$1.98 total ($0.99 if you already have bought the song for other purposes) is still WAY cheaper than the carriers charge... or at worst, no more expensive.
Public performances are great, no question. So I trust you have no music on your computer, then? After all, you just want public performances.
EVERY type of art sells reproductions for money - whether it's paintings, movies, songs, or anything else. If artists are signing with labels to be the next Brittney Spears, I'm going to assume that you won't be listening to their music, because you don't like that type of thing. So then you shouldn't be pirating it either.
There's an art to computer programing - you need to be able to see how things can elegantly interact, etc - should these people no longer be compensated either?
ANYTHING can be done for money.
That being said, this isn't about whether or not artists deserve money, but rather whether the RIAA, which DISTRIBUTES music, does. And absolutely it does. The RIAA is fairly evil, no question, but distribution, advertising, promotion, etc all costs money, and is difficult work. They deserve money for that. Now, do they deserve as much as they get? Maybe not, from our view, but it's a free market - if artists think they can do it themselves, or if they think a small label that doesn't cost as much can do as good a job, they are free to go do that. Nobody is forcing them to choose an RIAA label (by the way, plenty of small labels are part of the RIAA). The artists CHOOSE to outsource this job to the label, and so they CHOOSE to pay the amounts that the RIAA labels charge. And so we pay RIAA prices, or we pirate it.
But I really hope that most peoples attitudes isn't "why would we buy music when we can pirate it" these days. If it is, maybe the RIAA should be suing people.
You seem to think only the little guy can commit a crime. It is a crime for large companies to fix prices and kill competition. Agreed - so do something about that crime. Two wrongs don't make a right/etc.
It is a crime to harass under-privileged children and the handicapped. Depends what you're harassing them for. If you mean by suing them... well, are they copying music they don't own? If so, it isn't harassing.
It is a crime to take 1000s of dollars from common people who probably cannot afford it, who just may be downloading music because they can't pay the highway robbery prices charged for 5 cents of plastic and 9 bad songs. This is absolutely NOT a crime. If they can't afford it, they can't afford it. People can't afford cars, software, etc, should they then be allowed to just take those? RIAA music is not a life necessity.
It is a crime to also harass artists (you seem to think all artists are actually happy with the record labels -- please read up on John Fogerty). It is a crime to force John Fogerty into court and him prove that he doesn't sound like himself in hopes of raping him for more millions than you've already raped him for (does the tune "Vance Can't Dance" ring a bell?). I in no way think that the RIAA is perfect, or that it does things the right way. I made no statement to that effect. But again, this has nothing to do with whether or not you should be pirating music.
It is a crime to attempt to hinder innovation by forcing worthless and spent technology (CDs) just so you can keep a hold on your empire. Well, I disagree that the CD is worthless or spent. I see no better hard media out there? Digital downloads are nice, but they don't replace the CD. Regardless, that is not in any way a crime. It's their choice to release their music that way - they have the right to do that.
Do you honestly think it will stop with people downloading music? Absolutely not. But what's the choice? For the RIAA to simply LET people download music for free? Like I said, I don't support the RIAA - but they are between a rock and a hard place. What's your method for stopping pirating?
As more and more artists are able to create music outside of mainstream record labels, congress will be lobbied, somehow, to shut that down. The RIAA is a monster with money and they will use their huge reserves to continue to harass all sides, not just the evil people you seem to think represent the real villians attacking the harmless RIAA who, after all, care so much for the artists you mention.... I never mentioned an artist. And yet again, I never claimed to like the RIAA or their methods - but again, it is their (distribution) rights.
But I really hope that most peoples attitudes isn't "why would we buy music when we can pirate it" these days. If it is, maybe the RIAA should be suing people.
You seem to think only the little guy can commit a crime.
It is a crime for large companies to fix prices and kill competition.
Agreed - so do something about that crime. Two wrongs don't make a right/etc.
It is a crime to harass under-privileged children and the handicapped.
Depends what you're harassing them for. If you mean by suing them... well, are they copying music they don't own? If so, it isn't harassing.
It is a crime to take 1000s of dollars from common people who probably cannot afford it, who just may be downloading music because they can't pay the highway robbery prices charged for 5 cents of plastic and 9 bad songs.
This is absolutely NOT a crime. If they can't afford it, they can't afford it. People can't afford cars, software, etc, should they then be allowed to just take those? RIAA music is not an essential life necessity.
