androiddev just posted on Twitter saying that a Gingerbread update - 2.3.3 is rolling to the Nexus S and Nexus One now. Supposedly, it could take a couple of weeks to hit all the devices.
From TFA:
In some cases content may be incorrectly flagged in the actual broadcast, which may affect the consumer's TV experience," Microsoft's spokeswoman wrote. "The success of the entire distribution chain is dependent on all involved maintaining the necessary checks and quality control so that coding is correctly applied thereby avoiding any unexpected outcome. I find this somewhat amusing and somewhat appalling. The main feature of the Media Center, IMHO, is to record television. If I were developing a product and its main feature suffered from multiple points of failure in the "enitre distribution chain", I'd probably rethink the design. Frankly, the software would record TV if VMC just ignored the broadcast flag that isn't required by the FCC. And I do agree with the EFF guy that the bigger concern is that you don't know what you bought (or spent a good deal of energy configuring) until it breaks. This is clearly a bug, a design flaw, or a flaw in MS's strategy. They really need to correct it.
As a side note, I live about 1.2 miles from the NBC tower and my over-the-air HDTV signal (for every channel) dropped dramatically last week. I wonder if the flag might be causing interference with other broadcasts. Anyone else notice this?
Or, if you are using Vista Media Center and are affected by the broadcast flag, just download VMC Netflix and play the "Watch Instantly" NBC shows on your TV, on demand, for no additional cost above and beyond your Netflix subscription. It works with xbox 360 extenders too.
I'm not usually a tinfoil hat type, but NBC and Microsoft have been associated in other news recently. I thought the idea of making an unpopular media player play less content than others is unlikely. The developers denied it: "We have no plans or commitments to implement any new type of content filtering in the Zune devices as part of our distribution deal with NBC." This could be an unfortunate coincidence, but I doubt it will be good for Zune sales.
Either way, if my time-shifted NBC shows stop playing, then I'll stop watching NBC. I hardly watch it anyways. Seems like a strange strategy for a media company though. Isn't the goal to have popular shows so they can sell more advertisements? How does reducing the number of viewers == "Profit"?? Especially since not everyone is skipping the ads
Re:CO Voters: Reject Richard Gabriel in Nov. 2010!
on
RIAA Lawyer Jumps Ship
·
· Score: 1
If the average voter doesn't care, are they likely to vote at all one way or another? Usually, I ignore that section because I don't know, don't care, or don't want to take the time to vote on the judges. (Judges don't run big campaigns) Maybe it's irresponsible, but if I have the option between making an uninformed decision and not making one at all, I'll usually choose the latter.
I live in Colorado. I will be voting to remove him from the bench in 2010. I'll probably also tell everyone I know to do the same. Then, hopefully, the people who are willing to vote to remove him will outnumber those willing to vote to keep him.
I'd say actions like this from vendors like Dell will simplify the issue for Microsoft. Dell can't sell XP. Dell sells Vista and gives away XP. Microsoft tallies another Vista sale, Dell sells a new computer, and the buyer gets XP. If the hardware vendors will pick up the slack, Microsoft has no reason to extend sales of XP.
Ok. CDs cost money to produce, but the article is dated, and I think a more interesting question with respect to the cost of music is "how do the costs translate to online sales?" I am clearly guessing here, but if anyone else has real numbers, please reply. Given that everyone likes to talk about Radiohead's "In Rainbows", I'll base my estimates on that. The album has 10 songs, so...
Online Distribution (10 songs / CD)
$0.17 - Musicians' unions - no change $0.22 - Packaging/manufacturing - 2% of revenue to license mp3 format for content distribution, AAC is free for distribution, don't know about Fairplay DRM. $0.82 - Publishing royalties - no change $1.00 - Retail profit - 12 @ $.10/song $0.10 - Distribution - Bandwidth ~5MB/song (downloaded from Radiohead) = 50 MB * 0.0005/MB=$.025 (the estimate is for Video on Demand, but that's all I could find). I bumped it up a little to cover hardware maintenance. $1.60 - Artists' royalties - no change $1.70 - Label profit - no change $2.40 - Marketing/promotion - no change $2.91 - Label overhead - no change $0.00 - Retail overhead - not sure
Total: $10.92
Apple sells "In Rainbows" for $9.99. Amazon sells it for $7.99 as a download. I don't believe Apple loses money on downloads. I'm not sure about Amazon. While this is strictly hypothetical, it would seem the difference between a $15 CD and a $10 downloaded album is more than just the cost of production and distribution of the CD. Assuming I'm not totally off on my numbers, and the numbers that aren't related to production and distribution do not change, it should not be possible for Apple to sell the record for $10 or Amazon for $8. I believe the pricing model must allow for online retailers to make a profit, so what makes up the difference? Are the labels giving up profits? Are they operating more efficiently than they used to?
