If Steve Jobs wanted to be really cool about this, he could let this poor engineer be the one to present the iPhone on stage when they finally release it:). Everybody would have a big laugh and it would be a good time all around. Apple's at risk of overdoing the hype anyway, so it could lighten the mood and turn into a net positive.
Everybody is focusing on copyright law, but I don't think that is the only issue. Most countries also have laws against anti-competitive behavior (i.e. anti-monopoly laws), which govern corporate acquisitions, among other things. While an Oracle-MySQL combination would still have competitors (PostgreSQL, MSSQL, etc), it would also have an enormous amount of market power in the database world. For this reason, it's not surprising to see the deal raise flags, regardless of the final outcome of the proceedings.
Coke would not be allowed to acquire Pepsi for similar reasons. This is not a Coke-Pepsi situation, but it's also not like one corner store acquiring another corner store. The reason that this approval process exists in the first place is that we know that these concerns are often legitimate.
Well, even if the maintainers have the copyrights, that only means future versions can be closed source. They can't terminate the already-outstanding licenses without a breach of terms.
Oracle doesn't need to take MySQL closed-source or even make any money from it directly. By buying Sun and hence MySQL, they'll disrupt MySQL's development, giving Oracle DBMS a jump in development time, and presumably in features/quality, market share, etc.
It takes time to set up a real fork, and Mr. Widenius may not have the resources to hire as many employees as MySQL AB did without the commercial dual licensing arrangement. As for the development within the MySQL subsidiary, Oracle can slow that down simply by rewriting the release schedule.
In sum, if the goal of this acquisition was to address the threat of MySQL to Oracle DBMS (which I think it may have been, in part), then that task is accomplished not by making money from MySQL but by slowing down its development. Even a difference of 6 or 12 months would be a huge advantage for Oracle DBMS.
That's why I felt that antitrust laws should be considered here, because it's an anticompetitive strategy, but it would be hard to prove because the effect is only indirect.
Also, a less-informed regulator or judge would look at industry figures that show the database market to be highly competitive and not at risk of a monopoly. But industry figures are based on revenue, not adoption, which masks MySQL's true penetration because most MySQL installations are of the free version.
free as in beer matters too
on
Oracle Buys Sun
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
While this is obviously a problem for FOSS, as somebody who works for startup companies, I am also very concerned about potential changes to the pricing structure. Startup companies and SMB's use MySQL instead of Oracle because they can't afford to pay for a database on top of all of their other costs. Cheap/free database software is part of what makes entrepreneurship possible for so many people.
If Oracle slowly kills MySQL through neglect, it could have ramifications for the broader economy, unless another database software (e.g. PostgreSQL) can fill the void.
Fortunately, it's all based on the SQL standard, but there are still differences between RDBMS's that developers will need to learn to switch.
And yes, why is there no antitrust attention when Oracle tries to buy the owner of MySQL?
I installed a free copy of Vista I got from Dell about 2 weeks ago as well, and immediately uninstalled it. I had made an image of my hard drive pre-upgrade with Norton Ghost so it was pretty easy to do so. I was actually pretty excited about Vista, and ended up being disappointed. My primary complaints include (there may have been more but I uninstalled too quickly to find them):
- they eliminated the expanding "All Programs" menu from the Start menu (wtf?), so instead you have to scroll up and down interminably on a little window in the Start menu. Think of it like using Start on your Blackberry. It's either that or use search to find your program. - 10,000 shades of teal mixed with an unchangeable grey/black/silver Taskbar / Start menu = extreme nausea, plus there is no way to change it. - Flip 3D is not useful because you have to use either a 3-key combo to use it or click on a little button on the taskbar to use it. I would have preferred just using my mouse scrollwheel... - The "User Access Control" thing warned me 3 times in a row about WinRAR and I couldn't just approve the program... - The start button is a lot harder to click on now since it's not synonymous with the corner - you have to visually find it.
I really liked IE until they screwed everything up in IE7, and now I've started using Firefox. I am wondering whether Vista will do the same thing and force me to start using a Mac and/or Linux. Linux still isn't an option though because the media copyright issues make it hard to use for multimedia applications. And a Mac screams "vendor lock-in". So maybe I'll just use XP forever...
