society only produced ordinary goods, how boring and deteriorated would progress and innovation and our lives be.
This concept holds true for everything else - in the gaming industry I haven't seen a breakthrough in design in roughly 7 years. The mass market (consumers) should be disapproving this, but it wouldn't make sense for them to do so, after all, all they care about is Hollywood-style productions. The sad reality is that many people, including Walmart, see these effects as being entirely unintentional. They argue Walmart has always tried to maintain a family friendly bible image. In the end, the once captivating and prosperous game industry gets turned upside down into the ordinary. How dull... another accidental move by Walmat and the likes.
So there we have it, a nice tale about why operation effectiveness isn't effective when you're too big - your forces are so influential they extend beyond your company and you halt outside innovation. My point is that ignorance can't go on forever... I hope.
The last quote ["We need to give the consumer a reason to leave the house, put down the iPod"] by Shari Redstone, president of National Amusements, shows that modern day executives may have finally educated themselves about the true principles of marketing and its strong orientation towards the consumer. On the other hand, it looks like the time to make adequate change is running out. Had executives acted upon their concerns of "focusing on brining the wow factor back to the experience" and improving the industry at an earlier time, this news article wouldn't have been released. In terms of a management perspective, they have failed.
The problem these days isn't so much about knowledge anymore, but timing.
Unlike the old days, today's leaders acknowledge there is a failure of seeing "down the road" and are clearly showing a spirit to think outside the box by harnessing to changes in the environment. After half a decade of magazine articles covering the topic of adapting your business to change, that lesson has finally been learned. But it all seems to serve no use if you don't execute your decisions early enough. This article is a wonderful example of that.
It seems you understand the legal aspects of broadcasting more than I do, but lets not forget that it is through advertisement that the media manages to take in a profit and pay their expenses.
In today's standards, the word 'free' isn't completely what it sounds, and I'm sorry not to have pointed that out. The car of tomorrow can come equipped with back seat LCD screens free of charge, but I bet they have further plans of selling you a service to watch on your LCD afterwards. In the same sense, a free Internet station can be embedded with all sorts of goods that will attract an audience and then ads. Something else went wrong along the way.
Were they using this technology to its fullest potential? Did they innovate enough? Hypothetically, the Internet allows you to find out where the person is listening from, so you could give initiative to a new model/campaign to advertisers themselves, giving them the capability to dynamically access listeners of selected regions, purchased and operated through an automated system. Such model targets the advertiser, not listener, so in the same way they would have to work hard on their programming (probably what they are good at anyway).
According to you, they tried solving two problems: one of retirement, the other of survival with a new model. The point is that currently, they don't seem to be prepared as individuals ("owners of the station were reaching retirement age") to lead, innovate, or at least improve the model of Internet radio, so I don't see how this article fits its title.
I see a problem when you try to switch from a working traditional model to a barely young one, especially when you don't have a name for yourself. Why Internet only? Do they even have the strength to operate under this new model? Why don't they keep their radio frequency, and use the net for free? Only if when they were doing exactly that, they thought their net audience was so high they could have made it with it only...!?
In the midst of innovation, beforehand, you gotta draw out realistic objectives. I'm sorry, but the urge for money is creating the wrong meaning to the word 'internet'. Free is the word, b/c its with it that we share culture and grow... not locally or regionally, but globally.
Do you see the free software movement and its derivatives as a significant threshold in the way humanity evolves? In other words, is the best still to come, or has it already happened? Is the conservative resistance against these modern principles way too much to overcome?
Clarification:
How ironically - we live both in a dramatic and boring world where the creator of commercialist solutions deliberately slows our passage through time for his own sake.
We tend to think markets perform naturally, while better realities do exist. These new realities imply the disappearance of social classes, solve the problem of politics, nepotism, etc... I'm talking about the free software movement - it sounds like the best equation of all time, and seems to put us in line with our greatest virtue (truth and happiness) while sustaining the greatest growth rate possible.
It sounds like one of those passages from futurists like Ray Kurzweil who think science and technology will outgrow everything and turn the world upside down. [Great passages btw].