It is a crime to also harass artists (you seem to think all artists are actually happy with the record labels -- please read up on John Fogerty). It is a crime to force John Fogerty into court and him prove that he doesn't sound like himself in hopes of raping him for more millions than you've already raped him for (does the tune "Vance Can't Dance" ring a bell?).
I in no way think that the RIAA is perfect, or that it does things the right way. I made no statement to that effect. But again, this has nothing to do with whether or not you should be pirating music.
It is a crime to attempt to hinder innovation by forcing worthless and spent technology (CDs) just so you can keep a hold on your empire.
Well, I disagree that the CD is worthless or spent. I see no better hard media out there? Digital downloads are nice, but they don't replace the CD. Regardless, that is not in any way a crime. It's their choice to release their music that way - they have the right to do that.
Do you honestly think it will stop with people downloading music?
Absolutely not. But what's the choice? For the RIAA to simply LET people download music for free? Like I said, I don't support the RIAA - but they are between a rock and a hard place. What's your method for stopping pirating?
As more and more artists are able to create music outside of mainstream record labels, congress will be lobbied, somehow, to shut that down. The RIAA is a monster with money and they will use their huge reserves to continue to harass all sides, not just the evil people you seem to think represent the real villians attacking the harmless RIAA who, after all, care so much for the artists you mention....
I never mentioned an artist. And yet again, I never claimed to like the RIAA or their methods - but again, it is their (distribution) rights.
There's a major problem with that logic. If DRM free music is a great marketing tool, that means it's a great marketing tool because people will pirate it. And if people are pirating it, you're now giving away what you want to market, for free.
I don't like DRM because of all the compatibility issues and ease of use issues, but if it stops people from pirating (it doesn't, really), then it may be worth it.
Also, that's THEIR decision to make. They own the rights to distribute the content. It isn't my decision, it isn't your decision. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I primarily buy music on iTunes that is in iTunes Plus (DRM free 256kbps), thereby saying that yes, I like DRM free music. But I don't pirate music just because it has DRM and I'm opposed to DRM. I'll buy the CD in that case.
I've always been a huge supporter of the rights of these people that the RIAA is attacking - and I still am. But I'm realizing lately that I can't think of a better way for them to protect their rights, either. I was in a conversation the other day where somebody was asking someone to send them a copy of limewire, because they couldn't get it themselves for some reason. I made a joking comment about how ya know, installing Limewire on a work computer probably wasn't the smartest idea, and he could always *gasp* actually purchase his music (his stated goal was pirating music). Somebody else then said "why would anyone do that anymore"?
Now, I'm sure most people have music that isn't theirs on their computer. But I really hope that most peoples attitudes isn't "why would we buy music when we can pirate it" these days. If it is, maybe the RIAA should be suing people. I think that people shouldn't be crucified for having some songs that aren't theirs on their systems, if they also buy plenty of music. But if you never or almost never buy music, and your entire collection is pirated, then by all means, the RIAA should go after you.
I oppose the RIAA on privacy grounds, and because the logic used (downloading is NOT piracy, if you own it, I believe), but if peoples attitudes really now is that they should pirate rather than buy, then I think the RIAA is between a rock and a hard place, and they can't simply ignore that.
And please, keep the arguments about RIAA music being not worth the money out of this - if you don't think it's worth the money, then you don't have a right to have it. You've made that choice.
Just to hop on thefinite's previous reply to this post, since he did such a good job, I'd like to comment on these:
1) The case is supposed to be arguing that it WAS difficult to know that the battery was hard wired. No argument needs be made about the present day, the content of Google's current search engine, etc. I for one had no idea. Several technical publications (including/.) thought the fact was headline worthy - aka 'news'. So trying to say that it is impossible that it was news to a zero-day owner is just f'king goofy.
Buying a product without significantly researching it pretty much makes your claim... worthless. Especially when all you had to do was ask a sales associate or go to Apple.com. Apple did not in any way hide this, nevermind make a claim that it WAS user replaceable. They've said straight out that it is not a user replaceable part. Further, several technical publications (ie every news or review site on the planet) has pretty much commented that it isn't user replaceable. So unless we intend to protect people who do ZERO research into what they buy (and theoretically, we don't protect that person), this logic does not work.
2) Both cell phones and laptops are supposed to have batteries that can be replaced by the end user. There is a reason for this. To suggest that the bastard child of a lappy and a phone is immune from those same reasons is just plain dense.
