I don't know whether it's true or not, but critics claim that the drug companies spend 10x as much on advertising as they do on research.
The implication being, of course, that if drug companies spent less on advertising, then they would have more to spend on research. Except that anybody with even a rudimentary understanding of advertising knows that is stupid. Companies don't engage in advertising in order to have less money--they advertise to make more money, by increasing sales.
So if drug companies diverted money from advertising to research, the decrease in profits due to less advertising would eat up all of the savings on advertising costs, and there would be less money to spend on research, not more.
Of course, that equation might be altered if there were restrictions on drug advertising, because one reason drug companies advertise is to maintain the competitive position of their products against similar products from other companies. But limiting drug advertising runs into some troublesome 1st amendment issues.
A pure computational method for generating randomness has not been found...and I'd guess it can't be done.
No, you can find a clever way of plotting the results of a pseudorandom number generator that visualizes the pattern inherent in using an algorithm. But modern pseudorandom number generators will pass all standard statistical tests for randomness.
If the song that plays next is solely a function of the song that is playing now, the system will wander from song to song exploring the playlist until it finds a circular loop- unless care is taken from the outset to ensure that the entire playlist is one large loop.
Any pseudorandom number generator will eventually repeat, but this is a well-understood problem and modern random number generators have very long cycles. And making sure that every song is played before any one repeats is a trivial programming problem, so if you did see the Shuffle's pseudorandom number generator cycling, it wouldn't manifest as a single song repeating early, but rather as the entire sequence of songs duplicating one that you have heard before.
We actually talked about this in my statistics class today. The professor actually had a friend who could flip a coin and get it to land on whatever he wanted, virtually every time. Made alot of money hustling people with that. It is possible to develop patterns of manipulating 'random' events, through skill of hand (or programming skill), that to most people still look like they're obeying pure randomness, but are actually being subtly manipulated behind the scenes. There's no doubt in my mind it's a possibility that Apple is trying to walk that line.
This is certainly true--a relative who works in a Casino tells me that "those old guys who gave been throwing the roulette ball for 30 years have a lot more control over where it ends up than you might think."
But that is irrelevant here--there is no physical skill involved, just as pseudorandom number generator, and modern pseudo random number generators are pretty good.
I think the mathematician is right--humans are actually very poor at recognizing truly random patterns. Our intuitive idea of what a random pattern looks like is really very nonrandom, with much less clustering than chance predicts.
The companies that create these intrusive ads are undermining the interests of their clients, both the advertisers and the web sites that run advertisements. As this continues, more and more users will start to turn off Flash, Java, and Javascript, and block ads entirely with products such as Privoxy. The net effect will be reduced advertising revenue for everybody and more good web sites going under.
I anticipate that the next generation of web browsers will include whitelist capabilities that allow users to enable these features only for "well behaved" web sites that refuse to allow intrusive advertising.
Well, that's a leap backwards in features compared to my cable company's PVR
Actually, it is a significant step forward, in the sense that it allows 3rd party components to display (and potentially record) digital cable without requiring the user to also rent a cable box. Before CableCard 1.0, this was not possible at all. But it does not offer parity with cable box DVRs. This is why companies like Tivo, and probably Apple if they actually plan to enter this market, are looking forward to CableCard 2.0, due next year, which will allow 3rd party components to fully match or exceed the capabilities of a cable box..
That would still make it foolish to try and develop a product that you're going to use 'someday'.
However, to repeat what I said, I don't think they have vague plans to do it "someday." I think that this is a long-standing and major component of their product strategy, and that they have for a long time had a good idea of their target date for product introduction.
There is a enormous number of things you learn by trying to roll out a real product to real users. The people at TiVo have that for DVRs. The people at Apple do not as far as DVRs are concerned.
