I have a feeling this isn't about selling iPods. This is about proving that people will be interested in downloading video content through services like iTunes.
No offense, but I sort of feel like that could be done without a video iPod. If they made a Mac-PC application for free like iTunes, they could sell the videos even without a ViPod. I mean, the only issue seems to be size of file, not something to play it on. Not that I ViPod wouldn't be sweet...
Oh, and ViPod just sounds so cool, doesn't it? Vi-Pod...
I think part of the problem with Default Deny that people have is that there needs to be some sort of list, and some people have issues giving the right to review a site to somebody big. Who's to say that that somebody big doesn't discriminate against sites on some other basis? And it'd be a lot harder to make a new site, as you have to get it approved in order to get public access.
Also, it'd leave a way to see what sites you've visited, if the browser keeps "Accept Always" records, as anything in there not on a major whitelist was something you visited
Or better yet as numbers don't stick in your head as well as words IMO stick to names What I'd like to see is something like the hurricane naming thing. This could have a list of names, and each virus name would be the next name on the list with the year and a code for variant. For instance, the first virus of 2006 could be Albert-06-A. This allows us to generalize to the Albert-06 group if we want to, and also allows laypeople to discuss simply "this year's first virus, named Albert by the CMEI...". The downside is that we'd have to go through the list multiple times, and there aren't that many names for some letters.
I suppose that's true. I forgot my own saying: "Never underestimate the lengths people will go for a 'free' lunch". I didn't think of using something like that because it would be relatively cost ineffective. If you have to pay a decent amount of money, and have no idea what the person has in his/her account, you could lose there if you don't get rich fingerprints.
apparently, a copy of Windows XP Media Center 2005 Edition costs $30 A copy of Windows XP Media Center 2005 Edition is worth $30, but it certainly doesn't sell for that. Really, if the Intel-Macs can be easily ported to, or simply run Windows software, then Windows won't be worth much. It'd still be used because of inertia, but really, all MS has is the software vendors. Outside of that, it's an inferior system, IMO.
Really, I totally agree that they should knock more off the price, if only because it no longer includes the expensive Office stuff. Which I also find overrated.
Well, that's what some people prefer. My logic has always been that if ever I have 60 hours or more of music I want to listen to, I can always move stuff back and forth from the iPod to my computer. But I can see the benefits to having it all right there. My point is that the majority of people who buy iPods probably don't have 60 hours of digital music that they find themselves likely to ever want immediately on hand.
That's the super screwed-up thing about DMCA. It takes legal things, perfectly legitimate things, and makes them illegal. It is a SCotUS determined right to "format-shift", but it becomes illegal if it removes DRM in this crazy country. That seems like the RIAA cutting off it's foot to remove a blister. I mean, that makes buying a CD even more useless: Not only do I have to pay for the songs I don't want, but I can't legally put them on my iPod?
I suppose this also makes mix CDs illegal, as it removes the DRM from the MP3?
Very well said. It is incredibly easy. As shows like CSI keep showing, you can get a person's fingerprints pretty easily. Shouldn't be hard for an enterprising criminal to swipe a few fingerprints each day. Especially if he works around wealthier people, he can get "good" ones.
But, it'd be hard to graft onto your finger, and you'd look weird swiping a piece of paper or whatever over the finger swipe.
I didn't mean that people knowing the story would hurt sales, it'd just cause "canon" criticism. LotR and Harry Potter fans go/went nuts whenever there were changes in the movies. Some Potter fans (my sister) complained about differences in lines versus the book dialogue. I doubt there'd be that level of complaint, but having the story already in the public creates a strong incentive to keep as close to the story as possible, which may or may not be good for a film.
From the full article: Now, in the most bizarre turn yet in the record industry's piracy struggles, stars Dave Matthews Band, Foo Fighters and Switchfoot -- and even Sony BMG, when the label gets complaints -- are telling fans how they can beat the system.
Yeah, it's not a full answer to your question, but it seems musicians (they just happened to list 3 who I have on my iPod, courtesy of either iTMS or older CDs) are opposed to anything that keeps fans from their music. But I doubt they are in favor of piracy, obviously.
