I know this might fly in the face of those who see a "tablet" PC as something akin to a laptop, but I think there is quite a market for a Mac that acts as a desktop computer but that has a touch/pen enabled screen. As a designer, I find myself drooling at the prospect of finally being able to have a true digital pen medium where I can draw and paint right on my screen and see the results in realtime just as though I were using a pen and paper. Wacom tried this a while back, but the price point was so ridiculous that only a handful of starving artists could actually afford the things. Even integrating Apple's touch technology into the current desktop mix would create a whole new way of computing... And we all know how Jobs loves that.
Um... When you buy an iPhone, you buy a set of firmware for that phone. If you turn your iPhone into an iBananna, it hardly seems intelligent to bitch about how a new firmware set for the iPhone no longer works with your iBananna.
People in the Mac community are so used to Apple products "just working" that they have an entitlement complex. "It's from Apple, so 'their' updates should always work with 'their' products... never mind that I changed the firmware, overclocked the cpu, swapped video card, and painted pink flowers all over the case."
Radio? Damn, I can't remember the last time I turned on my radio to listen to music. Why would I want to? When technology has provided me the means to listen to what I want when I want it, anywhere I choose to, why should I be forced to listen to 90% crap for that lucky ten percent I DO like? Something new?? Maybe, but word of mouth influences what I look into WAY more than suffering through hours of listening hell ever would.
The radio paradigm is DEAD.
Seems to me that Jobs is simply stating that it's all or nothing. Either they (the online music industry as a whole) have to completely remove DRM from the marketplace, or live with it and shut up. Personally, I think he really would like to get rid of it. Why not? Saves the company millions in server time for encoding and constant vigilance to stay ahead of the crackers. Hell, the savings in legal costs alone would make it worth the switch. Lock in? Whatever. 99% of my music isn't locked in. I play all my music on my Palm.
Why are people blaming Apple for DRM? Do you blame the distributor (Tower Records) of a physical CD for the album cover art? Anyone with half a brain knows that Apple has to cater to the music labels. Just because they have sold more songs than anyone else doesn't make them the biggest supporter of DRM. It doesn't even make them the richest, as the labels are still basking in that glory. Artists? They hardly even show up on the scope...
And who is more likely to get that random cavity search, the touring Swiss couple who don't give a damn about their privacy risk, or the scruffy looking nerd who's passport just happens to have a non-functional RFID chip?
Of course, he'll only be able to go if he books it six months in advance and the flight is on a Tuesday after 8 PM. And he'll have to fly coach (ie: cargo).
I wonder why Hawking is asking that particular question? I mean, he IS a genius. Most if not all of the answers he'll get have got to be things he's already considered in depth. Is he fishing for something outrageously new? Testing the water? Or maybe just getting the public to think about it seriously?
Geez, a workday drive on almost any SoCal freeway could have told you the same thing ten years ago. Every time I go to work I feel like I'm driving with a bunch of six-year-olds. Self-centered, arrogant, and rude to excess. Driving skills to match...
You're absolutely right, and the perfect example of this is Verizon charging.25 cents per text message. What is a text message to their bandwidth costs when they're offering freakin video to your phone? Clearly, their pricing structure is based on charging what the market will bear, and not on costs for services. Why would it be any different if your ISP could charge you a premium for say, email?
Their whois record only tells you where the domain is registered, not where the server is located. And even then, going to "itunes.no" only takes you to apple's homepage, not their music store.
The iPod is a piece of hardware. "iTunes" is a piece of software for your computer. ITMS is a music service. You can buy an iPod and never use the online store. I haven't. If you choose to use the music service, which is in the U.S., then you choose to accept the U.S. terms of service, including their DRM.
It's not like you can't put your own CD's on your iPod. It's only downloaded music that is restricted. I wish they didn't have to use DRM, but do you honestly think that people wouldn't just download the songs they like and pass them around to everyone else they know with an MP3 player? Sure, they do that now with CD's, but $18 instead of.99 cents is a large enough deterrent for most people that they might think twice about handing out freebies. By restricting the use of the music, Apple not only locks in it's market share (because, yes, you do need Apple hardware to play music purchased in the U.S.) but it also vastly increases it's revenue because more people will download a given song (at least in theory).
We can complain about DRM all we want, but from a business perspective, it does work.
As someone mentioned, just clicking a button won't protect you. But if they go through the process of signing up for an account, then they have to accept the terms of the site as a product and should be protected by law.
