Thanks for the education, you'll find my name on various records by...I'm probably safe in saying that the 5 years in the industry gives me the edge in this debate.
Fair enough:). That was a pretty decent bitch-slap.
My point was more along the lines of pointing out how little the entire cost of manufacture/distribution/marketing is in relation to the actual cost paid by the consumer...I hadn't really considered what a large portion of the label's cut it was. But since the price of music (and most forms of entertainment, really) seems to be set at what the market will bear (rather than being linked in any real way to costs), it isn't unreasonable to think that rather than lower prices, the record companies would simply choose to pocket the difference. Or most of it, at least. They really will have to cut the prices a bit to compete with physical CDs...even the 9.99 US that iTMS is asking has proven to be a bit too high for most people (since 2-5 more dollars gets you a physical disc), and they aren't asking to use your hardware. That you are absolutely right about. But I maintain that that has more to do with consumer perception rather than being related to an actual change in their costs, since music qualifies as more of a luxury item.
The only thing you said that I'm not seeing is that they are driving prices higher...I know the UK version of iTMS is a bit pricier, but over here at least prices here have started (very slowly) dropping since downloading caught on...or have at least held steady.
In short, I think the costs and infrastructure in getting music from artist to consumer have not, and will not in the future, have a great deal to do with the price paid at retail for the music (whether the store is physical or virtual). The price will still be set at the absolute highest amount consumers will pay. The only difference will be where the money goes (due to disintermediation) and what that price ends up being (due to the option that digital piracy offers). And I think the the last thing any record label (at least any major one) will *ever* say is "Gee, we're making a lot more money than we used to...you think we should pass some of this on to our customers?":)
Hope I was a bit less condescending that time...think I was a bit cranky and took it out on you.
(And I don't nitpick over things like math and grammar...at least not online)
So... we pay for the distribution now... the manufacturing has vanished... and still they'll try and DRM it (making less useful than a plain CD) and will probably will charge it at the same or higher rate than CD's.
This isn't a win... it's a lose.
If they drop the prices to reflect that manufacturing and distribution have now been removed... and also to reflect that now we just want the good stuff and not the padded albums... then they might have something.
You were never really paying for the distribution and manufacturing...how much do you think it costs to press a CD (in bulk, no less) and ship it to Target? Couple bucks, maybe? If that? Same with stores like iTunes. You really aren't paying for their bandwidth or servers...at least not more than a few cents per song.
What you are paying for when you lay down 12.99 US 14.99 US for a CD is *marketing*. And not just marketing for that artist...for ALL the artists on that label. That's how this whole "record company" thing works. They push their Creeds and their Britneys hard, and take chances on less popular groups...if the less popular ones fail, the money that the biggies bring in balances it out and pays for future gambles (and shiny cars for record execs and big-name artists).
Sure, you'll say you already knew this. But then why were you insinuating that the price of music has ANYTHING to do with the cost of manufacturing and distribution? Bandwidth and discs? Sure, they should probably charge a few cents less per song than a store like iTunes...but then they lose the magic.99 US price point. Remember, you are paying for the *music*...not the file, not the plastic disc...the music. Even if it cost them absolutely nothing...not one penny...to get this music to you, they would probably charge pretty much the same price. The only reason that albums (sometimes) cost a little less on iTunes is that they are competing with themselves. If they had discontinued CDs and were doing straight online downloads, iTunes would actually be *more* expensive.
Repeat after me, one last time for emphasis. The price of music has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of music. Nothing whatsoever. So no, they would not charge you less because their costs are less. They *may* charge you less because they are competing with their own alternatives which the consumer might percieve as a greater value, but that is the only reason.
And yeah, DRM sucks. The only way I'd actually use a service like this is if it offered a MUCH better selection than the other online stores (such as iTunes) and had DRM that is no more restrictive than iTunes. And preferably as easily removed:). I'd give up my bandwidth for that...at least some.
I actually applaud them for finally thinking outside their little box...the idea of using the user's bandwidth and then compensating them with further purchases is pretty progressive. They'd just have to keep a central server up as a "backup" in case nobody was seeding the song a user wants...because the first time or two I went to download a more obscure song and couldn't get it because nobody was seeding, all you'd see is a Road Runner-style dust trail leading off into the sunset from me.
I know I would prefer Imperialists any day. They would at least have had enough sense of self-preservation never to take us into Iraq in the first place.
Actually, Imperialists would have taken us into Iraq, but for the purpose of seizing the natural resources for our own. While a much less idealistic reason for going to war, at least it's a goal that might actually have been achieved.
Someone needs to build a card that draws single digit wattage and will drive 2048x1536 displays, and they will sell loads of them. I cannot be the only one sick of the jet engine noise and space heater performance.
You most surely are not. I see no need to buy a card that takes more power than most entire laptops. Sure, the exposions might be prettier, but do people not realize that the power that goes into their PCs actually comes from somewhere? These things are like the Ford Excursions of the computer world.
And I don't think i will ever get over the trauma of the tough stunt man telling me just how much he is hurt by people stealing movies. How he works so hard and still don't make any money.
I like the set-painter guy (or whatever the hell he did) talking about how when I download movies it hurts the industry and it could mean he doesn't have money to feed his family. Right. Because me downloading a movie is the reason a stunt-man or set-painter-dude doesn't make enough money. It has nothing to do with the fact the they paid the actors in his movies millions of dollars apiece and there just wasn't enough leftover for them to make more.
Because Hollywood is running low on money, right?
(And let's not get into the fact that the only people subjected to that crap were the people who had already paid to see the movie. Redefining insulting.)