But is it illegal for the bands to tell people how to get around the DRM to do something legal (format-switch)? That'd be messed up, as it is their music.
But the size of the Nano is less of an issue than the size of a Game Boy. I mean, almost no matter how small the Nano is, all you need to do is see which song/playlist you're playing, whereas the Game Boy is much more dependent on size: Awkwardness of pushing buttons and also having to see everything on the screen.
Someone might say (and have said in other comments), "iPod Nano storage is small compared to the regular iPod". yes, but 4 gigs is enough for 60 something hours of music, which should be plenty for the average user. It's the equivalent of 60 CDs, and can be relatively easily swapped on and off the iPod from the home computer. Does anyone here can 60 physical CDs in their front pocket?::Looks for hands::
Does it self-destruct when you're done using it, kind of like in MI? Can I incode my own messages on them? That'd be so incredibly cool for the novelty, like the first three times (Sorry, volunteering at an Elementary School today, they rubbed off). Then it'd go back to sucking.
Zach to MS: Invent something useful. I don't need a ripoff of Mac OS X or a ripoff of Firefox as your next-gen stuff. So me something innovative, useful, and stable, and I'll show you my money. Really, I don't buy this whole "less is more" thing, where "less" is quality, and "more" is money.
so if their handlers are smart, they will just start signing artists themselves
Doesn't Apple already do this? I mean, they have "exclusive" artists or something on iTMS, don't they? Doesn't that imply that the artists can only be gotten on iTMS, or at least some of the songs?
Well said. While I support Taiwan in principle. They got kicked off the UN Security Council, and virtually no one has a full embassy with them. Therefore, it would be taking the initiative on Google's part to say that Taiwan is independent. I mean, I'd love to see Google take the initiative, but they can't shoot themselves in the foot when they don't have much to stand on in making their case.
I imagine most American families don't have a home server. In fact, they may think a home server is some sort of special Dominoes guy who goes so far as to put the pizza on your plate.
Anyhow, I'm just saying, a narrow discussion on a point that'll affect like 5% of customers really doesn't say much about DRM on the whole. A nice symbol, maybe, but it doesn't seem to be Intel pushing for consumer rights, as most consumers are unaffected.
Well, I think we can count on rocking special effects, but will the story stack up? I have faith in Peter Jackson, so I'm not worried about him wrecking the name of Halo.
But I see two problems:
1) Lots of people already know the story. Backwards and forwards.
2) They need to draw Halo fans and non-Halo fans. This was the same thing with LotR, where they had to draw Tolkein fans and laypeople (and did a good job).
I don't want to sound like a flamebaiter or a pessimist, but I just want to inject some concept of what I think problems might be before we get too excited.
Why not a choice between Opera and Firefox instead?
Well, I think that is something we can ultimately hope for. I mean, the nice thing about this isn't that Netscape is better than IE, or Time Warner is better than MS, because neither is blatantly true, IMO. The real issue here is a major company breaking the trend of just installing IE, or just making IE the default browser. After we get this, we can hope for a better choice between browsers.
Everyone here is talking up the advantages of web-based applications. but there is one big downside: it's on the Internet.
It's greatest strength is also its biggest weakness
1) What if I can't be on the Internet all the time? Suppose I have dialup, or have to take my laptop somewhere without wireless? How would it be if I couldn't open a Word doc b/c I couldn't get online? And if I have MSWord as a backup, well, then MS is no worse off, as they still get my money
2) The people who are going to use this the most are the people with continuous internet access, generally high speed. Aren't these sorts of connections the most vulnerable to viruses and spyware?
3) Server issues. most MMORPGs or MMO anythings have massive server costs. I imagine the costs of hosting a several hundred megabyte application will be harder, as it is hosting the actual application, as opposed to just part of it.
4) Related to the 3rd issue: Denial of Service. If Hackers wanted to take out a lot of productivity, this'd be a good shot. If they could disable OFFICE for the better part of a work day every once in a while, even if only for 5-10% of the population, it'd be a massive hit to the world. This could even rise to the level of cyberterrorism.
