I gave up the Mac over a year and a half ago, so I don't remember every particular) was that I couldn't tab through all fields either in dialogs or web pages. I seem to remember in particular dropdown boxes being a problem. Maybe it was radio buttons. Not sure, but my point was I prefer not to use the mouse when what I'm concentrating on is keyboard-centric such as writing a document or a slashdot reply.
It seems to me that Safari does better at tabbing through web pages than it used to, but I am not sure. The trick with dropdown boxes is that, once you tab to it, hit the space bar to bring up the options, then you can type the first letters to quickly highlight the option you want. I think Apple does need to do a better job at communicating to users the shortcuts that are available, as may be the case with this one.
I work with a team of 12 Windows engineers who find disparagements of the OS like that to be not only laughable, but a little sad.
I think that the problem for Windows is that average users do not have the technical expertise to keep Windows secure and stable like you and your fellow engineers do. IT can lock down users systems tightly, but people at home often fail to take basic precautions. Even fairly savvy people who do take precautions have trouble. With Vista and better UAC, the situation may improve. Right now, though, malware creeps onto people's systems without them having any idea that it got there.
For me, the metric was the 1Ghz P3 w/256M of RAM I'd been using for a few years prior to purchasing the Mac which was a 1.33Ghz Powerbook with 1G of RAM. The PC ran circles around the Mac in every app.
I can't speak to what tasks you were trying to accomplish, but I do know this: Mac laptops of that generation (with the G4 chips) were lagging in performance relative to PC brethren. Motorola simply could not keep up with Intel in that department, and the situation got increasingly worse. This is one of the biggest factors that drove Apple's switch to Intel. For Mac desktops of that era, on the other hand, the G5 processor from IBM brought very good performance. Nowadays, with Core Duo 2 laptops, performance is very solid and on par with PC laptops (as they should be). Some key apps still need to be made Intel-native, though.
Another factor is that Aqua does require overhead. OS X was much less responsive than Mac OS 9 on the same hardware. The only difference for Windows is that Aero is arriving much later in time, with better hardware to handle the new visual presentation.
I purchased a Powerbook and used it as my primary, exclusive machine for over a year and still had to fight with it day in and day out. I purchased it to try out some new technology and sold it because it wasn't worth the trouble. I gained nothing but decreased efficiency.
Okay. Of course, I have no problem with someone giving the Mac a real shot and not liking it. That's a matter of individual preference.
I can understand that. It is pretty difficult to remember that Alt-F brings up the File menu, Alt-V the View menu. If only there was a simple mnemonic people could use to remember such things. Or, better yet, somehow indicate the letter you need to press right there in the word on the screen.
Nice troll. Of course, you missed the point, which was that one does not have to "click all over the place" to get things done on a Mac.
Yeah, performance, stability, ease of use, security, application availability, flexibility, hardware compatibility. I can see how those would be difficult for someone to get used to coming from the Mac world.
Now you are mostly spouting nonsense. Stability, ease of use, security are assets of the Mac. As for the other things, performance is a wash, as it depends on what metric you are using. Does it bother me that Apple does not license the Mac OS to other hardware vendors? No, but I can understand why many people don't like it. Of course, more apps are available for Windows overall, but good apps are available on the Mac for most functions, especially what that average user needs.
Most web pages don't consume anywhere near all the horizontal space on a screen for most widescreen displays. Likewise, I don't think that is it desirable for my text editor to grab any horizontal space that is not actually going to be used to display text. Image editor, yes, then I use every inch of screen space.
There is nothing in the Mac GUI that prevents you from using the whole screen for a single app, it's just that the default behavior of the green button is to grab only the space needed to display what is in the window, rather than automatically take up the whole screen even it if is not needed.
I hear a lot of Mac fanboys talking about how you have to "unlearn everything from Windows to use a Mac", but no explanation to WHY I'd want to put that much effort into it
Your use of the term "Mac fanboys" doesn't lend much credibility to the claim that you really tried to learn the Mac. If you like Windows, then don't bother switching and go on your merry way. It's not too hard to come up with a list of criticisms of Windows, however, that make switching worthwhile for a lot of people, even it if takes some time to learn the "Mac way."