They are? Companies commonly use replaceable batteries for their obvious advantages, but not always. The Samsung Upstage does not have a replaceable battery either (and that fact is far more "hidden" than the iPhone battery issue is). It's a design/engineering decision. User replaceable batteries are bigger and require more parts than do non-replaceable ones. One form of engineering may be common usage, but that doesn't make it something that companies are "supposed" to do. If you don't like the alternative form of engineering, don't buy it. But it isn't fraud, it isn't false advertising, it isn't in any way actionable to use the other form.
Even had Apple not said anything about the fact that the battery is not user-replaceable, they would not be guilty of false advertising unless they did the reverse - said the battery WAS user replaceable. To be liable for (not guilty of, that's crim terminology) false advertising, they would have to make an assertion - not simply not say anything. A case could, I suppose, be made for misleading the consumer, but that's a tough one to make - you still need some sort of assertion.
What *you* (not you, the poster. I mean consumers in general) think a phone should have is not relevant. Only what the company SAYS it has is relevant. You know what they say about assumptions... make an ass out of you and me. This lawsuit is retarded.
OK, whether or not the old Mac OS sucked, which is simply a flamebate argument not worth getting into, what does that have to do with an *APPLE* virus?
How do you figure? They aren't going to go to a non-DRM store - they're on lots of stores, all of which are DRM. And Apple's iTunes Music Store already offers them the option of not having DRM. They explicitly rejected it. They want DRM.
Uhh... Universal has deals with others. This doesn't change that. This makes LESS options, not more. It certainly isn't a positive for DRM-free music, where iTunes leads the charge, as far as major labels go, since signing the EMI deal. Universal definitely wants DRM.
Universal wants to be able to up prices where it thinks it can get more money. Apple isn't letting them do that. How do you see it as a positive that they're going to go to someone who does?
Not that most/any battery lives up to its ratings, but in terms of announced figures, this is pretty impressive. Other smartphones out there tend to have 4-5 hour talk time batteries. Maybe 8 hour talk times will stem complaints of non-replaceable batteries a bit. After all, if you're on your cellphone more than 8 hours a day, you might need to re-evaluate your life... even as a business user;)
And 24 hours audio playback? Where do I sign up? Goodbye recharging my cell phone every night and my iPod every other.
I would love to see Y!, Google, etc be able to operate in China/etc with no restrictions. That's the ideal. But that's not the real world. In the real world, there's laws. You rely on those laws in the US or EU to restrict the use of your private data, for example. In China, they have a law that restricts the use of other information. Do I like it? No. But I'd rather we have our companies there, which have a vested interest in as little information restriction as possible, then just have a Chinese state-owned company that does not have any interest releasing anything.
Well, I disagree with you there... because if it wasn't for the power of capitalism, American companies like Google and Yahoo! wouldn't exist, or wouldn't be strong enough, to even be over in China competing with Chinese companies. How many Chinese companies do you see in the US? Those that there are, are operating on a capitalist system.... another power of the capitalist system - you can't export communism (not using the cold war "export democracy" definition here, but rather that to be communist, your country must BE communist - you can't have a piece of your country operate in another under a different system). Further, every time an American company goes over there, we break down the barriers just a little more.
Yahoo! is going to conduct business in as many countries as it can, and to do so, it is going to comply with such laws as that country has. No other major company does any differently... just as Google didn't. To think that a company should say "no we're not going to participate in this MASSIVE market because we don't like the [moral] limits they place on us, which don't impact our financials at all," is silly. We should just let in house Chinese search engines take over that market? I think not. I'd rather have some American presence there, even if somewhat restricted, than none.
Just as more evidence to my above post:
""The announcement is a carbon copy of Apple's deal with EMI," said Gene Munster, an analyst with PiperJaffray. "Amazon will offer the same DRM-free tracks as iTunes, and therefore will have no competitive advantage over Apple."
Given that Amazon will not offer a better selection, Munster attests that there will be no compelling reason for users to switch from iTunes to Amazon. He therefore doesn't expect a material impact on Apple's music business.
"In fact, although Apple's dominance frustrates music studios, the reality is that Apple's market share gives [Apple chief executive] Steve Jobs and iTunes the upper hand," the analyst said. "We believe this upper hand results in Apple's ability to be first to market with new features and more DRM-free music, as evidenced by iTunes being the first store to offer DRM-free music from a major record label."