Hello, Bill Gates? Hi, I'm with SPCF. That's the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to furniture. Now, I understand you've had a bad day......but I'm still going to have to hit you with a multimillion dollar lawsuit on behalf of the furniture.
If the civil suit goes well, the FBI may pursue criminal charges, which would let them look at everything in RIAA, and by "look at", I mean "toss it" with a vengeance. That'd screw them up for weeks. And if there are any other things in there, they'd come to light. Oh, and what're the odds there is at least one anti-RIAA guy in the FBI?
Very true. What matters here is the court of public opinion. Whereas the RIAA may seem to the average, computer illiterate American to have a point, and may appear to be the "good guys" versus the pirates, now they have a PR problem.
1) It's a disabled, middle aged, single mother that they're going after. That's a lot of sympathy factor. 2) They accuse the 42 year old mother of an 8 year old of downloading "gangster rap"? And at 4 am? I mean, did anyone actually think that that made a lot of sense? Did RIAA read the suit before they sent it out? 3) They snooped illegally on her computer (I promise that the idea of anyone screwing around with your stuff in secret will incense anyone on a gut level) 4) They found nothing, and demanded the money of a person they knew was innocent. 5) She uses the words "extortion" and "spy" and "steal" in her brief. 6) The suit is under laws designed to stop the Mob and hackers. Nice company for the RIAA to keep.
All that is from the full article.
I honestly want to know what RIAA idiot lawyer even looked at half of that and didn't drop the suit and beg for freaking mercy. The RIAA answer was that to drop the case against her when they knew she was innocent because to let her go would encourage people to fight them.
Wow, that's almost unbelievable. I'm waiting for the "Oh, I was joking" post from someone.
It is a business venture if it can be reasonably expected to turn a profit. If he could pay NASA or Russia to do the experiments for less, then this is not the wisest business venture. If he really expects to make in excess of $20 million off these experiments (and he'd prolly have to fight for the patent, since he did it in an international lab), it's business, otherwise it's at least partially pleasure.
Oh, and all those guys who go to Hawaii or Las Vegas for business conferences and spend half the time in casinos or clubs or on the beach? Yeah, it may be for business, and may even be worthwhile from an economic point of view, but they're still tourists.
Or, instead of dropping movie prices, they could make better movies. Economically, this is an increase in the marginal value of a movie, making it again worth the $8 to get into the theatre. I think the shift has been in viewing preferences, away from Special Effects as the reason to go to the movies. People now seem to want movies that have a decent story, and are well-made, as opposed to being well-decorated empty boxes.
Personally, I welcome this change, as it implies that Americans are becoming more cultured (yes, I'm an optimist), or at least that we'll get better movies. And it is the industries admitting that piracy isn't the only thing hurting their bottom lines.
Although I do think price needs to be addressed, as I can have the movie forever on DVD for cheaper than seeing it in the theater on a date (2x$8 + popcorn + sodas + parking), but I think that the theater has a bit of a cultural value to it, and I think that the "see it while it's cool" aspect works in the theaters' favors.
Taking off is diffcult, landing is very difficult. (ask any pilot, landing and takeoff are absolutely the most dangerous maneuvers they ever get to make)
Well said. In fact, I recall that a study of either WWII or Vietnam pilots revealed that the moment of highest anxiety was landing, not combat. I can't remember how the study phrased it exactly, but the gist was that the landings were as bad on some level as the combat. Combat was, obviously, more dangerous, but the pilots worried a lot about the landings.
It seems to me that this year has been a re-defining year in the movies. I think that in 5 years, we'll be able to point to this year as the year things changed.
The reason I say this is that what this summer proved is that movies now need more than pretty scenery and special effects to turn a profit in the box office. "Batman" had a deep story, and "War of the Worlds" was a remake of a classic. "Wedding Crashers" was hilarious. The movies that stunk, like "Stealth" and "The Island", didn't have anything more than special effects and good looking girls.
But "Cry_Wolf", a movie without any special effects, made it's money back 5-fold. It is possible that the same sort of thing will happen with Serenity. So if it does well, that may get us not only sequels, but movies with more plot and story and atmosphere, which would be great for us, as more sophisticated movie watchers.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a feeling this isn't about selling iPods. This is about proving that people will be interested in downloading video content through services like iTunes.
