Requisite flame approaching.
You misbegotten troll. That one would stop to egregious flamebaiting for the purpose of somehow justifying their miserable existence only serves to make that one seem all the more ridiculous.
Shame on you and your parents for having had the coitus that produced you in the first place.
I marvel at the way we assume that there is no damage becasue we perceive there is none. The potential for abuse of the P2P system is enormous. Frankly, it is at its worst when people sell the music that they have downloaded- and yes, it does happen. Take a journey to a flea market, swap meet, tag sale, whatever.
I manage alt rock bands. We sell CDs at show and via the web. Sales of those CDs are important to the survival of the band. We don't really get in a twist over P2P, but we hope that it leads to individuals buyng the music.
The pisser here is the recording industry. Yes, they are slightly damaged by P2P, but we forget about the bands trying to get somewhere. Theor value to the label is soley based in their capacity to sell CDs.
It is finally the artist who gets nailed, not by the music that is taken from them, but by the money that they will never see. The revenue stream keeps the musicians playing. Cut that out with P2P, and the result is band that will not get a chance. That's a pity.
Why do people think this is directly targetting the ipod?
Because we have a fucking clue.
I don't Microsoft bash for fun, but I can tell the truth. Anyone who doesn't believe that Microsoft is out to screw Apple at every corner has got to have a screw loose. They can't do it in certain ways, but given a chance, Microsoft will do anything short of arson (and I wouldn't put that past them) to eliminate competition. It's logical as can be, and if there is one thing Gates knows, it's logic.
Unfortunately, it takes a hell of lot more than that to create a decent studio environment. The equipment may be fine, but the acoustic design of a decent space takes a lot more. In addition, studio engineering and production isn't exactly a drop and drag ind of thing.
Remember, no matter how much gear you jam into a space, the producer is still going to make it work. There's really only one name you need to thin of- Mutt Lange. Without him, AC/DC, Def Leppard, Shania Twain, Bryan Adams, The Cars, and countless others might not have realized the full level of success.
An indie artist is going to be able to attract Mutt, and Mutt will attract the labels. Look at Shania Twain before and after Mutt Lange.
It's not about the equipment alone. It's the artist.....and no way Mutt Lange is ever going to pla the P2P game. And if he comes knocking at the dor, I advise any artist to say "Please come right in sir."
And as regards that equipment- a well equipped studio is also going to have a variety of guitars, amps, keyboards and various other goodies. How many artists carry a Theremin around just in case. A recording is built in the studio with the tools there. A simple computer based system can give you loads, but there is so much more needed- what do you do if the sound you need is actually produced by running a Les Paul Special through a Pignose for a pre-amp into a Peavey Ultra with a Peavey 412 cab.
I've spoken about distaste for pirating here in the past, but as the manager of an indie rock band, I'll also swear by P2P as a promotion mechanism.
Small bands make virtually nothing from club appearances. The money, at least at the beginning, is in merchandise- t-shirts, stickers, and CDs.
Every last one of them provides free downloads on sites such as Pure Volume or on My Space They still realize CD sales at performances and via web purchase as they chase the holy grail- the record contract.
File trading has, does, and will still work as part of a comprehensive business model. The Grateful Dead certainly did rather well considering that nearly everything they ever did can be downloaded from Archive.org.
P2P becomes dicey when a group's success is predicated on album sales, and not performance money. I don't think a lot of Steely Dan albums would have ever surfaced if P2P was a dominant medium in their period.
Most importantly though, it is still a decision that the artists must make- do they want to sacrifice the financial protection offered by copyright law or open the doors in hopes of atracting an audience. In the first, they've got a business entity whose hands are in the pot- in the latter, they are self-promoting and hoping to realize the success that brings.
If you want to see an example of how indie bands at their best work, check out Monty's Fan Club and see what a small band from Rhode Island can do with P2P and a willingness to get the music out there.
In the meantime, I'm going downstairs to get my kids to turn the damn guitars down.
Have we thought about the fact that English is already a royal pain in the ass to learn? The language is already hard enough for a non-native to speaker to use- Netspeak is a confused bastardization.
Yes, language will evolve, but for better or worse, English is a standard currency among much of the educated populace. If allowed to devolve (from Devo- devolution, not de-evolution) it's going to turn into a horrible mess.
Here's hoping that's not around the bend. (although I fear it greatly.)
That of course is predicated on the idea that losing your internet connection is going to be a part of the picture as the technology grows.
