"All in all, it was a terrible experience. The "3D" effect was marginally better than the old red/blue method at best, and completely ineffective at worst. My eyes felt like they were about to pop out. I'll never watch another movie with that technology again."
I'm sorry to hear that. I had a good experience recently when I saw Open Season at the IMAX theater. The glasses they had were nice. They weren't the cereal-box glasses that you get at the Muppet 3D adventure. These were more comfortable and even worked over my glasses without the "hold the glasses to your head" technique. Also, the 3D was nice and subtle. It was enough to percieve the characters over the background, but we were (mostly) spared the "stuff flying right at you" gimmicks commonly seen in 3D movies. Also, it appears they had maintained the calibration on the projectors. I get the feeling this doesn't happen as often as it should. I've seen some 3D movies where it looks like it drifted a bit, and that causes effects like you've described.
I have high hopes for stereo projection after seeing this movie, but reading your post made me realize that in the main stream, 'cheap' and 'low-quality' will ultimately hurt the experience.
"If you blame the U.S. Government why stop there? Who put that government there I wonder? Whoops, that was the people of the United States."
Right. If the people had any way of reliably knowing what an elected politician was going to do while in office, there'd be no such thing as a corrupt democratic gov't.
"What if you end up a bit poorer? if you were buying music you'd just stop buying more and coast along with what you've got, if you were renting you'd lose your music collection completely until you subscribed again"
The same could be said for Cable TV.
"what if your provider cranks up prices and you see a better deal elsewhere but you really can't face the thought of re-finding and re-downloading your entire collection or you simply don't have the bandwidth to re-download it in a reasonbale time?"
Most subscription services use streaming instead of downloading. You won't be re-downloading lots of stuff. Just click and go. As for re-finding, reasonable point, but these subscription services work by making it easy to find music to begin with. For the record, I've had Rhapsody for four years, I haven't experienced a price hike.
"what if you are looking get a new portable player. don't you want the full choice of the market rather than being tied to a smaller selection of player makers (granted this applies to online buying too right now but that looks set to change whereas renting looks like it will always be drm)."
The academic answer to this question is 'yes'. In reality, I'm not sure why it matters so much. I have a Sansa hooked up to Rhapsody and it also plays MP3s. It only cost $120. It does the job quite nicely. It wouldn't work with a video iPod. Oh well, I can't get a video iPod that has a subscription service.
"What if you want to switch OS, possiblly to one which doesn't support drm?"
What if a meteorite falls from the sky, crashes into your office, and hits your computer just hard enough to prevent anything but pay music from playing?
Okay, I'm being silly, but your questions are a bit extreme. It's not like purchasing the music is all sunshine and roses, either. Ever have a hard drive failure? Ever try to sync your music between your desktop and laptop? (That one's fun if you find music using both machines.) Ever buy a song and find out you really wish you hadn't? Ever go sifting through your collection to simplify it because either you have lots of music you don't care about anymore or the MP3 player you bought doesn't have adequate storage? Ever have a friend recommend music, but you wanted to hear it before buying it?
Your mileage may vary, but I've had all this happen. I tried Rhapsody more out of curiosity than anything else. Didn't think much would come from it. Not long later, I ditched the MP3 collection and with with it almost exclusively. I don't have to make backups anymore. I can try out any song I want without concern about whether I'll like it or not. I can use it on the desktop, laptop, or work computer without having to shift gigs of files around. I can get rid of the stuff I don't like anymore and keep the stuff I want up front. Etc. It's not perfect. There are reasons why it's not for everybody. But there are people like me out there that it makes sense for.
"If you download more than 100 songs per year or download more than 10 albums, renting is generally a better deal IF you believe that (as a general rule) you will want to continue download at that level or higher for the foreseable future."
