Several days ago, another Gramophone critic decided to listen to a Hatto Liszt CD, of the 12 Transcendental Studies. He put the disc into his computer to listen, and something awfully strange happened. His computer's player identified the disc as, yes, the Liszts, but not a Hatto recording. Instead, his display suggested that the disc was one on BIS Records, by the pianist Lászlo Simon. Mystified, our critic checked his Hatto disc against the actual Simon recording, and to his amazement they sounded exactly the same.
In then went a recording of Hatto playing two Rachmaninov Piano Concertos and, sure enough, his computer's CD player listed it as another - by Yefim Bronfman, conducted by Esa-Pekka Salonen, on Sony. Again, the critic compared, and again he could hear no difference.
Gramophone then sent the Hatto and the Simon Liszt recordings to an audio expert, Pristine Audio's Andrew Rose, who scientifically checked the soundwaves of each recording. They matched. "Without a shadow of a doubt," reported Rose, "10 of the tracks on the Liszt disc are identical to those on the Simon." Of the remaining two, he now feels that he has identified a further one - which he identified as being, again "without a shadow of a doubt" from a CD entitled "Nojima Plays Liszt", a 1993 release from Reference Recordings. Furthermore, his partner - who is based elsewhere with his own equipment - agrees.
If any independent research was done that shows the critic used iTunes then I have no problem, but New Scientist doesn't indicate that they did anything other than read the Gramophone and Pristine articles. Where the hell did they suddenly get iTunes?
The entire reason these DJs got as big as they did is because the RIAA affiliated labels sent them tracks and master tapes with the understanding that they would use them for mixtapes.
I'm 100% in agreement.
If the DJ's crossed the line, they did so with the tacit permission of the RIAA.
Now this is a little fuzzier. The article mentioned that managers of artists and artists themselves aproached them to make mixtapes, not necessarily that the RIAA did. The artists/managers who signed exlusive contracts with the RIAA and then breached their agreements by distributing content to the DJs should be the ones genuinely on the hook here and the DJs should take them to court for that. This likely won't happen since it will hurt their chances of getting future content, but that's their decision to make.
To me this looks like the meltdown of greed between the artists and the DJs. The artists want the distribution and marketing help from the RIAA and are willing to sign away their content, but they also want the street marketing so they violate their agreements and give content to the DJs under the table. The DJs are getting free content to make mixes with and are getting rich in the process, but they aren't content with their street distribution so they make deals with distributors to put them in national chains. Anyone who is pumping enough volume out to supply a national chain should "cross their t's and dot their i's" to make sure that they don't put themselves in a position like this. Common business sense would dictate that if you're going to make a lot of money off other peoples' products that you protect yourself with more than tacit agreements.
There's a certain point where... this kind of action just becomes unacceptable.
RTFA, the summary is incredibly misleading. The RIAA didn't hire these guys "off the books" and then bust them, these guys were creating bootlegged mixtapes and their volume was big enough that they had some small distributors getting them into national retail chains. If you're moving enough volume that Best Buy is purchasing your discs and you are making substantial money in the process, you *should* be paying a royalty back to the original artist. These weren't a couple of guys who distributed some mixes to their friends, mixtapes were an incredibly lucrative business for them.
If you need to install an active X, why install it for every application on the system?
I don't know anything about programing an OS, but wouldn't that be a maintenance nightmare? If multiple programs use the ZOMG library and each had a unique installation, wouldn't each installation have to be independently updated? 1 patch or upgrade suddenly would have to be applied to each installation. Maybe there's an easy way to manage this, with a central install and monitored program access? I don't know about this kind of stuff but having each program install it's own redundant libraries seems to me like it would be bloaty and a bitch to maintain.
Sorry, but linux and OSX only ask you for your password when doing potentially dangerous things. You are not prompted when moving files from one of your own folders to another of your own folders. You are not prompted when editing your own menus. You ARE prompted when doing something that will affect other users of the system, such as installing software site-wide. If you want to install a warez server under your own home folder, go nuts, you already explicitly have permission to do so.
The problem is that security isn't simply relegated to actions affecting system files and program installations. If you've ever cleaned a Windows box that had been hit by some virus or malicious website (back when websites could affect IE bookmarks, etc.) you probably noticed a glut of shortcuts and bookmarks pointing to websites that the "attackers" wanted you to visit. This all takes place within the userspace yet it is undesirable behavior. Likewise, copy/pasting to-from the browser has been pointed out to be a security hole even though the actions take place entirely in the userspace. I'm not saying that the kernel shouldn't be protected, but that ignoring userspace interactions entirely is equally wrong.