Given that as recently as fifteeen years ago no one knew what the internet was beyond a select few, it's not out of the question that the coming fifteen will give birth to a ubiquitous internet presence.
Current technology will die and be replaced by another paradigm- it is just a matter of time. Heck, reasonably usefu GUIs are merely 20 something. There's a lot of change to come and many folks will argue that online app delivery will be the norm in the future- giving Apple and other companies a chance to reap the benefits.
That of course was a cheap wow to suck you in, justas this film will be. Traiers always look good. That's their job. Mediocre acting and bad fight choreography won't make this even hold up.
Fact is, all the Star Wars films have been, in their own way, deliciously bad. Harrison Ford is a block of wood, Hamill just plain is no actor...
It's all about the story- Star`Wars succeeded because there was never anything like it before- when it hit, no one knew. That Episode Four was a better picture was no surprise. By the time Six cam around, it was time to tie it up in a neat little basket.
The true test will come when we look at this films in story order and see how the whole thing holds up- were te first three exposition adn therefore tedious as hell? Likely so. Revenge of the Sith just might be the tie that binds the exposition to the action. Too damn bad we'll never see the actual climax and resolution of the story.
Unfortunately for those who lost their acceptance, yes fucking way.
What exactly can Harvard get sued for? Unquestionably, those admissions letters were dated for April 15, the traditional day that all of this stuff goes down. Until that date, they were not admitted to Harvard. Had anything come out in their record that was negative (like oh, getting tossed out of Andover for cheating on an exam or Choate for dealing drugs) Harvard would have erased those letters of admission in the wink of an eye.
They were not offered admission to Harvard- they went into a database and saw that were LIKELY to be admitted. Even the acceptance letter comes with a caveat stating that the hgih school senior year must be completed in a satisfactory manner.
Harvard, as well as any other school, has the right to define admissions standards as they go along. If you cheat in the admissions process, you'll get screwed in the admissions process.
Simple call for Harvard really. Can 100+ admits and take the next 100 some on the waiting list. Somebody's day just got made, but they won't know until April 15. Congratulations on your admission to Harvard.
First, copy editors says "definitely," not "definitely."
Second, as an individual actually teaching a course called "Digital Journalism," I can assure you that some bloggers are, and some are not. The basic criteria for defining journalism has a great deal to do with exactly how facts are delivered and how viewpoint is defined.
Example- we've all been blogging in regard to the incident with the Italian journalist shooting. Before anyone sat to write, we spent class time addressing how the facts of the case defined the story- the idea is that a journalist reports the truth, not a version thereof. It's tough for kids to grasp, but there it is.
The Think Secret case is not about journalism- I've no problem with the site, but it's not journalism. Rumor sites by nature are just that- I'm sure there are cases in which Think Secret has had it wrong- how could he possibly fact check the rumor for backup- get someone else to break a non-disclosure agreement?
A journalist reports fact- not speculation. You've got to know your sources. It's how Rather got himself screwed. A simple acid test used with my students is to test any assertion they make with "How do you know?" A journalist knows, and indeed many bloggers have made it their business to know conclusively.
For me, you start with Woodward and Bernstein and measure against the way they built their stories. Deep Throat was a secret source- the reporters did the legwork to discover facts.
I guess if you write a journal you can call yourself a journalist, but that's forgiving. As someone who made a living off being a supposed Mac journalist for while, I can assure you that I was a writer first, and a journalist second. I'm not proud of that, but the money was good. The editing? Next to non-existent in most cases.
NOAA is the center of virtually all forcasting information. With a simple save of your locality's home page, you've got the forecast that everyone else (including Google) uses.
In an attempt to everything, some things will be better left undone.
A review of Apple hardware reveals that there are often pieces of architecture that go into the product that are not used (iMac's mezzanine slot anyone?).
This is simply good engineering- they have supplied for future growth as opposed to needing a full redesign. Should we expect anything else from a company that finally seems to be getting it right again and again?
A lack of understanding of how the film industry works is fascinating, and everytime something about it comes up people start talking out of their bottoms on/*. Not once have I heard anyone who actually knows something about this business speak up.
Again, we are not talking television- we are talking film. Here's the business model- the theatres get to show movies because they offer money to the distributors. If noone offers, the film stays in small release.
Cineplex owners do not make money off of movies- they make money by attracting as many customers as humanly possible into the theatre to buy overpriced popcorn and soda. By the time a film gets to the cinema, the actors are already paid whatever they are going to get. Box office figures are great for a phantom bottom line, but not reality.