The Ionic Breeze is an incredibly bad product. I know, I own two of them (I bought them at the same time, it's not like I hated one and bought another anyway). It uses a lot less power and has no moving parts, but the sacrifice you pay is that its actual ability to move air is greatly diminished. Which begs the question - if not having moving parts is your primary goal, why not just get a wet paper towel and hang it up in the room, hoping that dust particles will bump into it and cling to it? That's the (not so) extreme version of the Ionic Breeze approach. The reason you don't do that, of course, is that results matter, which is why fan-based systems are still far superior to the Ionic Breeze.
Likewise, if I only cared about not having a moving fan in my laptop, maybe I would just work outside and let the breeze take care of everything. But that would obviously be insufficient. Assuming you want to use your computer and also not fry it, the ionic wind idea will not be viable until it can be at least as effective as fans. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Besides, if you want to do away with fans in laptops, a better idea would be to add additional heat sinks to the vicinity and use a combination of that and liquid cooling to disburse the heat so widely and quickly that a fan would be unnecessary. This would add a lot of build complexity and some weight, however, and I suspect that is the reason this is not done. Besides, fans in laptops are not a huge concern. They are pretty resilient and effective.
(As for anybody who says that the main reason to pursue ionic cooling is that fans cause a lot of noise - you obviously haven't heard the Ionic Breeze's signature "crackle," which is basically impossible to eliminate after a month or two, unless you void your warranty by taking the entire unit apart and cleaning the sensitive parts thoroughly.)
I used hard drives back when they were only 10 bits and the size of two human hands. You had to signal to the computer which bits you wanted to be on and which you wanted to be off, by moving your fingers up and down. It was pretty tough.
(128 and 4 were also illegal values, a further limitation of this system)
I can't burn this to a DVD to play in a DVD player? Sorry, then it's pretty much pointless to me. Also, the movies aren't even full DVD resolution. Why exactly does Apple think it can get away with charging up to $15 for this crap? I will still buy real DVD's as long as that's the policy, thank you very much.
Also, one of the supposed improvements to the new iPods is that the screen is now 60% brighter. Is it just me or was the iPod screen already extremely bright, almost too bright? 60% brighter and I'm not sure I'll even be able to look at it. Fortunately they have the brightness control.
I agree with engadget - I'm pretty underwhelmed by this. I was hoping they'd have a bigger screen. Is the increase from 60gb to 80gb really going to sell anybody on this? Something makes me think not.
The decrease in price is pretty cool, but isn't that a tacit admission on their part that the improvements on their own aren't worth buying the 5.5G? If the improvements were good they wouldn't have to lower the price.
The Nano's, however, are nice. As is the shuffle. The shuffle is pretty badass given how small it is, like a lapel pin. And I like the return to multicolor that they lost when they discontinued the Mini.
Still, there is no reason at all for me to upgrade my iPod from my 60gb 5G, even if I did have the money. And I think this may leave them vulnerable to Microsoft, whose player will have a bigger screen.
That is true. I will grant them that. On the margin, though, I would rather not have to download one of these movies twice, since they are probably all at least 700 megabytes and quite possibly much more.
I would even pay for DRM'd movies (sorry guys), if the DRM weren't so restrictive. I buy stuff from ITMS all the time, partly because I know that if worse came to worse I could always burn them all as CD audio files and then rip them into MP3 format. My feeling on DRM is that I think some DRM is good to protect the artists, but there should be a way around it as long as you put in a little bit of work, to discourage people from doing it. It doesn't look like there's a way around this one.
So basically, rather than balancing customer interests against artist/studio interests, they went wholesale with the artist/studio interests. They'll probably pay for it by not getting a lot of buyers.
Nope, you are not. You can burn it to the DVD, but only in their file type. You can't burn it in a DVD-Player readable format. From the FAQ:
Can I make a DVD from my Amazon Unbox downloads?
You can store your downloaded files on a DVD or other removable computer storage device for the purpose of backup in the same format as the original files. However, any DVDs that you burn with Amazon Unbox files will not be readable by a DVD player. You can only view the files using Amazon Unbox installed on the computer that originally received the downloads..
You can't even transfer the file that you download between computers. Check this out, from their FAQ:
"You can only view the files using Amazon Unbox installed on the computer that originally received the downloads."
