If Sony added it to new releases, and those releases didn't cost a dime extra, then fine, go right ahead.
I can't stand watching movies on the PSP. The screen doesn't refresh as quickly as it should, and fast paced action blurs and causes me to get a headache. Sitting hunched over a small screen for more then an hour makes my neck sore.
If Sony ever considered making the PSP connect to televisions, the UMD might have caught on, but I think this is a last ditch effort to promote yet another failed Sony media format.
Sony is trying to make the PS3 an all-in-one entertainment device, and this could ruin the PS3.
I don't need it to be a DVR, media server and game console as well as an outlet for online music and video sales.
The DVR feature will be a novelty as it won't integrate with Digital Cable networks allowing for seamless scheduling of HDTV content and digital channels. I rent a PVR from the cable company that allows me to record entire seasons of a show in High Def at the touch of a button, the PS3 won't be able to do that because the Cable companies are keeping digital cable proprietary. Even if the PS3 contains a cable card slot (sony is putting them in everything these days) I don't believe there is one cable company yet that is using Cable cards to allow access to proprietary information. The DVR feature of the PS3 will simply not be used.
While photo, music, and video playback in ANY device that has a CPU in it is a give in, do we really need ANOTHER device in the house that does it all? If you own a video iPod, you have it, most CD players support MP3 playback, most portable DVD players do it all as well, my PSP does. My DVD player supports DIVX movies, photo and music playback. My PC does it all and so does my Mac. Sony is going after a market already saturated by dozens of devices that builds these features in by default, simply because it is easy to implement. You need about $5 worth of electronics to support photos and music $10 to support video in todays consumer electronics. Like The PS2 DVD playback, when the market is already saturated with $30 DVD players, the feature simply won't be used as much as Sony thinks it would be.
Make the PS3 an excellent gaming device, period. If you can add DVR, media server, and other feature FREE OF CHARGE, then do so. But I would prever a $250 PS3 without a hard drive if it didn't support DVR or a media server features if it just played games well. I already have a dozen features which do it all, I don't need another when all I want is a gaming device.
This is why I am leaning towards the Nintendo Revolution as my next gen game console of choice. I like Nintendo's decision to make it all about the games. By offering novel game play features and extensive backlibrary support, I WILL stand in line to buy the Revolution. I will wait and see how the Xbox260 and PS3 fair.
Apple has a few screws loose if they think coming out with a new iPod product every 6 months is a good thing.
While I am all for innovation, there is also a question of blowing the wad too soon.
With every new Apple release there is always going to be a large percentage of customers that get burned. Because Apple is so secretive you can't make a wise decision on purchasing Apple's products. Buy a product at full price one day (Apple rarely discounts), and the next day Apple comes out with something 4 times faster, or more capacity, or more features, or whatever. Anybody buying the so called 5th gen Video iPod will be sour when Apple releases a better version only 6 months later.
This is going to hurt Apple in the long run because they are developing a reputation of being deceptive, not secretive, forcing customers to pay full price for a product that becomes obsolete the next day. At least if Apple practices slowly discouting product until their next release (like the REST of the technology market does), then it wouldn't be so bad when someone bought what was the state of the art iPod one day for $200 and then it is replaced with a new version at $500. Apple frequently releases new better products CHEAPER then the previous generations that we sold only the day before.
If Apple releases a revamped iPod in April, then I think they have lost touch with their customers and reputation for being a considerate company, instead churning out incremental upgrades on a regular basis, screwing early adopter all for the almighty dollar.
Apple has become Microsoft.
If Apple can't wait until next holiday season to hype up a new Video iPod then I will have lost all respect for them.
Nintendo hasn't been known for style. I find all their products to be geared towards children with big chunky designs, poor quality materials, and garish color schemes. Put a Gameboy Advance beside a PSP, and as a mature adult, decide which one you would rather buy. Which one will a kid buy? While this means that Nintendo solidly has the 12 and under market solidified, they are losing out in the teen and adult markets.
From the photographs I see little more mature and refined version of the DS that isn't based on cheap looking metalic plastic. Using the glossy white case will give the new DS a little more style. But, I still see evidence that there isn't the fit and finish you get as on a PSP or iPod. Things don't seem to fit or fold together properly (not precision designed parts), some of the lines look bowed or skewed. Cheap use of buttons and poor placement of ports. The openned shot of the new DS still looks cheap and unpolished, especially the speaker holes and the plastic frames about the LCD panesl (which looked skewed in the case). The overall effect is that Nintendo is obviously making these things using cheap Chinese contractors without any quality control.
I would actually pay more for a Nintendo product if they focused more on quality. Sure, it boils down to the games and Nintendo makes fun games. But I can't stand using a product that feels cheap, it bends and twists in your hand if you apply a little pressure and feels empty and made from cheap plastic.
Honestly, whoever is designing Nintendo hardware should be shot, drawn, and quartered. While kids don't care about quality, if Nintendo ever hopes to draw a more adult audience, then match the quality of Apple, Sony, and others in the industry.
Lets face it, we were ripped off when DVD's first appeared on the market with $1000 DVD players. It was a cash grab by the industry to make a quick profit before the mainstream got a hold of them. They might cite that R&D costs make the original DVD players expensive, but get real. DVD technology is based on 20+ year old CD technology. It was adapted to work with higher capacity disks. Today you can get a DVD player for $30.
Same goes for next gen DVD. I mean, what did they do? Used a different wavelength laser. You could probably take the same box of a regular DVD player, swap out a few components and controller card that cost a a total of $5.00 and make a Blu-Ray, HD-DVD player. Sony et al are simply going to charge a 1000% markup because they know there are going to be early adopters that will spend a fortune, only to find 3 years later the price of a next gen DVD player at $20.
I won't be fooled this time.
First, there is a definite format war going on, so I will wait until one format emerges as the winner. Second, when it comes to digital technology, the price of these players will plummet exponentially in the next 3 years. Something $1000 today will be available for $50 in a couple years with tonnes of new features. I mean, those $1000 original DVD players didn't even have progressive scan output.
As for the actual movie prices, DVD was slow to catch on in the first little while because of the cost of movies. I remember seeing RoboCop movies selling for $45 Canadian. Then a movie like The Matrix came out selling for under $20, and it was the quickest and highest selling retail movie of all time. Then DVD movies sales skyrocketed. $40+ high definition DVD's won't sell, $20 ones will. The industry will figure that one out again quickly. If Sony doesn't realize that before HD-DVD promoters, then Sony's format will die again.
I have 20/10 vision, I can see at 20 feat what most people see clearly at 10ft. Been several times to the eye doctor, same results, even with randomized eye charts (i.e. I am not memorizing the last few lines on the chart). From what the eye doctor said, this wasn't uncommon or super by any means.
The recent 6.02 release of iTunes won't install anymore on my Windows machine and it corrupted my old version of iTunes. I am iTuneless as of this moment so I will give it a try....
But alas, Songbird is garish, slow, and overwrought with features. Trying to be everything to everyone by embedding web browsing and access to many alternative music stores and sponsored websites, Songbird misses out on the point of being an iTunes replacement, simplicity. Like most open source projects, people have to learn where to draw the line between duplicating someone else's success to doing too much to surpass it.