It is sad because it locks in developers and customers to one platform. I think you're either a little off or exaggerating. If I build web applications (or more on topic, Silverlight applications) using.NET as a platform, does that mean users on Mac OS X / Linux / mobile devices / etc can't use my application? No. Does that mean I have to run my application on Windows Server w/ IIS? Probably. Was I unaware of that when I designed my application? No. While I will agree that vendor lock is generally something to avoid, it's never the only consideration when building an app.
It is sad because it was designed to do both these and so many are ignorant of this. It is sad that so many are fooled into the belief it is not sad and therefore exclude many from the products and services they provide.
You seem to have some idea in your head that.NET developers are unaware of Microsoft's business practices. Or that we're gullible to develop in.NET. I've got years of Java and.NET experience. Some projects call for one, some the other. When I design an application, I consider the advantages and trade offs of each one as it relates to the project and I make a decision.
In my opinion, what's really sad is platform zealots who make broad generalizations without providing any useful information.
It's a little late, but here's the official site. I clicked the link to the article, and most of my browser window was an ad. I had to scroll down to even scan (not read) TFA. Lame.
I don't think awareness is the issue. Even if it were common knowledge that buying certain CDs funds lawsuits against people who can't defend themselves with no money going to the artists who record those CDs, people would still buy those CDs. Why? Because people buy music that they want to listen to. Artists sign exclusive contracts with record labels for distribution of their recordings. If I want to own a certain song or album, I can only buy it from the label that owns or licenses it.
People want certain music. They don't want to be sued. They would like to think that by purchasing the music, they're supporting the musician. Which they are (at least a little). Even if they musician receives no money from the lawsuits, they probably got a dollar from the sale of a CD. So we continue to buy music. And why bother our consciences with thought of poor people getting sued?
It's the artists who need to break free from this system. Fortunately, these labels have been screwing artists long enough that a lot of them have enough personal motivation to look for alternatives to the current system. As their contracts expire, they are bailing on the labels. It's just a matter of time now.
I can't say I'm surprised either. If you look at their design philosophy, the first subheading is "Fast". Coming from a web/desktop development background, I was surprised at first to see the constant focus on efficiency. But apparently, it's paying off.
Please keep in mind that it's not a party that votes, it is individual people. While those individuals may claim to share a common ideology, a Senator's individual actions (or lack of action) should speak louder than his or her party affiliation. My senator, Ken Salazar (D - CO), also supported telecom immunity. While I do not know his reasoning for this decision, I do know his vote does not represent me or my interests. I have informed him of this and will consider it when his office is up for re-election.
I would argue that issues like this demonstrate that it matters now, more than ever, who you vote for. Party affiliation aside, I will vote at every opportunity to ensure that those persons who actually represent me are elected to office.
Sure, sharing information is optional; but it would be wise for Facebook to present more detail when installing 3rd party applications. Facebook's data service should require that an application specifies the information (on a field basis) that it wants to use before it can access the data. Facebook could then easily report to the user what information the application wants to use. This would give Facebook users a reasonable idea of whether the application appears trustworthy or not. It should also require a privacy policy from the application developer and at least link to it during install.
Actually, this goes for OpenSocial and any other Social Networking APIs as well.
The author of this article is an editor for PC Magazine. If you think about who has benefited most from DRM, it has been the technology and software companies that have identified and attempted to solve the problem of "protecting" copyright through software controls.
