Great idea, but sometimes it takes more than a year to take a product to market. Sure it shouldn't take more than a year for a one click patent to come into use, but if you discover cold fusion, well it might take some time to get the funding and actually build a state of the art first ever cold fusion power plant.
Should they really lose their patent after spending billions of dollars?
What kind of research will this encourage?
Oh come on, I know you were desperate to point out flaws in the parent's argument, but the truth of the matter is there could be provisions. The point is that you shouldn't be able to file a patent and then just sit on an idea to prevent it from being made, as this definitely stifles not only innovation, but keeps technology stagnant. This type of technology, point blank, was bad for their business model. The fact that they sat on it is not surprising. They could've championed the idea, sure, but it would've taken work and research. They'd much rather sue the pants off anyone who pursues the idea. Which is not what the patent system was set up for.
I think the parent is right, if the company isn't pursuing the idea in a year they should be cut off from patent protection. They'd be able to document whether they were pursuing the idea or not to the patent court and let the judges there make a decision over whether progress is being made. Until an idea is brought to market they could re-hold hearings to make sure the idea is being progressed upon, otherwise the patent becomes null and void.
The whole point of this type of patent trolling is to stifle innovation while seeping money from competitors, which is exactly what is happening here. Why shouldn't the patent system prevent this non-sense? Every time something threatens the phone monopolies, the courts and big gov find a back door to bail them all out and let them continue to charge dollars for what costs them fractions of a cent. They don't want real competition. Patents were designed to give an incentive for innovation, now they just take the incentive away in some cases.
How many people really use YouTube as a way to get TV shows illegally? I wonder. Myself, I use YouTube to see unique stuff made by people with DV camcorders and such. If I want TV shows, I've got a DVR. If I want the MPAA drivel that passes for movies these days, there's Netflix and movies on iTunes (and the DVR). Who cares about illegal stuff on YouTube?
I'm sure that Viacom probably already knows this. However, not only can they run a lawsuit based around the fact that the pirated stuff is making Google money (which I'm sure it is making a bit of it off of that), but they also get to take a swipe at YouTube which is basically a broadcasting entity that really doesn't have to pay Viacom (a middleman) anything to make its own content for mass appeal. The way I look at it is, big business is pissed that people can watch other peoples' homemade shows, and they are pissed that they are doing this more often then they are watching Viacom's sponsored programming. They want to monetize this type of entertainment too, but unfortunately there's no real need for a middleman with this type of content delivery system. It's the end of their business model. The last thing these companies want is a YouTube type entertainment area that might make people realize that they don't need the big media cartels. The fact that pirated content is what YouTube is less often used for *is* the problem in their eyes.
So, it seems to be competing in the iPhone space. Except it isn't a phone. And in the "entertainment" category, it can't connect to the most popular music site. It's got "web-based office applications", but consumers don't care about that. Which consumer is supposed to want this device?
Someone like me, who finds a laptop too cumbersome to carry around on a regular basis and wants available wireless internet access where available. If a device can mix together multimedia/internet capabilities that takes care of 90% of what I use a computer for. If I can get all of that on the go without using a laptop, that'll be fantastic. It will replace MP3 players IMO instead of replacing laptops, albeit with more features.
The only thing the absence of CNN reports is evidence of is the absence of CNN coverage. By your logic third party presidential candidates don't exist because major news outlets refuse to cover them.
Hujagiggawhat? Third parties? Come on, everyone knows there's only two parties: republican and spendocrats.... There's more? But I thought Fox NEWS was fair and balanced. How come they didn't tell me about these supposed "third party candidates."
Let's have a hand everyone, for Slashdot's living, breathing stereotype. That is, if it isn't just some kind of machine that posts about DRM and software patents, even where not appropriate.
Seriously though, this is one of those moments where I'm glad someone is doing some serious research and the industry won't stagnate anytime soon.
While I think everybody has been making good points so far, you have to remember that in the long term copy protection is actually winning. While these measures might be meant in name to stop piracy, their true value is in taking out fair use as collateral damage. The goal of DRM is not to stop piracy, but to make it difficult enough that Joe User will not be able to convert or make backups through a point and click interface. If this copy protection has done that, then it is making them money.... shame all it does is hurt the people who legitimately buy their products.
Yeah, but if you buy a disc, I for one wouldn't feel the least bit bad about using bittorrent to download a ripped copy with full rights. Or hell, skip buying and go right for the ripped copy.
Hey, I know, let's celebrate some billionaire who can afford to take a trip to space! How fucking quaint.