What thinkers often ignore, however, is the question of resistance, and how much of it is there.
An ad-based Windows OS would serve completely inadequate for users of small devices (notebooks, smart phones, PDA). Mobility limits your screen space.
I have just purchased Dell's X1, their smallest laptop @ 2.5 lbs, and noticed that the price paid for mobility is a loss in user-experience and joy. We forget that point b/c of the greater advantages mobility provides us (or some).
Frustrated, I never thought I'd have to bump Windows font size to 120 DPI. With a 12.1'' screen, if the thing came with ads, I would deem both the device and myself miserable.
The only solution from this point is text ad.
Or you get away with it all by being the 3rd party developer, (AIM, *MSN Messenger*, etc). Perhaps MSN's ad revenue is proving to be extremely effective, so it's worth consideration on Microsoft's part?
This is plain frustrating and depressing. We need more revolutionists to end capitalism. I hope everyone realizes what is really happening. All the rage Microsoft has towards Google just works for their advantage as a mega-corporation. The more these monsters expand, the less competition/innovation for the industry, definitely not a benefit to the consumer. We're forever going from benefiting the public to benefiting the corporation. In the largest sense, it's clear to see this isn't the best model. The question is how long will it take? But I don't care, its gona take time... and I'm getting older dammit.
They are (Microsoft) above all fat and strong. It's very easy to start buying out niche markets, deploying similar technologies, and ultimately, if Google doesn't move quickly enough, start to lead the market with similar business models. All of Google's legacy trashed in the garbage. They better move to better search algorithms because soon I'm sensing someone else will (perhaps ADIOS?). Fuck, the bubble bursts!
Truthly, I don't know who to go for. Money Money Money! If you're smart enough you know this is not how you win things. How do you win without it anyway? I guess this isn't my time...
These people are a bunch of ignorant useless shits! They truly can care less about the rest of the world. Instead of acting like a father to all and provide an example, they perform ugly stunts that leaves me disgust.
Is it my own senses or do they keep releasing these reports strategically timed targeting the innocents? What an objective. What a bunch of losers.
This is again another example of why the freakin market doesn't progress like I thought it should.
They should be given 5 minutes to make a new choice for a profession, otherwise be sent out of orbit because I don't appreciate incompetence when it comes to world culture and their role in it.
[what are the limits of liability for the phone companies, postal server, or the package delivery companies if they are used by drug distributors? I beleive the answer is "no liability whatsoever". Why do people think that everything is different if it's done on a computer?]
You're half right, we all tend to assume everything is indeed different when it's done on a computer. Unfortunately, it is. The reason is that communication through machines (1's and 0's) is within clear and visible reach for regulation, unlike a physical package in the mail, or a telephone conversation that ULTIMATELY is a lot more private and is voice data. 1's and 0's are far easier to be modified, manipulated and filtered - thus you arrive at the thought of regulation. Many use this data illicitly, and this as you all are aware, has caused much disturbance in the past few years.
The exchange of computer data certainly differs widely from mailing a package or making a telephone call. What often goes by unnoticed is particularly the speed at which the communication is taking place at. In the end, this is the difference. If the regulation is possible, then you bet you ass it's coming.
This Age has presented us two strong issues that are beginning to emerge: information vs. regulation - it's definitely a topic we're all aware of, so this incident varies no bit. Google is liable.
This is all bullshit! Perhaps next time in 4 yrs?!
on
More On PS3 and Xbox 2
·
· Score: 1
Too bad none of these video games will make me go WOW, like things back 6-8 years ago. Those days, we went from primitive, cool and some what still simple things, to revolutionary complex environments -- basically a revolution in realism. Nowadays, we have been progressing smoothly, with no real breakthroughs. The competition is holding steady, and they insist in releasing all these damn machines at the same time, just to hold back time and guide us slowly through this revolution, that way perhaps they will gain one more of us as an audience. Fuck this! I hate waiting!! I want a damn space machine!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Right, but didn't you missed the point? The PS3 isn't worth the price b/c games/software are what spearheads a popular console, not hardware. We have yet to see extraordinary titles that take advantage of today's hardware capabilities. The two worlds of software/hardware are markets of different tastes and attitudes. Gaming development is the combined effort of artificial intelligence, theatrical storylines, physics, etc. Hardware seems to be much more simple than creating a mind, a plot and a world. Yes, we are capable of producing better games - the problem comes when the industry doesn't create the right incentive for the proliferation of independent development.