What it has done for musicians and the record labels is caused problems for the people who do actually pay them. As for consumers, it has limited their choice in digital music retailers and players. Meanwhile, the technology companies get paid for creating more sophisticated locks and keys (and sometimes get the additional benefit of extending / maintaining their monopolies in other areas of their business). These are the companies that give PC magazine things to write about, and buy advertising. Of course the sky is falling.
Worse yet, if you sign up for a subscription, you're saying that it's okay for the music service to wipe out your music collection if you cancel.
eMusic - "the largest subscription-based online music store" offers over 2.5 million songs in mp3 format. They've been in business since 1998, and the labels who offer their music on the site have not gone under yet. But then maybe Lance Ulanoff isn't paying attention. (Don't tell him. His head might explode)
Don't forget the weight of a bag / crate / flight case of records. Many of the records in your bag only have a couple of songs you want to play. The bag can only hold X records. You can carry a lot more songs per lb/kg if you carry them in a digital format.
And with big name DJs endorsing digital mixing tools, the ability to beatmatch 2 records on analog, direct drive turntables has become less significant. In fact, the DJs I know create their own mixes and edits of songs to differentiate their sets from other DJs. The easiest way for them to perform their custom remixes is digitally.
Enter Napster. Kids are copying music and distributing it over the internet. These corporations are now trying to sell a product that is often easier to get for free online. The iPod becomes the Walkman of the 00's. The labels fear P2P and mp3s and demand copy protection, which Apple offers them in the iTMS. Now they can sell their music online, which makes it easy to find, but control how it's copied and distributed. And it will play on the majority of players. Everything is getting back to normal, but they need more money. So they want to raise prices.
But things have changed. The labels no longer control the distribution channel of their product. Apple does. And Apple refuses to raise prices. The labels have tried other online stores, including creating their own (which is probably still their end goal), with little success because Apple will not license their copy protection, nor support other methods of copy protection on the iPod. While some governments are working to legislate this, the labels can not afford to wait for legislation to solve their problem. They are forced to make a choice.
Concede to Apple, sell all songs at a fixed price
Sell unprotected, iPod compatible files at other online retailers
Lose more market share
At the moment, the labels have opted to sell unprotected files on Amazon.com. If the labels can restore the retail market to at least what it was, then they can more tightly control the "authorized" distribution of their product. And for the unauthorized... While it doesn't accomplish their end goal of complete control of the distribution and retail sale of their music, it's a step closer. Apple loses some of its bargaining power, and the labels can call the shots again.
Option A will reinforce a reasonable business model that will benefit the industry, the artist, and you.
I disagree. While I would rather purchase non-DRM'd music over DRM'd music, simply because I like to play music on a number of devices; I don't believe the lack of DRM benefits artists. It may benefit me in the short term, but then again the labels might just be fattening me up to eat me. I would suggest that a solution that truly respects artist and consumer needs would: decentralize the production, marketing, and distribution chain; acknowledge that technology has lowered the cost of bringing an album to market, and pay artists appropriately; and stop intimidatinglaw abiding citizens.
I thought it was the the US Government, specifically the FCC forcing open wireless, if not for the entire network then for the 700 MHz spectrum that the wireless companies are trying to purchase. Google lobbied the government to get open access rules added for this spectrum.
I did find this amusing (emphasis mine):
The iPhone cracked open the carrier-centric structure of the wireless industry and unlocked a host of benefits for consumers
Funny choice of words because you have to crack the iPhone to unlock it for use on other networks.
Just a comment on the laziness of the banks: My wife and I each have a separate checking account and we have a joint account that we use for bills. Last year, I accidentally wrote our rent check from her personal account instead of the joint account. At the time we had completely different names, and the name I signed on the check didn't even resemble the name printed on the check. The bank cashed the check. Probably didn't even look at it.
I don't know why people go through all the trouble of identify theft and forgery, when all you need is a blank check.
While it's true that most of what occurs on social networks today -- getting friend requests from strangers and spam, building ugly home pages that play 10 different songs / videos simultaneously when they load, the ability to tell a computer about your social relationships does offer potential.
An example: I recently talked to a friend of mine who is in a band, runs a recording studio, and works in one of the few remaining independent brick and mortar music stores in Iowa and he claimed if you make music, you have to have a MySpace page. For a band to be able to market themselves worldwide via a digital "word of mouth" network is a significant shift from the previous model of signing with a large record label. People complain about signal to noise, but that's only a problem because the signal is so amplified.