That's the whole point. Right now, it's a free for all for anybody with a lawyer and a similar product/process/look/idea. If you sue another corporation and loose, all you loose are lawyers fees. If you have a seriously legit claim, then you won't loose. But companies like creative can sue a bigger entity like Apple and get three months of cheap publicity. They may even force Apple into settling just to shut them up (negative publicity is expensive too). But if you tack on a penalty (say, twice the total fees paid to your lawyers) then it would encourage companies to think twice about filing a suit five years after a product has been on the market.
There needs to be something to keep this nonsense under control. A whopping fine if you sue and loose might be a decent enough incentive, and might make a few bucks for the government as well.
What makes you assume that I haven't taken steps to verify or discount the message? Every "fact" presented to you is going to have spin. The very same set of data can often be shown to verify or discount a given position simply by exclusion or interpretation.
So yes, the character of the messenger matters. Is it ALL important? Not really, unless you are looking for an unbiased interpretation of the data.
And there are no "actual facts" in McAfee's report. Only their own internal data, (which we have no way to verify), and references to someone else's data (which is completely open to interpretation). Is it just spin? Who knows, but I seriously doubt McAfee is going to go out of their way to let you know when you don't need their software. I might believe some of what they say, taking it with a grain of salt, or not. But it doesn't make me ignorant.
Mind you, this is the very same company that not two month ago had the following slashdot headline:
I'm sorry, but McAfee putting out a security report is like Exxon putting out an environmental assessment for Alaskan drilling. Slight conflict of interest there. It doesn't matter who they quote. They simply cannot be trusted because making a profit will always be their number one priority.
No, the irony is that anyone sitting there watching the "don't steal" commercials has most likely PAID for their DVD and isn't a pirate. They're preaching to the choir.
I'm going to wait a couple of months after release and then file a lawsuit claiming damage to my hearing from an unsafe product. Since I can't turn it off, this should be an easy win.
The problem is that the movie industry wants us to equate "the movie experience" with going to see an orchestra at a concert hall (you end up paying about the same price anyway...). But when was the last time you went to hear Mozart and they assaulted you with 20 minutes of television commercials?
Slashdot Mirror
I know this might fly in the face of those who see a "tablet" PC as something akin to a laptop, but I think there is quite a market for a Mac that acts as a desktop computer but that has a touch/pen enabled screen. As a designer, I find myself drooling at the prospect of finally being able to have a true digital pen medium where I can draw and paint right on my screen and see the results in realtime just as though I were using a pen and paper. Wacom tried this a while back, but the price point was so ridiculous that only a handful of starving artists could actually afford the things. Even integrating Apple's touch technology into the current desktop mix would create a whole new way of computing... And we all know how Jobs loves that.
Um... When you buy an iPhone, you buy a set of firmware for that phone. If you turn your iPhone into an iBananna, it hardly seems intelligent to bitch about how a new firmware set for the iPhone no longer works with your iBananna. People in the Mac community are so used to Apple products "just working" that they have an entitlement complex. "It's from Apple, so 'their' updates should always work with 'their' products... never mind that I changed the firmware, overclocked the cpu, swapped video card, and painted pink flowers all over the case."
Radio? Damn, I can't remember the last time I turned on my radio to listen to music. Why would I want to? When technology has provided me the means to listen to what I want when I want it, anywhere I choose to, why should I be forced to listen to 90% crap for that lucky ten percent I DO like? Something new?? Maybe, but word of mouth influences what I look into WAY more than suffering through hours of listening hell ever would. The radio paradigm is DEAD.
Seems to me that Jobs is simply stating that it's all or nothing. Either they (the online music industry as a whole) have to completely remove DRM from the marketplace, or live with it and shut up. Personally, I think he really would like to get rid of it. Why not? Saves the company millions in server time for encoding and constant vigilance to stay ahead of the crackers. Hell, the savings in legal costs alone would make it worth the switch. Lock in? Whatever. 99% of my music isn't locked in. I play all my music on my Palm.
Why are people blaming Apple for DRM? Do you blame the distributor (Tower Records) of a physical CD for the album cover art? Anyone with half a brain knows that Apple has to cater to the music labels. Just because they have sold more songs than anyone else doesn't make them the biggest supporter of DRM. It doesn't even make them the richest, as the labels are still basking in that glory. Artists? They hardly even show up on the scope...
And who is more likely to get that random cavity search, the touring Swiss couple who don't give a damn about their privacy risk, or the scruffy looking nerd who's passport just happens to have a non-functional RFID chip?