No offense, but I sort of feel like that could be done without a video iPod. If they made a Mac-PC application for free like iTunes, they could sell the videos even without a ViPod. I mean, the only issue seems to be size of file, not something to play it on. Not that I ViPod wouldn't be sweet...
Oh, and ViPod just sounds so cool, doesn't it? Vi-Pod...
I think part of the problem with Default Deny that people have is that there needs to be some sort of list, and some people have issues giving the right to review a site to somebody big. Who's to say that that somebody big doesn't discriminate against sites on some other basis? And it'd be a lot harder to make a new site, as you have to get it approved in order to get public access.
Also, it'd leave a way to see what sites you've visited, if the browser keeps "Accept Always" records, as anything in there not on a major whitelist was something you visited
Or better yet as numbers don't stick in your head as well as words IMO stick to names
What I'd like to see is something like the hurricane naming thing. This could have a list of names, and each virus name would be the next name on the list with the year and a code for variant. For instance, the first virus of 2006 could be Albert-06-A. This allows us to generalize to the Albert-06 group if we want to, and also allows laypeople to discuss simply "this year's first virus, named Albert by the CMEI...". The downside is that we'd have to go through the list multiple times, and there aren't that many names for some letters.
Just a thought.
I suppose that's true. I forgot my own saying: "Never underestimate the lengths people will go for a 'free' lunch". I didn't think of using something like that because it would be relatively cost ineffective. If you have to pay a decent amount of money, and have no idea what the person has in his/her account, you could lose there if you don't get rich fingerprints.
apparently, a copy of Windows XP Media Center 2005 Edition costs $30
A copy of Windows XP Media Center 2005 Edition is worth $30, but it certainly doesn't sell for that. Really, if the Intel-Macs can be easily ported to, or simply run Windows software, then Windows won't be worth much. It'd still be used because of inertia, but really, all MS has is the software vendors. Outside of that, it's an inferior system, IMO.
Really, I totally agree that they should knock more off the price, if only because it no longer includes the expensive Office stuff. Which I also find overrated.
::Braces for first "-1, Flamebait" mod::.
Well, that's what some people prefer. My logic has always been that if ever I have 60 hours or more of music I want to listen to, I can always move stuff back and forth from the iPod to my computer. But I can see the benefits to having it all right there. My point is that the majority of people who buy iPods probably don't have 60 hours of digital music that they find themselves likely to ever want immediately on hand.
That's the super screwed-up thing about DMCA. It takes legal things, perfectly legitimate things, and makes them illegal. It is a SCotUS determined right to "format-shift", but it becomes illegal if it removes DRM in this crazy country. That seems like the RIAA cutting off it's foot to remove a blister. I mean, that makes buying a CD even more useless: Not only do I have to pay for the songs I don't want, but I can't legally put them on my iPod?
I suppose this also makes mix CDs illegal, as it removes the DRM from the MP3?
Very well said. It is incredibly easy. As shows like CSI keep showing, you can get a person's fingerprints pretty easily. Shouldn't be hard for an enterprising criminal to swipe a few fingerprints each day. Especially if he works around wealthier people, he can get "good" ones.
But, it'd be hard to graft onto your finger, and you'd look weird swiping a piece of paper or whatever over the finger swipe.
I didn't mean that people knowing the story would hurt sales, it'd just cause "canon" criticism. LotR and Harry Potter fans go/went nuts whenever there were changes in the movies. Some Potter fans (my sister) complained about differences in lines versus the book dialogue. I doubt there'd be that level of complaint, but having the story already in the public creates a strong incentive to keep as close to the story as possible, which may or may not be good for a film.
From the full article:
Now, in the most bizarre turn yet in the record industry's piracy struggles, stars Dave Matthews Band, Foo Fighters and Switchfoot -- and even Sony BMG, when the label gets complaints -- are telling fans how they can beat the system.
Yeah, it's not a full answer to your question, but it seems musicians (they just happened to list 3 who I have on my iPod, courtesy of either iTMS or older CDs) are opposed to anything that keeps fans from their music. But I doubt they are in favor of piracy, obviously.