While Amazon's plan is to offer users of Apple's industry-leading iPod an alternative to iTunes, Munster believes the strategy will add a confusing and unnecessary step to the digital download process, which will only serve to complicate matters for most users."
OK seriously, are people going to live in the past forever? While I don't intend on getting rid of the mp3's I do have, it isn't mp3's that people should be making, and especially, buying, now. MP4/AAC has been around for a while now, and there is no excuse for non-WMA stores to not be selling it... the quality at any given bitrate is significantly better... and even if you can't notice it because of poor ears, a poor audio system, or just general lack of caring... it's the future.
As for people saying things like "Goodbye iTunes"... why do you think this is any different than what iTunes is doing? iTunes is adding the EMI catalog plus a ton of independant labels (and of course, the other big ones as long as they sign on. Why do you think the Amazon store is any different? I think you can pretty much rest assured that near-everything Amazon gets will be on iTunes... and I have a hard time imagining that anything Amazon releases could beat the integration and ease of use of iTunes and iTunes Music Store... and from there, the iPod.
College loans fall in the 7-10% range... Dell is at 20%+... that's a big difference. Add to that the fact that it isn't the rate that is necessarily important, so much as the bait & switch tactics, and you have a real lawsuit there.
It's really about bait & switch tactics in their finance arm, attracting people with 0% offers then denying even those with good credit, making them pay 20% or more finance fees.
"The lawsuit accuses Dell of luring consumers to purchase its products with advertisements that offered attractive "no interest" and/or "no payment" financing promotions. In practice, however, the vast majority of consumers, even those with very good credit scores, were denied these deals. In a classic "bait and switch" scheme, DFS instead offered consumers financing at high interest rates, which often exceed 20%. Dell and DFS frequently failed to clearly inform these consumers that they had not qualified for the promotional terms, leaving many to unwittingly finance their purchase at high interest rates."
THAT is what it is really about. The rest is just to throw on a little more on top, to scare Dell, and more importantly to make the public support it.
Slashdot Mirror
$1.98 total ($0.99 if you already have bought the song for other purposes) is still WAY cheaper than the carriers charge... or at worst, no more expensive.
Public performances are great, no question. So I trust you have no music on your computer, then? After all, you just want public performances.
EVERY type of art sells reproductions for money - whether it's paintings, movies, songs, or anything else. If artists are signing with labels to be the next Brittney Spears, I'm going to assume that you won't be listening to their music, because you don't like that type of thing. So then you shouldn't be pirating it either.
There's an art to computer programing - you need to be able to see how things can elegantly interact, etc - should these people no longer be compensated either?
ANYTHING can be done for money.
That being said, this isn't about whether or not artists deserve money, but rather whether the RIAA, which DISTRIBUTES music, does. And absolutely it does. The RIAA is fairly evil, no question, but distribution, advertising, promotion, etc all costs money, and is difficult work. They deserve money for that. Now, do they deserve as much as they get? Maybe not, from our view, but it's a free market - if artists think they can do it themselves, or if they think a small label that doesn't cost as much can do as good a job, they are free to go do that. Nobody is forcing them to choose an RIAA label (by the way, plenty of small labels are part of the RIAA). The artists CHOOSE to outsource this job to the label, and so they CHOOSE to pay the amounts that the RIAA labels charge. And so we pay RIAA prices, or we pirate it.
Sorry guys, forgot to put the formatting in. See my other response.
Dammit, forgot to put in the breaks.
But I really hope that most peoples attitudes isn't "why would we buy music when we can pirate it" these days. If it is, maybe the RIAA should be suing people.
You seem to think only the little guy can commit a crime. It is a crime for large companies to fix prices and kill competition.
Agreed - so do something about that crime. Two wrongs don't make a right/etc.
It is a crime to harass under-privileged children and the handicapped.
Depends what you're harassing them for. If you mean by suing them... well, are they copying music they don't own? If so, it isn't harassing.
It is a crime to take 1000s of dollars from common people who probably cannot afford it, who just may be downloading music because they can't pay the highway robbery prices charged for 5 cents of plastic and 9 bad songs.
This is absolutely NOT a crime. If they can't afford it, they can't afford it. People can't afford cars, software, etc, should they then be allowed to just take those? RIAA music is not a life necessity.
It is a crime to also harass artists (you seem to think all artists are actually happy with the record labels -- please read up on John Fogerty). It is a crime to force John Fogerty into court and him prove that he doesn't sound like himself in hopes of raping him for more millions than you've already raped him for (does the tune "Vance Can't Dance" ring a bell?).