Perhaps being a proof-of-concept product they will tweak it and streamline it enough to be both usable and simple. But I don't think we need a Mozilla based web browser that builds multimedia playback into it. Nice try. Should have just made a FireFox extension.
I guess I am forced trying to get iTunes running again, in the short while at least.
Apple (or at least Steve Jobs) has had a long history of going on record and saying they will not make a PDA like device. They failed with the Newton, and don't want to repeat that failure.
While the iPod is an excellent mobile entertainment platform, the PDA market in generally is drying up. While PDA's are being integrated literally as "bonus features" in some cellphone models, standalone PDA devices have steadily been on the decline in sales over the last 5 years, as the recent dropping of the PalmOS from retail products can attest to. It simply doesn't make sense for Apple to have waiting until the industry is nearly dead to pick up a PDA company and make a PDA product.
Perhaps, if anything, Apple will build PDA like functionality into a future version of the iPod and tap into Palm's expertise, but I think we can safely say that it would we ridiculous and shortsighted for Apple to try and market a PDA device separate from the iPod line when nobody wants a standalone PDA anymore.
Will Apple make a cellphone? I doubt that too. The cellphone market is just too hot for Apple to step into cold. Nokia, Motorola, Sony, Samsung all have firmly embedded themselves in this market and consistently develop excellent and highly sought after devices between them. Apple could not do in the cell phone industry what they did with digital music players, that is, dominate. When Apple came out with the iPod, there was simply no other player on the market that was slick and easy to use as the iPod, so they were able to take over. Apple would have a constant uphill battle to gain cell phone market penetration and companies like Nokia and Motorola will not idly stand buy while Apple tries and steal their market. Both companies would quickly (and easily) counter any Apple made cellphone with their own creation and undercut Apple on price and features. I can't see Apple leveraging Palm for the purpose of creating a PDA/Cellphone.
Perhaps Apple is buying out Palm (if this is the case) as a sympathy buy-out. Obtaining a solid team of developers to aid in Apple's current product lines, get new blood for new ideas and concepts in Apple's notebook, desktop and iPod lineups.
Who know what Apple has up their sleeves. It won't be the first time that Apple reneged on a statement by doing the opposite of what Steve Jobs has said. But I think it would be foolhardy and ridiculous for Apple to trying and create a PDA in a market that is dead. Apple doesn't have a chance to make a cellphone highly successful either, and while it would be a novelty item that would sell well for a year or two, too much competition will ensure that Apple never gains the same market penetration as the iPod.
So, I will wait until something actually happens with this story before believing that Apple has any intention of buying Palm. But my bet its probably out of sympathy, or perhaps Steve has a few friends over at Palm as opposed to Apple having any intention of developing a new PDA product or cellphone.
Your comparing fixes to a web browser to that of an operating system!
Give me a friggin break!
I mean, Mozilla makes a web browser and an email client, period. Regardless of what any other project they have on the go, that is their bread and butter. I would expect a company with a singular focus to be able to fix bugs in their TWO major products quickly. On the other hand Microsoft makes an OS, an infinitely larger code base and more complicated set of code to fix in addition to many many many other products. Even if its just an I.E. vulnerability, Microsoft still has to focus on ensuring OS system components are not affected because of the integration of I.E. in Windows. Microsoft has billions of clients, and while firefox is a hot product now, Mozilla doesn't have to ensure that 95% of PC's are not going to be adversely affected by a quickly rushed security patch.
It would be more appropriate to compare bug fixes between Apple and Microsoft, or Sun and Microsoft, (not really fair between RedHat and Microsoft because RedHat is a one hit wonder as well).
I can't stand double standards and people jumping on the bandwagon every time Microsoft is mentioned negatively in an article. If Mozilla had the depth of innovation and breadth of products Microsoft maintains, and they still fixed critical flaws in 3 weeks, then my hats off too them. But to say a company making one product fixes bugs 10 times faster then a company with a more complicated set of products and larger codebase is ridiculous, period.
I am not fan of Microsoft, but give me a break here. If Microsoft was a person, it would be criminal the kind of bias, slander and double standards imposed on them by every self righteous narrow minded geek out there.
Instead of online job applications remaining relatively unbiased by age, race, culture, or even gender in some cases, now US guidelines are going to require that you specify if your are a minority, culture preference, a woman, your age, and other statistics that will force employers not to hire the best candidates, but to fulfill diversity quotas.
Bottom line is, this is the weakness in Capitalism. The fact that you can start up a company for the express purpose of screwing hard working or innovative people and companies out of millions in deserved money.
I know a guy that has made a fortune taking trademarks and copyrights filed locally only in Canada or the US and filing them in his name globally. If that local, Canadian or US company wants to go global, they have to pay this guy royalties for using their own name.
It may be sneaky and underhanded but its totally within the law.
Same goes for patent trolls or squatters. Come up with our buy some idea that today might seem far-fetched, keep the language ambiguous and generalized, and as soon as some other company actually makes a product with similar function or purpose a reality, jump on them and sue the pants off of them.
There are entire companies set up that buy and hold patents. Buying them off individuals and small companies and simply sitting on them, with a large team of shysters paid scouring patent applications and product releases hoping that some company might make a product that infringes on the patents they hold. These companies (contrary to what they might have you believe) are not think tanks nor do any research and development nor have any interest in making the ideas a reality. They simply sit on paper. It's entirely legal for a company to do nothing, let another company do all the work, and expect royalties or licensing fees to sell a product they actually spent time and money developing, or sue the pants off these companies. Its like corporate slavery.
Patents have been twisted and corrupted from something to protect innovators from having their ideas ripped off to one that penalizes innovators for having good ideas and spending the time and money and effort to make an idea a reality.
Patents have become a dirty word.
There needs to be changes imposed, period. Patent law needs to be rewritten, not just for software, but in all cases. This isn't happening fast enough.
Watching BSG reminds me of playing Wing Commander back in the day (except with way better plots and acting). I always thought that the new BSG would be a brilliant platform for a new series of space shooters, a genre of games that have unfortunately fallen away to vapid 3rd person shooters and endless MMORPG's.
Honestly, I think that having a game that allows you to freely explore BSG with plot driven sequences, run space missions, and then actually allow you to land on a planet or board another craft for a 3rd person shooter mission would revolutionize both of these genres.
The problem is that most games based on a TV show or movie tend to be rushed, vapid, and simply a way for a marketing team to make a quick buck without much effort. I honestly think Chris Roberts should pair up with producers and creators of BSG, spend a few years, and create another great space shooter by utilizing the latest in graphics hardware and gaming technology.
I simply miss dogfighting in space, there hasn't been a really good entry in this genre for over a decade. While people are starting to tire of tired sequels to Doom and Quake and even Half life and of course Star Wars themed games, offering a new twist on a lost genre may be a trend that will help sell more games, even if there are a bunch of copycat clones once a successful BSG themed space shooter game is released.
Just, don't rush it out the door. If a BSG game is in the works, take the time to do it right and don't end up like the countless failed TV and movie franchise games that are rushed out the door weeks after (or even before) a movie is released.
I would vehemently oppose ANY attempt by humans to control our weather! We don't need some half-assed scheme to try and make our weather more temperate or cooler in order to fight something we don't quite understand fully yet.
Any attempt to try and purposely affect weather on a global scale will result in more devastation then the supposed effects of global warming.