Explain to me the benefit of having a million windows open on a screen while you're trying to work on just one.
Not that hard to think of some reasons. You might want to look at the contents of one window while typing on the other or easily drag contents from one window to another. You might want to be able to leave a process running in one app and observe its progress while working in another app. Multi-tasking you know.
You complain about "space-sucking toolbars", but if you're not maximizing the window anyway, aren't you wasting space?
Huh? No. The other space can get used by other apps instead of a bunch of white space by the app that you maximized.
Everything that requires one click or keypress in Windows required clicking all over the screen on the Mac.
Funny, that's how I feel using Windows, since I don't have all the key commands committed to memory. I hardly touch the mouse when using my Mac (something that is important to me due to repetitive stress injury).
I just don't get it.
Agreed. I just don't get why anyone would prefer Windows, but to each his own.
If that's truly the only thing, then maybe you will buy one once you realize that putting two fingers on the track pad generates a right-click. Just turn that capability on in System Preferences.
You would be completely right, except that Apple has been looking at wireless capabilities for quite some time now, based on its 2003 patent application:
Microsoft's inclusion of wireless capabilities in the Zune may pressure Apple to follow suit if this feature proves to be an actual selling point rather than merely marketing hype, but no one should be left with the impression that the idea of wireless capabilities somehow never crossed anyone's mind at Apple. My bet is that when the folks at Apple do wireless they do wireless right.
As for built-in FM tuners, well, that's hardly Microsoft's idea. Apple has obviously decided that most people don't care, and they seem to be right. Besides, FM tuners are for *live* radio, which has become less and less relevent with the advent of podcasting. If we can listen to our favorite music and radio programs on our own schedule, who cares about a FM tuner, especially one that probably gets crummy reception? I listen to a lot more radio with now, via podcasts, than I did before I got my iPod.
How's that podcast listening experience on the Zune? Ha ha. Well, Microsoft will come around eventually and integrate podcasts into the Zune software, but the ball is in their court . . .
I think you are misinterpreting the parent poster's argument. The point is not that Apple won't release a new interface. The point is that the new interface would have disadvantages as a replacement for the clickwheel interface on regular iPods. Therefore, if the described new interface appears at all, it would only appear on a new, video iPod. As that poster concludes, "Why do people fail to realize that one of these new interface designs, if one ever shows up, will likely be on a new iPod model, not a replacement, but an additional model (video oriented) from which to chose from?"
As for your argument that Apple would just axe the regular iPod for the "true" video iPod, I think you are wrong, but we shall see. Not all people care about video capabilities. A video product would need a larger battery to power that big screen, and it would be more expensive to produce. It will be a new model sitting at the top end of the iPod product line: Shuffle, nano, regular iPod, video iPod. It's a perfectly sensible line-up that is not confusing in the least. But, like I say, time will tell.
Then why is it so surprising to you that the "true" video iPod might have a different UI than the regular iPods? It's a different product line -- just like the Shuffle is a different "product line" in your terms. That's the whole point of the parent poster, which you seemed to miss.
Nailed it on the head. This design is *not* intended to replace the clickwheel on regular iPods. Anyone who thinks that is not using their noggin. It is clear that the target of this design is the long-rumored, video-oriented product. Move the controls off the front of the device in order to allow the screen size to increase substantially. That's it.
Yeah, I'm dreaming all right, dreaming about getting rid of a stupid monthly subscription that gives me 200 channels I don't want just so that I can get the few shows I actually watch.
Honestly, I have no idea what percentage of the market Apple's iTV (whatever it is actually called in the end) will get. Given that only around 10% of households use DVRs, it probably will not be much at first. What I do know is that things are going to change dramatically once this technology becomes easy-to-use and the average consumer becomes aware of it. Yes, the cable companies will have to respond to Apple and others that will sell programing via downloads. Maybe they finally will have to offer a la carte pricing. I am all for that.
And, I resent how the cable companies have fought cable card techology. Unless they give me choices I want, I will happily bolt.
Yep, real good. I filled out that form months ago. No response.
Okay, so Comedy Central doesn't seem to care that much. That's consistent with what I'm saying.