For something as ethereal as bits on a platter, it hardly seems worth it to pay USD1.00 for a song.
Complain about low bitrates if you want, but give me a break on the whole "bits on a platter" thing. What the hell do you think a CD is?
That, and for some reason I've had better luck preserving MP3s than actual CDs over the last 8 years or so...maybe I'm careless, but I've lost a lot more music to damage on physical CD's than I've lost to data loss on my hard drive. In fact, I have yet to lost any MP3s whatsoever. Largely because it takes a lot less blank CD's (which cost both in space and money) to backup my music, even at my usual 224k-256k, when they're compressed. And compact disks are just not a great medium when it comes to longevity, at least if you want to take them out and listen to them. Especially in places like cars.
That said, no I've not bought a single album as an online album...for 3-5 extra bucks I'll go ahead and grab the disc (and promptly rip it at more than 128k). But I've bought plenty of songs, and when you figure I'm saving 13-15 bucks an album (because if I'm buying a one or two songs it's likely because I don't _want_ the rest of the album) by buying those songs, at USD 1.00 they're an absolute steal.
Apple had a similar problem. Even if Apple did something great, most the computer press went "Ho hum, small market-share, won't run Windows, going out of business, nobody cares." The iPod got people to sit up an take notice of Apple's products. So now when Apple announces something like a new version of Mac OS X, it gets reported. I don't remember the press caring that much about Mac OS 9 when it shipped.
Yeah, but OS9 also sucked. OSX has had almost as much to do with Apple's recent success as the iPod...I know I was always less than pleased with my experiences with pre-OSX Apple systems, and many people I know felt the same.
I'll be the first to admit, part of the reason people buy iPods is that they want an iPod--not an iRiver ZQX-379.
Never underestimate the power of a simplified product line. This is a _huge_ part of the appeal of the iPod line. You either get a Shuffle, Mini, or an iPod (I like to forget about the Photo). Then you choose from 2 or 3 sizes. Same with their notebooks, to a large extent. iBook or PowerBook, choose your screen size and optical drive, and that's about it. So instead of saying I got the X.X GHz Latitude Model blah blah with XX meg of ram and the XX meg ATI blah blah blah, you can just say "I got the 12" PowerBook." All they really have to ask after that is "ComboDrive or SuperDrive?"
This approach is much more customer friendly. Look at the drop-down menus for customizing a Dell laptop sometime. While I'm perfectly comfortable with all these options, they are definitely far from friendly to most users. The Apple method is much simpler. Answer two or three (relatively intuitive) questions, each with at most two or three options.
That, and they put more effort into design than most of the competition. I've seen guys with Dell DJs (or whatever they call those things...I just know it said Dell on it), and I feel bad for them.
The Apple brand (and it's growing popularity) is built on these two things. A product line surpassed in it's simplicity only by video game consoles, and better design (both form and function...not only do they look prettier, but are generally more intuitive).
Hell, I've even grown to like the one-button mouse. It's made me get back together with the keyboard. I've missed her, and she's just as beautiful as I remember. Yeah, it's late and I'm babbling now.
Granted, it's also really easy to have the fastest growing brand when you have nowhere to go but up.
And they're kept on all day with their processors idle for the most part.
But an idle processor generally uses less power than a busy processor, and on battery powered devices such as mobile phones power usages is a _huge_ issue.
What if some company would find a smart way to pay the users for the use of their CPU cycles?
Anything like what you described (or any compensation for your CPU cycles) is unlikely to ever happen. Reason? Most of the organizations asking for your CPU cycles are either too poor or too cheap to give you anything in return. They can't even afford to pay for the power usage that you incur, let alone put anything towards your hardware.
And for what it would cost to create and maintain a MMOG like what you're talking about, at least one people would be interested in playing, they could just buy an assload of computers (think $100 to $200 a pop barebones systems) and plug them in.
Not that it isn't a cool idea, just not feasible. You have to see the organizations asking you to run this software for what they really are...beggers. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, as long as you realize they will probably never have anything to offer you (other than the warm and fuzzy feeling of geekiness).
Part of the price of the console is the R&D cost, if Nerd University is going to subsidize part of it with their projects by buying 10,000 of them, and thus making the price slash for the rest of us occur earlier, why not?
I believe you aren't seeing the point. Usually, when a console is first released they are sold at an actual _loss_, so NU buying 10,000 will do nothing to speed up a price cut. In fact, since the game companies plan to recoup their losses on consoles with accessory and game sales (which NU would not likely be buying much of) it might just postpone a price cut.
It wouldn't be Nerd University subsidizing Sony or Microsoft, but rather the opposite.
The most insidious thing about this is the way that Sony/BMG is using this to reframe the dialog about ripping/burning. When I buy a CD and rip some tracks to put on my MP3 player, or to make a backup copy of the CD, I call this "fair use". They call it "casual piracy"
I don't think that Sony/BMG is actually referring to your creating an archive copy (which is, of course, fair use) for yourself as "casual piracy." I think they're referring more to the tendancy for large numbers of people to then, without thinking anything of it, share that same archive copy with a friend, relative, etc...even if it's only so they can "check this band out." Of course said friend/relative rarely deletes or gets rid of this copy, assuming they like it. But it didn't really feel like piracy (in the sharing files on a P2P network with strangers sense).
The point? I don't think that the RIAA, in recent years, at least, has considered your creation of archive copies for personal use to be piracy...they have simply made it harder for you to do so in their efforts to stop piracy.
Though, to be fair, they would probably consider the fact that I'm listening to all my CDs in compressed form on my hard drive, while 7000 miles away my wife listens to the same CDs, either in compressed form or original, piracy. And while it isn't techinically covered by fair use, I'd still say they're full of crap.