It does not sound like MS has addressed the problem properly if UAC is instantly conditioning users to always click "ok", but to say that it should only be invoked when attempting "dangerous" operations belies the complexity of the issue. At the end of the day my kernel getting infected is not my primary concern - the integrity of my personal files is. Even if I had to purchase a brand new box with a new OS license off the shelf it's still easier/cheaper to do than trying to replace the accumulation of files I've created, downloaded, purchased, etc.
I don't think they should have to police the sites that participate in AdSense, but to say that Google doesn't have the means to filter their clients seems a bit off the mark.
Summary for easy understanding: Dell did not do enough to tell its consumers about the battery recall.
That's too bad. I bought a Delphi MyFi XM unit 2 years ago. There were battery issues and about 2 weeks after XM announced there would be a recall I received a replacement battery in the mail. I *never* requested it, they just automatically sent it based on their customer records. Granted, the laptop batteries are probably more expensive than my little XM battery but I'm also guessing that Dell has a lot more resources than XM. Even if they didn't send out unprompted batteries to customers, I would think they could at least send letters about the recall. (maybe they did, I don't know)
This Gisburne fellow posted quite a few videos about Christianity without any problems. It was only when he posted them against Islam that it became a problem, and that because a number of users flagged it. I'm guessing that what we are seeing here is not protection of religion, but protection is Islam.
South Park has lampooned a multitude of religions since the first season. Last year Comedy Central (owned by Viacom) forced them to remove the image of Mohammad from an episode.
Yes, Visual Studio is a brand, but VS2005 is *also* a great product. And while the product is heavily tied to Windows it has also made arrangements for plugins and other extensions. There is a PHP and also a Python add-on that I'm aware of. They've also made nearly full-functional "Express" versions available for free. Regardless of whether or not they've made some mistakes in the past, Microsoft (or at least parts of it) is trying to learn and get better. Blindly making statements like "they can not make a good product" is not productive. And Apple is no better than MS when it comes to locking down platforms so using them to debate the merits of Windows culture may be counter-productive. DRM, closed source, etc. They're just a mini Microsoft with a better PR department. Shit, they even just trumpeted a phone that brings very little innovation to the table while being heralded as The Phone that will revolutionize phones. iPhone looks like the Zune of the mobile phone industry.
In the "confidential MS emails leaked" discussion there was a comment that stated (paraphrased), "MS acted like a successful company- they analyzed their own offerings, the strengths in the competition, and what it would take to overcome those competing strengths". The comment got modded "funny". The problem I see with most open-source evangelists on Slashdot is that they are too quick to discount the opposition while to slow to admit their own problems. "MS can't make good products" is just an example of this.
Despite all of their attempts, Microsoft can not make better products, only better brands.
What's wrong with Visual Studio 2005?
Most large companies have a stable of products with some winners and some losers. Microsoft has slipped to the point where they have more losers than winners but that doesn't mean they "can not make better products".
Couldn't it just be that they want to identify individual computers? If they can read a serial number from the motherboard then they don't have to count that computer again? The actual number of installations made (and used) is quite important for a company whose stock price depends on the number of customers but whose product is free to download...
If they were trying to keep tabs on the number of installs (I assume) they'd only need to identify the system during the install process but the article indicates that Skype does this each time it starts.
Could this have anything to do with people using Skype on portable flash drives as a mobile "phone"? I don't know much about these things, but if the Skype program gave itself with a unique identifier on installation and reported that identifier with a system-identification hash each time it starts Skype would be able to determine if the single software installation was being used on several different systems. Sounds like a long way to go to accomplish this goal, but possibly?
I was trying to do some quick tallies as I browsed MythTV.org earlier. I didn't come up with a precise figure but in my particular situation (TiVo series 2 Humax with DVD burner) it would've cost more than what I paid at the store for the TiVo. I'm sure there are plenty of lower-spec configurations that could be put together for less money, but there are also TiVo boxes as low as $70.
My point was never that there aren't other options or even that TiVo is a much better deal than putting together a home-made PVR, simply that TiVo is not raping its subscribers as much as certain posters would have people believe. I don't particularly think TiVo is cheap, but I don't find it expensive either. To me it's properly priced for the service it provides.