You're accusing me of levelling a bunch of blame, which is nonsense. I subscribe to the service because I like it, and I'll continue to do so. I just feel that this is an area where improvement could be made. I filled out that form with a detailed and thoughtful description of the problem, which belies your assumption that I'm putting all the blame on Apple.
Earlier, you didn't mention anything about contacting Comedy Central other than that you wished there were a simple way to share your concerns to them, which implied that you hadn't been in touch with them. You did, however, say the following about Apple, which to my read seems like blame:
Apple doesn't care about making episodes available ON TIME.
Apple support will not respond to this issue, blaming "content providers", but it's Apple's store and Apple's responsibility.
People on BitTorrent can provide content from a TV show within minutes of its broadcast, and there's no technical reason Apple can't do the same.
I don't think Apple is doing it on purpose, no, but I don't think they are trying hard enough.
So, no, I don't think my interpretation that you hold Apple responsible (i.e. you are blaming them) is nonsense, although I now understand that you do see that Comedy Central might have some responsbility. I agree with you, though, that the complaint is legitimate. I am just not so ready to point fingers at Apple.
But now you are blaming Apple for failing to pressure Comedy Central without any evidence that they aren't. Ultimately, Apple can't force them to deliver the content. Apple needs the content more than Comedy Central needs the iTunes outlet.
Need a place to leave a complaint at Comedy Central? Not hard to find. Googled the Daily Show, hit two links, and got this:
I can understand that the unpredictability of the posting of the show is annoying. It just seems you are stretching as much as possible to place all the blame on Apple, without any evidence that they are not putting up the show as soon as they can get it. It just doesn't make sense that they would sit on these files when they have such strong incentives to get them up ASAP.
Guess what? You are not everyone. Shocking, I know.
Seriously, if you are a heavy TV watcher, a cable or satellite subscription with DVR is more economical. I might quibble with your $2 a show figure, because you could potentially do better than that by buying subcriptions to a month's worth of a particular program, as with the Daily Show, but you point still holds.
For many other people, on the other hand, this represents a way to finally get rid of a subscription altogether. There are only a few shows that I really want to watch, but the cable company is not interested in letting me pick and choose channels (that greed thing you talk about). I used to pay $80 for digital cable, but I got tired of paying that much for the two channels I actually watched, so I dropped it for a smaller package of channels via satellite. We are getting to the point where I can drop that too. I really look forward to that day.
You blame Apple even though you have no idea how long Comedy Central waits before getting Apple the data with the show. Have you considered the possibility that they don't want Apple to have the show immediately, at least not yet? They make money from advertisers too, and that portion of their revenue would decline if people stop watching the live broadcast. I would think that they are carefully trying to figure out just how old the iTunes shows can be to maximize their revenue from the combination of the two sources.
In other words, why do you assume that Apple is seeking to deny itself the money you might spend buying the show from iTunes? It makes no sense, and the parent poster's explanation does.
There are many users who would not purchase a Mac computer but who would purchase OS X to install on their PC. I do not understand at all why Apple is actually taking efforts to prevent Max OS from running on PCs. This is pathetically stupid and makes no sense. Apple could probably make a much greater profit margin from selling the OS than they would be selling an entire computer system.
It is far from that simple. Getting the average person to install a new OS on his or her existing machine, wiping out existing software in the process, is asking a lot. Most people just use what came on their machine and stay with that. Microsoft knows this well, as the biggest competitor for Vista by far will be Windows XP, and in that case people wouldn't even lose software compatibility when upgrading. Or think of it this way. Firefox is a free download, and there are a lot of reasons to use it over Internet Explorer. Yet, what is the browser share of Firefox? About 10%.
So I doubt that there is any immediate gain in unleasing OS X for sale to any random combination of PC components out there. Support costs would be very high, and those who install the Mac OS on their Dell are not going to get help from Dell, now are they? It is far better for Apple to just sell them a new machine with known, tested components.
"There are already a bunch of other companies that are doing this. I signed up for Starz movie download service called Vongo."
Apple has proved that being first is less important than getting the whole package right. Yes, there are other movie download services out there, but Apple is the company that will jump start this market. We are just speculating at this point, a flat fee subcription could be an option.