But is it illegal for the bands to tell people how to get around the DRM to do something legal (format-switch)? That'd be messed up, as it is their music.
But the size of the Nano is less of an issue than the size of a Game Boy. I mean, almost no matter how small the Nano is, all you need to do is see which song/playlist you're playing, whereas the Game Boy is much more dependent on size: Awkwardness of pushing buttons and also having to see everything on the screen.
::Looks for hands::
Someone might say (and have said in other comments), "iPod Nano storage is small compared to the regular iPod". yes, but 4 gigs is enough for 60 something hours of music, which should be plenty for the average user. It's the equivalent of 60 CDs, and can be relatively easily swapped on and off the iPod from the home computer. Does anyone here can 60 physical CDs in their front pocket?
Does it self-destruct when you're done using it, kind of like in MI? Can I incode my own messages on them? That'd be so incredibly cool for the novelty, like the first three times (Sorry, volunteering at an Elementary School today, they rubbed off). Then it'd go back to sucking.
Zach to MS: Invent something useful. I don't need a ripoff of Mac OS X or a ripoff of Firefox as your next-gen stuff. So me something innovative, useful, and stable, and I'll show you my money. Really, I don't buy this whole "less is more" thing, where "less" is quality, and "more" is money.
so if their handlers are smart, they will just start signing artists themselves
Doesn't Apple already do this? I mean, they have "exclusive" artists or something on iTMS, don't they? Doesn't that imply that the artists can only be gotten on iTMS, or at least some of the songs?
Well said. While I support Taiwan in principle. They got kicked off the UN Security Council, and virtually no one has a full embassy with them. Therefore, it would be taking the initiative on Google's part to say that Taiwan is independent. I mean, I'd love to see Google take the initiative, but they can't shoot themselves in the foot when they don't have much to stand on in making their case.
I imagine most American families don't have a home server. In fact, they may think a home server is some sort of special Dominoes guy who goes so far as to put the pizza on your plate.
Anyhow, I'm just saying, a narrow discussion on a point that'll affect like 5% of customers really doesn't say much about DRM on the whole. A nice symbol, maybe, but it doesn't seem to be Intel pushing for consumer rights, as most consumers are unaffected.
Well, I think we can count on rocking special effects, but will the story stack up? I have faith in Peter Jackson, so I'm not worried about him wrecking the name of Halo.
But I see two problems:
1) Lots of people already know the story. Backwards and forwards.
2) They need to draw Halo fans and non-Halo fans. This was the same thing with LotR, where they had to draw Tolkein fans and laypeople (and did a good job).
I don't want to sound like a flamebaiter or a pessimist, but I just want to inject some concept of what I think problems might be before we get too excited.
Why not a choice between Opera and Firefox instead?
Well, I think that is something we can ultimately hope for. I mean, the nice thing about this isn't that Netscape is better than IE, or Time Warner is better than MS, because neither is blatantly true, IMO. The real issue here is a major company breaking the trend of just installing IE, or just making IE the default browser. After we get this, we can hope for a better choice between browsers.
Everyone here is talking up the advantages of web-based applications. but there is one big downside: it's on the Internet.
It's greatest strength is also its biggest weakness
1) What if I can't be on the Internet all the time? Suppose I have dialup, or have to take my laptop somewhere without wireless? How would it be if I couldn't open a Word doc b/c I couldn't get online? And if I have MSWord as a backup, well, then MS is no worse off, as they still get my money
2) The people who are going to use this the most are the people with continuous internet access, generally high speed. Aren't these sorts of connections the most vulnerable to viruses and spyware?
3) Server issues. most MMORPGs or MMO anythings have massive server costs. I imagine the costs of hosting a several hundred megabyte application will be harder, as it is hosting the actual application, as opposed to just part of it.
4) Related to the 3rd issue: Denial of Service. If Hackers wanted to take out a lot of productivity, this'd be a good shot. If they could disable OFFICE for the better part of a work day every once in a while, even if only for 5-10% of the population, it'd be a massive hit to the world. This could even rise to the level of cyberterrorism.