(Disclaimer: I didn't RTFA...so if they do refer to archive copies for personal use as "casual piracy," slap me.)
Maybe. I certainly don't believe that both organizations could ever see eye-to-eye on such a deal, period.
Oh, don't get me wrong...neither do I. Especially since I don't see what Apple would possibly gain from any arrangement with Dell. Either:
A) They would have to put their OS on substandard hardware, which would screw their brand.
B) They would have another manufacturer producing computers that compete directly with them, thus cutting their own sales (and driving down their prices).
Apple doesn't need Dell's help to cater to the high-price crowd (they've done a great job already all on their own), and Mac Mini aside I don't think Apple really cares to cater to the low-price crowd. At best they are looking to court the mid-range crowd, which again I think they can do all on their own.
If your post is true, then please help me understand how Bose can price-fix their speakers. It is impossible to find Bose speakers for cheaper than their store prices. Why does the US allow this if Apple can't tell Dell, HP or whoever how much they can charge?
One method of price fixing is to make sure your wholesale price to retailers/distributors is high enough that it is nearly impossible for them to sell them any cheaper (or at least not much cheaper) than you do. I'm guessing this is why iPods cost pretty much the same no matter where you go to buy one (you may find them for the education store price, or if you really shop around for a couple bucks lower).
This is also why, for instance, you will rarely find items such as video game consoles for anything other than the MSRP. Stores usually aren't making much on sales of them, especially in the early part of their life cycle...they basically only devote shelf space to them so they can make their profits on games and accessories...which now that I think about it is probably why stores like Target carry iPods.
Anybody know what kind of wholesale price stores like Target are getting on iPods? I'm actually curious now.
Apple contracts Dell to build the new x86 Macs, and licenses Dell as a Mac reseller. Everything still has the Apple logo, but Dell gets a cut.
It would probably end up bearing both the Apple and Dell logos, and it would be very clear that you were getting a "Mac by Dell" rather than the real thing. Apple would also, of course, make them do all their own support. Granted, Apple would probably never even agree to anything like this, because of the risk of tarnishing their brand. There is a reason people buy PowerBooks instead of Inspirons or Latitudes, and it isn't just OSX. Everytime somebody has a problem with their "Mac by Dell," it would reflect just as badly on Mac as Dell, which would be unacceptable.
Unlike the switch to Intel, which is simply moving their brand in a different direction, letting Dell sell computers featuring OSX would actual water down their brand, which I don't think they are willing to do.
Not everybody voted for it. Russ Feingold voted against it in the Senate, and there were a full 66 Representatives who voted against it in the House.
Doh. Forgot that it didn't past quite as overwhelmingly in the House. I did remember reading that only one Senator voted against it. After double checking, all the reps from both my current state of residence, as well as my state of residence at the time, voted for...which is as I remembered. I'll have to remember to check again if I ever move, though...thanks for the heads-up.
It's not. If you don't like th guy who's representing ya, vote for the other guy... that's all that really matters in a representative democracy.
Of course, many people want an elite mob-rule by a highly 'informed' citizenry. But that again, is not democracy. We do our job, and our elected representatives do theirs. Our job is not to micromanage all the decisions of government.
Well, as for voting against the guy who's representing me, done and done. Some would argue, however, that that is not ALL that really matters in a representative democracy. No, I do not advocate "elite mob-rule by a highly 'informed' citizenry." What I do advocate is a representative democracy elected by a highly informed (notice I didn't put it in quotes? that's because it's a GOOD thing) citizenry. Too many voters in this country know more about Paris Hilton than they do about the people they are casting their ballots for.
And no, people shouldn't have to know the particulars of every law and act that passes through Congress. But when one starts modifying or limiting the rights granted to them by the Constitution (which as an American you -should- know a little bit about), maybe it's time to pay attention to it. Because much like your car keys or your wallet, your rights are bound to disappear if you don't keep track of them. And you'll be lucky if you find them again.
Then again, maybe that's just me. Maybe I should just go ahead and hit the polls armed with nothing but what the campaign commercials have told me and a rough opinion of how much I like the guys I'm voting for. Maybe being 'informed' is overrated.
For one thing, the fact that so many Americans did not oppose it, and were so easily led into accepting a complete contravention of the constitution through a manipulation of irrational fear (what if the terrorists attack my house??) shows us that there is a deeper problem in American culture. No kind of democracy can really work if people are that uncritical and deferential.
Actually, it's ignorance we have to worry about. That's why most people didn't oppose the Patriot Act; they had no idea what the hell it was. Even as of 2004 only 3 of the 21 students in a freshman/sophomore level college history course I was in knew anything whatsoever about it, other than the name. Many had never even heard of it.
And I'm willing to bet that the general public doesn't know much about it either...even older, more mature, and better educated Americans. Certainly not the unwashed masses that get most of their news from the soundbites during the commercial breaks of American Idol. Americans in general are incredibly ignorant people, happy to wander around oblivious as to what's going on in the world around them.
Besides, this isn't the first time this has came up; someone's tried to repeal every amendment, someone's tried to repeal almost every right granted to us by the constitution at some point. It's gotten so far now that people don't even care about their rights, and are being stripped of them anyways by laws that blatently don't check out against it.
This is true...but the great part is every time one of them does it, if you pay attention, you can find out who the real idiots are and try to help end their careers. That's right Reps. Berman (CA), Pallone (NJ), Sabo (MN), Sensenbrenner (WI), and most importantly Hoyer (MD)...we got your names, we got your numbers. We know you are evil. Thanks for giving us the heads-up.