"But Apple's folly is that they are offering it through iTunes, which is solely for your iPod. How much video do people actually watch on their iPods anyway. It would be more successful to cater to the media center PC crowd. . . I want to pop some popcorn and watch a movie with booming surround sound and a big screen, not huddled over my iPod and not tethered to iTunes."
Solely for your iPod? So, you don't understand what Apple is doing here very well at all. The pieces are all being put into place for Apple to move into the living room. There are several ways video bought from the iTunes store can be played on TVs already, and more are surely on the way. The iPod has video out capabilities already, computers running iTunes can drive TVs already, movies could be streamed from computer to TV (a video AirTunes), and/or Apple could make an under-the-set-box (perhaps with TV tuner and DVR) to hook into an AV system and serve media. Unlike Vongo or the other services, Apple can provide the whole solution -- hardware, software, and media -- and they will make it all work well together.
"I just don't want some crappy Apple DRM all over my movies."
Fine, but you have crappy Microsoft DRM all over your movies.
Mainly because for most people watching a movie on the computer is not as convienient or nice or as easy as watching it on a TV. So they would then want to pay much less to do so to offset the reduction of one of those factors.
True, but Steve Jobs has said something like this himself before (the part about people wanting to watch movies on a TV rather than a computer), and I think that Apple is moving toward the living room. Many people already drive TVs from their Mac minis or media center PCs. Apple must either be working on streaming video within the home from computer to the TV or on an under-the-set box to serve as a media center. I hope its the latter. Besides, expectations about what prices people are willing to pay are often quite wrong. Experts predicted the iPod would be an expensive flop, sales of TV shows through iTunes exceeded most people's expectations, etc. So, I think your estimate of $.50 is probably far too low, but then we shall have to wait and see.
Furthermore, consider the rise of Netflix and the demise of local rental places, in conjunction with the recent Slashdot story posted not long after this one - with Netflix, you never have a movie "go dark" because you watch it when you are ready. That may be months later. In the post-netflix world there are a lot fewer people who are going to stand for a service that makes you watch a movie even in under a week. It's just not what people want to do anymore. Even rental places have "no late fee" polices now, which they had to adopt to fend off Netflix. I don't think the industry can go back.
I agree with you on the effect of Netflix on local rentals, but you aren't getting a freebie by sitting on a Netflix DVD for months. You still pay for it, and the longer you wait the more you pay. Some of those "no late fee" policies, such as Blockbuster's, proved to be little more than a publicity stunt (they had to settle a legal claims filed by 47 states because they deceptively left out the crucial detail that customers would be charged the full price of the movie if they didn't return it before the end of a one-week grace period).
More importantly, the bottom line is that we don't know exactly what model Apple is going to adopt. It could be, as mentioned in the article, that the movie is not time-limited but is instead good for a limited number of showings. Watch when you are ready, in other words.
Yet, it was Apple that refused to cooperate with Sony/BMG, who wanted to impose DRM on music files ripped from CDs to prevent copies from being made.
Apple took risk here. It refused to play ball, meaning that consumers who had bought the Dave Matthews' Band or Foo Fighters albums last year couldn't load them onto iTunes without a stupid workaround. Sony blamed Apple, saying that it was up to them to "flip the switch." The bands posted statements on their web sites telling people to complain to Apple. Still, Apple didn't back down.
Then, after the Sony rookit debacle, it was Sony that was beaten into submission.
So, although I agree that Apple uses FairPlay to create a lock-in effect, they have often stood up to the record industry as well. If they had played along with Sony, the practice might have become commonplace.
"I can possibly, possibly see renting a DVD quality movie online that went 'Dark' after, say, a month. For . . . let's say $1. No, say $.50."
Yet, people have trotted off to their local video store for decades and paid more than a $1 for a movie that went "dark" in three days (assuming that's a typical rental period). New releases at my local store rent for $3 for two nights, and I have to get off my lazy ass to go pick it up and return it. Why, then, is it so hard to imagine paying a similar amount for downloading a movie file that would become unplayable after a specified time period?