So that means if I buy one of these files and burn it on a DVD to transfer it to another computer that I own, I won't even be able to play it on that other computer. I will have to actually download it again from Amazon.com. You can store it on up to 2 computers (and 2 corresponding video players) at any given time, but files can only be played on the computer to which you downloaded it.
So that means if I want to use up to the 2 computer limit, I have to actually download it twice. There is no way to save download time by using alternative transmission methods, like a flash drive or a DVD-R. This sucks.
Remember all the early iTunes-like stores that failed? Although iTunes has DRM, it succeeded in part because its restrictions were less strong than, say, AOL's. I think Amazon.com's is too restrictive.
ITMS could beat it by being nicer about it, at least allowing you to transfer it between computers however you like. Honestly, that restriction doesn't even make sense from a DRM point of view, because you could always just require people to "authorize" a computer like ITMS. Maybe they aren't as skilled at this as Apple is?
If companies selling the content want to hold out any hope of making money by introducing Blu-Ray and HD-DVD discs, they're going to have to make it so that people can play it on their existing computers and disc players. Most people can't afford to go out and buy a new computer or a new DVD player in order to get HD resolution. So the Microsoft restrictions are just going to guarantee there is no market for this for several years until the replacement cycle eventually replaces them. Unless, that is, the movie companies back down and allow their content to be played at HD resolution regardless of one's graphics card.
There are different levels of what is considered "public." If I print out a sheet of paper and post it on a bulletin board, that is public. But it's a far cry from reading it on the CBS evening news. Just because something is *public* doesn't mean that everybody is going to *notice* it. Now, they will.
Now the obvious response is that some people would notice it in either scenario. But in the previous case, usually the people who were looking specifically at my profile were my close friends, and maybe one or two creeps. Fine. As a facebook user I've already decided I can live with the creeps and want to communicate with my friends. But now, my profile will actually *attract* attention, and the number of unwanted viewers will certainly rise. These things happen on the margins. And as the ratio of unwanted to wanted viewers increases, I become more and more unhappy. Does that make sense?
Also, the Facebook people seem to have forgotten that just because somebody is my "Facebook Friend" doesn't mean they are my real friend. Honestly, in the past I've accepted people to be my friend on that site who I don't even know. So now they are getting my news feed too, because they are my "friends" and I want to share everything about my life with them, right?
Maybe this will make the concept of a "Facebook friend" more meaningful. If so, then that is a positive change. But in the meantime people are freaking out because of the problems I mentioned.
Another issue that has nothing to do with privacy is the sheer amount of information. One of the cool things about Facebook is that it was very minimalist. Things happened very slowly, everything felt under control, and the only thing that really had much "movement" were a few discussion boards. When I logged on I got a static page.
Now when I log on I get a page that is always changing and has a million different items on it. It feels a bit overwhelming. I have the patience to put up with getting a lot of email, but am I willing to put up with a cluttered Facebook? "Keep It Simple, Stupid."
They would have done better if they had started gradually with the really relevant stuff, like "so and so has just created a group" and "so and so has just uploaded some photos" and "X number of your friends are going to these parties." But they just did it all at once, with things as ridiculous as "X friend tagged Y friend on a photo in Z photo album in X's profile." It's just way too much detail all at once. And broadcasting people's breakups was really a horrendous idea no matter how you cut it (they even made a little graphic to go along with it that shows a heart tearing in two!!). Honestly, I think they just got a bit too cocky and assumed that Facebook users would eventually accept whatever changes they made, because they did it in the past. But they might be wrong this time. As I write this there are about 500,000 people in the petition group against these changes. They're gonna have to do something or look like they don't care now.
Here's a point that I think is undeniable: People have been talking for a few years now about how these social networking sites make you give out too much information. But students didn't react because it never felt that way. Now, people are realizing how much information is really out there about them, and they don't like it. The point that this information was all already public is well taken - but in the opposite direction from what you might expect. So it might be that students are actually acting more rationally now than they were in the past, because they are taking into account all the adverse effects of the site.
This is the same thing that happened with NPT and RIM/Blackberry. It's also how Amazon.com got to patent the 1-click shopping method (though it looks like they might not have that anymore). This has got to end. It's time for patent reform.