Granted, I don't live in any of those states. But some of you do. And let me catch MY reps voting for this crap should it ever actually come to a vote (which is unlikely).
I'm still voting against anybody who was in office when the Patriot Act passed, no matter what they've done since or what they did before...and no matter who the alternative is. Because a freshman representative or senator is a lot easier to get rid of after their first term (should they suck) than an entrenched incumbent with a few terms under his belt. And we need to fire every joker that voted for that crap on general principles.
I am a partner in a small specialty by-appointment bookstore in Los Angeles with a strong web presence and average internet sales of about $75 per. We charge 8.25% for orders sent to California addresses even if they're in San Diego (7.75%), San Francisco (8.5%), or Salida (7.375%). Every year without fail we battle some library or museum that insists on paying their local sales tax. They're generally slow payers (not nearly as bad as film studios though) but when we fill out the tax forms in January they ask for 8.25% and we have a healthy fear of audits. Whether a California customer calls, writes, faxes, emails or orders through our website we charge the same as if they were in the store.
If they haven't already, they really should establish by law that the sales tax for online purchases is based on the location of the seller's physical presence, not the buyer's...it makes more sense that way, since they are collecting taxes on a purchase that would have (if not for online presence) been made at the seller's location, not the buyer's home. Much the same way when you live in a large metro area you pay sales taxes based on what store you're shopping in, not where you live (I lived near the city limits of Glendale and Peoria AZ, and was well aware of the difference in sales taxes between the two cities). In the case of a store such as Border's with multiple locations, it should either be based on A) nearest store location to buyer, or B) one location throughout the state, prefereably in the area with lowest sales tax.
That, or they should only be allowed to collect state sales tax, and not additional city taxes.
Granted, this would be in a world that made sense.
I think for a lot of people, myself included, switching to a different operating system would mean having to discard the thousands of dollars of software I've purchased in the past and repurchase it. It would take at a minimum a whole software generation (however long that is) for OSX to overtake Windows in the market for that reason, I would think.
Except, of course, that the switch to x86 is likely to make it easier to run those applications you already own on your new Mac without repurchasing them, by means of some form of virtual machine running the copy of Windows you should already own.
One might even propose that this is a part of their strategy. Who knows?
First of all, I remember reading that OSX will only work on the Apple computers, and while a crack may exist, one would have to wonder how long it will be until such a fix would be mostly bug free.
It wouldn't have to be bug-free to work in Apple's favor...it would be like a demo. Get a feel for how the OS works, and if you like it you can buy the real hardware and run it legit. Not everybody has had the opportunity to really get behind a Mac and poke around to see how it feels...thus the reason most of us never considered buying one. I think after a taste of OSX a lot of Windows users would be seriously considering a switch.
Lastly, how many people can you think of running pirated WindozeXP that were so impressed with the product that they bought it?
That's short-term thinking. I know I ran a pirated version of Windows 3.1 on a box I put together myself, same for 95. I finally bought a computer with 98 pre-installed (paid for it) and actually paid for XP as an upgrade. No, generally piracy isn't going to lead to sales in one generation on an OS. But if you think long-term, eventually those high-school and college kids are going to have jobs, families, and most importantly enough disposable income to justify the purchase to themselves. Worked for me. My switch from pirated to legit Windows installations went almost hand in hand with my first truly gainful employment. Apple could win a lot of sales a few years down the road from piracy that happens today.
It really is amazing how much different the experience of walking down a software aisle is when you have both the extra money to spend, and better things to do with your time than trying to pirate things.
Well say goodbye to the age when Apple made the hardware and the OS as a complete system.
Apple has now just become another Microsoft by the looks of it. What will the Mac fanatics think now?
Not really a fanatic...but I think it sucks. Guess they gave up on trying to do things differently...sadly, it actually looked like it was starting to work for them, too.
It's ILLEGAL to read one's snailmail. Why is it then legal to scan every email for keywords and having ultimately someone monitoring my emails cause their scanning-engine might, most plausable, flaw?
Regarding snail-mail vs. email...with snail-mail you seal the message inside an envelope to be opened at the other end, thus a reasonable expectation of privacy. Email, on the other hand, is generally transmitted as plaintext all the way from A to B...more like a postcard than a letter. Thus no expectation of privacy, and thus it's okay for Big Brother to read it at his leisure.
Not saying I like it, mind you...that's why I use PGP. Especially when I'm doing illegal things:).
Doesnt seem to bother people when they get on fly by wire planes.
But most of us assume that part of the extremely large cost of those planes is in both more reliable technology and increased redundancy. I think the systems of a Boeing 777 are probably held to a higher standard than a Mazda or even a BMW...mostly due to the more catastrophic nature of a failure.
Doesn't mean we're right...maybe the systems on a BMW are every bit as reliable as on a plane. But it would still explain this reaction.
my school (i graduated 2001) had all kinds of vulnerabilities, but you know what. it's a school. they're understaffed as is, and they don't need to have expensive consultants coming in and auditing their network all the time to stop these kids.
Bullshit. If they can't properly secure their student's sensitive information (such as SSN's) then they shouldn't be storing it. Or they should store it on paper only, in a vault. I never fully understood why my high school needed my SSN anyway, and now that I see things like this happening I'm tempted to go back and make sure they don't still have it lying around.
It's one thing to be nonchalant with your employees information (though I'm not a fan of that either)...employees generally have a viable option (work somewhere else). Students generally have no choice as to what school they attend...they're going where their parents send them. Maybe they can drop out at 16, but by then their SSN could be stolen. There's a great way to start life...a high-school dropout AND identity theft victim to boot!