Yeah, $13/mo for the first year, under contract, during a limited offer. Why don't you mention the real price?
It is $20 per month, or $240 per year, under contract with a monthly payment plan. Plus a $50-250 "box fee". Oops! Don't pick the HD one. That'll run you $800 for the box alone.
I was too lazy to drag out a bill and check. I just opened their website at $12.95 was what they had posted. $20 is more expensive than $13, but it's still not ridiculously expensive. Go out for 3 beers and leave the bartender a tip and you just spent the same amount of money.
None of which are as good as a $600 custom-built HTPC. You make that back within a year or two compared to TiVo. You can actually burn DVDs and record HDTV without paying ridiculous prices for the hardware. You can pay normal prices on big hard drives, instead of being marketed to as "80 hours! Woohoo!" And you can upgrade it when the time comes, without paying for it again.
My TiVo unit cost $300 and can burn DVDs as well. I don't have HD service so that's a moot point for me. There are always other ways to get the same service. Bottom line is that my time is worth more than the difference in cost I'll save years after putting together a HTPC versus buying a TiVo off the shelf and having it "just work".
You also skip this whole mess with privacy.
Not true. I said I'd "cross that bridge" when I have to. TiVo releasing aggregate statistics of their userbase is not that bridge. If TiVo ever decides to commoditize personally-identifiable information I'll have to decide if that's info I want/need to keep private and I can cancel my subscription at that time if necessary.
Relatively speaking, I'd agree that there isn't a lot on that's worth watching. That's why PVRs are cool- on the 100+ channels in my area, there's only about 2-3 programs(other than the news) I actually consider watching and now I can watch them at my convenience and skip commercials. Auto-ad-skipping would be nice, but it's not *that* difficult to fast-forward.
I think you may have misinterpreted the previous poster. He is not necessarily watching 2 channels for 24 hours a day, but the unit never turns off so from a data-collection standpoint it may appear that he is watching those channels even when his TV is off and he's mowing the lawn. For example, if you watched Scrubs and then turned off your TV the TiVo will continue watching the following programs on that channel until it has to change channel for a scheduled recording. So despite the fact that you only watch Scrubs, it may appear as though you watched Scrubs, Everybody Love Raymond, Seinfeld, Friends, etc.
Media companies and Tivo owners do not have the same interests.
Agreed, but finding equilibrium is important because if the equation becomes too lopsided the companies disappear (less content) or the viewers disappear (less marketable population). Neither situation is a truly good thing.
Um, I can get a month of full internet access for that. Or a month of basic cable. Does the database Tivo supplies cost anything near $13 per subscriber/mo? How about a few pennies per subscriber. Seeing as how I can look up shows for free on ad supported sites, its pretty clear that the schedule doesn't cost that much to make when divided per suscriber. Just a guess, but I'd say the mark up for the subscription service is around 10,000%--and that's still not enough of your money for them. Nope, the not only want your cash, they want you. By selling your viewing habits, they are collectively pimping out their customers to the media companies Tivo now calls its "clients."
Sure, you could get a dial-up ISP for that cost, but I sincerely doubt you can get basic cable for that price (any links?). You could look up shows for free on ad supported sites and then manually program a recorder - or the TiVo unit can automatically download the listing and make sure that my shows are always recorded. I'm not paying $13/month for a program guide, I'm paying $13/month for the whole service package.
So, you love your Tivo. But will you love it as much when Tivo ads more menu and fast forwarding ads? When they start enforcing the DRM that is now built into your Tivo? What Tivo's new "clients" want and what you want are different and those differences will become more apparent as Tivo gets closer and closer ties with the media companies. You may eventually regret not opposing the gradual erosion of Tivo's retail customer focus as your Tivo becomes less and less made for you and more and more made to the media companies whims and desires.
Wrong. You seem to think that if TiVo gets worse their subscribers don't have other options. Almost every cable provider in my area has their own DVRs, there's also MythTV and Freevo. When the cost of TiVo, both subscription and "pain" from ads, exceeds the value I get from the system I can simply cancel my subscription. If enough people follow suit, TiVo would obviously have to rethink their strategy.
Remember, as much as you hate advertisements they are the ones footing the bill for any shows you like. The measly "$13" that you think basic cable costs simply provides you access to the content. If sponsors start bailing on TV shows because they can't generate ad revenue any more, how do you think new content will be generated?