People on this forum keep saying that Alienware is bad because of 2 things: 1. It is overpriced 2. Its computers are not always the fastest on the market.
The problem is that you are treating the two as single factors instead of combining them. There may be a few computers out there that are faster than Alienware, and there are certainly a lot of computers out there that are cheaper. But the COMBINATION of price and speed is still quite good.
If you don't believe me, go look at the price right now for their 17-inch SLI notebook (first of its kind), the m9700. It has a base price of only $1600, which is incredible considering that the model is capable of dual graphics cards, RAID hard drives, 1920x1200 display, Turion 64-bit processor, all-in-one card reader, etc. Granted, that base price comes stripped down, and doesn't include the cost of the second graphics card. But even when you configure it upwards, you can still get one of the best all-around notebooks out there for mid-2000's.
I don't think any other notebook out there has the best combination of price and speed as the m9700. If I had more money right now, I would buy it right away. However I am currently an entrepreneur, and am borrowing up to my ears.
They also have a desktop that does Quad-SLI with the PhysX physics processor, liquid cooling, etc. It costs a small fortune but it is outrageously fast.
In sum, what I am saying is that their price-quality combination for high-end systems remains very good.
Also, while other high-end retailers might have somewhat lower prices (though actually, they seem to have higher prices, like Falcon Northwest), whatever price savings you have is going to be offset by lower build quality, the possibility they won't even be around to fulfill your warranty, etc. There are Alienware horror stories out there just like any other company, but from what I've heard, the build quality is more consistent than other sellers. Also, they are shipping faster now - the laptop I mentioned at the top currently ships in 7 days.
PS, I am aware that Bekeley's OSS claim to fame - BSD - is not Free Software as defined by FSF. I was just making a joke in my last sentence, so don't flame me. Thanks;).
It's interesting to note that Kerala is technically India's only technically communist state (currently governed by elected representatives of the Communist Party of India), a holdover from India's stated neutrality during the Cold War, which led it to embrace parts of both sides. However, it is more like a socialist state in practice. I don't mean this as a "dis" to Kerala or RMS, just to note that Kerala is not indicative of a general trend in any way. So far Free Software has Massachusetts, the Netherlands and Kerala under its belt - all it needs is Berkeley... oh wait...;)
Regarding speeds - the reason I get bad speeds isn't because of wireless speeds per se, but wireless range. I don't know why, but even with Draft N I seem to be unable to cover the 2 floors of our apartment, and we don't have much in the walls. Overall it's been a big disappointment. I'm lucky if I can browse the internet on one side of my apartment on the 2nd floor if the router is on the other side on the first floor - usually I can't.
One consistent trap that people fall into in all areas is "fighting the last war" - thinking of what you would have needed to win in a previous battle that you lost (or what somebody else who lost would have needed to win) and trying to win the next one by providing that, all the while forgetting that the victor is probably not resting on his or her laurels.
That's what Microsoft is doing here. This might have been enough to defeat the Video iPod, but that was the last device. This will - at most - be on par with Apple's new offering, and probably beat by it. It looks like Apple's new iPod will have an even bigger screen than this, by moving the touchpad to the back. That plus WiFi will probably be enough to keep this at bay, not to mention any other extra features Apple might add.
Overall, there is no clear "killer app" that makes me think this will be successful. The Zune looks fully competent, but you need more than competence to defeat a de facto standard. I don't know about you, but the prospect of being able to borrow a song from a friend for a day before it is cancelled provided we are both using Zunes doesn't get me very excited. Nor do I have any desire to beam random files to strangers. The ability to work with social networks might be cool but there are no details on that, and I'm not going to get my hopes up.
There is of course an easier way to defeat a de facto standard - beat them on price. If this were offered for a very low price, for example $150 or $200 for a 30GB model, they would steal a lot of market share from Apple and make up the money with future models once people warmed to their product. That's why companies call them "entry models." But they are charging $300 for this, so there is no monetary reason for anybody to take a "step down" from the iPod, which is the way any non-iPod device is currently perceived, fair or not.
Slashdot Mirror
If Steve Jobs wanted to be really cool about this, he could let this poor engineer be the one to present the iPhone on stage when they finally release it :). Everybody would have a big laugh and it would be a good time all around. Apple's at risk of overdoing the hype anyway, so it could lighten the mood and turn into a net positive.