A lot of companies have, however. In addition to TiVo, Elgato, & Replay, there are the product manufacturers of all of the competing DVRs that are now being introduced by cable companies and satellite companies. So I am sure that there are a lot of people that Apple could hire if they were looking for somebody with experience in that area. But that experience is probably not worth much to Apple, because an Apple entry into the market would probably not be "just another DVR." It is more likely to be modeled on the iPod/Apple Music Store introduction, with a major emphasis on content delivery. And Apple is the only company that has done such a thing successfully.
So you're saying that Apple frequenly wastes it's money developing hardware for markets they may-or-may-not want to enter sometime in the future, just so that they can enter that market when a 3rd party decides that it's the right time for Apple to do so?
No, I think that Apple has known for quite some time--months at least, more likely a year or two--that they will be entering the consumer video market at some point, when the technology reaches a certain level of maturity, and I think that this is a crucial component of Apple's long range business plan. I think that they have had a good idea for months of when they will be entering the market.
While I don't doubt that Apple has engineers that could develop a DVR from scratch that would work very well, I do severely doubt that they've been paying anyone to actually develop one. Even if they were, they have exactly 0 users for their DVR.
Which is also how many iPod users they had the day before release. And even if they buy TiVo, the will still have 0 users for their DVR upon release. Current TiVo owners won't count, because they own hardware that lacks the crucial features--HDTV capability and h.264 support--that Apple will require to make an Apple Video Store a success.
Apple wouldn't buy TiVo as a financial investment. Apple would buy TiVo for the technical knowlege and the fanatical userbase.
Apple already has a fanatical userbase. They don't need to purchase one. Apple may well be interesting in acquiring the technical knowledge if they have not already done so, but even then, it is not clear that buying TiVo is a better way to do this than buying Elgato, or just hiring individuals with expertise in the field.
The downside to external PVR boxes as opposed to those that come from the cable companies is that for the digital channels not everything will be decodeable by the external box. With my cable, the digital channels don't seem they'd be accessible by any device other than the cable box, so I don't know how you overcome this.
That's what CableCard is for. CableCard 1.0 is already out, allowing devices to access digital cable without a cable box, but it only supports one tuner, and it doesn't allow "upstream" communication required for features like video on demand. The CableCard 2.0 standard, due next year, will allow 3rd party devices to fully incorporate and extend the capabilities of a cable box, including features like multiple tuners and digital recording of HD shows.
You think Sony's Pictures division is going to be interested in supporting someone else's standard? I don't think so. 'Spiderman' is on it's way to a PSP near you but I'll be it would be a LONG time indeed before Jobs would be allowed to sell it.
1. Hire some engineers with a good amount of video experience and embedded experience to create a new team to make a new product from scratch, and they have 0 experience doing it as a team.
2. Buy TiVo, which already has a #1 with lots of experience in making these kinds of things.
That's assuming that Apple really is "starting for scratch." I don't think that it has only just now occurred to Apple to expand into video content delivery; I think that it has probably been in the works for quite some time. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple already has prototype DVRs already operational, and is simply waiting for the final details of the CableCard 2.0 interface to market a product.
That's something I've always been amazed the average TiVo user doesn't have a problem with, especially those here at Slashdot. You're paying a monthly service fee and on top of that, agreeing to let some company monitor your usage.
Probably because everybody who does have a problem with it simply turned that particular feature off.
Apple didn't roll the iPod interface entirely on their own. The first iPods had, in the About section, a mention of a company called Pixo. Pixo was developing an OS for mobile phones or some such thing, and Apple came along and had them retool it for use on the iPod. Since then Apple has brought iPod OS development in-house, but it's important to remember where it started.
TiVo comes prepackaged with a million subscribers, partnerships with cable and satellite providers, lots of patents and other IP, engineering expertise, brand name recognition, supply channels and marketing, etc.
The subscribers have obsolete equipment that won't be able to handle h.264 (MPEG-4), which Apple will need for HD content delivery. Why not sell them an Apple box instead of an Apple/TiVo box when they decide to upgrade? (and they'd be less likely to expect a special deal for being "loyal subscribers")
There are no partnerships with cable providers. Their only partnership with satellite providers is DirecTV, who is phasing them out for a home-grown DVR.