If people had the ability to do more useful things with their social networks than tell everyone about their favorite movies, or post stupid comments or pictures on other pages, there is potential to create other distributed systems around our social relationships. To do that, we need access to the data we've created about our relationships. We need to simplify management of the relationships.
Aggregation and Integration is a start. A "garbage collector" would be nice. Mobile access would be good. A way to group and rank our relationships is a must. And we need an easy way to control access to our data. Most importantly, people need incentive to put accurate data on their networks. Give them the ability to do useful things with the data and we may see less of the popularity contest we currently have.
Slashdot Mirror
I would think that the cash prizes would offset the value of the hardware. Google was a offering 5 grand more than Apple. Macbooks don't cost that much. http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/03/googles-paying-20-000-to-hack-chrome-any-takers/
Correction: It was posted by googlenexus.
androiddev just posted on Twitter saying that a Gingerbread update - 2.3.3 is rolling to the Nexus S and Nexus One now. Supposedly, it could take a couple of weeks to hit all the devices.
I'll second the ReSharper. It's incredible.
As a side note, I live about 1.2 miles from the NBC tower and my over-the-air HDTV signal (for every channel) dropped dramatically last week. I wonder if the flag might be causing interference with other broadcasts. Anyone else notice this?
Or, if you are using Vista Media Center and are affected by the broadcast flag, just download VMC Netflix and play the "Watch Instantly" NBC shows on your TV, on demand, for no additional cost above and beyond your Netflix subscription. It works with xbox 360 extenders too.
I'm not usually a tinfoil hat type, but NBC and Microsoft have been associated in other news recently. I thought the idea of making an unpopular media player play less content than others is unlikely. The developers denied it: "We have no plans or commitments to implement any new type of content filtering in the Zune devices as part of our distribution deal with NBC." This could be an unfortunate coincidence, but I doubt it will be good for Zune sales.
Either way, if my time-shifted NBC shows stop playing, then I'll stop watching NBC. I hardly watch it anyways. Seems like a strange strategy for a media company though. Isn't the goal to have popular shows so they can sell more advertisements? How does reducing the number of viewers == "Profit"?? Especially since not everyone is skipping the ads
If the average voter doesn't care, are they likely to vote at all one way or another? Usually, I ignore that section because I don't know, don't care, or don't want to take the time to vote on the judges. (Judges don't run big campaigns) Maybe it's irresponsible, but if I have the option between making an uninformed decision and not making one at all, I'll usually choose the latter.
I live in Colorado. I will be voting to remove him from the bench in 2010. I'll probably also tell everyone I know to do the same. Then, hopefully, the people who are willing to vote to remove him will outnumber those willing to vote to keep him.
I'd say actions like this from vendors like Dell will simplify the issue for Microsoft. Dell can't sell XP. Dell sells Vista and gives away XP. Microsoft tallies another Vista sale, Dell sells a new computer, and the buyer gets XP. If the hardware vendors will pick up the slack, Microsoft has no reason to extend sales of XP.
Used CDs?
Ok. CDs cost money to produce, but the article is dated, and I think a more interesting question with respect to the cost of music is "how do the costs translate to online sales?" I am clearly guessing here, but if anyone else has real numbers, please reply. Given that everyone likes to talk about Radiohead's "In Rainbows", I'll base my estimates on that. The album has 10 songs, so...
Online Distribution (10 songs / CD)
$0.17 - Musicians' unions - no change
$0.22 - Packaging/manufacturing - 2% of revenue to license mp3 format for content distribution, AAC is free for distribution, don't know about Fairplay DRM.
$0.82 - Publishing royalties - no change
$1.00 - Retail profit - 12 @ $.10/song
$0.10 - Distribution - Bandwidth ~5MB/song (downloaded from Radiohead) = 50 MB * 0.0005/MB=$.025 (the estimate is for Video on Demand, but that's all I could find). I bumped it up a little to cover hardware maintenance.