I in no way think that the RIAA is perfect, or that it does things the right way. I made no statement to that effect. But again, this has nothing to do with whether or not you should be pirating music.
It is a crime to attempt to hinder innovation by forcing worthless and spent technology (CDs) just so you can keep a hold on your empire.
Well, I disagree that the CD is worthless or spent. I see no better hard media out there? Digital downloads are nice, but they don't replace the CD. Regardless, that is not in any way a crime. It's their choice to release their music that way - they have the right to do that.
Do you honestly think it will stop with people downloading music?
Absolutely not. But what's the choice? For the RIAA to simply LET people download music for free? Like I said, I don't support the RIAA - but they are between a rock and a hard place. What's your method for stopping pirating?
As more and more artists are able to create music outside of mainstream record labels, congress will be lobbied, somehow, to shut that down. The RIAA is a monster with money and they will use their huge reserves to continue to harass all sides, not just the evil people you seem to think represent the real villians attacking the harmless RIAA who, after all, care so much for the artists you mention....
I never mentioned an artist. And yet again, I never claimed to like the RIAA or their methods - but again, it is their (distribution) rights.
But I really hope that most peoples attitudes isn't "why would we buy music when we can pirate it" these days. If it is, maybe the RIAA should be suing people. You seem to think only the little guy can commit a crime. It is a crime for large companies to fix prices and kill competition. Agreed - so do something about that crime. Two wrongs don't make a right/etc. It is a crime to harass under-privileged children and the handicapped. Depends what you're harassing them for. If you mean by suing them... well, are they copying music they don't own? If so, it isn't harassing. It is a crime to take 1000s of dollars from common people who probably cannot afford it, who just may be downloading music because they can't pay the highway robbery prices charged for 5 cents of plastic and 9 bad songs. This is absolutely NOT a crime. If they can't afford it, they can't afford it. People can't afford cars, software, etc, should they then be allowed to just take those? RIAA music is not an essential life necessity. It is a crime to also harass artists (you seem to think all artists are actually happy with the record labels -- please read up on John Fogerty). It is a crime to force John Fogerty into court and him prove that he doesn't sound like himself in hopes of raping him for more millions than you've already raped him for (does the tune "Vance Can't Dance" ring a bell?). I in no way think that the RIAA is perfect, or that it does things the right way. I made no statement to that effect. But again, this has nothing to do with whether or not you should be pirating music. It is a crime to attempt to hinder innovation by forcing worthless and spent technology (CDs) just so you can keep a hold on your empire. Well, I disagree that the CD is worthless or spent. I see no better hard media out there? Digital downloads are nice, but they don't replace the CD. Regardless, that is not in any way a crime. It's their choice to release their music that way - they have the right to do that. Do you honestly think it will stop with people downloading music? Absolutely not. But what's the choice? For the RIAA to simply LET people download music for free? Like I said, I don't support the RIAA - but they are between a rock and a hard place. What's your method for stopping pirating? As more and more artists are able to create music outside of mainstream record labels, congress will be lobbied, somehow, to shut that down. The RIAA is a monster with money and they will use their huge reserves to continue to harass all sides, not just the evil people you seem to think represent the real villians attacking the harmless RIAA who, after all, care so much for the artists you mention.... I never mentioned an artist. And yet again, I never claimed to like the RIAA or their methods - but again, it is their (distribution) rights.
There's a major problem with that logic. If DRM free music is a great marketing tool, that means it's a great marketing tool because people will pirate it. And if people are pirating it, you're now giving away what you want to market, for free.
I don't like DRM because of all the compatibility issues and ease of use issues, but if it stops people from pirating (it doesn't, really), then it may be worth it.
Also, that's THEIR decision to make. They own the rights to distribute the content. It isn't my decision, it isn't your decision. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I primarily buy music on iTunes that is in iTunes Plus (DRM free 256kbps), thereby saying that yes, I like DRM free music. But I don't pirate music just because it has DRM and I'm opposed to DRM. I'll buy the CD in that case.
I've always been a huge supporter of the rights of these people that the RIAA is attacking - and I still am. But I'm realizing lately that I can't think of a better way for them to protect their rights, either. I was in a conversation the other day where somebody was asking someone to send them a copy of limewire, because they couldn't get it themselves for some reason. I made a joking comment about how ya know, installing Limewire on a work computer probably wasn't the smartest idea, and he could always *gasp* actually purchase his music (his stated goal was pirating music). Somebody else then said "why would anyone do that anymore"?