Developing from scratch would take what, a year minimum? These boxes have to be solid. You can't just throw MythTV into a system and start shipping.
Any viable system will have to support the CableCard 2.0 standard, which coincidentally won't be ready for a year, minimum. So Apple has plenty of time to develop its own DVR.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Tivos, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Tivo that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Tivo's faster Linux architecture.
Well, let's see. TiVo's these days are going for $50-100. So to be fair, you should compare a Wintel system in the same price range. A 386, maybe?
It already has one. Much in the Mac spirit, virtually all TiVo functions can be accessed just with the directional pad and the single select button. Most of the other buttons are just optional shortcuts.
Content suppliers are the ones who will have to meet consumers halfway and if what's been going on with the DMCA, Broadcast Flag, and other nonsense, I don't see this changing.
Actually, Steve Jobs might be the one guy who can do this. Remember, he's not just a potential DVR manufacturer, he is also, through Pixar, a content producer himself. So as he did with iTunes, he may well be able to work out a DRM scheme that is acceptable to the industry, yet not unacceptable to the average consumer.
I think that it is likely that Apple will get into the PVR business, probably once the CableCard 2.0 standard is finalized and it becomes possible for 3rd party devices to replicate and extend the function of cable boxes.
As a TiVo owner, I'd like to see Apple buy TiVo.
But as an Apple stockholder, I don't see what Apple gets out of the deal.
DVR technology? It's no great secret. There are open-source DVRs. If they want to buy the technology, Elgato is probably cheaper, and their stuff already runs on OS X.
The TiVo brandname? Apple is probably one of the few companies with little to gain from the Tivo name. Apple already has more brand recognition than TiVo, and they'd to better to merchandise a hypothetical Apple DVR as "the company that brought you the iPod" than on the basis of the less well known TiVo name.
The TiVo interface? It's impressive for a consumer electronics product, but nothing special by Apple standards. Presumably, Apple would want to roll their own, as they did for iPod.
Tivo's current customers? If they aren't making a profit for TiVo, why would they make one for Apple? Besides, Apple presumably will want to introduce something like the iTunes Music Store for HD video. This will require H.264 for efficient content delivery. Current TiVo hardware can't handle this. Presumably, current TiVo owners will be looking to upgrade in the next few years to a DVR with HD capability. Why shouldn't it be an Apple instead of a TiVo?
TiVo's patents? This is the only thing I can think of that Apple might want. But I'm not sure how crucial they are. They certainly haven't stopped cable companies from handing out competing DVRs, or Elgato from implementing one on the Mac. Still, I suppose that it is possible that TiVo has some patent that would be crucial to the kind of user experience that Apple hopes to create.
Eliminating a potential competitor for the DVR market? Again, perhaps, but at the moment TiVo isn't seeming like that big a threat.
In other words, it allows you to more effectively steal information and services from those who are kind enough to provide them for free, in exchange asking only for the opportunity to show you an easily ignored advertisement.
Sorry, no. It is not theft, because I never agreed to look at any advertisements, nor did I sign any kind of contract obligating me to do so. I choose to look at some advertisements out of the goodness of my heart and in the spirit of supporting sites that I like. If advertisers violate this implicit and nonbinding agreement by creating ads that are excessively obtrusive or that attempt to usurp my prerogative of deciding for myself which windows to open when, then I will respond by blocking all advertising. Unfortunately, this may result in some sites going out of business. The blame for this falls entirely upon those selfish advertisers who chose to poison the well in the pursuit of their personal profit.
I'm probably in the minority here but I think that the iPod photo is overkill. The iPod is an excellent, simply designed music player. Bolting on photo displaying is a bit pointless. Not only is the screen still too small to be practical, even for "quick viewing", I tend to keep my iPod in my pocket all the time. Colour screens are not necessary.