Tivo isn't talking about all the people who forked over cash for Tivos and pay an over inflated monthly subscription.
If you chose to go with MythTV or Freevo instead of TiVo, your hardware cost will probably be much higher than an off-the-shelf TiVo unit. So yes, TiVo customers have "forked over cash" but they probably forked over less cash than they would have for an alternative system.
As for the subscription price being "over inflated": $13 per month is just under $.45 per day. Is 2 quarters a day really an over-inflated price for a service that automates recording my favorite shows and allows me to fast-forward commercials that I don't want to watch? (Usage data will reveal that I tend to watch the Geico "cavemen" commercials.) Yes, that's infinite magnitudes more expensive than a free service like XMLTV but realistically it's not a horribly expensive amount to pay. If you can't spare $.45/day then you probably can't afford a PVR to begin with.
Yes, I'm a TiVo user and I'm quite content with the service and the price. At the end of the day I don't care if they look at my usage habits because I hope that the companies will finally realize which ads suck-ass. If the big-brother syndrome gets to the point where someday a company won't hire me because The Great Database says I watched too much Aqua Teen and not enough CSPAN... I'll cross that bridge when I get there.
I've used Verizon & Cingular (since back when it was ATT Wireless). 3 years ago I would've agreed with you 100%, but I haven't had any trouble with Cingular's network in recent memory. You also can't use your Verizon phone overseas but I doubt that affects too many people here. The only pain-in-the-ass with Cingular was making sure that modified phone flexes were capable of switching back & forth between ATT and Cingular towers. I haven't mucked with that in a while so I'm not sure if it's still an issue.
When the phone is released and it's overpriced for the casual market and underpowered for the business market and even if they sell a decent number of units it will be considered a flop because Jobs set the bar too high... maybe Verizon will be sitting back thinking "I'm glad we dodged that one."
Slashdot Mirror
If any independent research was done that shows the critic used iTunes then I have no problem, but New Scientist doesn't indicate that they did anything other than read the Gramophone and Pristine articles. Where the hell did they suddenly get iTunes?
I'm 100% in agreement.
Now this is a little fuzzier. The article mentioned that managers of artists and artists themselves aproached them to make mixtapes, not necessarily that the RIAA did. The artists/managers who signed exlusive contracts with the RIAA and then breached their agreements by distributing content to the DJs should be the ones genuinely on the hook here and the DJs should take them to court for that. This likely won't happen since it will hurt their chances of getting future content, but that's their decision to make.
To me this looks like the meltdown of greed between the artists and the DJs. The artists want the distribution and marketing help from the RIAA and are willing to sign away their content, but they also want the street marketing so they violate their agreements and give content to the DJs under the table. The DJs are getting free content to make mixes with and are getting rich in the process, but they aren't content with their street distribution so they make deals with distributors to put them in national chains. Anyone who is pumping enough volume out to supply a national chain should "cross their t's and dot their i's" to make sure that they don't put themselves in a position like this. Common business sense would dictate that if you're going to make a lot of money off other peoples' products that you protect yourself with more than tacit agreements.
RTFA, the summary is incredibly misleading. The RIAA didn't hire these guys "off the books" and then bust them, these guys were creating bootlegged mixtapes and their volume was big enough that they had some small distributors getting them into national retail chains. If you're moving enough volume that Best Buy is purchasing your discs and you are making substantial money in the process, you *should* be paying a royalty back to the original artist. These weren't a couple of guys who distributed some mixes to their friends, mixtapes were an incredibly lucrative business for them.
Probably about the same number that "stole" it for NetCaptor, Opera, and eventually Mozilla (better a couple of years late than never, eh?).
I don't know anything about programing an OS, but wouldn't that be a maintenance nightmare? If multiple programs use the ZOMG library and each had a unique installation, wouldn't each installation have to be independently updated? 1 patch or upgrade suddenly would have to be applied to each installation. Maybe there's an easy way to manage this, with a central install and monitored program access? I don't know about this kind of stuff but having each program install it's own redundant libraries seems to me like it would be bloaty and a bitch to maintain.
The problem is that security isn't simply relegated to actions affecting system files and program installations. If you've ever cleaned a Windows box that had been hit by some virus or malicious website (back when websites could affect IE bookmarks, etc.) you probably noticed a glut of shortcuts and bookmarks pointing to websites that the "attackers" wanted you to visit. This all takes place within the userspace yet it is undesirable behavior. Likewise, copy/pasting to-from the browser has been pointed out to be a security hole even though the actions take place entirely in the userspace. I'm not saying that the kernel shouldn't be protected, but that ignoring userspace interactions entirely is equally wrong.
