| Topic Review (Newest First) |
| 01-16-2011 06:41 AM | |
| theLaika | lawl - poster is going to brick himself/herself when they find about the iPhone. |
| 01-14-2011 05:41 PM | |
| Farmrush | This thread is about half a decade old now. What are you doing? lol. |
| 01-14-2011 03:08 AM | |
| proxious | this is news to me |
| 06-26-2005 12:29 PM | |
| kirkjobsluder |
Quote:
Originally Posted by schu
 i dont know how strongly apple feels about this but im guessing it would bring them the mega bucks....dell is gigantic I don't think so. Deals with Dell to sell other operating systems have not worked well. Also, a large chunk of the "just works" goal is built around a radically different production model. Dell can offer low cost by playing the market to a larger degree. Apple sells its self on a high-quality matching of OS to its hardware engineering. Personally, I'm waiting for the iPodling and the iSophoghaus. |
| 06-26-2005 09:16 AM | |
| schu |
Quote:
Originally Posted by epski
Blah, blah, blah... Back to the topic at hand: OS X does not need to be extensively rewritten. For the last five years, it has been living a "double life," remember? Now, you're far more geeked on this stuff than I am, but I'm under the impression that adjusting the OS to run on Intel is going to be fairly easy for Apple. If not, they did a good job putting on their game face to convince developers to start generating universal binaries. yep...my understanding is that it wont take much to swap it dell also said they would sell OSX software for PCs if apple would allow them i dont know how strongly apple feels about this but im guessing it would bring them the mega bucks....dell is gigantic |
| 06-19-2005 05:53 PM | |
| medic99 |
Quote:
Originally Posted by epski
Blah, blah, blah... Back to the topic at hand: OS X does not need to be extensively rewritten. For the last five years, it has been living a "double life," remember? Now, you're far more geeked on this stuff than I am, but I'm under the impression that adjusting the OS to run on Intel is going to be fairly easy for Apple. If not, they did a good job putting on their game face to convince developers to start generating universal binaries. i'm sure apple was ready when they announced the switch. they've got two choices basically: to have their own market, or to be part of a larger market. i'm thinking steve jobs is a pretty saavy guy. apple will be working hard to differentiate itself in the marketplace. processor function isn't a meaningful way to differentiate a computer in these days of high processor speed. it's in the interface, and now apple can focus resources to have a larger impact in the overall market and escape the diseconomy of being the lone vender off the industry platform. i'm willing to bet this will be seen as a wise move, in retrospect. people won't be complaining about software compatibility. if i pay apple's premium price, i can still run programs in the larger marketplace. now steve jobs can go after michael dell's market  . beautiful.
|
| 06-15-2005 07:16 PM | |
| kirkjobsluder | It really baffles me sometimes that success in the computer market is considered unique in that success is defined by creating a hegemony. I can't think of any other market in which this is the case. |
| 06-15-2005 07:11 PM | |
| remilard |
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkjobsluder
Well, I figured that the x86 became a commodity a while back, and that was confirmed for me when I saw photos of the Alienware "Star Wars" vanity system. Aesthetics is a bit important to me, and certainly influenced my choice for SFF systems. Aesthetics is important to me too, and I own two apple products and like the way both of them look. OTOH I primarily bought them for other reasons. The mac mini is easily the quietest desktop computer under $1000 and the ipod, imo, is the best DAP by a slight margin. |
| 06-15-2005 07:07 PM | |
| remilard |
Quote:
Originally Posted by epski
Packaging is more important than ever, at least from a sales standpoint. Say you are an office manager and you need to buy 300 desktop computers. Your bonus is based on expenses and is a significant portion of your total compensation. Now how important is packaging? This is part of why the same few companies have all the big clients and are selling them all wintel machines. |
| 06-15-2005 06:00 PM | |
| kirkjobsluder |
Quote:
Originally Posted by remilard
At least you admit you like the product because of the packaging. Well, I figured that the x86 became a commodity a while back, and that was confirmed for me when I saw photos of the Alienware "Star Wars" vanity system. Aesthetics is a bit important to me, and certainly influenced my choice for SFF systems. |
| 06-15-2005 05:56 PM | |
| epski | Packaging is more important than ever, at least from a sales standpoint. |
| 06-15-2005 02:14 PM | |
| remilard |
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisgarciadiaz
one of the best things about macs in my opinion, other than OS X, is the way the hardware looks too. If Mac becomes just an OS, then it'll be running in any machine, and won't be nearly as elegant as it is now. At least you admit you like the product because of the packaging. |
| 06-15-2005 01:35 PM | |
| luisgarciadiaz |
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLRodgers
Well... AMD would still be around... and it'd be possible for those processors to be used also (basically... I'd think it'd turn "MAC" into an OS, not a computer). one of the best things about macs in my opinion, other than OS X, is the way the hardware looks too. If Mac becomes just an OS, then it'll be running in any machine, and won't be nearly as elegant as it is now. |