The scientific revolution is causing us to rethink much of who and what we think we are. This may sound far fetched, but it happens in a way in which we don't take for granted. Just like the notion of property is twisted with the free software community and its idea of the right to distribute rather than exclude, here we see what appears to be yet another struggle to redefine social components: privacy. To be a bit sarcastic, the implications of all of this struggle of redefinition are BEYOND revolutionary. Of course we must want to change. The amazing thing is that the scientific revolution appears to be pealing away traditional discriminatory judgments that haunts our society. The Unites States is THE ground for one to study the implication of all of this. I think concepts like porn, or smoking weed, will change because of the sci. revolution. The above post by Reziac highlights the plot. It is not really the scientific revolution redefining who we are but simply we learning through the scientific revolution, we becoming better judges, in hope to dismantle fabricated morals, codes of conducts and human behavior. One must be young spirited and humble to believe and act in favor of this process of self-discovery. Long live weed and your homebrew porn!
Shit, I forgot to comment on the fact that perhaps all of this takeover by the rich is happening so they can, in their tems, "patch" the grieve that stimulates a would-be depression 1-8 years from now. To help get past this stream of bloody river, they are uniting. Very thoughtful, makes me happy.
Fuck, it's the end. The company name is 3? The service is called X-Series. And I'm living in a joke, right??! Someone allowed the (1) creation of the ultimate fortress in the history of business technology. Hopefully not! (2) the UK, a country without a Constitution, can now be the place to begin tracing activities of human beings. Excuse? Yes, you're not being monitored, you're loosing privacy under any suspecting evidence of wrongdoings. Why, it's Terrorism, of course... Again! The cost? Zero, everything is being privatized. They all win, because there is a contract from 'Tres' with a term to commit to all who delivers. Ask for the contract, it exists. Suckers. Now we sink because Osama said so and the rich listened.
I think the question is whether the business would benifit to open source, and then how much "open source" you want to make it - I think its utopian to have pure open source as a normal business model.
It's important to strictly define what your business is. Nike, presumably a running show manufacturer, does not make shoes - it only designs, distributes and markets them. Nike is primarily a service company. In this case, if Nike wanted to apply an open source model, it wouldn't do so with the manufacturing process (again, it outsources this phase), and certainly wouldn't want to open source its distribution and marketing processes. The design process is the only benificial area of Nike that could be "open source". So you can see how not much has been changed out of the entire company (only 33%), and yet it could have revolutionary outcomes. I think that's why open source is so cool. Of course, this is all theoretical, b/c if Nike did this, they would be positioning their product differently, and we don't know if they want this or not. Anyone cares to expand on this if it were to happen of another company doing it before Nike?
Below are some of my notes from ITConversations.com to help clarify what is pure open source.
Its very informative and strictly objective talk, with speakers focusing on the SOFTWARE industry and the pros/cons of open source.
sorry for typos
---------------
Source: ITC - OSBC 2005
Speaker: Larry Augustine
BIG QUESTION:
WHERE DO CORPORATIONS SPEND THEIR MONEY?
*Many industries, especially software development, spend more on sales and marketing than they do in development.
Where is the efficiency in the model? Its more about selling than creating?
In open source model, good users will come because the product is great
Its not about features, but about maintainance and support - features should be for free.