You're right, but it's more complicated than that. I've been a Rhapsody subscriber since... oh... 2003. I went that route for a few reasons. 1.) I can always go find new music. If a friend says 'this song is good', I'm listening to it 20 seconds later. 2.) I'm near an internet-connected computer most of my waking life. I also work across 3 different machines. Work, home, laptop. Because I use a subscription service, I don't have to have gigs of backups or situations where I have some music on one computer and different music on another. I used to do that, and man it's a headache. Hard drive failures, for example, used to be rather stressful. 3.) I go through music. I have a few songs on my playlist that I had back in 03, but not many. I keep finding new stuff and listening to it. 4.) $10 a month is a lot less than I used to spend on music. 5.) I can still buy the music if I like. I've never done that, but even if I did, there's always iTunes. 6.) I rarely like a song the first time I hear it. I certainly don't find much use in hearing a 30 second clip. The subscription service allows me to plop a few songs in and see how I like them over time. I may not represent the majority, here, but I've found a number of songs that I had to 'get into'. Subscription makes perfect sense to me. I seriously doubt I'm in some minor niche, considering all the CableTV subscribers out there.
Frankly, I think Jobs is both right and wrong. I don't think many people care about subscription music. I also think that's because they haven't been exposed to it. If what I've seen from Slashdot postings is any indication, I don't think most people even get it. "But I don't own it!" Okay, fine, think of it is access to a huge database of music. Find what you want, go buy the copies you really want to keep. Paying a few bucks a month to listen to this music may turn some people off, but I don't think blindly buying music makes much more economic sense. Unless you've heard the song you're buying, you're basically just opening your mouth and closing your eyes. At least with a subscription model like Rhapsody's, you're getting the whole song along with access to thousands of others.
To each is own, but I completely agree with your comment about consumers wanting what gives them the best deal. The only thing I'd add to that is consumers need convincing. I don't think Jobs has tried the subscription service. I think that if he did, Apple could brainstorm a really interesting way to work that out. In other words, Apple could make it work, if they could just see past their own rationalizations. Heck, it was that sort of thinking that got iTunes off the ground despite the *AA's misgivings about it.
If you ask me, Jobs is being really short-sighted. Unfortunately we'll never know until Apple actually tries.
That or Wiki. It'd be interesting to go back to the 60's and describe what computing's like today. No flying cars, but we are living in the 'fuuutuuuurrre'.
My dad told me a story about a friend of his that purchased a Sinclair. He was so excited to have a computer. He hooked it up, turned it on, and thought he'd ask it a simple question. "Who was the first president of the United States?""SYNTAX ERROR" What?! My dad explained to him that he had to write a program to tell the computer how to answer that question. "Well if I have to tell it what I already know, what's the point?"!
Yeah, he didn't get it. Actually, I imagine he's a lot more into computers these days. Finally got what he wanted, twenty years later.
"Nintendo has sued Lik Sang not so long ago, for selling "backup" hardware."
That's true. I love Nintendo, but that sucked.
"The region locking by Nintendo is a good case in point -- not very consumer friendly, is it? "
What's funny about this is if you go up a couple of posts, the argument is that Sony's using DRM like everybody else. Heh. In any event, okay, point to Sony. So what now? Sony has a lot to do to recover their image. Nintendo turned it around, Sony can too. Heck, Sony even has the benefit of seeing what works. Now if only they'd decide to think about it. Instead, we get BS like this.
"But the problem was that the images that it saved were so overcompressed that they looked worse than what you could do with the old 1-megapixel-save-to-a-floppy-disk cameras that they had 10 years ago. So while you can't lie about specs, they don't really have to tell you everything about the product."
Right. But if I'm looking for a camera that uses a particular type of memory or comes with a rechargable battery... well now I'm curious how they'd lie about that. Heh.
"This will only get worse because they insist on the stupid DRM schemes. If a drive crashes you can usually recover a fair portion of the data, if the drive is heavily encrypted and the crash takes out the key to your cipher, then you are fairly fucked."
DRM is for mass-market items like DVDs, not master copies. I hate DRM as much as the next guy but let's not take this to a level of silliness.
"I have a to take a picture, possibly be charged depending on my mobile plan and if I choose that route, and then be tracked by Microsoft and the end company and then go to a website that would have been easier to just type in?"
I went digital camera shopping not too long ago. Wasn't really planning on it, I was at Best Buy and saw some interesting cameras. I ended up pulling out my phone and taking photos of the little placards they have on them with the model number and price, then I went back home and looked them up. If I could have taken photos of the barcodes and had the phone or computer go find the pages, it would have simplified things a lot. And, no, it wouldn't have cost me any money extra.
Not the greatest feature ever, but I wouldn't label it as 'dumb'.