Now, I'm sure most people have music that isn't theirs on their computer. But I really hope that most peoples attitudes isn't "why would we buy music when we can pirate it" these days. If it is, maybe the RIAA should be suing people. I think that people shouldn't be crucified for having some songs that aren't theirs on their systems, if they also buy plenty of music. But if you never or almost never buy music, and your entire collection is pirated, then by all means, the RIAA should go after you.
I oppose the RIAA on privacy grounds, and because the logic used (downloading is NOT piracy, if you own it, I believe), but if peoples attitudes really now is that they should pirate rather than buy, then I think the RIAA is between a rock and a hard place, and they can't simply ignore that.
And please, keep the arguments about RIAA music being not worth the money out of this - if you don't think it's worth the money, then you don't have a right to have it. You've made that choice.
In other news, paper companies want you to pay a fee if you reuse their paper.
Just to hop on thefinite's previous reply to this post, since he did such a good job, I'd like to comment on these: 1) The case is supposed to be arguing that it WAS difficult to know that the battery was hard wired. No argument needs be made about the present day, the content of Google's current search engine, etc. I for one had no idea. Several technical publications (including /.) thought the fact was headline worthy - aka 'news'. So trying to say that it is impossible that it was news to a zero-day owner is just f'king goofy.
Buying a product without significantly researching it pretty much makes your claim... worthless. Especially when all you had to do was ask a sales associate or go to Apple.com. Apple did not in any way hide this, nevermind make a claim that it WAS user replaceable. They've said straight out that it is not a user replaceable part. Further, several technical publications (ie every news or review site on the planet) has pretty much commented that it isn't user replaceable. So unless we intend to protect people who do ZERO research into what they buy (and theoretically, we don't protect that person), this logic does not work.
2) Both cell phones and laptops are supposed to have batteries that can be replaced by the end user. There is a reason for this. To suggest that the bastard child of a lappy and a phone is immune from those same reasons is just plain dense.
They are? Companies commonly use replaceable batteries for their obvious advantages, but not always. The Samsung Upstage does not have a replaceable battery either (and that fact is far more "hidden" than the iPhone battery issue is). It's a design/engineering decision. User replaceable batteries are bigger and require more parts than do non-replaceable ones. One form of engineering may be common usage, but that doesn't make it something that companies are "supposed" to do. If you don't like the alternative form of engineering, don't buy it. But it isn't fraud, it isn't false advertising, it isn't in any way actionable to use the other form.
Just a small point of interest:
Even had Apple not said anything about the fact that the battery is not user-replaceable, they would not be guilty of false advertising unless they did the reverse - said the battery WAS user replaceable. To be liable for (not guilty of, that's crim terminology) false advertising, they would have to make an assertion - not simply not say anything. A case could, I suppose, be made for misleading the consumer, but that's a tough one to make - you still need some sort of assertion.
What *you* (not you, the poster. I mean consumers in general) think a phone should have is not relevant. Only what the company SAYS it has is relevant. You know what they say about assumptions... make an ass out of you and me. This lawsuit is retarded.
OK I really want to rate this redundant. But I won't. Because somebody will whine at me. DAMN YOU /.!!!!!!!
OK, whether or not the old Mac OS sucked, which is simply a flamebate argument not worth getting into, what does that have to do with an *APPLE* virus?
How do you figure? They aren't going to go to a non-DRM store - they're on lots of stores, all of which are DRM. And Apple's iTunes Music Store already offers them the option of not having DRM. They explicitly rejected it. They want DRM.
Uhh... Universal has deals with others. This doesn't change that. This makes LESS options, not more. It certainly isn't a positive for DRM-free music, where iTunes leads the charge, as far as major labels go, since signing the EMI deal. Universal definitely wants DRM.
Universal wants to be able to up prices where it thinks it can get more money. Apple isn't letting them do that. How do you see it as a positive that they're going to go to someone who does?
Not that most/any battery lives up to its ratings, but in terms of announced figures, this is pretty impressive. Other smartphones out there tend to have 4-5 hour talk time batteries. Maybe 8 hour talk times will stem complaints of non-replaceable batteries a bit. After all, if you're on your cellphone more than 8 hours a day, you might need to re-evaluate your life... even as a business user ;)
And 24 hours audio playback? Where do I sign up? Goodbye recharging my cell phone every night and my iPod every other.