Somehow I don't think that will happen, though.
Everybody is focusing on copyright law, but I don't think that is the only issue. Most countries also have laws against anti-competitive behavior (i.e. anti-monopoly laws), which govern corporate acquisitions, among other things. While an Oracle-MySQL combination would still have competitors (PostgreSQL, MSSQL, etc), it would also have an enormous amount of market power in the database world. For this reason, it's not surprising to see the deal raise flags, regardless of the final outcome of the proceedings.
Coke would not be allowed to acquire Pepsi for similar reasons. This is not a Coke-Pepsi situation, but it's also not like one corner store acquiring another corner store. The reason that this approval process exists in the first place is that we know that these concerns are often legitimate.
Well, even if the maintainers have the copyrights, that only means future versions can be closed source. They can't terminate the already-outstanding licenses without a breach of terms.
Oracle doesn't need to take MySQL closed-source or even make any money from it directly. By buying Sun and hence MySQL, they'll disrupt MySQL's development, giving Oracle DBMS a jump in development time, and presumably in features/quality, market share, etc.
It takes time to set up a real fork, and Mr. Widenius may not have the resources to hire as many employees as MySQL AB did without the commercial dual licensing arrangement. As for the development within the MySQL subsidiary, Oracle can slow that down simply by rewriting the release schedule.
In sum, if the goal of this acquisition was to address the threat of MySQL to Oracle DBMS (which I think it may have been, in part), then that task is accomplished not by making money from MySQL but by slowing down its development. Even a difference of 6 or 12 months would be a huge advantage for Oracle DBMS.
That's why I felt that antitrust laws should be considered here, because it's an anticompetitive strategy, but it would be hard to prove because the effect is only indirect.
Also, a less-informed regulator or judge would look at industry figures that show the database market to be highly competitive and not at risk of a monopoly. But industry figures are based on revenue, not adoption, which masks MySQL's true penetration because most MySQL installations are of the free version.
While this is obviously a problem for FOSS, as somebody who works for startup companies, I am also very concerned about potential changes to the pricing structure. Startup companies and SMB's use MySQL instead of Oracle because they can't afford to pay for a database on top of all of their other costs. Cheap/free database software is part of what makes entrepreneurship possible for so many people.
If Oracle slowly kills MySQL through neglect, it could have ramifications for the broader economy, unless another database software (e.g. PostgreSQL) can fill the void.
Fortunately, it's all based on the SQL standard, but there are still differences between RDBMS's that developers will need to learn to switch.
And yes, why is there no antitrust attention when Oracle tries to buy the owner of MySQL?
I installed a free copy of Vista I got from Dell about 2 weeks ago as well, and immediately uninstalled it. I had made an image of my hard drive pre-upgrade with Norton Ghost so it was pretty easy to do so. I was actually pretty excited about Vista, and ended up being disappointed. My primary complaints include (there may have been more but I uninstalled too quickly to find them):
- they eliminated the expanding "All Programs" menu from the Start menu (wtf?), so instead you have to scroll up and down interminably on a little window in the Start menu. Think of it like using Start on your Blackberry. It's either that or use search to find your program.
- 10,000 shades of teal mixed with an unchangeable grey/black/silver Taskbar / Start menu = extreme nausea, plus there is no way to change it.
- Flip 3D is not useful because you have to use either a 3-key combo to use it or click on a little button on the taskbar to use it. I would have preferred just using my mouse scrollwheel...
- The "User Access Control" thing warned me 3 times in a row about WinRAR and I couldn't just approve the program...
- The start button is a lot harder to click on now since it's not synonymous with the corner - you have to visually find it.
I really liked IE until they screwed everything up in IE7, and now I've started using Firefox. I am wondering whether Vista will do the same thing and force me to start using a Mac and/or Linux. Linux still isn't an option though because the media copyright issues make it hard to use for multimedia applications. And a Mac screams "vendor lock-in". So maybe I'll just use XP forever...