Producers put up the money in the first place for a $50,000 film. They reap the profit from world-wide sales of every last thing associated with the film if they do their job right.
What happens to that $50,000? It goes to pay each individual that actually makes the movies- directors, gaffers, best boys, extras, stunt people, etc.
The MPAA's assertion is simple- the less momney that comes in, the less money goes out to make films, both released and unreleased (the dreaded straight to video- try to find a copy of kevin Bacon's White Water Summer- a decently budgeted film that never saw the light of day.)
What I don't get, and I wish someone could make me understand, is how an individual justifies taking something that doesn't belong to them and makes money from it. Perhaps some of you think it's a great business model. If so, I suggest finding a way to make cheap identical copies of iPods, selling them under the name iPod, and then looking unashamed when Apple bites your ass for screwing with their product.
Wait- I've had this conversation before- it's like talking with creationists. They'll sya anything to prop up what they know is wrong.
First, there are bundles of "artists" that won't appear on TV for a variety of reasons- even in a TV movie. Pacino and Streep doing Angels doesn't count- you'll see why later. A-list people won't do it. But that's not the issue.
The issue is a film like Memento. The picture was criticaly acclaimed, and raised the bar for a lot of indoe filmmakers. The seed money for the project came from Team Todd Productions, and offshoot of Dem Moore's production company. They took an enormous chance with the film which ony paid off marginally. If Team Todd loses revenue from wider audience feature, they can't make the smaller films.
In addition, revenue is closely tied to the development of quality television product, particulalry on the network end. Paramount for example produces major project cash cows (can you say "the Star Trek" franchise,) but also produces a number of pilots each year that never see the light of day. Fewer pilots equals less work for actors, writers, stage managers, editors.
Without the influx of cash, you can also kiss goodbye the work of people like the Coen brothers. They do their work on a limited budget, but the studios that release the films make the money (and feed t bakc to the Coens) that allows the Coen brothers to make the work they do.
I'll not argue that the film business is a mess, but remember that with the actors at least, 95% of all SAG members make less than a living wage each year. If the studios don't have the seed money, those actors stay not working.
Why do you think HBO is not screaming? They have no reason to. They already get a guarantee of revenue for whatever they make, and can therefore take chances that the studios can't. Angels in America doesn't exist as a film without HBO support. A major studion couldn't take the risk, but HBO has a solid sream of revenue that is never damaged by piracy.
Piracy takes money away from people- it trickles down to the low end of the feeding chain a greater percentage of people don't work. That's reality in the film industry. It sucks, but it's reality.
So. Do you think that this might just spawn a remarkable number of virus or spyware alerts from individuals looking for a good time? If people can successfully phish, just think of the fun that they will have scaring people about threats real or imagined.
While a good idea in principle, the reality could end up downright ridiculous- just how many of those e-mail alerts are going to cross the ocean?
A Clear Reaction to the Marketplace
on
Apple Updates iPod
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
In years of watching Apple make moves, this one seems to be one of the most insightful in terms of keeping marketshare. Although the competitors do not have the "cool" factor of the iPod, for once Apple seems fully aware that the competition is there, and they can not get by by merely producing superior technology.
This time, they have realized that in order to keep this technology at the center of the business model, they must continue to innovate.
With storage devices becoming smaller and smaller, they must continue to breakthrough with the bleeding edge technology. The iPod technology is simple enough that staying on the bleeding edge makes perfect sense. I sense that they've got this one nailed and are not letting go.
Re:Flops at Apple are predictable
on
Top 10 Apple Flops
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"It has always been about Steve Jobs. The man has insight and what could almost be considered clairvoyance when it comes to building things that people crave. God knows that I'm one of those at his feet, weeping and bathing him in frankincense."
Unfortunately, this also represents a huge problem for Apple down the road. As much as Jobs has dictated that which is desirable, genius tends to have a shelf life. A time will come when he just can't produce the same way- I hope to hell that he is grooming some manner of successor.
Slashdot Mirror
For two years, I worked to have my school adopt OpenOffice- abject failure was the result, leaving us still on, of all things, Office 97.
OOo ultimately is too slow and users just won't make the switch. The kids sre fine with it, but the teachers? Oy.
IT costs are already budgeted in most schools, so there is not a compelling reason to switch away once the money is already there.