Something I do truly believe in is that there is statistical evidence that suggests we are in a NATURAL warming trend. Ice data collected in the Arctic and Antarctic suggest that weather patterns are cyclical, and we are about due for a natural warming of global temperatures.
I am sure that our continued dependence on pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere isn't helping situations, and I can see highly localized warming trends in major urban centers ( big cities are always a few degrees warmer because of concentrations of smog and just radiant energy from buildings and cars), but this doesn't mean the whole earth is warming up because of greenhouse gasses.
We really don't understand what is happening, and I think it is just too alarmist to believe we can affect weather on a global scale. Its almost too arrogant to believe we can have that kind of effect on Mother Nature.
But before we attempt to correct what many consider a problem we have caused, we should understand how the earth is ACTUALLY responding to the warming trend. I have read that the Earth has recovered from warming trends in the past, by natural means.
We don't need humans to interfere with trying to purposely affect weather. I think that kind of arrogance will lead to devastation like we have never seen, throwing the natural balance of weather out of order and perhaps interrupting some natural process to fight the global warming trend.
In the end, if you truly believe that humans are causing global warming, then protest your governments insistent dependence on petroleum. Fight for greener cars and alternative fuels. Get your government to support Kyoto and stop using coal or natural gas for energy. Most governments are being lazy because it is either too costly to change or too much effort requires to change. But please don't support any attempt by a government or scientific organization to CHANGE global weather patterns on PURPOSE. No one person or group should be arrogant or self righteous enough to affect global weather on behalf of the world, especially when there is a chance that this warming trend in natural and the Earth may have its own built-in defence mechanism.
You don't find it odd that on the same day Google announces a partnership with VW, they blacklist BMW? Hmm, perhaps BMW didn't give Google as much money as VW, or BMW didn't want to do business with Google.
I just found out that Google and VW are partnering to bring Google technology into the car by adding Google Earth navigation to VW's navigation system.
On the same day, BMW's website gets delisted?
Does anybody find this odd, or frightening?
I mean, what really happened here? Did BMW opt not to partner with Google? Did BMW not give Google some investment money? I mean, I am sure if Google partnered with BMW that Google wouldn't have delisted their website (instead, perhaps supporting BMW's practices and of course making sure BMW gets highly ranked).
This is yet more proof that Google is being corrupted by their increasing power.
Don't be fooled by Google's do no evil policy, they are just redefining what evil is. Google is an advertising web spam engine in sheep's clothing, coming out with technology supposedly to benefit mankind, but instead just ensuring more channels for advertising revenue.
I urge Slashdot to have a Google free day. Don't post one story about Google for a 24 hour period. If they can't, then Google has a stranglehold on the web that will eventually corrupt it and make us pay for blindly accepting and supporting them as we have.
To date, there is no DVR/PVR available, unless it's TIVO or some box that you must buy directly from the cable company, that is worth buying.
Without built-in ability to access digital cable schedules and HDTV content, 3rd party DVR's are novelty items that find only limited functionality in the home. I bought a DVD-HDD DVR a few months ago and returned it, mostly because the ONLY way I could record content was to plug the video out of my Digital Cable box into the video in on the DVR, and then make sure I hit record when the television show started. There is no way to automatically schedule TV recording on 3rd party DVR boxes. The Cable companies won't allow Open cable standards to flourish, banking on proprietary cable technology to gain the extra $5-$10 a month renting boxes out generates.
Unless Sony builds a Cable Card slot into the PS3 (and US and Canadian cable companies actually start supporting Cable Cards), the DVR capabilities of the PS3 will be a novelty item, like the DVD player support in the PS2. A few people will find it handy, but most people will find it too cumbersome to use or have an existing solution that meets their needs. Without the ability to schedule Digital Cable recordings, or access HDTV content without the blessings of the Cable companies, the PS3's DVR capabilities will be greatly diminished.
Also, I am sure Sony will build in so much DRM protection schemes and other ways to prevent the PS3 from being an adequate DVR solution will make it suck as a DVR.
Sony is one of the few companies that are putting Cable Card slots into their TVs, so perhaps they will build them into the PS3. But this represents more technology to implement and license meaning that the cost of the PS3 will increase because of this feature.
That combined with the necessity of a hard drive means that the PS3 won't be cheap.
The PS3 doesn't, and shouldn't, be an all-in-one device. Playing back video, music, and photo slideshows is alright, these features can be added without any additional cost, but I would prefer if Sony focused on gaming and leave the superfluous features out of the PS3. Keep the price low and let people buy more robust and better implemented solutions elsewhere.
But then, you can't buy new technology tomorrow because it will be today.
If you wait for the next best things, that's all you'll do, is wait. There is always something better around the corner.
In honesty though, today's computers don't change that frequently anymore. Once a computer speed freak overclocking upgrade die hard, I have used the same computer system for 3 years, and only now I am starting to decide if I want to upgrade because I want to start storing My DVD collection on my computer for easier access. I could use something faster to rip and encode my Dvds in Divx.
Buying a computer today doesn't mean it's obsolete tomorrow, not anymore. Except for those people that feel they need the latest and the greatest. Buying any new technology today will probably last you for a few years except if a killer game or killer app comes along that demands more performance.
As for the Celeron Duo Core's. I have never liked the idea of "budget" CPU's. Why sell yourself short and get something that purposely under performs, basically a crippled version of its better performing sibling. I don't know if this is the case anymore, but I thought Celeron's were just Pentiums that Intel smashed a shoe on and broke them enough to run slower. I don't think Intel actually redesigns Celeron's, just forgets to put some components in them. Oops, we screwed up a batch of Pentiums, stamp Celeron on them and sell them slightly cheaper.
I would wait for any Duo Core technology as there are many reports of bugs that are affecting everything from battery life, security, and reliability. Wait for Duo Core 2's, but you should never fear today's technology because of what tomorrow might bring.
Or isn't GPL seemingly just more complicated then it needs to be.
I mean, yeah, get on the bandwagon, Windows sucks! But I have never gotten a head ache trying to read and understand Windows Licencing and Disclaimers. Basically, I bought the software and I only have the rights to install it on One Computer, period.
Reading previous GPL statements is simply too confusing. When can I use software, when can I share source code, when can I use other source code in my projects. The bottom line is, our company tells us simply to avoid GPL software code or products.
It just seems like a double standard. That open source projects are trying to create a free and diverse environment for information and innovation exchange, just that there is a big disclaimer limiting your ability to use and distribute the software.
GPL3 just seems to add to that complication by trying to get DRM protection and other IP protection in place, which kind of defeats the whole warm fuzzy feeling Open source was supposed to inspire.
In the end, I do agree with Linus and his fight against DRM, but then, I just find the whole licensing and disclaimers surrounding open source software to be kind of hypocritical to the whole movement.
If game developers and publishers start balking at used games, the worse is outright rampant piracy.
The problem here is the quality of the games in general (like with everything in the entertainment industry these days) is horrid. Quick rehashed sequels of popular games are being released more often then original game content. Gamers are becoming increasingly wary of dropping full price for a game they may find out they don't like 2 hours after playing it. Buying used games gives them an opportunity to play that game at a reduced price, and then trade back the game in exchange for another new/used game. Also, most gamers are finding more value in trading games for new games, as their is generally no need to hold on to a game that has been played to death and will never be touched again.