What he doesn't mention is that the computer was never turned on.
Of course, he'll only be able to go if he books it six months in advance and the flight is on a Tuesday after 8 PM. And he'll have to fly coach (ie: cargo).
It'll make me _feel_ better.
I wonder why Hawking is asking that particular question? I mean, he IS a genius. Most if not all of the answers he'll get have got to be things he's already considered in depth. Is he fishing for something outrageously new? Testing the water? Or maybe just getting the public to think about it seriously?
Geez, a workday drive on almost any SoCal freeway could have told you the same thing ten years ago. Every time I go to work I feel like I'm driving with a bunch of six-year-olds. Self-centered, arrogant, and rude to excess. Driving skills to match...
You're absolutely right, and the perfect example of this is Verizon charging .25 cents per text message. What is a text message to their bandwidth costs when they're offering freakin video to your phone? Clearly, their pricing structure is based on charging what the market will bear, and not on costs for services. Why would it be any different if your ISP could charge you a premium for say, email?
Oh wait.... I guess that's what AOL is doing.
Their whois record only tells you where the domain is registered, not where the server is located. And even then, going to "itunes.no" only takes you to apple's homepage, not their music store.
.99 cents is a large enough deterrent for most people that they might think twice about handing out freebies. By restricting the use of the music, Apple not only locks in it's market share (because, yes, you do need Apple hardware to play music purchased in the U.S.) but it also vastly increases it's revenue because more people will download a given song (at least in theory).
The iPod is a piece of hardware. "iTunes" is a piece of software for your computer. ITMS is a music service. You can buy an iPod and never use the online store. I haven't. If you choose to use the music service, which is in the U.S., then you choose to accept the U.S. terms of service, including their DRM.
It's not like you can't put your own CD's on your iPod. It's only downloaded music that is restricted. I wish they didn't have to use DRM, but do you honestly think that people wouldn't just download the songs they like and pass them around to everyone else they know with an MP3 player? Sure, they do that now with CD's, but $18 instead of
We can complain about DRM all we want, but from a business perspective, it does work.
The iTunes Music Store isn't in Norway. I can use my iPod just fine without iTunes.
As someone mentioned, just clicking a button won't protect you. But if they go through the process of signing up for an account, then they have to accept the terms of the site as a product and should be protected by law.
That's the whole point. Right now, it's a free for all for anybody with a lawyer and a similar product/process/look/idea. If you sue another corporation and loose, all you loose are lawyers fees. If you have a seriously legit claim, then you won't loose. But companies like creative can sue a bigger entity like Apple and get three months of cheap publicity. They may even force Apple into settling just to shut them up (negative publicity is expensive too). But if you tack on a penalty (say, twice the total fees paid to your lawyers) then it would encourage companies to think twice about filing a suit five years after a product has been on the market.
There needs to be something to keep this nonsense under control. A whopping fine if you sue and loose might be a decent enough incentive, and might make a few bucks for the government as well.
What makes you assume that I haven't taken steps to verify or discount the message? Every "fact" presented to you is going to have spin. The very same set of data can often be shown to verify or discount a given position simply by exclusion or interpretation.
So yes, the character of the messenger matters. Is it ALL important? Not really, unless you are looking for an unbiased interpretation of the data.
And there are no "actual facts" in McAfee's report. Only their own internal data, (which we have no way to verify), and references to someone else's data (which is completely open to interpretation). Is it just spin? Who knows, but I seriously doubt McAfee is going to go out of their way to let you know when you don't need their software. I might believe some of what they say, taking it with a grain of salt, or not. But it doesn't make me ignorant.
Mind you, this is the very same company that not two month ago had the following slashdot headline:
"McAfee Anti-Virus Causes Widespread File Damage"
Now that's some character.
I'm sorry, but McAfee putting out a security report is like Exxon putting out an environmental assessment for Alaskan drilling. Slight conflict of interest there. It doesn't matter who they quote. They simply cannot be trusted because making a profit will always be their number one priority.
No, the irony is that anyone sitting there watching the "don't steal" commercials has most likely PAID for their DVD and isn't a pirate. They're preaching to the choir.
I'm going to wait a couple of months after release and then file a lawsuit claiming damage to my hearing from an unsafe product. Since I can't turn it off, this should be an easy win.
The problem is that the movie industry wants us to equate "the movie experience" with going to see an orchestra at a concert hall (you end up paying about the same price anyway...). But when was the last time you went to hear Mozart and they assaulted you with 20 minutes of television commercials?