I agree that low-resolution of the movie files could be problematic, however, but I don't see any real alternative for download services right now. It just takes too long to download a full resolution movie at typical broadband speeds. They have to start somewhere, however, and then increase the resolution as broadband speeds increase.
I agree. I am not too interesting in watching a movie at my computer (or on a iPod either). There are other important possibilities, however. First, I think Apple will soon introduce an under-the-set box to serve as a media center. A lot of people do this already with their Mac minis. The Front Row software was a first step, it just needs to be linked to the movie rental service. I hope it includes a cable card 2 slot so that it can serve as an HD tuner and that PVR software is part of the package (thus replacing the cable company's tuner/DVR). As broadband speeds increase, movie resolution could increase along with it.
Second, there are rumors that Apple wants to use upcoming higher speed wireless networking to allow better streaming of movies from PC to TV.
I like Netflix, but I could see this being a viable alternative over time.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that Safari does better at tabbing through web pages than it used to, but I am not sure. The trick with dropdown boxes is that, once you tab to it, hit the space bar to bring up the options, then you can type the first letters to quickly highlight the option you want. I think Apple does need to do a better job at communicating to users the shortcuts that are available, as may be the case with this one.
I think that the problem for Windows is that average users do not have the technical expertise to keep Windows secure and stable like you and your fellow engineers do. IT can lock down users systems tightly, but people at home often fail to take basic precautions. Even fairly savvy people who do take precautions have trouble. With Vista and better UAC, the situation may improve. Right now, though, malware creeps onto people's systems without them having any idea that it got there.
I can't speak to what tasks you were trying to accomplish, but I do know this: Mac laptops of that generation (with the G4 chips) were lagging in performance relative to PC brethren. Motorola simply could not keep up with Intel in that department, and the situation got increasingly worse. This is one of the biggest factors that drove Apple's switch to Intel. For Mac desktops of that era, on the other hand, the G5 processor from IBM brought very good performance. Nowadays, with Core Duo 2 laptops, performance is very solid and on par with PC laptops (as they should be). Some key apps still need to be made Intel-native, though.
Another factor is that Aqua does require overhead. OS X was much less responsive than Mac OS 9 on the same hardware. The only difference for Windows is that Aero is arriving much later in time, with better hardware to handle the new visual presentation.
Okay. Of course, I have no problem with someone giving the Mac a real shot and not liking it. That's a matter of individual preference.
Nice troll. Of course, you missed the point, which was that one does not have to "click all over the place" to get things done on a Mac.
Now you are mostly spouting nonsense. Stability, ease of use, security are assets of the Mac. As for the other things, performance is a wash, as it depends on what metric you are using. Does it bother me that Apple does not license the Mac OS to other hardware vendors? No, but I can understand why many people don't like it. Of course, more apps are available for Windows overall, but good apps are available on the Mac for most functions, especially what that average user needs.
Most web pages don't consume anywhere near all the horizontal space on a screen for most widescreen displays. Likewise, I don't think that is it desirable for my text editor to grab any horizontal space that is not actually going to be used to display text. Image editor, yes, then I use every inch of screen space.
There is nothing in the Mac GUI that prevents you from using the whole screen for a single app, it's just that the default behavior of the green button is to grab only the space needed to display what is in the window, rather than automatically take up the whole screen even it if is not needed.
Your use of the term "Mac fanboys" doesn't lend much credibility to the claim that you really tried to learn the Mac. If you like Windows, then don't bother switching and go on your merry way. It's not too hard to come up with a list of criticisms of Windows, however, that make switching worthwhile for a lot of people, even it if takes some time to learn the "Mac way."
Not that hard to think of some reasons. You might want to look at the contents of one window while typing on the other or easily drag contents from one window to another. You might want to be able to leave a process running in one app and observe its progress while working in another app. Multi-tasking you know.
Huh? No. The other space can get used by other apps instead of a bunch of white space by the app that you maximized.
Funny, that's how I feel using Windows, since I don't have all the key commands committed to memory. I hardly touch the mouse when using my Mac (something that is important to me due to repetitive stress injury).
Agreed. I just don't get why anyone would prefer Windows, but to each his own.