In the PC gaming market, you don't even have to buy used games. If you wait 6 - 8 months after a game is released, it is usually marked down 40 - 60% or comes bundled with value added features like add-ons or other games for a cheaper price.
I don't see how game developers can do anything to stop this. They sell a product and have little ( or should have little ) impact on after-market sales. I am sure Ford and GM would love to control how their used cars get sold, get some profit from the trading and selling of used cars, but the idea that any profit should return to Ford after they initially sell a car is ridiculous. Same goes for the video game industry.
I think the video game industry is realizing that they are not making an easy profit anymore, that gamers are becoming more selective about the games they play. I think there has been a stagnation in the originality and quality of gaming titles, and gamers are no longer quick to buy a game that is an obvious rushed out sequel. But they have to realize that buy flooding the market with poor quality games isn't going to drive up sales. Instead of penalizing used game buyers, how about making better quality games that people want to pay full price for and keep indefinitely!
If the game industry starts to mess up used game sales, forcing higher prices and demanding recuperation of profit from the sale of used games, the alternative is rampant piracy where those that would have spent $20 on a used game now will download it for free in spite of the gaming industry.
I mean, Google's shares are far to high for the reality of what they do. $400 a share is ludicrous. I mean, most other companies would have split a handful of times if their stocks were truely worth $400 a share, the fact that Google hasn't split yet suggests they know they are in a bubble, and that bubble will burst. I mean, Microsoft's shares are $27, Intel is $21, Apple is a gem at $73, I mean, all these companies MAKE and SELL stuff, the just don't exist virtually like Google does.
$400 a share won't last. The problem is that when Wall Street starts to see those values plummet, they will intrepret this negatively and act accordingly (expect lots of jumpers piling up in Wall Street). Google will tank. Anybody not realizing this bubble will burst deserves to lose their shirts in the stock market.
Acceptance of the shuffle has been hit or miss. People focus entirely on its lack of screen, but I have to agree when Apple with their motivation for coming out with a cheap music player without a screen, you don't really need it.
I own an 30gb iPod that has my entire music collection on it. Of course it needs a screen in order to browse and find 3000+ music files. But in reality, when using the 30gb iPod, I put it in shuffle mode and rarely look at the screen. I am happy to simply let the music I enjoy be randomly selected. I know who sings the songs because, unlike a large majority of people, I don't simply download illegal music without discretion so I have countless songs I have never heard of by artists I am not familiar with. All the music on my iPod is legit and payed for and known.
The Shuffle was always intended to be an auxiliary player, NOT a music storage library. I plug the Shuffle into my Mac, it randomly fills it with songs, and I take it to the gym or on the road. I don't feel that the lack of screen has ever been a detriment to the Shuffle.
But there is a market segment of people that don't own that much music. Who were looking for a cheap player that could actually store their entire music library in 512mb or 1gb of storage space. People bought the Shuffle without realizing it's not the product that was intended to suit their purpose. And of course, these people complained loudly. At the time the Shuffle was release there was NO cheaper digital music player on the market (I looked, there really wasn't), so the Shuffle was attractive as an inexpensive music player with the high profile of Apple's iPod lineup. I can understand how some people not familiar with digital music players would buy the Shuffle without considering if it met their needs.
So, I will be disappointed if Apple drops their Shuffle product, but I can't see how it can continue. There is no reason for a Shuffle with more then 1GB of storage. Putting too much storage into a screenless player will only exasperate the problem with a screenless player. As you put more storage, people expect to be able to browse and search larger collections of music. Apple could put a screen on the Shuffle, but Apple is slow to let people feel they made a mistake or go against Apple's original convictions. Like the 1 button mouse, Apple won't simply cave in to consumer demand. Apple released the minute iPod Nano which fills in the market segment for small players with a screen, and as the price of the Nano drops, it can easily fill in the same market of the Shuffle.
But I was really hoping for Apple to release a micro sized shuffle, make it the smallest, lightest, and cheapest player on the market. I would easily buy something that was half the size and weight of the Shuffle, or even smaller. It would be a novelty item, but it would still be cool. Apple could always release a product that didn't have a screen, but create a remote attachment with a screen (it would be Apple's way of suggesting they were right in making a screenless player a success, but still give consumers what they want). Turn the Shuffle into a two piece Nano with an optional remote screen, that would be very cool.
I know many people will just jump down Microsoft's throat for anything they do, they aren't my favourite company either. But I can't be sympathetic to people that complain about beta software.
1) NOBODY is forcing you to install a beta product. If you are curious or impulsive, and feel compelled to install beta software, your doing so at great risk to your security and data. Whether it's Microsoft beta's, Google beta's, or Linux Beta's, you are accepting that risk by the nature of installing beta software (its in the disclaimer)
2) THE REASON for beta software is to open it up to wider testing to CATCH AND FIX Bugs. This is a good thing, that bugs are flowing back to Microsoft. It will force them to fix the bugs and strengthen the product.
3) No, you CAN'T Sue, see 1)
4) Get a life. I mean, if IE 7 was in full release and these bugs were being reported, I would jump on the bandwagon myself and fire a few shots at MS, but this is still beta software, it isn't even a release candidate yet. Its intended for people with a brain to install it at their own risk and test the product, to REPORT bugs is the definition of what Beta software is. Obviously lots of stupid people are installing IE 7!
This is NOT NEWS, this is sad. To report and complain that Microsoft's beta software is full of bugs suggest a complete bias, prejudice, and ignorance towards them without merit or provocation. This is not microsoft screwing up, this is microsoft doing what countless other software companies do, release a beta in order to get feedback and bug reporting in order to fix and strengthen the product.
When FireFox 1.5 beta was released, it was full of bugs, but people praised Mozilla for their innovation and success. I can't stand double standards.
I thought nothing, a void, Java is a black hole that just keeps sucking. Its what happens when a Sun goes supernova.
Put the OS on embedded non-volitile memory already
on
Always on Laptops
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Honestly, embed OS'es like Linux or Windows in some form of memory on a laptop or desktop mainboard and turn it into a calculator already!
It is freaking ridiculous that 6/7 years into the 21st Century (however you count it) that we still rely on BOOTING computers from antiquated electromagnetic platters before we can access the software applications.
There is no reason why all the OS components, kernel and key applications cannot reside in some built in non-volatile memory so that the computer is technically "always-on" even if the power is turned off. All you do is restore the environment in the memory as opposed to booting fresh. You can pair that with keeping a small charge on volatile memory to keep the current desktop environment active in low power mode.
This may actually make the OS more secure as you can make sure that nothing can touch or corrupt the embedded software and OS kernel simply by making the embedded software read only. Patches, updates or upgrades would require a sophisticated authentication protocol to allow changes to the embedded OS software.
It ain't rocket science.
I know PDA's and mobile platforms used embedded OS'es, but is there any reason why the humble Desktop or Laptop computers can't use this same technology? Put 1gb of embedded non-volatile memory on to the mainboard and let Windows or your favourite OS of choice be installed into it in its running state.
In some ways I find that computer/software technology has become stagnant. No matter how fast CPU's get, or how fancy OS'es get there are some things that haven't changed for almost 30 years on computers. It's time for a revolution, make our computers better darn it instead of adding cutesy add ons that mimic what real innovation could do more effectively.
Slashdot Mirror
I already own all these movies, so who cares.