"I'm also arguing that to claim "lack of choice" is stupid when nobody is being forced to buy an iPhone."
It's an important point if you're in the process of deciding you want an iPhone. Nothing stupid about that.
"If the ability to run third-party email clients just in case you don't like the included one, don't buy a phone that doesn't have it."
That wasn't his original point. The fact is, you won't know until you've had one for a bit if it's going to suit you. That's why having a backup option like "alternative apps are being made for it" is a good thing. As a computer user, you should understand this: The purchase decision isn't some binary yes or no thing, it's a matter of the pros and cons. On the plus side, the iPhone has this, this and that. On the con side, it doesn't have this or that or Apple's policies are questionable until I have knowledge of the future.
"I think it's the culture of indifference that caused this to grow inside an emotionally unstable loner. It has nothing to do with the music he listened to, games he played, or lack of prayer in schools. Society did nothing more than try to ignore him, while he finally refused to be ignored. "
I think if society were really so much to blame, we'd have a lot more of these shootings. I would agree that society has room to improve, but I think some of the responsibility rests on this guy's shoulders for not doing something more proactive about it. At some point in our lives, we've all met that 'loser' that only needed to do a couple of things to dig himself out.
"While we're talking about Wii games, did you know that they are region-locked, while evil Sony PS3 games are not? What do you make of that?"
It reminds me that Sony got Lik Sang shut down.
"The *only* Sony act that stands out (that they've been caught at) in recent times is the infamous rootkit fiasco, and that was clearly them only taking the DRM that every major media company is pushing to the next logical level. "
No, that is not the only act. You've missed a good deal of stuff, especially over the last year. I find that amazing considering Slashdot's own involvement in getting the news out there.
"If you are still not convinced, then I'm afraid I cannot help you, and the GP was correct in his bandwagon assertions."
You could help me if you were to put up a convincing argument. And, no. GP is not correct. Sharing his ignorance doesn't mean he's right.
"Why are we not applauding them for biting the bullet, actually fixing the problem and replacing the affected discs which a lot of companies wouldn't do?"
A lot of companies wouldn't do? Just off the top of my head, I can think of two examples: When Back to the Future was released on DVD, the panning for the full screen version was messed up. The discs were recalled and re-released. People who purchased copies of it got a replacement. The Twilight Princess for the Wii had a bug in it that could cause a player to get stuck. Nintendo's now offering free replacements of the game. I'd bet that if I hopped on Google, I'd find more examples of that. But is that really the issue? I don't think so. They twiddled with copy restriction, which in reality has a harder effect on legit users than pirates, and some of their own players couldn't even handle it. Then they went on to claim there were dizzyingly few complaints about it. Bit the bullet? They're still using the scheme and claiming virtually nobody was really affected.
"Is everybody just so firmly strapped to the Anti-Sony bandwagon that it's impossible for anything sony does to be met with anything but derision and petty insults?"
*Sigh* Anti-Sony bandwagon. I love it. Sony racks up numerous complaints over the course of a year, but really it's just a fad. Right? You would think with all the bad PR, especially surrounding copy restriction, they'd pull back a bit. Instead they just keep getting into mischief. Yet there's always somebody who says "I don't understand, so you must be some group of crazy people." Whatever. The next time you stay up late one night pondering Sony's predicament, at least try to give everybody a little credit and assume they weren't born with S0N3 SUXX0Rs tattooed to their forehead.
Slashdot Mirror
"I think I speak for most of us when I say .... (Score:-1, Redundant)"
Ha ha!
"All in all, it was a terrible experience. The "3D" effect was marginally better than the old red/blue method at best, and completely ineffective at worst. My eyes felt like they were about to pop out. I'll never watch another movie with that technology again."
I'm sorry to hear that. I had a good experience recently when I saw Open Season at the IMAX theater. The glasses they had were nice. They weren't the cereal-box glasses that you get at the Muppet 3D adventure. These were more comfortable and even worked over my glasses without the "hold the glasses to your head" technique. Also, the 3D was nice and subtle. It was enough to percieve the characters over the background, but we were (mostly) spared the "stuff flying right at you" gimmicks commonly seen in 3D movies. Also, it appears they had maintained the calibration on the projectors. I get the feeling this doesn't happen as often as it should. I've seen some 3D movies where it looks like it drifted a bit, and that causes effects like you've described.