Does this matter? Not in the slightest.
This is significant, he's the guy who is responsible for MS Word and he's off the earth. This is obviously a big victory for computer users everywhere, now if we can just keep him there...
How about an hourglass? The animation is merely for looks, the animation is not necessary for feedback. It's not like the animation is actually tied to the progress anyways. It's like those sites that use animated GIFs as a "progress bar" -- there is nothing tying progress of the task to progress of the animation.
Really? And all this time I thought that animated blue box filling up dialog really meant that it was working hard.
So, no, there's no fundamental difference between real and virtual money, just as there's no fundamental difference between real money and a kg of coffee.
I've got a difference for you, I can have real money stuffed under my mattress. However, where exactly can I put virtual money? (I know I set myself up). But it is true, think about it. If all money becomes virtual, then only selected "trusted" servers will be able to deal in it. How are you going to be able to even have your own personal stash of money if it's virtual? Presumably anyone who was able to hold their own virtual money could fabricate additional funds, making the currency unusable as a trade resource much like money hacks in video games, but with use in real life.
If you can't store your money under your mattress and/or pay for things in cash if you want to, welcome home big brother because there is now not a single transaction that can't be traced to you in the blink of an eye.
Is why in some variants of English is math pluralized to maths? It seems not to be the case with most other things, for example they didn't say "musics". Where I grew up (southwest USA) it was always math, singular, which makes sense to be. Though there are different facets, it is all the same field much like there are different styles of music, but it is all music.
Just a suggestion, but maybe it gained popularity through "Karma Police", if you hear anyone saying that people "buzz like fridges", or reports of people being akin to "detuned radios" please let me know, as this is vital to my theory.
converting real money to virtual money is a huge business. look at all the people spending $100 dollars for some World of Warcraft gold for their level 70 mount or whatever. there's a fine line between hobby and sickness.
What's hilarious is that after you buy it, it's still in the game which actually makes it property of Blizzard, residing on their servers. Wouldn't it be an interesting world if this took off and you don't even own your own money anymore, and essentially have to use "disney dollars" for purchases. A nice way to go back to the Erie Canal model. I'm not saying this is what's happening, but it's an interesting concept.
I used to be dyed-in-the-wool against DRM, but since using Rhapsody with the Sansa player and with Squeezebox* I have to say it is pretty hard to defend the position that DRM is universally bad. It is hard to imagine how you could have a service like Rhapsody without DRM. Having "all the music" accessible whenever you want, for a flat monthly rate, really changes your listening habits and how you think about music "ownership".
I have mod points, but I don't feel like using them. I hate the idea of music only being accessible via some service with a fee per month. Think about when you don't have the spare cash, do you want to be without music? When you don't own anything it can all be taken away from you from simple lack of capital. Honestly, I think a service like this could and should exist without DRM. If you allow a service fee per month and all music to be downloadable/keepable forever what's the difference? I mean, you might only get 2 months out of the mom and pop who only wanted some old beatles CDs, but likely they would've only bought the CDs anyway so you aren't losing anything in that case. The people who would trade MP3s are trading them for free nowadays anyway. Most people enjoy getting different types of new music and these people would probably stay subscribed for as long as they can afford. I know if they had a monthly music service, I'd probably just pay per month so I had the ability to go online and download music, even if I didn't use it a whole lot one particular month.
A legal repository like the ones bittorrent search engines have set up for free could indeed be profitable if they charged a monthly service fee and had better connections and just allowed the stuff to be still available after use. I mean sure, they might lose a few dollars from the people who would buy 50 albums at a shot at the store, but let's face it, these people make up the vast minority anyway. Find what the average family pays per year for music and divide it by 12, make it a service fee and allow everyone access to everything. I guarantee this would be a success. Anything short of it, probably not so much.
It's not costing us anything. We get all of our funding from our employers. They're (they're) the ones paying.
Some of us (us) work for the RIAA and affiliated companies. We (them)(us) are being paid (our funding) by those (the RIAA) who are costing us money (our funding). It follows that the RIAA is the ultimate victim of the RIAA. Thus, we (they)(the RIAA) should boycott the real criminals (us)(the RIAA).
Who are you that's so wise in the ways of science?
The two markets you mentioned (non CD based music players and personal computers) were both infant niche markets when Apple stepped in. I doubt they will fall on their faces but the cell market is a fairly mature industry. Time will tell. I for one will not be getting one asmy Motorola Q has 70% of the functionaity and I can't justify dropping $600+ to bridge the gap.