If Sony added it to new releases, and those releases didn't cost a dime extra, then fine, go right ahead.
I can't stand watching movies on the PSP. The screen doesn't refresh as quickly as it should, and fast paced action blurs and causes me to get a headache. Sitting hunched over a small screen for more then an hour makes my neck sore.
If Sony ever considered making the PSP connect to televisions, the UMD might have caught on, but I think this is a last ditch effort to promote yet another failed Sony media format.
Sony is trying to make the PS3 an all-in-one entertainment device, and this could ruin the PS3.
I don't need it to be a DVR, media server and game console as well as an outlet for online music and video sales.
The DVR feature will be a novelty as it won't integrate with Digital Cable networks allowing for seamless scheduling of HDTV content and digital channels. I rent a PVR from the cable company that allows me to record entire seasons of a show in High Def at the touch of a button, the PS3 won't be able to do that because the Cable companies are keeping digital cable proprietary. Even if the PS3 contains a cable card slot (sony is putting them in everything these days) I don't believe there is one cable company yet that is using Cable cards to allow access to proprietary information. The DVR feature of the PS3 will simply not be used.
While photo, music, and video playback in ANY device that has a CPU in it is a give in, do we really need ANOTHER device in the house that does it all? If you own a video iPod, you have it, most CD players support MP3 playback, most portable DVD players do it all as well, my PSP does. My DVD player supports DIVX movies, photo and music playback. My PC does it all and so does my Mac. Sony is going after a market already saturated by dozens of devices that builds these features in by default, simply because it is easy to implement. You need about $5 worth of electronics to support photos and music $10 to support video in todays consumer electronics. Like The PS2 DVD playback, when the market is already saturated with $30 DVD players, the feature simply won't be used as much as Sony thinks it would be.
Make the PS3 an excellent gaming device, period. If you can add DVR, media server, and other feature FREE OF CHARGE, then do so. But I would prever a $250 PS3 without a hard drive if it didn't support DVR or a media server features if it just played games well. I already have a dozen features which do it all, I don't need another when all I want is a gaming device.
This is why I am leaning towards the Nintendo Revolution as my next gen game console of choice. I like Nintendo's decision to make it all about the games. By offering novel game play features and extensive backlibrary support, I WILL stand in line to buy the Revolution. I will wait and see how the Xbox260 and PS3 fair.
Apple has a few screws loose if they think coming out with a new iPod product every 6 months is a good thing.
While I am all for innovation, there is also a question of blowing the wad too soon.
With every new Apple release there is always going to be a large percentage of customers that get burned. Because Apple is so secretive you can't make a wise decision on purchasing Apple's products. Buy a product at full price one day (Apple rarely discounts), and the next day Apple comes out with something 4 times faster, or more capacity, or more features, or whatever. Anybody buying the so called 5th gen Video iPod will be sour when Apple releases a better version only 6 months later.
This is going to hurt Apple in the long run because they are developing a reputation of being deceptive, not secretive, forcing customers to pay full price for a product that becomes obsolete the next day. At least if Apple practices slowly discouting product until their next release (like the REST of the technology market does), then it wouldn't be so bad when someone bought what was the state of the art iPod one day for $200 and then it is replaced with a new version at $500. Apple frequently releases new better products CHEAPER then the previous generations that we sold only the day before.
If Apple releases a revamped iPod in April, then I think they have lost touch with their customers and reputation for being a considerate company, instead churning out incremental upgrades on a regular basis, screwing early adopter all for the almighty dollar.
Apple has become Microsoft.
If Apple can't wait until next holiday season to hype up a new Video iPod then I will have lost all respect for them.
Nintendo hasn't been known for style. I find all their products to be geared towards children with big chunky designs, poor quality materials, and garish color schemes. Put a Gameboy Advance beside a PSP, and as a mature adult, decide which one you would rather buy. Which one will a kid buy? While this means that Nintendo solidly has the 12 and under market solidified, they are losing out in the teen and adult markets.
From the photographs I see little more mature and refined version of the DS that isn't based on cheap looking metalic plastic. Using the glossy white case will give the new DS a little more style. But, I still see evidence that there isn't the fit and finish you get as on a PSP or iPod. Things don't seem to fit or fold together properly (not precision designed parts), some of the lines look bowed or skewed. Cheap use of buttons and poor placement of ports. The openned shot of the new DS still looks cheap and unpolished, especially the speaker holes and the plastic frames about the LCD panesl (which looked skewed in the case). The overall effect is that Nintendo is obviously making these things using cheap Chinese contractors without any quality control.
I would actually pay more for a Nintendo product if they focused more on quality. Sure, it boils down to the games and Nintendo makes fun games. But I can't stand using a product that feels cheap, it bends and twists in your hand if you apply a little pressure and feels empty and made from cheap plastic.
Honestly, whoever is designing Nintendo hardware should be shot, drawn, and quartered. While kids don't care about quality, if Nintendo ever hopes to draw a more adult audience, then match the quality of Apple, Sony, and others in the industry.
Wonder why "new technology" should cost so much?
Lets face it, we were ripped off when DVD's first appeared on the market with $1000 DVD players. It was a cash grab by the industry to make a quick profit before the mainstream got a hold of them. They might cite that R&D costs make the original DVD players expensive, but get real. DVD technology is based on 20+ year old CD technology. It was adapted to work with higher capacity disks. Today you can get a DVD player for $30.
Same goes for next gen DVD. I mean, what did they do? Used a different wavelength laser. You could probably take the same box of a regular DVD player, swap out a few components and controller card that cost a a total of $5.00 and make a Blu-Ray, HD-DVD player. Sony et al are simply going to charge a 1000% markup because they know there are going to be early adopters that will spend a fortune, only to find 3 years later the price of a next gen DVD player at $20.
I won't be fooled this time.
First, there is a definite format war going on, so I will wait until one format emerges as the winner.
Second, when it comes to digital technology, the price of these players will plummet exponentially in the next 3 years. Something $1000 today will be available for $50 in a couple years with tonnes of new features. I mean, those $1000 original DVD players didn't even have progressive scan output.
As for the actual movie prices, DVD was slow to catch on in the first little while because of the cost of movies. I remember seeing RoboCop movies selling for $45 Canadian. Then a movie like The Matrix came out selling for under $20, and it was the quickest and highest selling retail movie of all time. Then DVD movies sales skyrocketed. $40+ high definition DVD's won't sell, $20 ones will. The industry will figure that one out again quickly. If Sony doesn't realize that before HD-DVD promoters, then Sony's format will die again.
I have 20/10 vision, I can see at 20 feat what most people see clearly at 10ft. Been several times to the eye doctor, same results, even with randomized eye charts (i.e. I am not memorizing the last few lines on the chart). From what the eye doctor said, this wasn't uncommon or super by any means.
The recent 6.02 release of iTunes won't install anymore on my Windows machine and it corrupted my old version of iTunes. I am iTuneless as of this moment so I will give it a try....
But alas, Songbird is garish, slow, and overwrought with features. Trying to be everything to everyone by embedding web browsing and access to many alternative music stores and sponsored websites, Songbird misses out on the point of being an iTunes replacement, simplicity. Like most open source projects, people have to learn where to draw the line between duplicating someone else's success to doing too much to surpass it.