I have high hopes for stereo projection after seeing this movie, but reading your post made me realize that in the main stream, 'cheap' and 'low-quality' will ultimately hurt the experience.
"If you blame the U.S. Government why stop there? Who put that government there I wonder? Whoops, that was the people of the United States."
Right. If the people had any way of reliably knowing what an elected politician was going to do while in office, there'd be no such thing as a corrupt democratic gov't.
"What if you end up a bit poorer? if you were buying music you'd just stop buying more and coast along with what you've got, if you were renting you'd lose your music collection completely until you subscribed again"
The same could be said for Cable TV.
"what if your provider cranks up prices and you see a better deal elsewhere but you really can't face the thought of re-finding and re-downloading your entire collection or you simply don't have the bandwidth to re-download it in a reasonbale time?"
Most subscription services use streaming instead of downloading. You won't be re-downloading lots of stuff. Just click and go. As for re-finding, reasonable point, but these subscription services work by making it easy to find music to begin with. For the record, I've had Rhapsody for four years, I haven't experienced a price hike.
"what if you are looking get a new portable player. don't you want the full choice of the market rather than being tied to a smaller selection of player makers (granted this applies to online buying too right now but that looks set to change whereas renting looks like it will always be drm)."
The academic answer to this question is 'yes'. In reality, I'm not sure why it matters so much. I have a Sansa hooked up to Rhapsody and it also plays MP3s. It only cost $120. It does the job quite nicely. It wouldn't work with a video iPod. Oh well, I can't get a video iPod that has a subscription service.
"What if you want to switch OS, possiblly to one which doesn't support drm?"
What if a meteorite falls from the sky, crashes into your office, and hits your computer just hard enough to prevent anything but pay music from playing?
Okay, I'm being silly, but your questions are a bit extreme. It's not like purchasing the music is all sunshine and roses, either. Ever have a hard drive failure? Ever try to sync your music between your desktop and laptop? (That one's fun if you find music using both machines.) Ever buy a song and find out you really wish you hadn't? Ever go sifting through your collection to simplify it because either you have lots of music you don't care about anymore or the MP3 player you bought doesn't have adequate storage? Ever have a friend recommend music, but you wanted to hear it before buying it?
Your mileage may vary, but I've had all this happen. I tried Rhapsody more out of curiosity than anything else. Didn't think much would come from it. Not long later, I ditched the MP3 collection and with with it almost exclusively. I don't have to make backups anymore. I can try out any song I want without concern about whether I'll like it or not. I can use it on the desktop, laptop, or work computer without having to shift gigs of files around. I can get rid of the stuff I don't like anymore and keep the stuff I want up front. Etc. It's not perfect. There are reasons why it's not for everybody. But there are people like me out there that it makes sense for.
"Apple doesnt need to try renting music. There have been dozens of other companies that have tried it, and many of them are out of business."
That can be said of any business entering any market, including Apple in many cases.
"That makes him wise, not short-sighted."
It's not my intention to be argumentative here, but Apple is hardly a company that plays it safe.
"If you download more than 100 songs per year or download more than 10 albums, renting is generally a better deal IF you believe that (as a general rule) you will want to continue download at that level or higher for the foreseable future."
You're right, but it's more complicated than that. I've been a Rhapsody subscriber since... oh... 2003. I went that route for a few reasons. 1.) I can always go find new music. If a friend says 'this song is good', I'm listening to it 20 seconds later. 2.) I'm near an internet-connected computer most of my waking life. I also work across 3 different machines. Work, home, laptop. Because I use a subscription service, I don't have to have gigs of backups or situations where I have some music on one computer and different music on another. I used to do that, and man it's a headache. Hard drive failures, for example, used to be rather stressful. 3.) I go through music. I have a few songs on my playlist that I had back in 03, but not many. I keep finding new stuff and listening to it. 4.) $10 a month is a lot less than I used to spend on music. 5.) I can still buy the music if I like. I've never done that, but even if I did, there's always iTunes. 6.) I rarely like a song the first time I hear it. I certainly don't find much use in hearing a 30 second clip. The subscription service allows me to plop a few songs in and see how I like them over time. I may not represent the majority, here, but I've found a number of songs that I had to 'get into'. Subscription makes perfect sense to me. I seriously doubt I'm in some minor niche, considering all the CableTV subscribers out there.