Requisite flame approaching. You misbegotten troll. That one would stop to egregious flamebaiting for the purpose of somehow justifying their miserable existence only serves to make that one seem all the more ridiculous. Shame on you and your parents for having had the coitus that produced you in the first place.
I marvel at the way we assume that there is no damage becasue we perceive there is none. The potential for abuse of the P2P system is enormous. Frankly, it is at its worst when people sell the music that they have downloaded- and yes, it does happen. Take a journey to a flea market, swap meet, tag sale, whatever.
I manage alt rock bands. We sell CDs at show and via the web. Sales of those CDs are important to the survival of the band. We don't really get in a twist over P2P, but we hope that it leads to individuals buyng the music.
The pisser here is the recording industry. Yes, they are slightly damaged by P2P, but we forget about the bands trying to get somewhere. Theor value to the label is soley based in their capacity to sell CDs.
It is finally the artist who gets nailed, not by the music that is taken from them, but by the money that they will never see. The revenue stream keeps the musicians playing. Cut that out with P2P, and the result is band that will not get a chance. That's a pity.
Truly though, "Denny Crane" is a hoot. For all of Shatner's bombast, Denny Crane is a role he was just meant to play.
Or if you travel the south, "cracker" has another connotation all together. "Dumb cracker" too.
and we thought the Mac Mini was cool huh?
Why do people think this is directly targetting the ipod? Because we have a fucking clue.
I don't Microsoft bash for fun, but I can tell the truth. Anyone who doesn't believe that Microsoft is out to screw Apple at every corner has got to have a screw loose. They can't do it in certain ways, but given a chance, Microsoft will do anything short of arson (and I wouldn't put that past them) to eliminate competition. It's logical as can be, and if there is one thing Gates knows, it's logic.
Unfortunately, it takes a hell of lot more than that to create a decent studio environment. The equipment may be fine, but the acoustic design of a decent space takes a lot more. In addition, studio engineering and production isn't exactly a drop and drag ind of thing.
Remember, no matter how much gear you jam into a space, the producer is still going to make it work. There's really only one name you need to thin of- Mutt Lange. Without him, AC/DC, Def Leppard, Shania Twain, Bryan Adams, The Cars, and countless others might not have realized the full level of success.
An indie artist is going to be able to attract Mutt, and Mutt will attract the labels. Look at Shania Twain before and after Mutt Lange.
It's not about the equipment alone. It's the artist.....and no way Mutt Lange is ever going to pla the P2P game. And if he comes knocking at the dor, I advise any artist to say "Please come right in sir."
And as regards that equipment- a well equipped studio is also going to have a variety of guitars, amps, keyboards and various other goodies. How many artists carry a Theremin around just in case. A recording is built in the studio with the tools there. A simple computer based system can give you loads, but there is so much more needed- what do you do if the sound you need is actually produced by running a Les Paul Special through a Pignose for a pre-amp into a Peavey Ultra with a Peavey 412 cab.
There's more to this than meets the eyes.
I've spoken about distaste for pirating here in the past, but as the manager of an indie rock band, I'll also swear by P2P as a promotion mechanism.
Small bands make virtually nothing from club appearances. The money, at least at the beginning, is in merchandise- t-shirts, stickers, and CDs.
Every last one of them provides free downloads on sites such as Pure Volume or on My Space They still realize CD sales at performances and via web purchase as they chase the holy grail- the record contract.
File trading has, does, and will still work as part of a comprehensive business model. The Grateful Dead certainly did rather well considering that nearly everything they ever did can be downloaded from Archive.org.
P2P becomes dicey when a group's success is predicated on album sales, and not performance money. I don't think a lot of Steely Dan albums would have ever surfaced if P2P was a dominant medium in their period.
Most importantly though, it is still a decision that the artists must make- do they want to sacrifice the financial protection offered by copyright law or open the doors in hopes of atracting an audience. In the first, they've got a business entity whose hands are in the pot- in the latter, they are self-promoting and hoping to realize the success that brings.
If you want to see an example of how indie bands at their best work, check out Monty's Fan Club and see what a small band from Rhode Island can do with P2P and a willingness to get the music out there.
In the meantime, I'm going downstairs to get my kids to turn the damn guitars down.
Have we thought about the fact that English is already a royal pain in the ass to learn? The language is already hard enough for a non-native to speaker to use- Netspeak is a confused bastardization.