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the education, you'll find my name on various records by...I'm probably safe in saying that the 5 years in the industry gives me the edge in this debate.
:). That was a pretty decent bitch-slap.
:)
Fair enough
My point was more along the lines of pointing out how little the entire cost of manufacture/distribution/marketing is in relation to the actual cost paid by the consumer...I hadn't really considered what a large portion of the label's cut it was. But since the price of music (and most forms of entertainment, really) seems to be set at what the market will bear (rather than being linked in any real way to costs), it isn't unreasonable to think that rather than lower prices, the record companies would simply choose to pocket the difference. Or most of it, at least. They really will have to cut the prices a bit to compete with physical CDs...even the 9.99 US that iTMS is asking has proven to be a bit too high for most people (since 2-5 more dollars gets you a physical disc), and they aren't asking to use your hardware. That you are absolutely right about. But I maintain that that has more to do with consumer perception rather than being related to an actual change in their costs, since music qualifies as more of a luxury item.
The only thing you said that I'm not seeing is that they are driving prices higher...I know the UK version of iTMS is a bit pricier, but over here at least prices here have started (very slowly) dropping since downloading caught on...or have at least held steady.
In short, I think the costs and infrastructure in getting music from artist to consumer have not, and will not in the future, have a great deal to do with the price paid at retail for the music (whether the store is physical or virtual). The price will still be set at the absolute highest amount consumers will pay. The only difference will be where the money goes (due to disintermediation) and what that price ends up being (due to the option that digital piracy offers). And I think the the last thing any record label (at least any major one) will *ever* say is "Gee, we're making a lot more money than we used to...you think we should pass some of this on to our customers?"
Hope I was a bit less condescending that time...think I was a bit cranky and took it out on you.
(And I don't nitpick over things like math and grammar...at least not online)
So... we pay for the distribution now... the manufacturing has vanished... and still they'll try and DRM it (making less useful than a plain CD) and will probably will charge it at the same or higher rate than CD's.
.99 US price point. Remember, you are paying for the *music*...not the file, not the plastic disc...the music. Even if it cost them absolutely nothing...not one penny...to get this music to you, they would probably charge pretty much the same price. The only reason that albums (sometimes) cost a little less on iTunes is that they are competing with themselves. If they had discontinued CDs and were doing straight online downloads, iTunes would actually be *more* expensive.
:). I'd give up my bandwidth for that...at least some.
This isn't a win... it's a lose.
If they drop the prices to reflect that manufacturing and distribution have now been removed... and also to reflect that now we just want the good stuff and not the padded albums... then they might have something.
You were never really paying for the distribution and manufacturing...how much do you think it costs to press a CD (in bulk, no less) and ship it to Target? Couple bucks, maybe? If that? Same with stores like iTunes. You really aren't paying for their bandwidth or servers...at least not more than a few cents per song.
What you are paying for when you lay down 12.99 US 14.99 US for a CD is *marketing*. And not just marketing for that artist...for ALL the artists on that label. That's how this whole "record company" thing works. They push their Creeds and their Britneys hard, and take chances on less popular groups...if the less popular ones fail, the money that the biggies bring in balances it out and pays for future gambles (and shiny cars for record execs and big-name artists).
Sure, you'll say you already knew this. But then why were you insinuating that the price of music has ANYTHING to do with the cost of manufacturing and distribution? Bandwidth and discs? Sure, they should probably charge a few cents less per song than a store like iTunes...but then they lose the magic
Repeat after me, one last time for emphasis. The price of music has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of music. Nothing whatsoever. So no, they would not charge you less because their costs are less. They *may* charge you less because they are competing with their own alternatives which the consumer might percieve as a greater value, but that is the only reason.
And yeah, DRM sucks. The only way I'd actually use a service like this is if it offered a MUCH better selection than the other online stores (such as iTunes) and had DRM that is no more restrictive than iTunes. And preferably as easily removed
I actually applaud them for finally thinking outside their little box...the idea of using the user's bandwidth and then compensating them with further purchases is pretty progressive. They'd just have to keep a central server up as a "backup" in case nobody was seeding the song a user wants...because the first time or two I went to download a more obscure song and couldn't get it because nobody was seeding, all you'd see is a Road Runner-style dust trail leading off into the sunset from me.
I know I would prefer Imperialists any day. They would at least have had enough sense of self-preservation never to take us into Iraq in the first place.
Actually, Imperialists would have taken us into Iraq, but for the purpose of seizing the natural resources for our own. While a much less idealistic reason for going to war, at least it's a goal that might actually have been achieved.
Someone needs to build a card that draws single digit wattage and will drive 2048x1536 displays, and they will sell loads of them. I cannot be the only one sick of the jet engine noise and space heater performance.
You most surely are not. I see no need to buy a card that takes more power than most entire laptops. Sure, the exposions might be prettier, but do people not realize that the power that goes into their PCs actually comes from somewhere? These things are like the Ford Excursions of the computer world.
And I don't think i will ever get over the trauma of the tough stunt man telling me just how much he is hurt by people stealing movies. How he works so hard and still don't make any money.
I like the set-painter guy (or whatever the hell he did) talking about how when I download movies it hurts the industry and it could mean he doesn't have money to feed his family. Right. Because me downloading a movie is the reason a stunt-man or set-painter-dude doesn't make enough money. It has nothing to do with the fact the they paid the actors in his movies millions of dollars apiece and there just wasn't enough leftover for them to make more.
Because Hollywood is running low on money, right?
(And let's not get into the fact that the only people subjected to that crap were the people who had already paid to see the movie. Redefining insulting.)