Frankly, I think Jobs is both right and wrong. I don't think many people care about subscription music. I also think that's because they haven't been exposed to it. If what I've seen from Slashdot postings is any indication, I don't think most people even get it. "But I don't own it!" Okay, fine, think of it is access to a huge database of music. Find what you want, go buy the copies you really want to keep. Paying a few bucks a month to listen to this music may turn some people off, but I don't think blindly buying music makes much more economic sense. Unless you've heard the song you're buying, you're basically just opening your mouth and closing your eyes. At least with a subscription model like Rhapsody's, you're getting the whole song along with access to thousands of others.
To each is own, but I completely agree with your comment about consumers wanting what gives them the best deal. The only thing I'd add to that is consumers need convincing. I don't think Jobs has tried the subscription service. I think that if he did, Apple could brainstorm a really interesting way to work that out. In other words, Apple could make it work, if they could just see past their own rationalizations. Heck, it was that sort of thinking that got iTunes off the ground despite the *AA's misgivings about it.
If you ask me, Jobs is being really short-sighted. Unfortunately we'll never know until Apple actually tries.
I think I've just figured out where the Simpsons are going next.
That or Wiki. It'd be interesting to go back to the 60's and describe what computing's like today. No flying cars, but we are living in the 'fuuutuuuurrre'.
"Oh yeah? Well, Chuck Norris can create a thicker oxide layer with a well-placed roundhouse kick. :D"
Oh yeah? Well, Vin Diesel could pronounce Kryptonite.
My dad told me a story about a friend of his that purchased a Sinclair. He was so excited to have a computer. He hooked it up, turned it on, and thought he'd ask it a simple question. "Who was the first president of the United States?" "SYNTAX ERROR" What?! My dad explained to him that he had to write a program to tell the computer how to answer that question. "Well if I have to tell it what I already know, what's the point?"!
Yeah, he didn't get it. Actually, I imagine he's a lot more into computers these days. Finally got what he wanted, twenty years later.
"You probably meant UPLOADED to Iran. Or, downloaded FROM Iran. (Score:3, Insightful)"
I can't believe somebody spent a mod point on this comment.
"Nintendo has sued Lik Sang not so long ago, for selling "backup" hardware."
That's true. I love Nintendo, but that sucked.
"The region locking by Nintendo is a good case in point -- not very consumer friendly, is it? "
What's funny about this is if you go up a couple of posts, the argument is that Sony's using DRM like everybody else. Heh. In any event, okay, point to Sony. So what now? Sony has a lot to do to recover their image. Nintendo turned it around, Sony can too. Heck, Sony even has the benefit of seeing what works. Now if only they'd decide to think about it. Instead, we get BS like this.
"But the problem was that the images that it saved were so overcompressed that they looked worse than what you could do with the old 1-megapixel-save-to-a-floppy-disk cameras that they had 10 years ago. So while you can't lie about specs, they don't really have to tell you everything about the product."
Right. But if I'm looking for a camera that uses a particular type of memory or comes with a rechargable battery... well now I'm curious how they'd lie about that. Heh.
Seriously, gimme a little credit, will ya?
"This will only get worse because they insist on the stupid DRM schemes. If a drive crashes you can usually recover a fair portion of the data, if the drive is heavily encrypted and the crash takes out the key to your cipher, then you are fairly fucked."
DRM is for mass-market items like DVDs, not master copies. I hate DRM as much as the next guy but let's not take this to a level of silliness.
"But these codes probably would have taken you to the manufacturer's site, full of marketing hype and lies."
They can't lie about specifications. If the specs are interesting, then I can find my way to reviews. Very simple and convenient.
"I have a to take a picture, possibly be charged depending on my mobile plan and if I choose that route, and then be tracked by Microsoft and the end company and then go to a website that would have been easier to just type in?"
I went digital camera shopping not too long ago. Wasn't really planning on it, I was at Best Buy and saw some interesting cameras. I ended up pulling out my phone and taking photos of the little placards they have on them with the model number and price, then I went back home and looked them up. If I could have taken photos of the barcodes and had the phone or computer go find the pages, it would have simplified things a lot. And, no, it wouldn't have cost me any money extra.