Yes, language will evolve, but for better or worse, English is a standard currency among much of the educated populace. If allowed to devolve (from Devo- devolution, not de-evolution) it's going to turn into a horrible mess.
Here's hoping that's not around the bend. (although I fear it greatly.)
That of course is predicated on the idea that losing your internet connection is going to be a part of the picture as the technology grows.
Given that as recently as fifteeen years ago no one knew what the internet was beyond a select few, it's not out of the question that the coming fifteen will give birth to a ubiquitous internet presence.
Current technology will die and be replaced by another paradigm- it is just a matter of time. Heck, reasonably usefu GUIs are merely 20 something. There's a lot of change to come and many folks will argue that online app delivery will be the norm in the future- giving Apple and other companies a chance to reap the benefits.
That of course was a cheap wow to suck you in, justas this film will be. Traiers always look good. That's their job. Mediocre acting and bad fight choreography won't make this even hold up.
Fact is, all the Star Wars films have been, in their own way, deliciously bad. Harrison Ford is a block of wood, Hamill just plain is no actor...
It's all about the story- Star`Wars succeeded because there was never anything like it before- when it hit, no one knew. That Episode Four was a better picture was no surprise. By the time Six cam around, it was time to tie it up in a neat little basket.
The true test will come when we look at this films in story order and see how the whole thing holds up- were te first three exposition adn therefore tedious as hell? Likely so. Revenge of the Sith just might be the tie that binds the exposition to the action. Too damn bad we'll never see the actual climax and resolution of the story.
Unfortunately for those who lost their acceptance, yes fucking way.
What exactly can Harvard get sued for? Unquestionably, those admissions letters were dated for April 15, the traditional day that all of this stuff goes down. Until that date, they were not admitted to Harvard. Had anything come out in their record that was negative (like oh, getting tossed out of Andover for cheating on an exam or Choate for dealing drugs) Harvard would have erased those letters of admission in the wink of an eye.
They were not offered admission to Harvard- they went into a database and saw that were LIKELY to be admitted. Even the acceptance letter comes with a caveat stating that the hgih school senior year must be completed in a satisfactory manner.
Harvard, as well as any other school, has the right to define admissions standards as they go along. If you cheat in the admissions process, you'll get screwed in the admissions process.
Simple call for Harvard really. Can 100+ admits and take the next 100 some on the waiting list. Somebody's day just got made, but they won't know until April 15. Congratulations on your admission to Harvard.
First, copy editors says "definitely," not "definitely."
Second, as an individual actually teaching a course called "Digital Journalism," I can assure you that some bloggers are, and some are not. The basic criteria for defining journalism has a great deal to do with exactly how facts are delivered and how viewpoint is defined.
Example- we've all been blogging in regard to the incident with the Italian journalist shooting. Before anyone sat to write, we spent class time addressing how the facts of the case defined the story- the idea is that a journalist reports the truth, not a version thereof. It's tough for kids to grasp, but there it is.
The Think Secret case is not about journalism- I've no problem with the site, but it's not journalism. Rumor sites by nature are just that- I'm sure there are cases in which Think Secret has had it wrong- how could he possibly fact check the rumor for backup- get someone else to break a non-disclosure agreement?
A journalist reports fact- not speculation. You've got to know your sources. It's how Rather got himself screwed. A simple acid test used with my students is to test any assertion they make with "How do you know?" A journalist knows, and indeed many bloggers have made it their business to know conclusively.
For me, you start with Woodward and Bernstein and measure against the way they built their stories. Deep Throat was a secret source- the reporters did the legwork to discover facts.
I guess if you write a journal you can call yourself a journalist, but that's forgiving. As someone who made a living off being a supposed Mac journalist for while, I can assure you that I was a writer first, and a journalist second. I'm not proud of that, but the money was good. The editing? Next to non-existent in most cases.
NOAA is the center of virtually all forcasting information. With a simple save of your locality's home page, you've got the forecast that everyone else (including Google) uses.
In an attempt to everything, some things will be better left undone.
and coming next, the special "Cluster F*ck" edition of Windows.
....Heaven's Gate will still suck.
This is patently ridiculous?
A review of Apple hardware reveals that there are often pieces of architecture that go into the product that are not used (iMac's mezzanine slot anyone?).
This is simply good engineering- they have supplied for future growth as opposed to needing a full redesign. Should we expect anything else from a company that finally seems to be getting it right again and again?
"Why so much secrecy?"
Um, out on a limb here but-
It's better to keep trade secrets than give them away. Then they are not secrets.