It does not sound like MS has addressed the problem properly if UAC is instantly conditioning users to always click "ok", but to say that it should only be invoked when attempting "dangerous" operations belies the complexity of the issue. At the end of the day my kernel getting infected is not my primary concern - the integrity of my personal files is. Even if I had to purchase a brand new box with a new OS license off the shelf it's still easier/cheaper to do than trying to replace the accumulation of files I've created, downloaded, purchased, etc.
"Google's mission is to organize the world's information." Do you really think that a company with such an ambitious goal can hide behind "there's too many accounts to police"?
I don't think they should have to police the sites that participate in AdSense, but to say that Google doesn't have the means to filter their clients seems a bit off the mark.
That's too bad. I bought a Delphi MyFi XM unit 2 years ago. There were battery issues and about 2 weeks after XM announced there would be a recall I received a replacement battery in the mail. I *never* requested it, they just automatically sent it based on their customer records. Granted, the laptop batteries are probably more expensive than my little XM battery but I'm also guessing that Dell has a lot more resources than XM. Even if they didn't send out unprompted batteries to customers, I would think they could at least send letters about the recall. (maybe they did, I don't know)
South Park has lampooned a multitude of religions since the first season. Last year Comedy Central (owned by Viacom) forced them to remove the image of Mohammad from an episode.
Why should we be trusted to sort colors and shapes when we're being "protected" from dangers like listening to music while crossing streets
.Yes, Visual Studio is a brand, but VS2005 is *also* a great product. And while the product is heavily tied to Windows it has also made arrangements for plugins and other extensions. There is a PHP and also a Python add-on that I'm aware of. They've also made nearly full-functional "Express" versions available for free. Regardless of whether or not they've made some mistakes in the past, Microsoft (or at least parts of it) is trying to learn and get better. Blindly making statements like "they can not make a good product" is not productive. And Apple is no better than MS when it comes to locking down platforms so using them to debate the merits of Windows culture may be counter-productive. DRM, closed source, etc. They're just a mini Microsoft with a better PR department. Shit, they even just trumpeted a phone that brings very little innovation to the table while being heralded as The Phone that will revolutionize phones. iPhone looks like the Zune of the mobile phone industry.
In the "confidential MS emails leaked" discussion there was a comment that stated (paraphrased), "MS acted like a successful company- they analyzed their own offerings, the strengths in the competition, and what it would take to overcome those competing strengths". The comment got modded "funny". The problem I see with most open-source evangelists on Slashdot is that they are too quick to discount the opposition while to slow to admit their own problems. "MS can't make good products" is just an example of this.
What's wrong with Visual Studio 2005?
Most large companies have a stable of products with some winners and some losers. Microsoft has slipped to the point where they have more losers than winners but that doesn't mean they "can not make better products".
If they were trying to keep tabs on the number of installs (I assume) they'd only need to identify the system during the install process but the article indicates that Skype does this each time it starts.
Could this have anything to do with people using Skype on portable flash drives as a mobile "phone"? I don't know much about these things, but if the Skype program gave itself with a unique identifier on installation and reported that identifier with a system-identification hash each time it starts Skype would be able to determine if the single software installation was being used on several different systems. Sounds like a long way to go to accomplish this goal, but possibly?
I was trying to do some quick tallies as I browsed MythTV.org earlier. I didn't come up with a precise figure but in my particular situation (TiVo series 2 Humax with DVD burner) it would've cost more than what I paid at the store for the TiVo. I'm sure there are plenty of lower-spec configurations that could be put together for less money, but there are also TiVo boxes as low as $70.
My point was never that there aren't other options or even that TiVo is a much better deal than putting together a home-made PVR, simply that TiVo is not raping its subscribers as much as certain posters would have people believe. I don't particularly think TiVo is cheap, but I don't find it expensive either. To me it's properly priced for the service it provides.
I was too lazy to drag out a bill and check. I just opened their website at $12.95 was what they had posted. $20 is more expensive than $13, but it's still not ridiculously expensive. Go out for 3 beers and leave the bartender a tip and you just spent the same amount of money.