Well, to each his own, but I've seen commentary from plenty of people who prefer the two-fingers on the track pad method.
If that's truly the only thing, then maybe you will buy one once you realize that putting two fingers on the track pad generates a right-click. Just turn that capability on in System Preferences.
Arrogance? Please, it's Fitt's Law at work.
What's so hard about using two fingers on the MacBook Pro track pad for a right click? Certainly, it's not crippling. Easier on the hands actually.
You would be completely right, except that Apple has been looking at wireless capabilities for quite some time now, based on its 2003 patent application:
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=745
Microsoft's inclusion of wireless capabilities in the Zune may pressure Apple to follow suit if this feature proves to be an actual selling point rather than merely marketing hype, but no one should be left with the impression that the idea of wireless capabilities somehow never crossed anyone's mind at Apple. My bet is that when the folks at Apple do wireless they do wireless right.
As for built-in FM tuners, well, that's hardly Microsoft's idea. Apple has obviously decided that most people don't care, and they seem to be right. Besides, FM tuners are for *live* radio, which has become less and less relevent with the advent of podcasting. If we can listen to our favorite music and radio programs on our own schedule, who cares about a FM tuner, especially one that probably gets crummy reception? I listen to a lot more radio with now, via podcasts, than I did before I got my iPod.
How's that podcast listening experience on the Zune? Ha ha. Well, Microsoft will come around eventually and integrate podcasts into the Zune software, but the ball is in their court . . .
I think you are misinterpreting the parent poster's argument. The point is not that Apple won't release a new interface. The point is that the new interface would have disadvantages as a replacement for the clickwheel interface on regular iPods. Therefore, if the described new interface appears at all, it would only appear on a new, video iPod. As that poster concludes, "Why do people fail to realize that one of these new interface designs, if one ever shows up, will likely be on a new iPod model, not a replacement, but an additional model (video oriented) from which to chose from?"
As for your argument that Apple would just axe the regular iPod for the "true" video iPod, I think you are wrong, but we shall see. Not all people care about video capabilities. A video product would need a larger battery to power that big screen, and it would be more expensive to produce. It will be a new model sitting at the top end of the iPod product line: Shuffle, nano, regular iPod, video iPod. It's a perfectly sensible line-up that is not confusing in the least. But, like I say, time will tell.
Then why is it so surprising to you that the "true" video iPod might have a different UI than the regular iPods? It's a different product line -- just like the Shuffle is a different "product line" in your terms. That's the whole point of the parent poster, which you seemed to miss.
"Since when has Apple ever placed two different UI designs on the same product line? Think about it."
Yeah, think about it: iPod Shuffle.
Nailed it on the head. This design is *not* intended to replace the clickwheel on regular iPods. Anyone who thinks that is not using their noggin. It is clear that the target of this design is the long-rumored, video-oriented product. Move the controls off the front of the device in order to allow the screen size to increase substantially. That's it.
Yeah, I'm dreaming all right, dreaming about getting rid of a stupid monthly subscription that gives me 200 channels I don't want just so that I can get the few shows I actually watch.
Honestly, I have no idea what percentage of the market Apple's iTV (whatever it is actually called in the end) will get. Given that only around 10% of households use DVRs, it probably will not be much at first. What I do know is that things are going to change dramatically once this technology becomes easy-to-use and the average consumer becomes aware of it. Yes, the cable companies will have to respond to Apple and others that will sell programing via downloads. Maybe they finally will have to offer a la carte pricing. I am all for that.
And, I resent how the cable companies have fought cable card techology. Unless they give me choices I want, I will happily bolt.
Okay, so Comedy Central doesn't seem to care that much. That's consistent with what I'm saying.
Earlier, you didn't mention anything about contacting Comedy Central other than that you wished there were a simple way to share your concerns to them, which implied that you hadn't been in touch with them. You did, however, say the following about Apple, which to my read seems like blame:
So, no, I don't think my interpretation that you hold Apple responsible (i.e. you are blaming them) is nonsense, although I now understand that you do see that Comedy Central might have some responsbility. I agree with you, though, that the complaint is legitimate. I am just not so ready to point fingers at Apple.