-----
Source: ITC - OSBC 2005
Speaker: Geoffrey Moore
open source movement is more like a services model than anything ever
OPEN SOURCE MAIN ROLE:
commoratize context processes so that people can extract their resources from context and repurpose them for core.
argument: function of open source is to essencially vacuum mission critical content off the table.
sharing is actually good for capitalism because you're not goint to be spending money on stuff that doesnt differenciate.
its about:
reducing risk, lowering cost
getting more productivity out of the services businesses
ORGANIZATION:
CENTRALIZE, STANDARDIZE, MODERNIZE, AUTOMATE, OUTSOURCE
Malvocks Hiarchy of Needs applied to Capitalism
Competition = Achievement
Self-Actualization = Cultivation Culture
Control = Order/Security
Collaboration = Affiliation
the two on top are about individual accountability (self or achievement) --- you're thinking about your personal self in relation to the world
on the lower ones (Affiliation/Order/Security) --- you're thinking about the group's relationship to the world
when u manage companies, the ones at the top holds individuals accountable for outcomes and companies at the bottom hold the team accountable for the outcomes
the companies on the right pays more attention Actuality - the numbers, did you make quota - the approach is to make things happen
the cultures on the left pays more attention to aspiration or possibilities (can do cultures as opposed to did do cultures)
open source is all about "you can let it happen"
with open source, the power has gone to the left side
How Open Source Suceeds:
-possibilities as opposed to actualities
-collaborative/active trust (u give before you receive)
-pacience (if you run out of t
sorry missed the link for Wright's article http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.04/wright.ht ml
B/c of the above post, I went to watch the trailer of EVE ("the world's largest game universe" - ouuu!!). It seems like a mix of infinite stock market analysis, a customizable space simulator, and an ecosystem filled with duties to fulfill in order to preserve the game's food chain. ("In a nutshell, EVE can be described as an alternative reality!") - says the FAQ.
The whole thing is a mess - the main problem is also the industry's biggest impulse in sales; it's obvious and highly discouraging to the attempting consumer: games are unproductive and extremely time consuming. Right, many see it as a form of relaxation, but there is room to grow! We seem to be sitting in a cage and abide to old and stupid market rules!
For example, take away the fact of unexplored markets and money to be made. Tell everybody to go fuck themselves; you're in it for a personal revolution, not for money. The barrier gaming hasn't yet overcome is to take all this modern history we have behind us (investment and economics, strategy and management, science and engineering)... whatever set of combination fits best... of course these subjects have interesting and basic in-depth concepts - and making a learning experience out of them. In a game. Be it GTA or not.
On the April issue of Wired, Will Wright wrote Dream Machines, an intriguing highlight on the power and the potential this industry holds. Unfortunately, consumers just play and eat up on the junk that gets thrown at them, so the power to revolutionize is in the hands of eccentric developers.
I'd think they would be tired of drawing endless monsters by now.
HAH, you can communicate better than amir!
God, I feel ticklish
Oh wait - God... if you exist, please get this man's comments out there.
Over time, man will learn who you are and what you like to do. HEHEHEH
You are being ignorant, I'd assume? :)
There's a saying by a very cool but deceased brazilian artist Chico Science
"O homem coletivo sente a necessidade de lutar"
"The collective man feels the necessity to fight"
You are right about the durability of ignorance, but I refuse to believe it.
I remember watching "The High Cost of Low Price" and my professor kidda leaned toward Walmart's efforts in being #1 in operation effectiveness. I kidda agree with her, also taking into consideration that somebody has to do that job, and that someone is Walmart. I think the various problems Walmart has overseas is very much a mix of them being so big and local authorities not paying too much attention, being that in the short run they get to make some money too.
But here is an article explaining about a phenomenon that is not so new under today's hyper-commercialized society. It is also visible in other media when, for example, big advertisers have a big say on how television programs get produced to suit their demands. I think it's all completely absurd, and really just made me change my whole perspective towards the Walmart discussion. This article is by far the best example of Walmart's lack of social responsibility - it might not be so obvious of a social problem right now because they are gearing their sales to the mass, but it is true nevertheless. On the other hand, it's a catch-22 for them, being that if they were to sell crazy, different, innovative, vulgar or explicit games, it would be completely unorthodox under their policy, and thus they would not be fully effective in their operation - after all, the numbers said so.