For something as ethereal as bits on a platter, it hardly seems worth it to pay USD1.00 for a song.
Complain about low bitrates if you want, but give me a break on the whole "bits on a platter" thing. What the hell do you think a CD is?
That, and for some reason I've had better luck preserving MP3s than actual CDs over the last 8 years or so...maybe I'm careless, but I've lost a lot more music to damage on physical CD's than I've lost to data loss on my hard drive. In fact, I have yet to lost any MP3s whatsoever. Largely because it takes a lot less blank CD's (which cost both in space and money) to backup my music, even at my usual 224k-256k, when they're compressed. And compact disks are just not a great medium when it comes to longevity, at least if you want to take them out and listen to them. Especially in places like cars.
That said, no I've not bought a single album as an online album...for 3-5 extra bucks I'll go ahead and grab the disc (and promptly rip it at more than 128k). But I've bought plenty of songs, and when you figure I'm saving 13-15 bucks an album (because if I'm buying a one or two songs it's likely because I don't _want_ the rest of the album) by buying those songs, at USD 1.00 they're an absolute steal.
Apple had a similar problem. Even if Apple did something great, most the computer press went "Ho hum, small market-share, won't run Windows, going out of business, nobody cares." The iPod got people to sit up an take notice of Apple's products. So now when Apple announces something like a new version of Mac OS X, it gets reported. I don't remember the press caring that much about Mac OS 9 when it shipped.
Yeah, but OS9 also sucked. OSX has had almost as much to do with Apple's recent success as the iPod...I know I was always less than pleased with my experiences with pre-OSX Apple systems, and many people I know felt the same.
I'll be the first to admit, part of the reason people buy iPods is that they want an iPod--not an iRiver ZQX-379.
Never underestimate the power of a simplified product line. This is a _huge_ part of the appeal of the iPod line. You either get a Shuffle, Mini, or an iPod (I like to forget about the Photo). Then you choose from 2 or 3 sizes. Same with their notebooks, to a large extent. iBook or PowerBook, choose your screen size and optical drive, and that's about it. So instead of saying I got the X.X GHz Latitude Model blah blah with XX meg of ram and the XX meg ATI blah blah blah, you can just say "I got the 12" PowerBook." All they really have to ask after that is "ComboDrive or SuperDrive?"
This approach is much more customer friendly. Look at the drop-down menus for customizing a Dell laptop sometime. While I'm perfectly comfortable with all these options, they are definitely far from friendly to most users. The Apple method is much simpler. Answer two or three (relatively intuitive) questions, each with at most two or three options.
That, and they put more effort into design than most of the competition. I've seen guys with Dell DJs (or whatever they call those things...I just know it said Dell on it), and I feel bad for them.
The Apple brand (and it's growing popularity) is built on these two things. A product line surpassed in it's simplicity only by video game consoles, and better design (both form and function...not only do they look prettier, but are generally more intuitive).
Hell, I've even grown to like the one-button mouse. It's made me get back together with the keyboard. I've missed her, and she's just as beautiful as I remember. Yeah, it's late and I'm babbling now.
Granted, it's also really easy to have the fastest growing brand when you have nowhere to go but up.
And they're kept on all day with their processors idle for the most part.
But an idle processor generally uses less power than a busy processor, and on battery powered devices such as mobile phones power usages is a _huge_ issue.
What if some company would find a smart way to pay the users for the use of their CPU cycles?
Anything like what you described (or any compensation for your CPU cycles) is unlikely to ever happen. Reason? Most of the organizations asking for your CPU cycles are either too poor or too cheap to give you anything in return. They can't even afford to pay for the power usage that you incur, let alone put anything towards your hardware.
And for what it would cost to create and maintain a MMOG like what you're talking about, at least one people would be interested in playing, they could just buy an assload of computers (think $100 to $200 a pop barebones systems) and plug them in.
Not that it isn't a cool idea, just not feasible. You have to see the organizations asking you to run this software for what they really are...beggers. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, as long as you realize they will probably never have anything to offer you (other than the warm and fuzzy feeling of geekiness).
Part of the price of the console is the R&D cost, if Nerd University is going to subsidize part of it with their projects by buying 10,000 of them, and thus making the price slash for the rest of us occur earlier, why not?
I believe you aren't seeing the point. Usually, when a console is first released they are sold at an actual _loss_, so NU buying 10,000 will do nothing to speed up a price cut. In fact, since the game companies plan to recoup their losses on consoles with accessory and game sales (which NU would not likely be buying much of) it might just postpone a price cut.
It wouldn't be Nerd University subsidizing Sony or Microsoft, but rather the opposite.
The most insidious thing about this is the way that Sony/BMG is using this to reframe the dialog about ripping/burning. When I buy a CD and rip some tracks to put on my MP3 player, or to make a backup copy of the CD, I call this "fair use". They call it "casual piracy"
I don't think that Sony/BMG is actually referring to your creating an archive copy (which is, of course, fair use) for yourself as "casual piracy." I think they're referring more to the tendancy for large numbers of people to then, without thinking anything of it, share that same archive copy with a friend, relative, etc...even if it's only so they can "check this band out." Of course said friend/relative rarely deletes or gets rid of this copy, assuming they like it. But it didn't really feel like piracy (in the sharing files on a P2P network with strangers sense).
The point? I don't think that the RIAA, in recent years, at least, has considered your creation of archive copies for personal use to be piracy...they have simply made it harder for you to do so in their efforts to stop piracy.
Though, to be fair, they would probably consider the fact that I'm listening to all my CDs in compressed form on my hard drive, while 7000 miles away my wife listens to the same CDs, either in compressed form or original, piracy. And while it isn't techinically covered by fair use, I'd still say they're full of crap.