$1.60 - Artists' royalties - no change
$1.70 - Label profit - no change
$2.40 - Marketing/promotion - no change
$2.91 - Label overhead - no change
$0.00 - Retail overhead - not sure
Total: $10.92
Apple sells "In Rainbows" for $9.99. Amazon sells it for $7.99 as a download. I don't believe Apple loses money on downloads. I'm not sure about Amazon. While this is strictly hypothetical, it would seem the difference between a $15 CD and a $10 downloaded album is more than just the cost of production and distribution of the CD. Assuming I'm not totally off on my numbers, and the numbers that aren't related to production and distribution do not change, it should not be possible for Apple to sell the record for $10 or Amazon for $8. I believe the pricing model must allow for online retailers to make a profit, so what makes up the difference? Are the labels giving up profits? Are they operating more efficiently than they used to?
You seem to have some idea in your head that .NET developers are unaware of Microsoft's business practices. Or that we're gullible to develop in .NET. I've got years of Java and .NET experience. Some projects call for one, some the other. When I design an application, I consider the advantages and trade offs of each one as it relates to the project and I make a decision.
In my opinion, what's really sad is platform zealots who make broad generalizations without providing any useful information.
It's a little late, but here's the official site. I clicked the link to the article, and most of my browser window was an ad. I had to scroll down to even scan (not read) TFA. Lame.
I don't think awareness is the issue. Even if it were common knowledge that buying certain CDs funds lawsuits against people who can't defend themselves with no money going to the artists who record those CDs, people would still buy those CDs. Why? Because people buy music that they want to listen to. Artists sign exclusive contracts with record labels for distribution of their recordings. If I want to own a certain song or album, I can only buy it from the label that owns or licenses it.
People want certain music. They don't want to be sued. They would like to think that by purchasing the music, they're supporting the musician. Which they are (at least a little). Even if they musician receives no money from the lawsuits, they probably got a dollar from the sale of a CD. So we continue to buy music. And why bother our consciences with thought of poor people getting sued?
It's the artists who need to break free from this system. Fortunately, these labels have been screwing artists long enough that a lot of them have enough personal motivation to look for alternatives to the current system. As their contracts expire, they are bailing on the labels. It's just a matter of time now.
Actually, there is a website that ties the RIAA to recordings you may be considering purchasing. They also give a detailed structure of record label ownership and reasons justifying inclusion / exclusion of controversial labels from their index.
I prefer the convenience of a search engine like RIAA radar, but if you don't trust it, you could always go straight to the source.
I can't say I'm surprised either. If you look at their design philosophy, the first subheading is "Fast". Coming from a web/desktop development background, I was surprised at first to see the constant focus on efficiency. But apparently, it's paying off.
Please keep in mind that it's not a party that votes, it is individual people. While those individuals may claim to share a common ideology, a Senator's individual actions (or lack of action) should speak louder than his or her party affiliation. My senator, Ken Salazar (D - CO), also supported telecom immunity. While I do not know his reasoning for this decision, I do know his vote does not represent me or my interests. I have informed him of this and will consider it when his office is up for re-election.
I would argue that issues like this demonstrate that it matters now, more than ever, who you vote for. Party affiliation aside, I will vote at every opportunity to ensure that those persons who actually represent me are elected to office.
Apathy will not solve our country's problems.Sure, sharing information is optional; but it would be wise for Facebook to present more detail when installing 3rd party applications. Facebook's data service should require that an application specifies the information (on a field basis) that it wants to use before it can access the data. Facebook could then easily report to the user what information the application wants to use. This would give Facebook users a reasonable idea of whether the application appears trustworthy or not. It should also require a privacy policy from the application developer and at least link to it during install.
Actually, this goes for OpenSocial and any other Social Networking APIs as well.
The author of this article is an editor for PC Magazine. If you think about who has benefited most from DRM, it has been the technology and software companies that have identified and attempted to solve the problem of "protecting" copyright through software controls.
What it has done for musicians and the record labels is caused problems for the people who do actually pay them. As for consumers, it has limited their choice in digital music retailers and players. Meanwhile, the technology companies get paid for creating more sophisticated locks and keys (and sometimes get the additional benefit of extending / maintaining their monopolies in other areas of their business). These are the companies that give PC magazine things to write about, and buy advertising. Of course the sky is falling.