The Ionic Breeze is an incredibly bad product. I know, I own two of them (I bought them at the same time, it's not like I hated one and bought another anyway). It uses a lot less power and has no moving parts, but the sacrifice you pay is that its actual ability to move air is greatly diminished. Which begs the question - if not having moving parts is your primary goal, why not just get a wet paper towel and hang it up in the room, hoping that dust particles will bump into it and cling to it? That's the (not so) extreme version of the Ionic Breeze approach. The reason you don't do that, of course, is that results matter, which is why fan-based systems are still far superior to the Ionic Breeze.
Likewise, if I only cared about not having a moving fan in my laptop, maybe I would just work outside and let the breeze take care of everything. But that would obviously be insufficient. Assuming you want to use your computer and also not fry it, the ionic wind idea will not be viable until it can be at least as effective as fans. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Besides, if you want to do away with fans in laptops, a better idea would be to add additional heat sinks to the vicinity and use a combination of that and liquid cooling to disburse the heat so widely and quickly that a fan would be unnecessary. This would add a lot of build complexity and some weight, however, and I suspect that is the reason this is not done. Besides, fans in laptops are not a huge concern. They are pretty resilient and effective.
(As for anybody who says that the main reason to pursue ionic cooling is that fans cause a lot of noise - you obviously haven't heard the Ionic Breeze's signature "crackle," which is basically impossible to eliminate after a month or two, unless you void your warranty by taking the entire unit apart and cleaning the sensitive parts thoroughly.)
I used hard drives back when they were only 10 bits and the size of two human hands. You had to signal to the computer which bits you wanted to be on and which you wanted to be off, by moving your fingers up and down. It was pretty tough.
(128 and 4 were also illegal values, a further limitation of this system)
I can't burn this to a DVD to play in a DVD player? Sorry, then it's pretty much pointless to me. Also, the movies aren't even full DVD resolution. Why exactly does Apple think it can get away with charging up to $15 for this crap? I will still buy real DVD's as long as that's the policy, thank you very much.
Also, one of the supposed improvements to the new iPods is that the screen is now 60% brighter. Is it just me or was the iPod screen already extremely bright, almost too bright? 60% brighter and I'm not sure I'll even be able to look at it. Fortunately they have the brightness control.
I agree with engadget - I'm pretty underwhelmed by this. I was hoping they'd have a bigger screen. Is the increase from 60gb to 80gb really going to sell anybody on this? Something makes me think not.
The decrease in price is pretty cool, but isn't that a tacit admission on their part that the improvements on their own aren't worth buying the 5.5G? If the improvements were good they wouldn't have to lower the price.
The Nano's, however, are nice. As is the shuffle. The shuffle is pretty badass given how small it is, like a lapel pin. And I like the return to multicolor that they lost when they discontinued the Mini.
Still, there is no reason at all for me to upgrade my iPod from my 60gb 5G, even if I did have the money. And I think this may leave them vulnerable to Microsoft, whose player will have a bigger screen.
Overall, my reaction is "meh"...
Sounds like a complicated disaster for the average user, though...
That is true. I will grant them that. On the margin, though, I would rather not have to download one of these movies twice, since they are probably all at least 700 megabytes and quite possibly much more.
Protect them from having fans not buy their music because it is too easy to get it for free.
I would even pay for DRM'd movies (sorry guys), if the DRM weren't so restrictive. I buy stuff from ITMS all the time, partly because I know that if worse came to worse I could always burn them all as CD audio files and then rip them into MP3 format. My feeling on DRM is that I think some DRM is good to protect the artists, but there should be a way around it as long as you put in a little bit of work, to discourage people from doing it. It doesn't look like there's a way around this one.
So basically, rather than balancing customer interests against artist/studio interests, they went wholesale with the artist/studio interests. They'll probably pay for it by not getting a lot of buyers.
Nope, you are not. You can burn it to the DVD, but only in their file type. You can't burn it in a DVD-Player readable format. From the FAQ:
Can I make a DVD from my Amazon Unbox downloads?
You can store your downloaded files on a DVD or other removable computer storage device for the purpose of backup in the same format as the original files. However, any DVDs that you burn with Amazon Unbox files will not be readable by a DVD player. You can only view the files using Amazon Unbox installed on the computer that originally received the downloads..
Basically, this service blows.
You can't even transfer the file that you download between computers. Check this out, from their FAQ:
"You can only view the files using Amazon Unbox installed on the computer that originally received the downloads."