Perhaps being a proof-of-concept product they will tweak it and streamline it enough to be both usable and simple. But I don't think we need a Mozilla based web browser that builds multimedia playback into it. Nice try. Should have just made a FireFox extension.
I guess I am forced trying to get iTunes running again, in the short while at least.
Apple (or at least Steve Jobs) has had a long history of going on record and saying they will not make a PDA like device. They failed with the Newton, and don't want to repeat that failure.
While the iPod is an excellent mobile entertainment platform, the PDA market in generally is drying up. While PDA's are being integrated literally as "bonus features" in some cellphone models, standalone PDA devices have steadily been on the decline in sales over the last 5 years, as the recent dropping of the PalmOS from retail products can attest to. It simply doesn't make sense for Apple to have waiting until the industry is nearly dead to pick up a PDA company and make a PDA product.
Perhaps, if anything, Apple will build PDA like functionality into a future version of the iPod and tap into Palm's expertise, but I think we can safely say that it would we ridiculous and shortsighted for Apple to try and market a PDA device separate from the iPod line when nobody wants a standalone PDA anymore.
Will Apple make a cellphone? I doubt that too. The cellphone market is just too hot for Apple to step into cold. Nokia, Motorola, Sony, Samsung all have firmly embedded themselves in this market and consistently develop excellent and highly sought after devices between them. Apple could not do in the cell phone industry what they did with digital music players, that is, dominate. When Apple came out with the iPod, there was simply no other player on the market that was slick and easy to use as the iPod, so they were able to take over. Apple would have a constant uphill battle to gain cell phone market penetration and companies like Nokia and Motorola will not idly stand buy while Apple tries and steal their market. Both companies would quickly (and easily) counter any Apple made cellphone with their own creation and undercut Apple on price and features. I can't see Apple leveraging Palm for the purpose of creating a PDA/Cellphone.
Perhaps Apple is buying out Palm (if this is the case) as a sympathy buy-out. Obtaining a solid team of developers to aid in Apple's current product lines, get new blood for new ideas and concepts in Apple's notebook, desktop and iPod lineups.
Who know what Apple has up their sleeves. It won't be the first time that Apple reneged on a statement by doing the opposite of what Steve Jobs has said. But I think it would be foolhardy and ridiculous for Apple to trying and create a PDA in a market that is dead. Apple doesn't have a chance to make a cellphone highly successful either, and while it would be a novelty item that would sell well for a year or two, too much competition will ensure that Apple never gains the same market penetration as the iPod.
So, I will wait until something actually happens with this story before believing that Apple has any intention of buying Palm. But my bet its probably out of sympathy, or perhaps Steve has a few friends over at Palm as opposed to Apple having any intention of developing a new PDA product or cellphone.
True, I first heard about it being used on skyscrapper windows so that buildings could be kept clean of smog and soot simply using sunlight and rain.
Your comparing fixes to a web browser to that of an operating system!
Give me a friggin break!
I mean, Mozilla makes a web browser and an email client, period. Regardless of what any other project they have on the go, that is their bread and butter. I would expect a company with a singular focus to be able to fix bugs in their TWO major products quickly. On the other hand Microsoft makes an OS, an infinitely larger code base and more complicated set of code to fix in addition to many many many other products. Even if its just an I.E. vulnerability, Microsoft still has to focus on ensuring OS system components are not affected because of the integration of I.E. in Windows. Microsoft has billions of clients, and while firefox is a hot product now, Mozilla doesn't have to ensure that 95% of PC's are not going to be adversely affected by a quickly rushed security patch.
It would be more appropriate to compare bug fixes between Apple and Microsoft, or Sun and Microsoft, (not really fair between RedHat and Microsoft because RedHat is a one hit wonder as well).
I can't stand double standards and people jumping on the bandwagon every time Microsoft is mentioned negatively in an article. If Mozilla had the depth of innovation and breadth of products Microsoft maintains, and they still fixed critical flaws in 3 weeks, then my hats off too them. But to say a company making one product fixes bugs 10 times faster then a company with a more complicated set of products and larger codebase is ridiculous, period.
I am not fan of Microsoft, but give me a break here. If Microsoft was a person, it would be criminal the kind of bias, slander and double standards imposed on them by every self righteous narrow minded geek out there.
Instead of online job applications remaining relatively unbiased by age, race, culture, or even gender in some cases, now US guidelines are going to require that you specify if your are a minority, culture preference, a woman, your age, and other statistics that will force employers not to hire the best candidates, but to fulfill diversity quotas.
Good one.
Bottom line is, this is the weakness in Capitalism. The fact that you can start up a company for the express purpose of screwing hard working or innovative people and companies out of millions in deserved money.
I know a guy that has made a fortune taking trademarks and copyrights filed locally only in Canada or the US and filing them in his name globally. If that local, Canadian or US company wants to go global, they have to pay this guy royalties for using their own name.
It may be sneaky and underhanded but its totally within the law.
Same goes for patent trolls or squatters. Come up with our buy some idea that today might seem far-fetched, keep the language ambiguous and generalized, and as soon as some other company actually makes a product with similar function or purpose a reality, jump on them and sue the pants off of them.
There are entire companies set up that buy and hold patents. Buying them off individuals and small companies and simply sitting on them, with a large team of shysters paid scouring patent applications and product releases hoping that some company might make a product that infringes on the patents they hold. These companies (contrary to what they might have you believe) are not think tanks nor do any research and development nor have any interest in making the ideas a reality. They simply sit on paper. It's entirely legal for a company to do nothing, let another company do all the work, and expect royalties or licensing fees to sell a product they actually spent time and money developing, or sue the pants off these companies. Its like corporate slavery.
Patents have been twisted and corrupted from something to protect innovators from having their ideas ripped off to one that penalizes innovators for having good ideas and spending the time and money and effort to make an idea a reality.
Patents have become a dirty word.
There needs to be changes imposed, period. Patent law needs to be rewritten, not just for software, but in all cases. This isn't happening fast enough.
Watching BSG reminds me of playing Wing Commander back in the day (except with way better plots and acting). I always thought that the new BSG would be a brilliant platform for a new series of space shooters, a genre of games that have unfortunately fallen away to vapid 3rd person shooters and endless MMORPG's.
Honestly, I think that having a game that allows you to freely explore BSG with plot driven sequences, run space missions, and then actually allow you to land on a planet or board another craft for a 3rd person shooter mission would revolutionize both of these genres.
The problem is that most games based on a TV show or movie tend to be rushed, vapid, and simply a way for a marketing team to make a quick buck without much effort. I honestly think Chris Roberts should pair up with producers and creators of BSG, spend a few years, and create another great space shooter by utilizing the latest in graphics hardware and gaming technology.
I simply miss dogfighting in space, there hasn't been a really good entry in this genre for over a decade. While people are starting to tire of tired sequels to Doom and Quake and even Half life and of course Star Wars themed games, offering a new twist on a lost genre may be a trend that will help sell more games, even if there are a bunch of copycat clones once a successful BSG themed space shooter game is released.
Just, don't rush it out the door. If a BSG game is in the works, take the time to do it right and don't end up like the countless failed TV and movie franchise games that are rushed out the door weeks after (or even before) a movie is released.
I would vehemently oppose ANY attempt by humans to control our weather! We don't need some half-assed scheme to try and make our weather more temperate or cooler in order to fight something we don't quite understand fully yet.