A lack of understanding of how the film industry works is fascinating, and everytime something about it comes up people start talking out of their bottoms on /*. Not once have I heard anyone who actually knows something about this business speak up.
Again, we are not talking television- we are talking film. Here's the business model- the theatres get to show movies because they offer money to the distributors. If noone offers, the film stays in small release.
Cineplex owners do not make money off of movies- they make money by attracting as many customers as humanly possible into the theatre to buy overpriced popcorn and soda. By the time a film gets to the cinema, the actors are already paid whatever they are going to get. Box office figures are great for a phantom bottom line, but not reality.
Producers put up the money in the first place for a $50,000 film. They reap the profit from world-wide sales of every last thing associated with the film if they do their job right.
What happens to that $50,000? It goes to pay each individual that actually makes the movies- directors, gaffers, best boys, extras, stunt people, etc.
The MPAA's assertion is simple- the less momney that comes in, the less money goes out to make films, both released and unreleased (the dreaded straight to video- try to find a copy of kevin Bacon's White Water Summer- a decently budgeted film that never saw the light of day.)
What I don't get, and I wish someone could make me understand, is how an individual justifies taking something that doesn't belong to them and makes money from it. Perhaps some of you think it's a great business model. If so, I suggest finding a way to make cheap identical copies of iPods, selling them under the name iPod, and then looking unashamed when Apple bites your ass for screwing with their product.
Wait- I've had this conversation before- it's like talking with creationists. They'll sya anything to prop up what they know is wrong.
First, there are bundles of "artists" that won't appear on TV for a variety of reasons- even in a TV movie. Pacino and Streep doing Angels doesn't count- you'll see why later. A-list people won't do it. But that's not the issue.
The issue is a film like Memento. The picture was criticaly acclaimed, and raised the bar for a lot of indoe filmmakers. The seed money for the project came from Team Todd Productions, and offshoot of Dem Moore's production company. They took an enormous chance with the film which ony paid off marginally. If Team Todd loses revenue from wider audience feature, they can't make the smaller films.
In addition, revenue is closely tied to the development of quality television product, particulalry on the network end. Paramount for example produces major project cash cows (can you say "the Star Trek" franchise,) but also produces a number of pilots each year that never see the light of day. Fewer pilots equals less work for actors, writers, stage managers, editors.
Without the influx of cash, you can also kiss goodbye the work of people like the Coen brothers. They do their work on a limited budget, but the studios that release the films make the money (and feed t bakc to the Coens) that allows the Coen brothers to make the work they do.
I'll not argue that the film business is a mess, but remember that with the actors at least, 95% of all SAG members make less than a living wage each year. If the studios don't have the seed money, those actors stay not working.
Why do you think HBO is not screaming? They have no reason to. They already get a guarantee of revenue for whatever they make, and can therefore take chances that the studios can't. Angels in America doesn't exist as a film without HBO support. A major studion couldn't take the risk, but HBO has a solid sream of revenue that is never damaged by piracy.
Piracy takes money away from people- it trickles down to the low end of the feeding chain a greater percentage of people don't work. That's reality in the film industry. It sucks, but it's reality.
So. Do you think that this might just spawn a remarkable number of virus or spyware alerts from individuals looking for a good time? If people can successfully phish, just think of the fun that they will have scaring people about threats real or imagined.
While a good idea in principle, the reality could end up downright ridiculous- just how many of those e-mail alerts are going to cross the ocean?
In years of watching Apple make moves, this one seems to be one of the most insightful in terms of keeping marketshare. Although the competitors do not have the "cool" factor of the iPod, for once Apple seems fully aware that the competition is there, and they can not get by by merely producing superior technology.
This time, they have realized that in order to keep this technology at the center of the business model, they must continue to innovate.
With storage devices becoming smaller and smaller, they must continue to breakthrough with the bleeding edge technology. The iPod technology is simple enough that staying on the bleeding edge makes perfect sense. I sense that they've got this one nailed and are not letting go.
"It has always been about Steve Jobs. The man has insight and what could almost be considered clairvoyance when it comes to building things that people crave. God knows that I'm one of those at his feet, weeping and bathing him in frankincense."
Unfortunately, this also represents a huge problem for Apple down the road. As much as Jobs has dictated that which is desirable, genius tends to have a shelf life. A time will come when he just can't produce the same way- I hope to hell that he is grooming some manner of successor.