So that means if I buy one of these files and burn it on a DVD to transfer it to another computer that I own, I won't even be able to play it on that other computer. I will have to actually download it again from Amazon.com. You can store it on up to 2 computers (and 2 corresponding video players) at any given time, but files can only be played on the computer to which you downloaded it.
So that means if I want to use up to the 2 computer limit, I have to actually download it twice. There is no way to save download time by using alternative transmission methods, like a flash drive or a DVD-R. This sucks.
Remember all the early iTunes-like stores that failed? Although iTunes has DRM, it succeeded in part because its restrictions were less strong than, say, AOL's. I think Amazon.com's is too restrictive.
ITMS could beat it by being nicer about it, at least allowing you to transfer it between computers however you like. Honestly, that restriction doesn't even make sense from a DRM point of view, because you could always just require people to "authorize" a computer like ITMS. Maybe they aren't as skilled at this as Apple is?
If companies selling the content want to hold out any hope of making money by introducing Blu-Ray and HD-DVD discs, they're going to have to make it so that people can play it on their existing computers and disc players. Most people can't afford to go out and buy a new computer or a new DVD player in order to get HD resolution. So the Microsoft restrictions are just going to guarantee there is no market for this for several years until the replacement cycle eventually replaces them. Unless, that is, the movie companies back down and allow their content to be played at HD resolution regardless of one's graphics card.
There are different levels of what is considered "public." If I print out a sheet of paper and post it on a bulletin board, that is public. But it's a far cry from reading it on the CBS evening news. Just because something is *public* doesn't mean that everybody is going to *notice* it. Now, they will.
Now the obvious response is that some people would notice it in either scenario. But in the previous case, usually the people who were looking specifically at my profile were my close friends, and maybe one or two creeps. Fine. As a facebook user I've already decided I can live with the creeps and want to communicate with my friends. But now, my profile will actually *attract* attention, and the number of unwanted viewers will certainly rise. These things happen on the margins. And as the ratio of unwanted to wanted viewers increases, I become more and more unhappy. Does that make sense?
Also, the Facebook people seem to have forgotten that just because somebody is my "Facebook Friend" doesn't mean they are my real friend. Honestly, in the past I've accepted people to be my friend on that site who I don't even know. So now they are getting my news feed too, because they are my "friends" and I want to share everything about my life with them, right?
Maybe this will make the concept of a "Facebook friend" more meaningful. If so, then that is a positive change. But in the meantime people are freaking out because of the problems I mentioned.
Another issue that has nothing to do with privacy is the sheer amount of information. One of the cool things about Facebook is that it was very minimalist. Things happened very slowly, everything felt under control, and the only thing that really had much "movement" were a few discussion boards. When I logged on I got a static page.
Now when I log on I get a page that is always changing and has a million different items on it. It feels a bit overwhelming. I have the patience to put up with getting a lot of email, but am I willing to put up with a cluttered Facebook? "Keep It Simple, Stupid."
They would have done better if they had started gradually with the really relevant stuff, like "so and so has just created a group" and "so and so has just uploaded some photos" and "X number of your friends are going to these parties." But they just did it all at once, with things as ridiculous as "X friend tagged Y friend on a photo in Z photo album in X's profile." It's just way too much detail all at once. And broadcasting people's breakups was really a horrendous idea no matter how you cut it (they even made a little graphic to go along with it that shows a heart tearing in two!!). Honestly, I think they just got a bit too cocky and assumed that Facebook users would eventually accept whatever changes they made, because they did it in the past. But they might be wrong this time. As I write this there are about 500,000 people in the petition group against these changes. They're gonna have to do something or look like they don't care now.
Here's a point that I think is undeniable: People have been talking for a few years now about how these social networking sites make you give out too much information. But students didn't react because it never felt that way. Now, people are realizing how much information is really out there about them, and they don't like it. The point that this information was all already public is well taken - but in the opposite direction from what you might expect. So it might be that students are actually acting more rationally now than they were in the past, because they are taking into account all the adverse effects of the site.
This is the same thing that happened with NPT and RIM/Blackberry. It's also how Amazon.com got to patent the 1-click shopping method (though it looks like they might not have that anymore). This has got to end. It's time for patent reform.
...I see your swap is as big as mine...