(Disclaimer: I didn't RTFA...so if they do refer to archive copies for personal use as "casual piracy," slap me.)
Maybe. I certainly don't believe that both organizations could ever see eye-to-eye on such a deal, period.
Oh, don't get me wrong...neither do I. Especially since I don't see what Apple would possibly gain from any arrangement with Dell. Either:
A) They would have to put their OS on substandard hardware, which would screw their brand.
B) They would have another manufacturer producing computers that compete directly with them, thus cutting their own sales (and driving down their prices).
Apple doesn't need Dell's help to cater to the high-price crowd (they've done a great job already all on their own), and Mac Mini aside I don't think Apple really cares to cater to the low-price crowd. At best they are looking to court the mid-range crowd, which again I think they can do all on their own.
If your post is true, then please help me understand how Bose can price-fix their speakers. It is impossible to find Bose speakers for cheaper than their store prices. Why does the US allow this if Apple can't tell Dell, HP or whoever how much they can charge?
One method of price fixing is to make sure your wholesale price to retailers/distributors is high enough that it is nearly impossible for them to sell them any cheaper (or at least not much cheaper) than you do. I'm guessing this is why iPods cost pretty much the same no matter where you go to buy one (you may find them for the education store price, or if you really shop around for a couple bucks lower).
This is also why, for instance, you will rarely find items such as video game consoles for anything other than the MSRP. Stores usually aren't making much on sales of them, especially in the early part of their life cycle...they basically only devote shelf space to them so they can make their profits on games and accessories...which now that I think about it is probably why stores like Target carry iPods.
Anybody know what kind of wholesale price stores like Target are getting on iPods? I'm actually curious now.
Apple contracts Dell to build the new x86 Macs, and licenses Dell as a Mac reseller. Everything still has the Apple logo, but Dell gets a cut.
It would probably end up bearing both the Apple and Dell logos, and it would be very clear that you were getting a "Mac by Dell" rather than the real thing. Apple would also, of course, make them do all their own support. Granted, Apple would probably never even agree to anything like this, because of the risk of tarnishing their brand. There is a reason people buy PowerBooks instead of Inspirons or Latitudes, and it isn't just OSX. Everytime somebody has a problem with their "Mac by Dell," it would reflect just as badly on Mac as Dell, which would be unacceptable.
Unlike the switch to Intel, which is simply moving their brand in a different direction, letting Dell sell computers featuring OSX would actual water down their brand, which I don't think they are willing to do.
Not everybody voted for it. Russ Feingold voted against it in the Senate, and there were a full 66 Representatives who voted against it in the House.
Doh. Forgot that it didn't past quite as overwhelmingly in the House. I did remember reading that only one Senator voted against it. After double checking, all the reps from both my current state of residence, as well as my state of residence at the time, voted for...which is as I remembered. I'll have to remember to check again if I ever move, though...thanks for the heads-up.
It's not. If you don't like th guy who's representing ya, vote for the other guy... that's all that really matters in a representative democracy.
Of course, many people want an elite mob-rule by a highly 'informed' citizenry. But that again, is not democracy. We do our job, and our elected representatives do theirs. Our job is not to micromanage all the decisions of government.
Well, as for voting against the guy who's representing me, done and done. Some would argue, however, that that is not ALL that really matters in a representative democracy. No, I do not advocate "elite mob-rule by a highly 'informed' citizenry." What I do advocate is a representative democracy elected by a highly informed (notice I didn't put it in quotes? that's because it's a GOOD thing) citizenry. Too many voters in this country know more about Paris Hilton than they do about the people they are casting their ballots for.
And no, people shouldn't have to know the particulars of every law and act that passes through Congress. But when one starts modifying or limiting the rights granted to them by the Constitution (which as an American you -should- know a little bit about), maybe it's time to pay attention to it. Because much like your car keys or your wallet, your rights are bound to disappear if you don't keep track of them. And you'll be lucky if you find them again.
Then again, maybe that's just me. Maybe I should just go ahead and hit the polls armed with nothing but what the campaign commercials have told me and a rough opinion of how much I like the guys I'm voting for. Maybe being 'informed' is overrated.
For one thing, the fact that so many Americans did not oppose it, and were so easily led into accepting a complete contravention of the constitution through a manipulation of irrational fear (what if the terrorists attack my house??) shows us that there is a deeper problem in American culture. No kind of democracy can really work if people are that uncritical and deferential.
Actually, it's ignorance we have to worry about. That's why most people didn't oppose the Patriot Act; they had no idea what the hell it was. Even as of 2004 only 3 of the 21 students in a freshman/sophomore level college history course I was in knew anything whatsoever about it, other than the name. Many had never even heard of it.
And I'm willing to bet that the general public doesn't know much about it either...even older, more mature, and better educated Americans. Certainly not the unwashed masses that get most of their news from the soundbites during the commercial breaks of American Idol. Americans in general are incredibly ignorant people, happy to wander around oblivious as to what's going on in the world around them.
Besides, this isn't the first time this has came up; someone's tried to repeal every amendment, someone's tried to repeal almost every right granted to us by the constitution at some point. It's gotten so far now that people don't even care about their rights, and are being stripped of them anyways by laws that blatently don't check out against it.
This is true...but the great part is every time one of them does it, if you pay attention, you can find out who the real idiots are and try to help end their careers. That's right Reps. Berman (CA), Pallone (NJ), Sabo (MN), Sensenbrenner (WI), and most importantly Hoyer (MD)...we got your names, we got your numbers. We know you are evil. Thanks for giving us the heads-up.