I'm hoping that eventually Apple will port Keynote to the iPod photo (yes, I know that you can make a slideshow and port that, but I mean native Keynote files with all effects). Every academic will want one, just to be able to to carry his lectures in his pocket, without lugging around a laptop or dealing with the potential complications of running a presentation on somebody else's computer.
Given how cheap it is to rent DVDs these days, I'm not inclined to give up 5.1 surround sound, which I find adds significantly to my enjoyment. Even a cheap 5.1 system makes a huge improvement to TV sound.
iPod's days are numbered. Apple's Microsoft-esque shennigans of blocking out contnet from other vendors and funky prorietary DRM schemes have earned them no love.
On the contrary, Apple's support for DRM free mp3 ripping, combined with their success in devising a DRM system that is just adequate to satisfy content producers, yet still allows users to play music on multiple devices, and even (with some inconvenience and a slight loss in quality) to transcode to DRM-free mp3 format, has made them extraordinarily popular with consumers, with sales steadily increasing.
Beware of cognitive illusions
on
Blink, Take 2
·
· Score: 1
The problem with overreliance on intuition is that one can easily fall prey to "cognitive illusions". It is easy to slip into these errors unless you are consciously aware of them. Many of them are very seductive, and much like optical illusions probably reflect "bugs" in our inbuilt algorithms for making judgments.
One possible solution would be to include a command to "Disable Javascript for this site." Then we could block Javascript only for sites that abuse it to put up pop-ups or pop-unders.
Ironically, pop-up blocking is the only thing that keeps me from blocking ads entirely with Privoxy. I don't mind looking at well-behaved ads if they help maintain the sites I like, but the guys selling the pop-ups are poisoning the well for everybody.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know whether it's true or not, but critics claim that the drug companies spend 10x as much on advertising as they do on research.
The implication being, of course, that if drug companies spent less on advertising, then they would have more to spend on research. Except that anybody with even a rudimentary understanding of advertising knows that is stupid. Companies don't engage in advertising in order to have less money--they advertise to make more money, by increasing sales.
So if drug companies diverted money from advertising to research, the decrease in profits due to less advertising would eat up all of the savings on advertising costs, and there would be less money to spend on research, not more.
Of course, that equation might be altered if there were restrictions on drug advertising, because one reason drug companies advertise is to maintain the competitive position of their products against similar products from other companies. But limiting drug advertising runs into some troublesome 1st amendment issues.
A pure computational method for generating randomness has not been found...and I'd guess it can't be done.
No, you can find a clever way of plotting the results of a pseudorandom number generator that visualizes the pattern inherent in using an algorithm. But modern pseudorandom number generators will pass all standard statistical tests for randomness.
If the song that plays next is solely a function of the song that is playing now, the system will wander from song to song exploring the playlist until it finds a circular loop- unless care is taken from the outset to ensure that the entire playlist is one large loop.
Any pseudorandom number generator will eventually repeat, but this is a well-understood problem and modern random number generators have very long cycles. And making sure that every song is played before any one repeats is a trivial programming problem, so if you did see the Shuffle's pseudorandom number generator cycling, it wouldn't manifest as a single song repeating early, but rather as the entire sequence of songs duplicating one that you have heard before.
We actually talked about this in my statistics class today. The professor actually had a friend who could flip a coin and get it to land on whatever he wanted, virtually every time. Made alot of money hustling people with that. It is possible to develop patterns of manipulating 'random' events, through skill of hand (or programming skill), that to most people still look like they're obeying pure randomness, but are actually being subtly manipulated behind the scenes. There's no doubt in my mind it's a possibility that Apple is trying to walk that line.
This is certainly true--a relative who works in a Casino tells me that "those old guys who gave been throwing the roulette ball for 30 years have a lot more control over where it ends up than you might think."
But that is irrelevant here--there is no physical skill involved, just as pseudorandom number generator, and modern pseudo random number generators are pretty good.