But now you are blaming Apple for failing to pressure Comedy Central without any evidence that they aren't. Ultimately, Apple can't force them to deliver the content. Apple needs the content more than Comedy Central needs the iTunes outlet.
m l
Need a place to leave a complaint at Comedy Central? Not hard to find. Googled the Daily Show, hit two links, and got this:
http://www.comedycentral.com/help/questionsCC.jht
I can understand that the unpredictability of the posting of the show is annoying. It just seems you are stretching as much as possible to place all the blame on Apple, without any evidence that they are not putting up the show as soon as they can get it. It just doesn't make sense that they would sit on these files when they have such strong incentives to get them up ASAP.
Guess what? You are not everyone. Shocking, I know.
Seriously, if you are a heavy TV watcher, a cable or satellite subscription with DVR is more economical. I might quibble with your $2 a show figure, because you could potentially do better than that by buying subcriptions to a month's worth of a particular program, as with the Daily Show, but you point still holds.
For many other people, on the other hand, this represents a way to finally get rid of a subscription altogether. There are only a few shows that I really want to watch, but the cable company is not interested in letting me pick and choose channels (that greed thing you talk about). I used to pay $80 for digital cable, but I got tired of paying that much for the two channels I actually watched, so I dropped it for a smaller package of channels via satellite. We are getting to the point where I can drop that too. I really look forward to that day.
So, to each his or her own.
You blame Apple even though you have no idea how long Comedy Central waits before getting Apple the data with the show. Have you considered the possibility that they don't want Apple to have the show immediately, at least not yet? They make money from advertisers too, and that portion of their revenue would decline if people stop watching the live broadcast. I would think that they are carefully trying to figure out just how old the iTunes shows can be to maximize their revenue from the combination of the two sources.
In other words, why do you assume that Apple is seeking to deny itself the money you might spend buying the show from iTunes? It makes no sense, and the parent poster's explanation does.
I think he's talking about the fact that ClamAV comes on Mac OS X Server. See this link:
t ml
http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/mailservices.h
So you are telling Apple to f*** off because it is more difficult to get the Mac OS on your PC illegally than it is to install Windows illegally.
In case this didn't occur to you, you are not exactly a good customer. Apple doesn't give a crap if you stick with Windows.
Oh, and be careful. That place called the grocery store? They want you to pay too. I know, f*** them!
It is far from that simple. Getting the average person to install a new OS on his or her existing machine, wiping out existing software in the process, is asking a lot. Most people just use what came on their machine and stay with that. Microsoft knows this well, as the biggest competitor for Vista by far will be Windows XP, and in that case people wouldn't even lose software compatibility when upgrading. Or think of it this way. Firefox is a free download, and there are a lot of reasons to use it over Internet Explorer. Yet, what is the browser share of Firefox? About 10%.
So I doubt that there is any immediate gain in unleasing OS X for sale to any random combination of PC components out there. Support costs would be very high, and those who install the Mac OS on their Dell are not going to get help from Dell, now are they? It is far better for Apple to just sell them a new machine with known, tested components.
"There are already a bunch of other companies that are doing this. I signed up for Starz movie download service called Vongo."
Apple has proved that being first is less important than getting the whole package right. Yes, there are other movie download services out there, but Apple is the company that will jump start this market. We are just speculating at this point, a flat fee subcription could be an option.
"But Apple's folly is that they are offering it through iTunes, which is solely for your iPod. How much video do people actually watch on their iPods anyway. It would be more successful to cater to the media center PC crowd. . . I want to pop some popcorn and watch a movie with booming surround sound and a big screen, not huddled over my iPod and not tethered to iTunes."
Solely for your iPod? So, you don't understand what Apple is doing here very well at all. The pieces are all being put into place for Apple to move into the living room. There are several ways video bought from the iTunes store can be played on TVs already, and more are surely on the way. The iPod has video out capabilities already, computers running iTunes can drive TVs already, movies could be streamed from computer to TV (a video AirTunes), and/or Apple could make an under-the-set-box (perhaps with TV tuner and DVR) to hook into an AV system and serve media. Unlike Vongo or the other services, Apple can provide the whole solution -- hardware, software, and media -- and they will make it all work well together.