The mobile internet browsing, phone call making MP3 playing device isn't a really defined market yet. I am usually against apple products do to their history with DRM flirtation but I had the same reaction I had when I saw the first iPod when this was being announced. "Cool, finally someone who gets it."
This is the smart phone for people who hate smart phones (aka everyone who hasn't bought a PDA because of the way they are). And although it has predecessors, I do think Apple can define this particular segment of the market. Will it define mobile phones in general? Maybe eventually given enough adaptation. But will it define "smart phones"? Almost definitely.
But let's accept for a moment the premise of this article. If these folks really are such great salesmen, this is opportunity knockin' at their door -- they can get better jobs at higher-end stores, they can start their own higher-end stores, they can get into selling something that has worthwhile commissions involved with it like software or cars or whatever. I mean, let's face it: Being the best sales associate at Circuit City is along the same lines as being the best cook at McDonald's. If that's where your vision ends, that's almost certainly where you belong.
You've got to be kidding me if you think not only that losing your job is an opportunity but that people at Circuit City get paid enough to start their own stores, or that high end stores won't soon be going out of business in favor of walmart or best buy starting their own "high end sections." Sure, there might room for the 1% of rich people that are too snobby to go to walmart and you can sell to them, but that's not enough to make up a business model in a regular town. Like it or not, salespeople are relegated to this position in the new economy so stop trying to act like Circuit City was doing them a favor by firing them. People have bills to pay, life costs money, firing someone is no favor or opportunity.
...why you can't get any help that's of any use from retail clerks. The corporate model isn't geared toward customer service and nobody seems to be understanding this. I don't know what the alternative is, but I'll tell you when someone has earned multiple raises to become the highest paid in a store, most of the time (if not always), especially in a place like Circuit City, it's because they are good at what they do. They are probably the knowledgeable staff that actually help you with issues versus the weekend/school workers that are just there to collect enough to pay for the keg of beer. Nowadays you have to spend all day researching most purchases just to insure you aren't getting screwed because the staff at the store know nothing, the people that stock the shelves know nothing and sometimes even the people at the electronics companies know nothing about what they are making or selling. You get what you pay for I suppose.
This country is out of production and manufacturing and is now relying upon sales, research and services for job growth. The simple fact of the matter is that the children of the largest section of the population that lied on factory jobs is waking up to find themselves forced into retail after high school. Certainly there are colleges, education, etc but like it or not some people don't always have these options. When you are forced to get a job out of high school nowadays it's usually at a circuit city or a walmart. Maybe this is why I agree with the Green Party in saying that they should make $10 an hour minimum wage. The simple fact is that it would force companies to pay a decent living wage for these workers they take for granted, play around with, throw everything on top of and then throw out the door once they start advancing their supposed "career." I for one will never shop at Circuit City again.
How is it misleading? The summary says "But with the latest revisions, Linus will entertain moving the kernel over to the GPL v3" - which means pretty much what the quote of Linus you gave says, "The current draft makes me think it's at least a possibility in theory, but whether it's practical and worth it is a totally different thing."
How are these significantly different?
I'm taking it that the parent basically was just one of those kids that when they asked their parents for permission and their parents said "maybe" assumed this meant "yes."
That's great, unless you live in a place like I do in Southeast Texas (or probably most of the small towns in the south). People here are always making comments like "you never know, they could be a terrorist" or using what they call 'racial profiling' as an excuse to promote their prejudiced ways. Note: They call it racial profiling, (not political groups, but the rednecks I hear this from) so as not to sound racist. I call that a failure and a coverup. Their actions and statements reinforce their true beliefs. "Most businesses" around here are either not intellegent enough or biased against people to begin with, giving them a list (read: excuse) won't help matters any.
Thanks for reminding me why I don't want to move to the south =P. This might get modded as flamebait, but it's actually true, despite all the bonuses I didn't want to move to Texas or the deep south for cultural and political reasons.
Is there any actual evidence that unwittingly selling a sandwich to someone on this list would actually put a deli owner in legal jeopardy?
To make sure you weren't selling a sandwich to someone on this list you'd reasonably have to ID every person you sell a sandwich to. Somehow I don't think that would stand up in court, so no, there's no actual evidence to that fact and I severely doubt there ever will be.
I'm not exactly sure why someone like Bin Laden would be able to be at your deli to buy a sandwich in the US without being nabbed by authorities who you think would be looking for him I don't know, just a little bit. But either way, this looks to be a nice case of hyperbole, or maybe just an old fashion exaggeration. Either way, no.