I think the mathematician is right--humans are actually very poor at recognizing truly random patterns. Our intuitive idea of what a random pattern looks like is really very nonrandom, with much less clustering than chance predicts.
The companies that create these intrusive ads are undermining the interests of their clients, both the advertisers and the web sites that run advertisements. As this continues, more and more users will start to turn off Flash, Java, and Javascript, and block ads entirely with products such as Privoxy. The net effect will be reduced advertising revenue for everybody and more good web sites going under.
I anticipate that the next generation of web browsers will include whitelist capabilities that allow users to enable these features only for "well behaved" web sites that refuse to allow intrusive advertising.
Well, that's a leap backwards in features compared to my cable company's PVR
Actually, it is a significant step forward, in the sense that it allows 3rd party components to display (and potentially record) digital cable without requiring the user to also rent a cable box. Before CableCard 1.0, this was not possible at all. But it does not offer parity with cable box DVRs. This is why companies like Tivo, and probably Apple if they actually plan to enter this market, are looking forward to CableCard 2.0, due next year, which will allow 3rd party components to fully match or exceed the capabilities of a cable box..
That would still make it foolish to try and develop a product that you're going to use 'someday'.
However, to repeat what I said, I don't think they have vague plans to do it "someday." I think that this is a long-standing and major component of their product strategy, and that they have for a long time had a good idea of their target date for product introduction.
There is a enormous number of things you learn by trying to roll out a real product to real users. The people at TiVo have that for DVRs. The people at Apple do not as far as DVRs are concerned.
A lot of companies have, however. In addition to TiVo, Elgato, & Replay, there are the product manufacturers of all of the competing DVRs that are now being introduced by cable companies and satellite companies. So I am sure that there are a lot of people that Apple could hire if they were looking for somebody with experience in that area. But that experience is probably not worth much to Apple, because an Apple entry into the market would probably not be "just another DVR." It is more likely to be modeled on the iPod/Apple Music Store introduction, with a major emphasis on content delivery. And Apple is the only company that has done such a thing successfully.
So you're saying that Apple frequenly wastes it's money developing hardware for markets they may-or-may-not want to enter sometime in the future, just so that they can enter that market when a 3rd party decides that it's the right time for Apple to do so?
No, I think that Apple has known for quite some time--months at least, more likely a year or two--that they will be entering the consumer video market at some point, when the technology reaches a certain level of maturity, and I think that this is a crucial component of Apple's long range business plan. I think that they have had a good idea for months of when they will be entering the market.
While I don't doubt that Apple has engineers that could develop a DVR from scratch that would work very well, I do severely doubt that they've been paying anyone to actually develop one. Even if they were, they have exactly 0 users for their DVR.
Which is also how many iPod users they had the day before release. And even if they buy TiVo, the will still have 0 users for their DVR upon release. Current TiVo owners won't count, because they own hardware that lacks the crucial features--HDTV capability and h.264 support--that Apple will require to make an Apple Video Store a success.
Apple wouldn't buy TiVo as a financial investment. Apple would buy TiVo for the technical knowlege and the fanatical userbase.
Apple already has a fanatical userbase. They don't need to purchase one. Apple may well be interesting in acquiring the technical knowledge if they have not already done so, but even then, it is not clear that buying TiVo is a better way to do this than buying Elgato, or just hiring individuals with expertise in the field.
The downside to external PVR boxes as opposed to those that come from the cable companies is that for the digital channels not everything will be decodeable by the external box. With my cable, the digital channels don't seem they'd be accessible by any device other than the cable box, so I don't know how you overcome this.
That's what CableCard is for. CableCard 1.0 is already out, allowing devices to access digital cable without a cable box, but it only supports one tuner, and it doesn't allow "upstream" communication required for features like video on demand. The CableCard 2.0 standard, due next year, will allow 3rd party devices to fully incorporate and extend the capabilities of a cable box, including features like multiple tuners and digital recording of HD shows.