So here's the catch: do they harm/offend the rest of the culture (ex: me) who don't consider themselves 'the mass' by controlling what kind of games gets produced (only the ordinary ones), or do they keep doing their calculations for as long as things become more apparent to the general public - because it will, maybe not now however. The outward effect of this is tremendous. Imagine if our society only produced ordinary goods, how boring and deteriorated would progress and innovation and our lives be.
This concept holds true for everything else - in the gaming industry I haven't seen a breakthrough in design in roughly 7 years. The mass market (consumers) should be disapproving this, but it wouldn't make sense for them to do so, after all, all they care about is Hollywood-style productions. The sad reality is that many people, including Walmart, see these effects as being entirely unintentional. They argue Walmart has always tried to maintain a family friendly bible image. In the end, the once captivating and prosperous game industry gets turned upside down into the ordinary. How dull... another accidental move by Walmat and the likes.
So there we have it, a nice tale about why operation effectiveness isn't effective when you're too big - your forces are so influential they extend beyond your company and you halt outside innovation. My point is that ignorance can't go on forever... I hope.
Yeah don't you all forget: live is worth more than gold. -BobMarley
The last quote ["We need to give the consumer a reason to leave the house, put down the iPod"] by Shari Redstone, president of National Amusements, shows that modern day executives may have finally educated themselves about the true principles of marketing and its strong orientation towards the consumer. On the other hand, it looks like the time to make adequate change is running out. Had executives acted upon their concerns of "focusing on brining the wow factor back to the experience" and improving the industry at an earlier time, this news article wouldn't have been released. In terms of a management perspective, they have failed. The problem these days isn't so much about knowledge anymore, but timing. Unlike the old days, today's leaders acknowledge there is a failure of seeing "down the road" and are clearly showing a spirit to think outside the box by harnessing to changes in the environment. After half a decade of magazine articles covering the topic of adapting your business to change, that lesson has finally been learned. But it all seems to serve no use if you don't execute your decisions early enough. This article is a wonderful example of that.
It seems you understand the legal aspects of broadcasting more than I do, but lets not forget that it is through advertisement that the media manages to take in a profit and pay their expenses.
In today's standards, the word 'free' isn't completely what it sounds, and I'm sorry not to have pointed that out. The car of tomorrow can come equipped with back seat LCD screens free of charge, but I bet they have further plans of selling you a service to watch on your LCD afterwards. In the same sense, a free Internet station can be embedded with all sorts of goods that will attract an audience and then ads. Something else went wrong along the way.
Were they using this technology to its fullest potential? Did they innovate enough? Hypothetically, the Internet allows you to find out where the person is listening from, so you could give initiative to a new model/campaign to advertisers themselves, giving them the capability to dynamically access listeners of selected regions, purchased and operated through an automated system. Such model targets the advertiser, not listener, so in the same way they would have to work hard on their programming (probably what they are good at anyway).
According to you, they tried solving two problems: one of retirement, the other of survival with a new model. The point is that currently, they don't seem to be prepared as individuals ("owners of the station were reaching retirement age") to lead, innovate, or at least improve the model of Internet radio, so I don't see how this article fits its title.
I see a problem when you try to switch from a working traditional model to a barely young one, especially when you don't have a name for yourself. Why Internet only? Do they even have the strength to operate under this new model? Why don't they keep their radio frequency, and use the net for free? Only if when they were doing exactly that, they thought their net audience was so high they could have made it with it only...!?
In the midst of innovation, beforehand, you gotta draw out realistic objectives. I'm sorry, but the urge for money is creating the wrong meaning to the word 'internet'. Free is the word, b/c its with it that we share culture and grow... not locally or regionally, but globally.
Do you see the free software movement and its derivatives as a significant threshold in the way humanity evolves? In other words, is the best still to come, or has it already happened? Is the conservative resistance against these modern principles way too much to overcome?
Clarification:
How ironically - we live both in a dramatic and boring world where the creator of commercialist solutions deliberately slows our passage through time for his own sake.
We tend to think markets perform naturally, while better realities do exist. These new realities imply the disappearance of social classes, solve the problem of politics, nepotism, etc... I'm talking about the free software movement - it sounds like the best equation of all time, and seems to put us in line with our greatest virtue (truth and happiness) while sustaining the greatest growth rate possible.