On the music side, a conventional d-pad.
On the phone side, actual buttons.
This is a win-win situation.
It's a shame that nearly all phones have a d-pad and numerical pad already and on one side, so WTF is the point of separating the two and putting them back to back, then requiring two screens, one of which is too small to be useable for a phone and then using it for the phone screen.
God damn this is bad design. When I watched the YouTube of the person playing with it it looked like one of the worst phones I've ever seen. And that makes sense. It's samsung. I had one of their phones fill up with garbage on the screen and then the display drained and never worked again. I bought an MP3 player of theirs with a battery back so poorly designed that after it was dropped once the battery constantly kept falling out the back resulting in play stoppage. They called their players "yepp", I say nope. They used proprietary software package to make transferring files to the player a pain in the ass and then never updated the software package. I will never buy another samsung product even if they do make up a great deal of the phone maker population.
Then there's this design. Why not just build the audio portion in as an applet that can be interrupted by calls and use the already existent directional pad that comes on most phones to control it like a "click wheel" or whatever they are trying to copy? It really chars my hide to see people make such essentially bad designs and have the gimmicks being passed off as cool or useful. There's no need for two screens here, just a need for one good design team. One that can already see what's available to them in the phone and design the phone to utilize that for multimedia capabilities. Whatever.
My Dad's new 'Vista-Ready' machine came with XP, and we're KEEPING it on XP precisely because this this thing is a graphical dream on it. It's got an nVidia card, sweet processors, ability to support two 22" widescreen monitors... all for under $1000, because it's 'merely' an XP machine, albeit a Vista-capable one.
If this is their idea of 'Vista-Capable', why would I want to go to an operating system where these awesome specs are merely ADEQUATE?
That's what I never understood. I was running XP Media Center and my computer was an absolute dream to run. I installed Vista and it began to run slow as molasses, I guess mostly due to the video card. But I have a computer with 2gb of ram, a GeForce 6600GT, 4200+ X2 processor and a 320gb HDD. If my computer runs Vista just okay for my liking, why would anyone who is satisfied with their computer now want to tax their resources to run the bloated new, non-existant features? Also, if my computer only runs "okay" I can't imagine what half of these "vista ready" PCs with lesser specs will run like. What the hell are the pluses to even upgrading from media center? Because I certainly haven't found any.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh come on, I know you were desperate to point out flaws in the parent's argument, but the truth of the matter is there could be provisions. The point is that you shouldn't be able to file a patent and then just sit on an idea to prevent it from being made, as this definitely stifles not only innovation, but keeps technology stagnant. This type of technology, point blank, was bad for their business model. The fact that they sat on it is not surprising. They could've championed the idea, sure, but it would've taken work and research. They'd much rather sue the pants off anyone who pursues the idea. Which is not what the patent system was set up for.
I think the parent is right, if the company isn't pursuing the idea in a year they should be cut off from patent protection. They'd be able to document whether they were pursuing the idea or not to the patent court and let the judges there make a decision over whether progress is being made. Until an idea is brought to market they could re-hold hearings to make sure the idea is being progressed upon, otherwise the patent becomes null and void.
The whole point of this type of patent trolling is to stifle innovation while seeping money from competitors, which is exactly what is happening here. Why shouldn't the patent system prevent this non-sense? Every time something threatens the phone monopolies, the courts and big gov find a back door to bail them all out and let them continue to charge dollars for what costs them fractions of a cent. They don't want real competition. Patents were designed to give an incentive for innovation, now they just take the incentive away in some cases.
I'm sure that Viacom probably already knows this. However, not only can they run a lawsuit based around the fact that the pirated stuff is making Google money (which I'm sure it is making a bit of it off of that), but they also get to take a swipe at YouTube which is basically a broadcasting entity that really doesn't have to pay Viacom (a middleman) anything to make its own content for mass appeal. The way I look at it is, big business is pissed that people can watch other peoples' homemade shows, and they are pissed that they are doing this more often then they are watching Viacom's sponsored programming. They want to monetize this type of entertainment too, but unfortunately there's no real need for a middleman with this type of content delivery system. It's the end of their business model. The last thing these companies want is a YouTube type entertainment area that might make people realize that they don't need the big media cartels. The fact that pirated content is what YouTube is less often used for *is* the problem in their eyes.