When on earth did Netflix pick HD? I must be missing something here... or more likely you are. Namely that Netflix, like BBOnline, supports both.
It's about time! ;) What took them so long!
Except that you haven't purchased the content... you've purchased a license to USE the content, in certain ways.
I'm not saying I agree with the RIAA, but that's an important point to keep in mind.
I would love to see Y!, Google, etc be able to operate in China/etc with no restrictions. That's the ideal. But that's not the real world. In the real world, there's laws. You rely on those laws in the US or EU to restrict the use of your private data, for example. In China, they have a law that restricts the use of other information. Do I like it? No. But I'd rather we have our companies there, which have a vested interest in as little information restriction as possible, then just have a Chinese state-owned company that does not have any interest releasing anything.
Well, I disagree with you there... because if it wasn't for the power of capitalism, American companies like Google and Yahoo! wouldn't exist, or wouldn't be strong enough, to even be over in China competing with Chinese companies. How many Chinese companies do you see in the US? Those that there are, are operating on a capitalist system.... another power of the capitalist system - you can't export communism (not using the cold war "export democracy" definition here, but rather that to be communist, your country must BE communist - you can't have a piece of your country operate in another under a different system). Further, every time an American company goes over there, we break down the barriers just a little more.
Yahoo! is going to conduct business in as many countries as it can, and to do so, it is going to comply with such laws as that country has. No other major company does any differently... just as Google didn't. To think that a company should say "no we're not going to participate in this MASSIVE market because we don't like the [moral] limits they place on us, which don't impact our financials at all," is silly. We should just let in house Chinese search engines take over that market? I think not. I'd rather have some American presence there, even if somewhat restricted, than none.
Just as more evidence to my above post: ""The announcement is a carbon copy of Apple's deal with EMI," said Gene Munster, an analyst with PiperJaffray. "Amazon will offer the same DRM-free tracks as iTunes, and therefore will have no competitive advantage over Apple." Given that Amazon will not offer a better selection, Munster attests that there will be no compelling reason for users to switch from iTunes to Amazon. He therefore doesn't expect a material impact on Apple's music business. "In fact, although Apple's dominance frustrates music studios, the reality is that Apple's market share gives [Apple chief executive] Steve Jobs and iTunes the upper hand," the analyst said. "We believe this upper hand results in Apple's ability to be first to market with new features and more DRM-free music, as evidenced by iTunes being the first store to offer DRM-free music from a major record label." While Amazon's plan is to offer users of Apple's industry-leading iPod an alternative to iTunes, Munster believes the strategy will add a confusing and unnecessary step to the digital download process, which will only serve to complicate matters for most users."
OK seriously, are people going to live in the past forever? While I don't intend on getting rid of the mp3's I do have, it isn't mp3's that people should be making, and especially, buying, now. MP4/AAC has been around for a while now, and there is no excuse for non-WMA stores to not be selling it... the quality at any given bitrate is significantly better... and even if you can't notice it because of poor ears, a poor audio system, or just general lack of caring... it's the future.
As for people saying things like "Goodbye iTunes"... why do you think this is any different than what iTunes is doing? iTunes is adding the EMI catalog plus a ton of independant labels (and of course, the other big ones as long as they sign on. Why do you think the Amazon store is any different? I think you can pretty much rest assured that near-everything Amazon gets will be on iTunes... and I have a hard time imagining that anything Amazon releases could beat the integration and ease of use of iTunes and iTunes Music Store... and from there, the iPod.
College loans fall in the 7-10% range... Dell is at 20%+... that's a big difference. Add to that the fact that it isn't the rate that is necessarily important, so much as the bait & switch tactics, and you have a real lawsuit there.
It's really about bait & switch tactics in their finance arm, attracting people with 0% offers then denying even those with good credit, making them pay 20% or more finance fees. "The lawsuit accuses Dell of luring consumers to purchase its products with advertisements that offered attractive "no interest" and/or "no payment" financing promotions. In practice, however, the vast majority of consumers, even those with very good credit scores, were denied these deals. In a classic "bait and switch" scheme, DFS instead offered consumers financing at high interest rates, which often exceed 20%. Dell and DFS frequently failed to clearly inform these consumers that they had not qualified for the promotional terms, leaving many to unwittingly finance their purchase at high interest rates." THAT is what it is really about. The rest is just to throw on a little more on top, to scare Dell, and more importantly to make the public support it.