My TiVo unit cost $300 and can burn DVDs as well. I don't have HD service so that's a moot point for me. There are always other ways to get the same service. Bottom line is that my time is worth more than the difference in cost I'll save years after putting together a HTPC versus buying a TiVo off the shelf and having it "just work".
Not true. I said I'd "cross that bridge" when I have to. TiVo releasing aggregate statistics of their userbase is not that bridge. If TiVo ever decides to commoditize personally-identifiable information I'll have to decide if that's info I want/need to keep private and I can cancel my subscription at that time if necessary.
Relatively speaking, I'd agree that there isn't a lot on that's worth watching. That's why PVRs are cool- on the 100+ channels in my area, there's only about 2-3 programs(other than the news) I actually consider watching and now I can watch them at my convenience and skip commercials. Auto-ad-skipping would be nice, but it's not *that* difficult to fast-forward.
I think you may have misinterpreted the previous poster. He is not necessarily watching 2 channels for 24 hours a day, but the unit never turns off so from a data-collection standpoint it may appear that he is watching those channels even when his TV is off and he's mowing the lawn. For example, if you watched Scrubs and then turned off your TV the TiVo will continue watching the following programs on that channel until it has to change channel for a scheduled recording. So despite the fact that you only watch Scrubs, it may appear as though you watched Scrubs, Everybody Love Raymond, Seinfeld, Friends, etc.
This would probably be the wrong time to see magnetized TiVo lite-brites on bridges...
If I could mod a thread I'm currently posted in I'd give you some funny points for that.
Agreed, but finding equilibrium is important because if the equation becomes too lopsided the companies disappear (less content) or the viewers disappear (less marketable population). Neither situation is a truly good thing.
Sure, you could get a dial-up ISP for that cost, but I sincerely doubt you can get basic cable for that price (any links?). You could look up shows for free on ad supported sites and then manually program a recorder - or the TiVo unit can automatically download the listing and make sure that my shows are always recorded. I'm not paying $13/month for a program guide, I'm paying $13/month for the whole service package.
Wrong. You seem to think that if TiVo gets worse their subscribers don't have other options. Almost every cable provider in my area has their own DVRs, there's also MythTV and Freevo. When the cost of TiVo, both subscription and "pain" from ads, exceeds the value I get from the system I can simply cancel my subscription. If enough people follow suit, TiVo would obviously have to rethink their strategy.
Remember, as much as you hate advertisements they are the ones footing the bill for any shows you like. The measly "$13" that you think basic cable costs simply provides you access to the content. If sponsors start bailing on TV shows because they can't generate ad revenue any more, how do you think new content will be generated?
If you chose to go with MythTV or Freevo instead of TiVo, your hardware cost will probably be much higher than an off-the-shelf TiVo unit. So yes, TiVo customers have "forked over cash" but they probably forked over less cash than they would have for an alternative system.
As for the subscription price being "over inflated": $13 per month is just under $.45 per day. Is 2 quarters a day really an over-inflated price for a service that automates recording my favorite shows and allows me to fast-forward commercials that I don't want to watch? (Usage data will reveal that I tend to watch the Geico "cavemen" commercials.) Yes, that's infinite magnitudes more expensive than a free service like XMLTV but realistically it's not a horribly expensive amount to pay. If you can't spare $.45/day then you probably can't afford a PVR to begin with.
Yes, I'm a TiVo user and I'm quite content with the service and the price. At the end of the day I don't care if they look at my usage habits because I hope that the companies will finally realize which ads suck-ass. If the big-brother syndrome gets to the point where someday a company won't hire me because The Great Database says I watched too much Aqua Teen and not enough CSPAN... I'll cross that bridge when I get there.
My internet crapped out the other day but I meant to say thanks for the explanation. That one was from long before I was posting on /.
I think I'm missing a joke here. What's the reference?
I've used Verizon & Cingular (since back when it was ATT Wireless). 3 years ago I would've agreed with you 100%, but I haven't had any trouble with Cingular's network in recent memory. You also can't use your Verizon phone overseas but I doubt that affects too many people here. The only pain-in-the-ass with Cingular was making sure that modified phone flexes were capable of switching back & forth between ATT and Cingular towers. I haven't mucked with that in a while so I'm not sure if it's still an issue.
When the phone is released and it's overpriced for the casual market and underpowered for the business market and even if they sell a decent number of units it will be considered a flop because Jobs set the bar too high... maybe Verizon will be sitting back thinking "I'm glad we dodged that one."