Someone like me, who finds a laptop too cumbersome to carry around on a regular basis and wants available wireless internet access where available. If a device can mix together multimedia/internet capabilities that takes care of 90% of what I use a computer for. If I can get all of that on the go without using a laptop, that'll be fantastic. It will replace MP3 players IMO instead of replacing laptops, albeit with more features.
That motto always struck me as something prime to become Orwellian double-talk in the future. Evil google? Can't have those two words together.
Hujagiggawhat? Third parties? Come on, everyone knows there's only two parties: republican and spendocrats.... There's more? But I thought Fox NEWS was fair and balanced. How come they didn't tell me about these supposed "third party candidates."
Let's have a hand everyone, for Slashdot's living, breathing stereotype. That is, if it isn't just some kind of machine that posts about DRM and software patents, even where not appropriate.
Seriously though, this is one of those moments where I'm glad someone is doing some serious research and the industry won't stagnate anytime soon.
Yeah, but if you buy a disc, I for one wouldn't feel the least bit bad about using bittorrent to download a ripped copy with full rights. Or hell, skip buying and go right for the ripped copy.
This is significant, he's the guy who is responsible for MS Word and he's off the earth. This is obviously a big victory for computer users everywhere, now if we can just keep him there...
Really? And all this time I thought that animated blue box filling up dialog really meant that it was working hard.
Exactly, for instance, browsing slashdot from your employer. =P
I've got a difference for you, I can have real money stuffed under my mattress. However, where exactly can I put virtual money? (I know I set myself up). But it is true, think about it. If all money becomes virtual, then only selected "trusted" servers will be able to deal in it. How are you going to be able to even have your own personal stash of money if it's virtual? Presumably anyone who was able to hold their own virtual money could fabricate additional funds, making the currency unusable as a trade resource much like money hacks in video games, but with use in real life.
If you can't store your money under your mattress and/or pay for things in cash if you want to, welcome home big brother because there is now not a single transaction that can't be traced to you in the blink of an eye.
Just a suggestion, but maybe it gained popularity through "Karma Police", if you hear anyone saying that people "buzz like fridges", or reports of people being akin to "detuned radios" please let me know, as this is vital to my theory.
What's hilarious is that after you buy it, it's still in the game which actually makes it property of Blizzard, residing on their servers. Wouldn't it be an interesting world if this took off and you don't even own your own money anymore, and essentially have to use "disney dollars" for purchases. A nice way to go back to the Erie Canal model. I'm not saying this is what's happening, but it's an interesting concept.
I have mod points, but I don't feel like using them. I hate the idea of music only being accessible via some service with a fee per month. Think about when you don't have the spare cash, do you want to be without music? When you don't own anything it can all be taken away from you from simple lack of capital. Honestly, I think a service like this could and should exist without DRM. If you allow a service fee per month and all music to be downloadable/keepable forever what's the difference? I mean, you might only get 2 months out of the mom and pop who only wanted some old beatles CDs, but likely they would've only bought the CDs anyway so you aren't losing anything in that case. The people who would trade MP3s are trading them for free nowadays anyway. Most people enjoy getting different types of new music and these people would probably stay subscribed for as long as they can afford. I know if they had a monthly music service, I'd probably just pay per month so I had the ability to go online and download music, even if I didn't use it a whole lot one particular month.
A legal repository like the ones bittorrent search engines have set up for free could indeed be profitable if they charged a monthly service fee and had better connections and just allowed the stuff to be still available after use. I mean sure, they might lose a few dollars from the people who would buy 50 albums at a shot at the store, but let's face it, these people make up the vast minority anyway. Find what the average family pays per year for music and divide it by 12, make it a service fee and allow everyone access to everything. I guarantee this would be a success. Anything short of it, probably not so much.
Who are you that's so wise in the ways of science?
The mobile internet browsing, phone call making MP3 playing device isn't a really defined market yet. I am usually against apple products do to their history with DRM flirtation but I had the same reaction I had when I saw the first iPod when this was being announced. "Cool, finally someone who gets it."
This is the smart phone for people who hate smart phones (aka everyone who hasn't bought a PDA because of the way they are). And although it has predecessors, I do think Apple can define this particular segment of the market. Will it define mobile phones in general? Maybe eventually given enough adaptation. But will it define "smart phones"? Almost definitely.