Any attempt to try and purposely affect weather on a global scale will result in more devastation then the supposed effects of global warming.
Something I do truly believe in is that there is statistical evidence that suggests we are in a NATURAL warming trend. Ice data collected in the Arctic and Antarctic suggest that weather patterns are cyclical, and we are about due for a natural warming of global temperatures.
I am sure that our continued dependence on pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere isn't helping situations, and I can see highly localized warming trends in major urban centers ( big cities are always a few degrees warmer because of concentrations of smog and just radiant energy from buildings and cars), but this doesn't mean the whole earth is warming up because of greenhouse gasses.
We really don't understand what is happening, and I think it is just too alarmist to believe we can affect weather on a global scale. Its almost too arrogant to believe we can have that kind of effect on Mother Nature.
But before we attempt to correct what many consider a problem we have caused, we should understand how the earth is ACTUALLY responding to the warming trend. I have read that the Earth has recovered from warming trends in the past, by natural means.
We don't need humans to interfere with trying to purposely affect weather. I think that kind of arrogance will lead to devastation like we have never seen, throwing the natural balance of weather out of order and perhaps interrupting some natural process to fight the global warming trend.
In the end, if you truly believe that humans are causing global warming, then protest your governments insistent dependence on petroleum. Fight for greener cars and alternative fuels. Get your government to support Kyoto and stop using coal or natural gas for energy. Most governments are being lazy because it is either too costly to change or too much effort requires to change. But please don't support any attempt by a government or scientific organization to CHANGE global weather patterns on PURPOSE. No one person or group should be arrogant or self righteous enough to affect global weather on behalf of the world, especially when there is a chance that this warming trend in natural and the Earth may have its own built-in defence mechanism.
You don't find it odd that on the same day Google announces a partnership with VW, they blacklist BMW? Hmm, perhaps BMW didn't give Google as much money as VW, or BMW didn't want to do business with Google.
I just found out that Google and VW are partnering to bring Google technology into the car by adding Google Earth navigation to VW's navigation system.
On the same day, BMW's website gets delisted?
Does anybody find this odd, or frightening?
I mean, what really happened here? Did BMW opt not to partner with Google? Did BMW not give Google some investment money? I mean, I am sure if Google partnered with BMW that Google wouldn't have delisted their website (instead, perhaps supporting BMW's practices and of course making sure BMW gets highly ranked).
This is yet more proof that Google is being corrupted by their increasing power.
Don't be fooled by Google's do no evil policy, they are just redefining what evil is. Google is an advertising web spam engine in sheep's clothing, coming out with technology supposedly to benefit mankind, but instead just ensuring more channels for advertising revenue.
I urge Slashdot to have a Google free day. Don't post one story about Google for a 24 hour period. If they can't, then Google has a stranglehold on the web that will eventually corrupt it and make us pay for blindly accepting and supporting them as we have.
To date, there is no DVR/PVR available, unless it's TIVO or some box that you must buy directly from the cable company, that is worth buying.
Without built-in ability to access digital cable schedules and HDTV content, 3rd party DVR's are novelty items that find only limited functionality in the home. I bought a DVD-HDD DVR a few months ago and returned it, mostly because the ONLY way I could record content was to plug the video out of my Digital Cable box into the video in on the DVR, and then make sure I hit record when the television show started. There is no way to automatically schedule TV recording on 3rd party DVR boxes. The Cable companies won't allow Open cable standards to flourish, banking on proprietary cable technology to gain the extra $5-$10 a month renting boxes out generates.
Unless Sony builds a Cable Card slot into the PS3 (and US and Canadian cable companies actually start supporting Cable Cards), the DVR capabilities of the PS3 will be a novelty item, like the DVD player support in the PS2. A few people will find it handy, but most people will find it too cumbersome to use or have an existing solution that meets their needs. Without the ability to schedule Digital Cable recordings, or access HDTV content without the blessings of the Cable companies, the PS3's DVR capabilities will be greatly diminished.
Also, I am sure Sony will build in so much DRM protection schemes and other ways to prevent the PS3 from being an adequate DVR solution will make it suck as a DVR.
Sony is one of the few companies that are putting Cable Card slots into their TVs, so perhaps they will build them into the PS3. But this represents more technology to implement and license meaning that the cost of the PS3 will increase because of this feature.
That combined with the necessity of a hard drive means that the PS3 won't be cheap.
The PS3 doesn't, and shouldn't, be an all-in-one device. Playing back video, music, and photo slideshows is alright, these features can be added without any additional cost, but I would prefer if Sony focused on gaming and leave the superfluous features out of the PS3. Keep the price low and let people buy more robust and better implemented solutions elsewhere.
But then, you can't buy new technology tomorrow because it will be today.
If you wait for the next best things, that's all you'll do, is wait. There is always something better around the corner.
In honesty though, today's computers don't change that frequently anymore. Once a computer speed freak overclocking upgrade die hard, I have used the same computer system for 3 years, and only now I am starting to decide if I want to upgrade because I want to start storing My DVD collection on my computer for easier access. I could use something faster to rip and encode my Dvds in Divx.
Buying a computer today doesn't mean it's obsolete tomorrow, not anymore. Except for those people that feel they need the latest and the greatest. Buying any new technology today will probably last you for a few years except if a killer game or killer app comes along that demands more performance.
As for the Celeron Duo Core's. I have never liked the idea of "budget" CPU's. Why sell yourself short and get something that purposely under performs, basically a crippled version of its better performing sibling. I don't know if this is the case anymore, but I thought Celeron's were just Pentiums that Intel smashed a shoe on and broke them enough to run slower. I don't think Intel actually redesigns Celeron's, just forgets to put some components in them. Oops, we screwed up a batch of Pentiums, stamp Celeron on them and sell them slightly cheaper.
I would wait for any Duo Core technology as there are many reports of bugs that are affecting everything from battery life, security, and reliability. Wait for Duo Core 2's, but you should never fear today's technology because of what tomorrow might bring.
Or isn't GPL seemingly just more complicated then it needs to be.
I mean, yeah, get on the bandwagon, Windows sucks! But I have never gotten a head ache trying to read and understand Windows Licencing and Disclaimers. Basically, I bought the software and I only have the rights to install it on One Computer, period.
Reading previous GPL statements is simply too confusing. When can I use software, when can I share source code, when can I use other source code in my projects. The bottom line is, our company tells us simply to avoid GPL software code or products.
It just seems like a double standard. That open source projects are trying to create a free and diverse environment for information and innovation exchange, just that there is a big disclaimer limiting your ability to use and distribute the software.
GPL3 just seems to add to that complication by trying to get DRM protection and other IP protection in place, which kind of defeats the whole warm fuzzy feeling Open source was supposed to inspire.
In the end, I do agree with Linus and his fight against DRM, but then, I just find the whole licensing and disclaimers surrounding open source software to be kind of hypocritical to the whole movement.
Code Free, Share it, Love it, period!
If game developers and publishers start balking at used games, the worse is outright rampant piracy.
The problem here is the quality of the games in general (like with everything in the entertainment industry these days) is horrid. Quick rehashed sequels of popular games are being released more often then original game content. Gamers are becoming increasingly wary of dropping full price for a game they may find out they don't like 2 hours after playing it. Buying used games gives them an opportunity to play that game at a reduced price, and then trade back the game in exchange for another new/used game. Also, most gamers are finding more value in trading games for new games, as their is generally no need to hold on to a game that has been played to death and will never be touched again.