Not the greatest feature ever, but I wouldn't label it as 'dumb'.
"I'm also arguing that to claim "lack of choice" is stupid when nobody is being forced to buy an iPhone."
It's an important point if you're in the process of deciding you want an iPhone. Nothing stupid about that.
"If the ability to run third-party email clients just in case you don't like the included one, don't buy a phone that doesn't have it."
That wasn't his original point. The fact is, you won't know until you've had one for a bit if it's going to suit you. That's why having a backup option like "alternative apps are being made for it" is a good thing. As a computer user, you should understand this: The purchase decision isn't some binary yes or no thing, it's a matter of the pros and cons. On the plus side, the iPhone has this, this and that. On the con side, it doesn't have this or that or Apple's policies are questionable until I have knowledge of the future.
"You're arguing that a hypothetical bug in an unreleased product makes Windows Mobile better?"
You're arguing that lack of choice is a good thing?
"I think it's the culture of indifference that caused this to grow inside an emotionally unstable loner. It has nothing to do with the music he listened to, games he played, or lack of prayer in schools. Society did nothing more than try to ignore him, while he finally refused to be ignored. "
I think if society were really so much to blame, we'd have a lot more of these shootings. I would agree that society has room to improve, but I think some of the responsibility rests on this guy's shoulders for not doing something more proactive about it. At some point in our lives, we've all met that 'loser' that only needed to do a couple of things to dig himself out.
"While we're talking about Wii games, did you know that they are region-locked, while evil Sony PS3 games are not? What do you make of that?"
It reminds me that Sony got Lik Sang shut down.
"The *only* Sony act that stands out (that they've been caught at) in recent times is the infamous rootkit fiasco, and that was clearly them only taking the DRM that every major media company is pushing to the next logical level. "
No, that is not the only act. You've missed a good deal of stuff, especially over the last year. I find that amazing considering Slashdot's own involvement in getting the news out there.
"If you are still not convinced, then I'm afraid I cannot help you, and the GP was correct in his bandwagon assertions."
You could help me if you were to put up a convincing argument. And, no. GP is not correct. Sharing his ignorance doesn't mean he's right.
"England and France are fairly stable compared to the "ring of fire"."
That reminds me, I haven't gone to Taco Bell in a while.
"Fuck you Mod, the guy is a troll, nothing more!"
You're the one blowing a gasket over the use of a term that's not only common, but useful in this context. Grow up.
"SKU isn't a word, thus it cannot be the right word."
Wow that rationalization gave me a headache. I hope you never use the term laser.
"What's with the need to refer to different models as SKU? Do people think it makes them sound hip and informed?"
... oooh shiny!!" so they wouldn't lose you.
I'd imagine because it's the right term for it. I suppose they could call it "black box
"Why are we not applauding them for biting the bullet, actually fixing the problem and replacing the affected discs which a lot of companies wouldn't do?"
A lot of companies wouldn't do? Just off the top of my head, I can think of two examples: When Back to the Future was released on DVD, the panning for the full screen version was messed up. The discs were recalled and re-released. People who purchased copies of it got a replacement. The Twilight Princess for the Wii had a bug in it that could cause a player to get stuck. Nintendo's now offering free replacements of the game. I'd bet that if I hopped on Google, I'd find more examples of that. But is that really the issue? I don't think so. They twiddled with copy restriction, which in reality has a harder effect on legit users than pirates, and some of their own players couldn't even handle it. Then they went on to claim there were dizzyingly few complaints about it. Bit the bullet? They're still using the scheme and claiming virtually nobody was really affected.
"Is everybody just so firmly strapped to the Anti-Sony bandwagon that it's impossible for anything sony does to be met with anything but derision and petty insults?"
*Sigh* Anti-Sony bandwagon. I love it. Sony racks up numerous complaints over the course of a year, but really it's just a fad. Right? You would think with all the bad PR, especially surrounding copy restriction, they'd pull back a bit. Instead they just keep getting into mischief. Yet there's always somebody who says "I don't understand, so you must be some group of crazy people." Whatever. The next time you stay up late one night pondering Sony's predicament, at least try to give everybody a little credit and assume they weren't born with S0N3 SUXX0Rs tattooed to their forehead.