You've got to be kidding me if you think not only that losing your job is an opportunity but that people at Circuit City get paid enough to start their own stores, or that high end stores won't soon be going out of business in favor of walmart or best buy starting their own "high end sections." Sure, there might room for the 1% of rich people that are too snobby to go to walmart and you can sell to them, but that's not enough to make up a business model in a regular town. Like it or not, salespeople are relegated to this position in the new economy so stop trying to act like Circuit City was doing them a favor by firing them. People have bills to pay, life costs money, firing someone is no favor or opportunity.
...why you can't get any help that's of any use from retail clerks. The corporate model isn't geared toward customer service and nobody seems to be understanding this. I don't know what the alternative is, but I'll tell you when someone has earned multiple raises to become the highest paid in a store, most of the time (if not always), especially in a place like Circuit City, it's because they are good at what they do. They are probably the knowledgeable staff that actually help you with issues versus the weekend/school workers that are just there to collect enough to pay for the keg of beer. Nowadays you have to spend all day researching most purchases just to insure you aren't getting screwed because the staff at the store know nothing, the people that stock the shelves know nothing and sometimes even the people at the electronics companies know nothing about what they are making or selling. You get what you pay for I suppose.
This country is out of production and manufacturing and is now relying upon sales, research and services for job growth. The simple fact of the matter is that the children of the largest section of the population that lied on factory jobs is waking up to find themselves forced into retail after high school. Certainly there are colleges, education, etc but like it or not some people don't always have these options. When you are forced to get a job out of high school nowadays it's usually at a circuit city or a walmart. Maybe this is why I agree with the Green Party in saying that they should make $10 an hour minimum wage. The simple fact is that it would force companies to pay a decent living wage for these workers they take for granted, play around with, throw everything on top of and then throw out the door once they start advancing their supposed "career." I for one will never shop at Circuit City again.
I'm taking it that the parent basically was just one of those kids that when they asked their parents for permission and their parents said "maybe" assumed this meant "yes."
That's how I do it, then I go home and conduct a search on the google utilizing the internets!
Real Translation: If you plan to use linux and want warranty support, buy from a vendor that supports your freedom to do so.
It would be ironic if they discontinued support for you if you installed Windows on one of these machines ;-). I do, however, doubt that is the case.
Thanks for reminding me why I don't want to move to the south =P. This might get modded as flamebait, but it's actually true, despite all the bonuses I didn't want to move to Texas or the deep south for cultural and political reasons.
To make sure you weren't selling a sandwich to someone on this list you'd reasonably have to ID every person you sell a sandwich to. Somehow I don't think that would stand up in court, so no, there's no actual evidence to that fact and I severely doubt there ever will be.
I'm not exactly sure why someone like Bin Laden would be able to be at your deli to buy a sandwich in the US without being nabbed by authorities who you think would be looking for him I don't know, just a little bit. But either way, this looks to be a nice case of hyperbole, or maybe just an old fashion exaggeration. Either way, no.
It's a shame that nearly all phones have a d-pad and numerical pad already and on one side, so WTF is the point of separating the two and putting them back to back, then requiring two screens, one of which is too small to be useable for a phone and then using it for the phone screen.
God damn this is bad design. When I watched the YouTube of the person playing with it it looked like one of the worst phones I've ever seen. And that makes sense. It's samsung. I had one of their phones fill up with garbage on the screen and then the display drained and never worked again. I bought an MP3 player of theirs with a battery back so poorly designed that after it was dropped once the battery constantly kept falling out the back resulting in play stoppage. They called their players "yepp", I say nope. They used proprietary software package to make transferring files to the player a pain in the ass and then never updated the software package. I will never buy another samsung product even if they do make up a great deal of the phone maker population.
Then there's this design. Why not just build the audio portion in as an applet that can be interrupted by calls and use the already existent directional pad that comes on most phones to control it like a "click wheel" or whatever they are trying to copy? It really chars my hide to see people make such essentially bad designs and have the gimmicks being passed off as cool or useful. There's no need for two screens here, just a need for one good design team. One that can already see what's available to them in the phone and design the phone to utilize that for multimedia capabilities. Whatever.
That's what I never understood. I was running XP Media Center and my computer was an absolute dream to run. I installed Vista and it began to run slow as molasses, I guess mostly due to the video card. But I have a computer with 2gb of ram, a GeForce 6600GT, 4200+ X2 processor and a 320gb HDD. If my computer runs Vista just okay for my liking, why would anyone who is satisfied with their computer now want to tax their resources to run the bloated new, non-existant features? Also, if my computer only runs "okay" I can't imagine what half of these "vista ready" PCs with lesser specs will run like. What the hell are the pluses to even upgrading from media center? Because I certainly haven't found any.