"I just don't want some crappy Apple DRM all over my movies."
Fine, but you have crappy Microsoft DRM all over your movies.
Mainly because for most people watching a movie on the computer is not as convienient or nice or as easy as watching it on a TV. So they would then want to pay much less to do so to offset the reduction of one of those factors.
True, but Steve Jobs has said something like this himself before (the part about people wanting to watch movies on a TV rather than a computer), and I think that Apple is moving toward the living room. Many people already drive TVs from their Mac minis or media center PCs. Apple must either be working on streaming video within the home from computer to the TV or on an under-the-set box to serve as a media center. I hope its the latter. Besides, expectations about what prices people are willing to pay are often quite wrong. Experts predicted the iPod would be an expensive flop, sales of TV shows through iTunes exceeded most people's expectations, etc. So, I think your estimate of $.50 is probably far too low, but then we shall have to wait and see.
Furthermore, consider the rise of Netflix and the demise of local rental places, in conjunction with the recent Slashdot story posted not long after this one - with Netflix, you never have a movie "go dark" because you watch it when you are ready. That may be months later. In the post-netflix world there are a lot fewer people who are going to stand for a service that makes you watch a movie even in under a week. It's just not what people want to do anymore. Even rental places have "no late fee" polices now, which they had to adopt to fend off Netflix. I don't think the industry can go back.
I agree with you on the effect of Netflix on local rentals, but you aren't getting a freebie by sitting on a Netflix DVD for months. You still pay for it, and the longer you wait the more you pay. Some of those "no late fee" policies, such as Blockbuster's, proved to be little more than a publicity stunt (they had to settle a legal claims filed by 47 states because they deceptively left out the crucial detail that customers would be charged the full price of the movie if they didn't return it before the end of a one-week grace period).
More importantly, the bottom line is that we don't know exactly what model Apple is going to adopt. It could be, as mentioned in the article, that the movie is not time-limited but is instead good for a limited number of showings. Watch when you are ready, in other words.
Yet, it was Apple that refused to cooperate with Sony/BMG, who wanted to impose DRM on music files ripped from CDs to prevent copies from being made.
o rking.with.ipod/
Apple took risk here. It refused to play ball, meaning that consumers who had bought the Dave Matthews' Band or Foo Fighters albums last year couldn't load them onto iTunes without a stupid workaround. Sony blamed Apple, saying that it was up to them to "flip the switch." The bands posted statements on their web sites telling people to complain to Apple. Still, Apple didn't back down.
http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/05/08/04/cds.not.w
Then, after the Sony rookit debacle, it was Sony that was beaten into submission.
So, although I agree that Apple uses FairPlay to create a lock-in effect, they have often stood up to the record industry as well. If they had played along with Sony, the practice might have become commonplace.
"I can possibly, possibly see renting a DVD quality movie online that went 'Dark' after, say, a month. For . . . let's say $1. No, say $.50."
Yet, people have trotted off to their local video store for decades and paid more than a $1 for a movie that went "dark" in three days (assuming that's a typical rental period). New releases at my local store rent for $3 for two nights, and I have to get off my lazy ass to go pick it up and return it. Why, then, is it so hard to imagine paying a similar amount for downloading a movie file that would become unplayable after a specified time period?
I agree that low-resolution of the movie files could be problematic, however, but I don't see any real alternative for download services right now. It just takes too long to download a full resolution movie at typical broadband speeds. They have to start somewhere, however, and then increase the resolution as broadband speeds increase.
I agree. I am not too interesting in watching a movie at my computer (or on a iPod either). There are other important possibilities, however. First, I think Apple will soon introduce an under-the-set box to serve as a media center. A lot of people do this already with their Mac minis. The Front Row software was a first step, it just needs to be linked to the movie rental service. I hope it includes a cable card 2 slot so that it can serve as an HD tuner and that PVR software is part of the package (thus replacing the cable company's tuner/DVR). As broadband speeds increase, movie resolution could increase along with it.
Second, there are rumors that Apple wants to use upcoming higher speed wireless networking to allow better streaming of movies from PC to TV.
I like Netflix, but I could see this being a viable alternative over time.