Oops, my bad!
People on this forum keep saying that Alienware is bad because of 2 things:
1. It is overpriced
2. Its computers are not always the fastest on the market.
The problem is that you are treating the two as single factors instead of combining them. There may be a few computers out there that are faster than Alienware, and there are certainly a lot of computers out there that are cheaper. But the COMBINATION of price and speed is still quite good.
If you don't believe me, go look at the price right now for their 17-inch SLI notebook (first of its kind), the m9700. It has a base price of only $1600, which is incredible considering that the model is capable of dual graphics cards, RAID hard drives, 1920x1200 display, Turion 64-bit processor, all-in-one card reader, etc. Granted, that base price comes stripped down, and doesn't include the cost of the second graphics card. But even when you configure it upwards, you can still get one of the best all-around notebooks out there for mid-2000's.
I don't think any other notebook out there has the best combination of price and speed as the m9700. If I had more money right now, I would buy it right away. However I am currently an entrepreneur, and am borrowing up to my ears.
They also have a desktop that does Quad-SLI with the PhysX physics processor, liquid cooling, etc. It costs a small fortune but it is outrageously fast.
In sum, what I am saying is that their price-quality combination for high-end systems remains very good.
Also, while other high-end retailers might have somewhat lower prices (though actually, they seem to have higher prices, like Falcon Northwest), whatever price savings you have is going to be offset by lower build quality, the possibility they won't even be around to fulfill your warranty, etc. There are Alienware horror stories out there just like any other company, but from what I've heard, the build quality is more consistent than other sellers. Also, they are shipping faster now - the laptop I mentioned at the top currently ships in 7 days.
PS, I am aware that Bekeley's OSS claim to fame - BSD - is not Free Software as defined by FSF. I was just making a joke in my last sentence, so don't flame me. Thanks ;).
It's interesting to note that Kerala is technically India's only technically communist state (currently governed by elected representatives of the Communist Party of India), a holdover from India's stated neutrality during the Cold War, which led it to embrace parts of both sides. However, it is more like a socialist state in practice. I don't mean this as a "dis" to Kerala or RMS, just to note that Kerala is not indicative of a general trend in any way. So far Free Software has Massachusetts, the Netherlands and Kerala under its belt - all it needs is Berkeley... oh wait... ;)
Regarding speeds - the reason I get bad speeds isn't because of wireless speeds per se, but wireless range. I don't know why, but even with Draft N I seem to be unable to cover the 2 floors of our apartment, and we don't have much in the walls. Overall it's been a big disappointment. I'm lucky if I can browse the internet on one side of my apartment on the 2nd floor if the router is on the other side on the first floor - usually I can't.
Could DRM have anything to do with this? Is wireless content harder for them to control?
PS: Sometimes I am lucky if I get 22 kBps on Wireless. I would love to get "only" 22 mBps...
One consistent trap that people fall into in all areas is "fighting the last war" - thinking of what you would have needed to win in a previous battle that you lost (or what somebody else who lost would have needed to win) and trying to win the next one by providing that, all the while forgetting that the victor is probably not resting on his or her laurels.
That's what Microsoft is doing here. This might have been enough to defeat the Video iPod, but that was the last device. This will - at most - be on par with Apple's new offering, and probably beat by it. It looks like Apple's new iPod will have an even bigger screen than this, by moving the touchpad to the back. That plus WiFi will probably be enough to keep this at bay, not to mention any other extra features Apple might add.
Overall, there is no clear "killer app" that makes me think this will be successful. The Zune looks fully competent, but you need more than competence to defeat a de facto standard. I don't know about you, but the prospect of being able to borrow a song from a friend for a day before it is cancelled provided we are both using Zunes doesn't get me very excited. Nor do I have any desire to beam random files to strangers. The ability to work with social networks might be cool but there are no details on that, and I'm not going to get my hopes up.
There is of course an easier way to defeat a de facto standard - beat them on price. If this were offered for a very low price, for example $150 or $200 for a 30GB model, they would steal a lot of market share from Apple and make up the money with future models once people warmed to their product. That's why companies call them "entry models." But they are charging $300 for this, so there is no monetary reason for anybody to take a "step down" from the iPod, which is the way any non-iPod device is currently perceived, fair or not.