It sounds like one of those passages from futurists like Ray Kurzweil who think science and technology will outgrow everything and turn the world upside down. [Great passages btw].
What thinkers often ignore, however, is the question of resistance, and how much of it is there.
An ad-based Windows OS would serve completely inadequate for users of small devices (notebooks, smart phones, PDA). Mobility limits your screen space.
I have just purchased Dell's X1, their smallest laptop @ 2.5 lbs, and noticed that the price paid for mobility is a loss in user-experience and joy. We forget that point b/c of the greater advantages mobility provides us (or some).
Frustrated, I never thought I'd have to bump Windows font size to 120 DPI. With a 12.1'' screen, if the thing came with ads, I would deem both the device and myself miserable.
The only solution from this point is text ad.
Or you get away with it all by being the 3rd party developer, (AIM, *MSN Messenger*, etc). Perhaps MSN's ad revenue is proving to be extremely effective, so it's worth consideration on Microsoft's part?
This is plain frustrating and depressing. We need more revolutionists to end capitalism. I hope everyone realizes what is really happening. All the rage Microsoft has towards Google just works for their advantage as a mega-corporation. The more these monsters expand, the less competition/innovation for the industry, definitely not a benefit to the consumer. We're forever going from benefiting the public to benefiting the corporation. In the largest sense, it's clear to see this isn't the best model. The question is how long will it take? But I don't care, its gona take time... and I'm getting older dammit.
They are (Microsoft) above all fat and strong. It's very easy to start buying out niche markets, deploying similar technologies, and ultimately, if Google doesn't move quickly enough, start to lead the market with similar business models. All of Google's legacy trashed in the garbage. They better move to better search algorithms because soon I'm sensing someone else will (perhaps ADIOS?). Fuck, the bubble bursts!
Truthly, I don't know who to go for. Money Money Money! If you're smart enough you know this is not how you win things. How do you win without it anyway? I guess this isn't my time...
These people are a bunch of ignorant useless shits! They truly can care less about the rest of the world. Instead of acting like a father to all and provide an example, they perform ugly stunts that leaves me disgust.
Is it my own senses or do they keep releasing these reports strategically timed targeting the innocents? What an objective. What a bunch of losers.
This is again another example of why the freakin market doesn't progress like I thought it should.
They should be given 5 minutes to make a new choice for a profession, otherwise be sent out of orbit because I don't appreciate incompetence when it comes to world culture and their role in it.
How could we possibly want to live in a planet filled with holes from meteorites? That's the question!
Great, now if I want to bore :) myself reading Scientific American, and can use Google Scolar instead!
You're half right, we all tend to assume everything is indeed different when it's done on a computer. Unfortunately, it is. The reason is that communication through machines (1's and 0's) is within clear and visible reach for regulation, unlike a physical package in the mail, or a telephone conversation that ULTIMATELY is a lot more private and is voice data. 1's and 0's are far easier to be modified, manipulated and filtered - thus you arrive at the thought of regulation. Many use this data illicitly, and this as you all are aware, has caused much disturbance in the past few years.
The exchange of computer data certainly differs widely from mailing a package or making a telephone call. What often goes by unnoticed is particularly the speed at which the communication is taking place at. In the end, this is the difference. If the regulation is possible, then you bet you ass it's coming.
This Age has presented us two strong issues that are beginning to emerge: information vs. regulation - it's definitely a topic we're all aware of, so this incident varies no bit. Google is liable.
Too bad none of these video games will make me go WOW, like things back 6-8 years ago. Those days, we went from primitive, cool and some what still simple things, to revolutionary complex environments -- basically a revolution in realism. Nowadays, we have been progressing smoothly, with no real breakthroughs. The competition is holding steady, and they insist in releasing all these damn machines at the same time, just to hold back time and guide us slowly through this revolution, that way perhaps they will gain one more of us as an audience. Fuck this! I hate waiting!! I want a damn space machine!!!