You think Sony's Pictures division is going to be interested in supporting someone else's standard? I don't think so. 'Spiderman' is on it's way to a PSP near you but I'll be it would be a LONG time indeed before Jobs would be allowed to sell it.
Yes, it's probably just coincidence that the President of Sony appeared on stage with Jobs at the last MacWorld. He probably was just passing by and thought he'd stop in to say "Hi."
1. Hire some engineers with a good amount of video experience and embedded experience to create a new team to make a new product from scratch, and they have 0 experience doing it as a team.
2. Buy TiVo, which already has a #1 with lots of experience in making these kinds of things.
That's assuming that Apple really is "starting for scratch." I don't think that it has only just now occurred to Apple to expand into video content delivery; I think that it has probably been in the works for quite some time. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple already has prototype DVRs already operational, and is simply waiting for the final details of the CableCard 2.0 interface to market a product.
That's something I've always been amazed the average TiVo user doesn't have a problem with, especially those here at Slashdot. You're paying a monthly service fee and on top of that, agreeing to let some company monitor your usage.
Probably because everybody who does have a problem with it simply turned that particular feature off.
Apple didn't roll the iPod interface entirely on their own. The first iPods had, in the About section, a mention of a company called Pixo. Pixo was developing an OS for mobile phones or some such thing, and Apple came along and had them retool it for use on the iPod. Since then Apple has brought iPod OS development in-house, but it's important to remember where it started.
A contractor provided the OS, but Apple designed the interface in house
I disagree on the name/brand. A lot of people I know still think Beatles records when I say Apple.
If you want to be in virtually every American consumer's conciousness your product had better be related to tv, fast food, or credit card debt.
However behind the times the people you know may be, Apple is currently one of the world's top brand names
TiVo comes prepackaged with a million subscribers, partnerships with cable and satellite providers, lots of patents and other IP, engineering expertise, brand name recognition, supply channels and marketing, etc.
The subscribers have obsolete equipment that won't be able to handle h.264 (MPEG-4), which Apple will need for HD content delivery. Why not sell them an Apple box instead of an Apple/TiVo box when they decide to upgrade? (and they'd be less likely to expect a special deal for being "loyal subscribers")
There are no partnerships with cable providers. Their only partnership with satellite providers is DirecTV, who is phasing them out for a home-grown DVR.
Apple doesn't need more brand name recognition
Developing from scratch would take what, a year minimum? These boxes have to be solid. You can't just throw MythTV into a system and start shipping.
Any viable system will have to support the CableCard 2.0 standard, which coincidentally won't be ready for a year, minimum. So Apple has plenty of time to develop its own DVR.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Tivos, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Tivo that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Tivo's faster Linux architecture.
Well, let's see. TiVo's these days are going for $50-100. So to be fair, you should compare a Wintel system in the same price range. A 386, maybe?
Wait till you see the one-button remote control.
It already has one. Much in the Mac spirit, virtually all TiVo functions can be accessed just with the directional pad and the single select button. Most of the other buttons are just optional shortcuts.
Content suppliers are the ones who will have to meet consumers halfway and if what's been going on with the DMCA, Broadcast Flag, and other nonsense, I don't see this changing.
Actually, Steve Jobs might be the one guy who can do this. Remember, he's not just a potential DVR manufacturer, he is also, through Pixar, a content producer himself. So as he did with iTunes, he may well be able to work out a DRM scheme that is acceptable to the industry, yet not unacceptable to the average consumer.
I think that it is likely that Apple will get into the PVR business, probably once the CableCard 2.0 standard is finalized and it becomes possible for 3rd party devices to replicate and extend the function of cable boxes.
As a TiVo owner, I'd like to see Apple buy TiVo.
But as an Apple stockholder, I don't see what Apple gets out of the deal.
DVR technology? It's no great secret. There are open-source DVRs. If they want to buy the technology, Elgato is probably cheaper, and their stuff already runs on OS X.