In the PC gaming market, you don't even have to buy used games. If you wait 6 - 8 months after a game is released, it is usually marked down 40 - 60% or comes bundled with value added features like add-ons or other games for a cheaper price.
I don't see how game developers can do anything to stop this. They sell a product and have little ( or should have little ) impact on after-market sales. I am sure Ford and GM would love to control how their used cars get sold, get some profit from the trading and selling of used cars, but the idea that any profit should return to Ford after they initially sell a car is ridiculous. Same goes for the video game industry.
I think the video game industry is realizing that they are not making an easy profit anymore, that gamers are becoming more selective about the games they play. I think there has been a stagnation in the originality and quality of gaming titles, and gamers are no longer quick to buy a game that is an obvious rushed out sequel. But they have to realize that buy flooding the market with poor quality games isn't going to drive up sales. Instead of penalizing used game buyers, how about making better quality games that people want to pay full price for and keep indefinitely!
If the game industry starts to mess up used game sales, forcing higher prices and demanding recuperation of profit from the sale of used games, the alternative is rampant piracy where those that would have spent $20 on a used game now will download it for free in spite of the gaming industry.
I mean, Google's shares are far to high for the reality of what they do. $400 a share is ludicrous. I mean, most other companies would have split a handful of times if their stocks were truely worth $400 a share, the fact that Google hasn't split yet suggests they know they are in a bubble, and that bubble will burst. I mean, Microsoft's shares are $27, Intel is $21, Apple is a gem at $73, I mean, all these companies MAKE and SELL stuff, the just don't exist virtually like Google does.
$400 a share won't last. The problem is that when Wall Street starts to see those values plummet, they will intrepret this negatively and act accordingly (expect lots of jumpers piling up in Wall Street). Google will tank. Anybody not realizing this bubble will burst deserves to lose their shirts in the stock market.
Acceptance of the shuffle has been hit or miss. People focus entirely on its lack of screen, but I have to agree when Apple with their motivation for coming out with a cheap music player without a screen, you don't really need it.
I own an 30gb iPod that has my entire music collection on it. Of course it needs a screen in order to browse and find 3000+ music files. But in reality, when using the 30gb iPod, I put it in shuffle mode and rarely look at the screen. I am happy to simply let the music I enjoy be randomly selected. I know who sings the songs because, unlike a large majority of people, I don't simply download illegal music without discretion so I have countless songs I have never heard of by artists I am not familiar with. All the music on my iPod is legit and payed for and known.
The Shuffle was always intended to be an auxiliary player, NOT a music storage library. I plug the Shuffle into my Mac, it randomly fills it with songs, and I take it to the gym or on the road. I don't feel that the lack of screen has ever been a detriment to the Shuffle.
But there is a market segment of people that don't own that much music. Who were looking for a cheap player that could actually store their entire music library in 512mb or 1gb of storage space. People bought the Shuffle without realizing it's not the product that was intended to suit their purpose. And of course, these people complained loudly. At the time the Shuffle was release there was NO cheaper digital music player on the market (I looked, there really wasn't), so the Shuffle was attractive as an inexpensive music player with the high profile of Apple's iPod lineup. I can understand how some people not familiar with digital music players would buy the Shuffle without considering if it met their needs.
So, I will be disappointed if Apple drops their Shuffle product, but I can't see how it can continue. There is no reason for a Shuffle with more then 1GB of storage. Putting too much storage into a screenless player will only exasperate the problem with a screenless player. As you put more storage, people expect to be able to browse and search larger collections of music. Apple could put a screen on the Shuffle, but Apple is slow to let people feel they made a mistake or go against Apple's original convictions. Like the 1 button mouse, Apple won't simply cave in to consumer demand. Apple released the minute iPod Nano which fills in the market segment for small players with a screen, and as the price of the Nano drops, it can easily fill in the same market of the Shuffle.
But I was really hoping for Apple to release a micro sized shuffle, make it the smallest, lightest, and cheapest player on the market. I would easily buy something that was half the size and weight of the Shuffle, or even smaller. It would be a novelty item, but it would still be cool. Apple could always release a product that didn't have a screen, but create a remote attachment with a screen (it would be Apple's way of suggesting they were right in making a screenless player a success, but still give consumers what they want). Turn the Shuffle into a two piece Nano with an optional remote screen, that would be very cool.
I know many people will just jump down Microsoft's throat for anything they do, they aren't my favourite company either. But I can't be sympathetic to people that complain about beta software.
1) NOBODY is forcing you to install a beta product. If you are curious or impulsive, and feel compelled to install beta software, your doing so at great risk to your security and data. Whether it's Microsoft beta's, Google beta's, or Linux Beta's, you are accepting that risk by the nature of installing beta software (its in the disclaimer)
2) THE REASON for beta software is to open it up to wider testing to CATCH AND FIX Bugs. This is a good thing, that bugs are flowing back to Microsoft. It will force them to fix the bugs and strengthen the product.
3) No, you CAN'T Sue, see 1)
4) Get a life. I mean, if IE 7 was in full release and these bugs were being reported, I would jump on the bandwagon myself and fire a few shots at MS, but this is still beta software, it isn't even a release candidate yet. Its intended for people with a brain to install it at their own risk and test the product, to REPORT bugs is the definition of what Beta software is. Obviously lots of stupid people are installing IE 7!
This is NOT NEWS, this is sad. To report and complain that Microsoft's beta software is full of bugs suggest a complete bias, prejudice, and ignorance towards them without merit or provocation. This is not microsoft screwing up, this is microsoft doing what countless other software companies do, release a beta in order to get feedback and bug reporting in order to fix and strengthen the product.
When FireFox 1.5 beta was released, it was full of bugs, but people praised Mozilla for their innovation and success. I can't stand double standards.
I thought nothing, a void, Java is a black hole that just keeps sucking. Its what happens when a Sun goes supernova.
Honestly, embed OS'es like Linux or Windows in some form of memory on a laptop or desktop mainboard and turn it into a calculator already!
It is freaking ridiculous that 6/7 years into the 21st Century (however you count it) that we still rely on BOOTING computers from antiquated electromagnetic platters before we can access the software applications.
There is no reason why all the OS components, kernel and key applications cannot reside in some built in non-volatile memory so that the computer is technically "always-on" even if the power is turned off. All you do is restore the environment in the memory as opposed to booting fresh. You can pair that with keeping a small charge on volatile memory to keep the current desktop environment active in low power mode.
This may actually make the OS more secure as you can make sure that nothing can touch or corrupt the embedded software and OS kernel simply by making the embedded software read only. Patches, updates or upgrades would require a sophisticated authentication protocol to allow changes to the embedded OS software.
It ain't rocket science.
I know PDA's and mobile platforms used embedded OS'es, but is there any reason why the humble Desktop or Laptop computers can't use this same technology? Put 1gb of embedded non-volatile memory on to the mainboard and let Windows or your favourite OS of choice be installed into it in its running state.
In some ways I find that computer/software technology has become stagnant. No matter how fast CPU's get, or how fancy OS'es get there are some things that haven't changed for almost 30 years on computers. It's time for a revolution, make our computers better darn it instead of adding cutesy add ons that mimic what real innovation could do more effectively.