Worse yet, if you sign up for a subscription, you're saying that it's okay for the music service to wipe out your music collection if you cancel.eMusic - "the largest subscription-based online music store" offers over 2.5 million songs in mp3 format. They've been in business since 1998, and the labels who offer their music on the site have not gone under yet. But then maybe Lance Ulanoff isn't paying attention. (Don't tell him. His head might explode)
Don't forget the weight of a bag / crate / flight case of records. Many of the records in your bag only have a couple of songs you want to play. The bag can only hold X records. You can carry a lot more songs per lb/kg if you carry them in a digital format.
And with big name DJs endorsing digital mixing tools, the ability to beatmatch 2 records on analog, direct drive turntables has become less significant. In fact, the DJs I know create their own mixes and edits of songs to differentiate their sets from other DJs. The easiest way for them to perform their custom remixes is digitally.
Enter Napster. Kids are copying music and distributing it over the internet. These corporations are now trying to sell a product that is often easier to get for free online. The iPod becomes the Walkman of the 00's. The labels fear P2P and mp3s and demand copy protection, which Apple offers them in the iTMS. Now they can sell their music online, which makes it easy to find, but control how it's copied and distributed. And it will play on the majority of players. Everything is getting back to normal, but they need more money. So they want to raise prices.
But things have changed. The labels no longer control the distribution channel of their product. Apple does. And Apple refuses to raise prices. The labels have tried other online stores, including creating their own (which is probably still their end goal), with little success because Apple will not license their copy protection, nor support other methods of copy protection on the iPod. While some governments are working to legislate this, the labels can not afford to wait for legislation to solve their problem. They are forced to make a choice.
At the moment, the labels have opted to sell unprotected files on Amazon.com. If the labels can restore the retail market to at least what it was, then they can more tightly control the "authorized" distribution of their product. And for the unauthorized... While it doesn't accomplish their end goal of complete control of the distribution and retail sale of their music, it's a step closer. Apple loses some of its bargaining power, and the labels can call the shots again.
I disagree. While I would rather purchase non-DRM'd music over DRM'd music, simply because I like to play music on a number of devices; I don't believe the lack of DRM benefits artists. It may benefit me in the short term, but then again the labels might just be fattening me up to eat me. I would suggest that a solution that truly respects artist and consumer needs would: decentralize the production, marketing, and distribution chain; acknowledge that technology has lowered the cost of bringing an album to market, and pay artists appropriately; and stop intimidating law abiding citizens.
To accomplish this, we must:
By doing this, the artists get paid more, you often get DRM-free music, and innocent people
I did find this amusing (emphasis mine): Funny choice of words because you have to crack the iPhone to unlock it for use on other networks.
Just a comment on the laziness of the banks: My wife and I each have a separate checking account and we have a joint account that we use for bills. Last year, I accidentally wrote our rent check from her personal account instead of the joint account. At the time we had completely different names, and the name I signed on the check didn't even resemble the name printed on the check. The bank cashed the check. Probably didn't even look at it.
I don't know why people go through all the trouble of identify theft and forgery, when all you need is a blank check.
Perhaps they just got a little confused about the offshoring trend...
While it's true that most of what occurs on social networks today -- getting friend requests from strangers and spam, building ugly home pages that play 10 different songs / videos simultaneously when they load, the ability to tell a computer about your social relationships does offer potential.
An example: I recently talked to a friend of mine who is in a band, runs a recording studio, and works in one of the few remaining independent brick and mortar music stores in Iowa and he claimed if you make music, you have to have a MySpace page. For a band to be able to market themselves worldwide via a digital "word of mouth" network is a significant shift from the previous model of signing with a large record label. People complain about signal to noise, but that's only a problem because the signal is so amplified.
If people had the ability to do more useful things with their social networks than tell everyone about their favorite movies, or post stupid comments or pictures on other pages, there is potential to create other distributed systems around our social relationships. To do that, we need access to the data we've created about our relationships. We need to simplify management of the relationships.
Aggregation and Integration is a start. A "garbage collector" would be nice. Mobile access would be good. A way to group and rank our relationships is a must. And we need an easy way to control access to our data. Most importantly, people need incentive to put accurate data on their networks. Give them the ability to do useful things with the data and we may see less of the popularity contest we currently have.