The TiVo brandname? Apple is probably one of the few companies with little to gain from the Tivo name. Apple already has more brand recognition than TiVo, and they'd to better to merchandise a hypothetical Apple DVR as "the company that brought you the iPod" than on the basis of the less well known TiVo name.
The TiVo interface? It's impressive for a consumer electronics product, but nothing special by Apple standards. Presumably, Apple would want to roll their own, as they did for iPod.
Tivo's current customers? If they aren't making a profit for TiVo, why would they make one for Apple? Besides, Apple presumably will want to introduce something like the iTunes Music Store for HD video. This will require H.264 for efficient content delivery. Current TiVo hardware can't handle this. Presumably, current TiVo owners will be looking to upgrade in the next few years to a DVR with HD capability. Why shouldn't it be an Apple instead of a TiVo?
TiVo's patents? This is the only thing I can think of that Apple might want. But I'm not sure how crucial they are. They certainly haven't stopped cable companies from handing out competing DVRs, or Elgato from implementing one on the Mac. Still, I suppose that it is possible that TiVo has some patent that would be crucial to the kind of user experience that Apple hopes to create.
Eliminating a potential competitor for the DVR market? Again, perhaps, but at the moment TiVo isn't seeming like that big a threat.
In other words, it allows you to more effectively steal information and services from those who are kind enough to provide them for free, in exchange asking only for the opportunity to show you an easily ignored advertisement.
Sorry, no. It is not theft, because I never agreed to look at any advertisements, nor did I sign any kind of contract obligating me to do so. I choose to look at some advertisements out of the goodness of my heart and in the spirit of supporting sites that I like. If advertisers violate this implicit and nonbinding agreement by creating ads that are excessively obtrusive or that attempt to usurp my prerogative of deciding for myself which windows to open when, then I will respond by blocking all advertising. Unfortunately, this may result in some sites going out of business. The blame for this falls entirely upon those selfish advertisers who chose to poison the well in the pursuit of their personal profit.
I'm probably in the minority here but I think that the iPod photo is overkill. The iPod is an excellent, simply designed music player. Bolting on photo displaying is a bit pointless. Not only is the screen still too small to be practical, even for "quick viewing", I tend to keep my iPod in my pocket all the time. Colour screens are not necessary.
I'm hoping that eventually Apple will port Keynote to the iPod photo (yes, I know that you can make a slideshow and port that, but I mean native Keynote files with all effects). Every academic will want one, just to be able to to carry his lectures in his pocket, without lugging around a laptop or dealing with the potential complications of running a presentation on somebody else's computer.
Given how cheap it is to rent DVDs these days, I'm not inclined to give up 5.1 surround sound, which I find adds significantly to my enjoyment. Even a cheap 5.1 system makes a huge improvement to TV sound.
iPod's days are numbered. Apple's Microsoft-esque shennigans of blocking out contnet from other vendors and funky prorietary DRM schemes have earned them no love.
On the contrary, Apple's support for DRM free mp3 ripping, combined with their success in devising a DRM system that is just adequate to satisfy content producers, yet still allows users to play music on multiple devices, and even (with some inconvenience and a slight loss in quality) to transcode to DRM-free mp3 format, has made them extraordinarily popular with consumers, with sales steadily increasing.
The problem with overreliance on intuition is that one can easily fall prey to "cognitive illusions". It is easy to slip into these errors unless you are consciously aware of them. Many of them are very seductive, and much like optical illusions probably reflect "bugs" in our inbuilt algorithms for making judgments.
One possible solution would be to include a command to "Disable Javascript for this site." Then we could block Javascript only for sites that abuse it to put up pop-ups or pop-unders.
Ironically, pop-up blocking is the only thing that keeps me from blocking ads entirely with Privoxy. I don't mind looking at well-behaved ads if they help maintain the sites I like, but the guys selling the pop-ups are poisoning the well for everybody.