Granted, I don't live in any of those states. But some of you do. And let me catch MY reps voting for this crap should it ever actually come to a vote (which is unlikely).
I'm still voting against anybody who was in office when the Patriot Act passed, no matter what they've done since or what they did before...and no matter who the alternative is. Because a freshman representative or senator is a lot easier to get rid of after their first term (should they suck) than an entrenched incumbent with a few terms under his belt. And we need to fire every joker that voted for that crap on general principles.
I am a partner in a small specialty by-appointment bookstore in Los Angeles with a strong web presence and average internet sales of about $75 per. We charge 8.25% for orders sent to California addresses even if they're in San Diego (7.75%), San Francisco (8.5%), or Salida (7.375%). Every year without fail we battle some library or museum that insists on paying their local sales tax. They're generally slow payers (not nearly as bad as film studios though) but when we fill out the tax forms in January they ask for 8.25% and we have a healthy fear of audits. Whether a California customer calls, writes, faxes, emails or orders through our website we charge the same as if they were in the store.
If they haven't already, they really should establish by law that the sales tax for online purchases is based on the location of the seller's physical presence, not the buyer's...it makes more sense that way, since they are collecting taxes on a purchase that would have (if not for online presence) been made at the seller's location, not the buyer's home. Much the same way when you live in a large metro area you pay sales taxes based on what store you're shopping in, not where you live (I lived near the city limits of Glendale and Peoria AZ, and was well aware of the difference in sales taxes between the two cities). In the case of a store such as Border's with multiple locations, it should either be based on A) nearest store location to buyer, or B) one location throughout the state, prefereably in the area with lowest sales tax.
That, or they should only be allowed to collect state sales tax, and not additional city taxes.
Granted, this would be in a world that made sense.
I think for a lot of people, myself included, switching to a different operating system would mean having to discard the thousands of dollars of software I've purchased in the past and repurchase it. It would take at a minimum a whole software generation (however long that is) for OSX to overtake Windows in the market for that reason, I would think.
Except, of course, that the switch to x86 is likely to make it easier to run those applications you already own on your new Mac without repurchasing them, by means of some form of virtual machine running the copy of Windows you should already own.
One might even propose that this is a part of their strategy. Who knows?
First of all, I remember reading that OSX will only work on the Apple computers, and while a crack may exist, one would have to wonder how long it will be until such a fix would be mostly bug free.
It wouldn't have to be bug-free to work in Apple's favor...it would be like a demo. Get a feel for how the OS works, and if you like it you can buy the real hardware and run it legit. Not everybody has had the opportunity to really get behind a Mac and poke around to see how it feels...thus the reason most of us never considered buying one. I think after a taste of OSX a lot of Windows users would be seriously considering a switch.
Lastly, how many people can you think of running pirated WindozeXP that were so impressed with the product that they bought it?
That's short-term thinking. I know I ran a pirated version of Windows 3.1 on a box I put together myself, same for 95. I finally bought a computer with 98 pre-installed (paid for it) and actually paid for XP as an upgrade. No, generally piracy isn't going to lead to sales in one generation on an OS. But if you think long-term, eventually those high-school and college kids are going to have jobs, families, and most importantly enough disposable income to justify the purchase to themselves. Worked for me. My switch from pirated to legit Windows installations went almost hand in hand with my first truly gainful employment. Apple could win a lot of sales a few years down the road from piracy that happens today.
It really is amazing how much different the experience of walking down a software aisle is when you have both the extra money to spend, and better things to do with your time than trying to pirate things.
Well say goodbye to the age when Apple made the hardware and the OS as a complete system.
Apple has now just become another Microsoft by the looks of it. What will the Mac fanatics think now?
Not really a fanatic...but I think it sucks. Guess they gave up on trying to do things differently...sadly, it actually looked like it was starting to work for them, too.
It's ILLEGAL to read one's snailmail. Why is it then legal to scan every email for keywords and having ultimately someone monitoring my emails cause their scanning-engine might, most plausable, flaw?
:).
Regarding snail-mail vs. email...with snail-mail you seal the message inside an envelope to be opened at the other end, thus a reasonable expectation of privacy. Email, on the other hand, is generally transmitted as plaintext all the way from A to B...more like a postcard than a letter. Thus no expectation of privacy, and thus it's okay for Big Brother to read it at his leisure.
Not saying I like it, mind you...that's why I use PGP. Especially when I'm doing illegal things
Doesnt seem to bother people when they get on fly by wire planes.
But most of us assume that part of the extremely large cost of those planes is in both more reliable technology and increased redundancy. I think the systems of a Boeing 777 are probably held to a higher standard than a Mazda or even a BMW...mostly due to the more catastrophic nature of a failure.
Doesn't mean we're right...maybe the systems on a BMW are every bit as reliable as on a plane. But it would still explain this reaction.
my school (i graduated 2001) had all kinds of vulnerabilities, but you know what. it's a school. they're understaffed as is, and they don't need to have expensive consultants coming in and auditing their network all the time to stop these kids.
Bullshit. If they can't properly secure their student's sensitive information (such as SSN's) then they shouldn't be storing it. Or they should store it on paper only, in a vault. I never fully understood why my high school needed my SSN anyway, and now that I see things like this happening I'm tempted to go back and make sure they don't still have it lying around.
It's one thing to be nonchalant with your employees information (though I'm not a fan of that either)...employees generally have a viable option (work somewhere else). Students generally have no choice as to what school they attend...they're going where their parents send them. Maybe they can drop out at 16, but by then their SSN could be stolen. There's a great way to start life...a high-school dropout AND identity theft victim to boot!