Hello, Bill Gates? Hi, I'm with SPCF. That's the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to furniture. Now, I understand you've had a bad day... ...but I'm still going to have to hit you with a multimillion dollar lawsuit on behalf of the furniture.
Bill Gates: Multimillion? Do you take cash?
If the civil suit goes well, the FBI may pursue criminal charges, which would let them look at everything in RIAA, and by "look at", I mean "toss it" with a vengeance. That'd screw them up for weeks. And if there are any other things in there, they'd come to light. Oh, and what're the odds there is at least one anti-RIAA guy in the FBI?
Very true. What matters here is the court of public opinion. Whereas the RIAA may seem to the average, computer illiterate American to have a point, and may appear to be the "good guys" versus the pirates, now they have a PR problem.
1) It's a disabled, middle aged, single mother that they're going after. That's a lot of sympathy factor.
2) They accuse the 42 year old mother of an 8 year old of downloading "gangster rap"? And at 4 am? I mean, did anyone actually think that that made a lot of sense? Did RIAA read the suit before they sent it out?
3) They snooped illegally on her computer (I promise that the idea of anyone screwing around with your stuff in secret will incense anyone on a gut level)
4) They found nothing, and demanded the money of a person they knew was innocent.
5) She uses the words "extortion" and "spy" and "steal" in her brief.
6) The suit is under laws designed to stop the Mob and hackers. Nice company for the RIAA to keep.
All that is from the full article.
I honestly want to know what RIAA idiot lawyer even looked at half of that and didn't drop the suit and beg for freaking mercy. The RIAA answer was that to drop the case against her when they knew she was innocent because to let her go would encourage people to fight them.
Wow, that's almost unbelievable. I'm waiting for the "Oh, I was joking" post from someone.
It is a business venture if it can be reasonably expected to turn a profit. If he could pay NASA or Russia to do the experiments for less, then this is not the wisest business venture. If he really expects to make in excess of $20 million off these experiments (and he'd prolly have to fight for the patent, since he did it in an international lab), it's business, otherwise it's at least partially pleasure.
Oh, and all those guys who go to Hawaii or Las Vegas for business conferences and spend half the time in casinos or clubs or on the beach? Yeah, it may be for business, and may even be worthwhile from an economic point of view, but they're still tourists.
Or, instead of dropping movie prices, they could make better movies. Economically, this is an increase in the marginal value of a movie, making it again worth the $8 to get into the theatre. I think the shift has been in viewing preferences, away from Special Effects as the reason to go to the movies. People now seem to want movies that have a decent story, and are well-made, as opposed to being well-decorated empty boxes.
Personally, I welcome this change, as it implies that Americans are becoming more cultured (yes, I'm an optimist), or at least that we'll get better movies. And it is the industries admitting that piracy isn't the only thing hurting their bottom lines.
Although I do think price needs to be addressed, as I can have the movie forever on DVD for cheaper than seeing it in the theater on a date (2x$8 + popcorn + sodas + parking), but I think that the theater has a bit of a cultural value to it, and I think that the "see it while it's cool" aspect works in the theaters' favors.
Taking off is diffcult, landing is very difficult. (ask any pilot, landing and takeoff are absolutely the most dangerous maneuvers they ever get to make)
Well said. In fact, I recall that a study of either WWII or Vietnam pilots revealed that the moment of highest anxiety was landing, not combat. I can't remember how the study phrased it exactly, but the gist was that the landings were as bad on some level as the combat. Combat was, obviously, more dangerous, but the pilots worried a lot about the landings.
It seems to me that this year has been a re-defining year in the movies. I think that in 5 years, we'll be able to point to this year as the year things changed.
The reason I say this is that what this summer proved is that movies now need more than pretty scenery and special effects to turn a profit in the box office. "Batman" had a deep story, and "War of the Worlds" was a remake of a classic. "Wedding Crashers" was hilarious. The movies that stunk, like "Stealth" and "The Island", didn't have anything more than special effects and good looking girls.
But "Cry_Wolf", a movie without any special effects, made it's money back 5-fold. It is possible that the same sort of thing will happen with Serenity. So if it does well, that may get us not only sequels, but movies with more plot and story and atmosphere, which would be great for us, as more sophisticated movie watchers.