| 06-13-2005 07:57 PM | |
| epski |
Blah, blah, blah... Back to the topic at hand: OS X does not need to be extensively rewritten. For the last five years, it has been living a "double life," remember? Now, you're far more geeked on this stuff than I am, but I'm under the impression that adjusting the OS to run on Intel is going to be fairly easy for Apple. If not, they did a good job putting on their game face to convince developers to start generating universal binaries. |
| 06-12-2005 12:57 PM | |
| kirkjobsluder |
Quote:
Originally Posted by remilard
None of these means of redistribution are limited by the various DVD formats and the SACD format. Loaning and reselling of ITMS or similar media is made very difficult because you have to loan or resell the device the media is on. As I outlined earlier, the issues involved go far beyond what encryption standards are used on DVDs. |
| 06-11-2005 10:03 PM | |
| JLRodgers |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satyagraha
It is not the same as shoplifting, you'll get a far far bigger punishment for 'piracy'. "Depending on the offender's prior record, a conviction for shoplifting can mean a jail sentence up to five years and a fine of $10,000. In addition, a merchant can sue the shoplifter to recover the full value of the stolen goods, attorneys' fees, and court costs. " In Illinois, they have similar signs up, but it's all based on the value of merchandise and prior record (under $150 isn't a felony, over $150 is, or a prior conviction will make it a felony). However... taking into account that every time a software pirate "gives" a copy of the software (movie, cd, etc), it's probably considered a separate offense.... I think a few hundred-thousands of charges of "shoplifting" would get a person a pretty long prison time and fines. |
| 06-11-2005 10:00 PM | |
| Daral | The distinction seems trivial to me, although you are obviously correct. |
| 06-11-2005 08:24 PM | |
| remilard |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daral
So in other words, you're saying that they aren't done yet. However, I think we can agree that it is more or less the industry's avowed goal to restrict consumer freedom as much as possible, as my discussion of their usage (misusage) of the DMCA above shows. I disagree. I think their avowed goal is to maximize profits and they see restricting fair use as the best way to do so. If their motivations started with restricting fair use (i.e. they wanted to do so for no other reason) their behavior would not be rational. |
| 06-11-2005 07:40 PM | |
| Daral |
Quote:
Originally Posted by remilard
None of these means of redistribution are limited by the various DVD formats and the SACD format. Loaning and reselling of ITMS or similar media is made very difficult because you have to loan or resell the device the media is on. The problem I have with DVD/SACD is that I cannot (legally) copy the content (ever for SACD and when protected for DVD) to my computer for convenient playback in my home. So in other words, you're saying that they aren't done yet. However, I think we can agree that it is more or less the industry's avowed goal to restrict consumer freedom as much as possible, as my discussion of their usage (misusage) of the DMCA above shows. |
| 06-11-2005 07:34 PM | |
| Satyagraha |
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLRodgers
Piracy is the same as shoplifting, only a hell of a less chance of getting caught. It is not the same as shoplifting, you'll get a far far bigger punishment for 'piracy'. |
| 06-11-2005 05:42 PM | |
| remilard |
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkjobsluder
My argument is that fair use is being restricted in an effort to prevent all kinds of redistribution. This would include loaning a book to a friend, making a video recording of a TV show for later, selling your old media at a yard sale, and the liberal licensing of that media for educational purposes. None of these means of redistribution are limited by the various DVD formats and the SACD format. Loaning and reselling of ITMS or similar media is made very difficult because you have to loan or resell the device the media is on. The problem I have with DVD/SACD is that I cannot (legally) copy the content (ever for SACD and when protected for DVD) to my computer for convenient playback in my home. |
| 06-11-2005 12:30 PM | |
| kirkjobsluder |
Quote:
Originally Posted by remilard
If we can assume these corporations are acting to maximize profits, how does restricting the legal rights of the customer create a profit, in and of itself? Well, for example, of the quirks on IP law is that it provides certain liberties to consumers and educators. I can show a video to an audience of 200 people, provided that I use it in an "instructional" context and hold a discussion after the fact. I can, under "far use" photocopy short sections of books or magazine articles and distribute them. Under current IP laws, the IP holder only gets the money I paid for the original. (Or nothing at all if I'm using a recording of cable or radio broadcast.) Under an environment hostile to fair use, IP holders stand to gain revenues that could easily exceed the phantom looses due to P2P piracy. Quote:
Originally Posted by remilard
I agree that fair use is being restricted, Kirk's argument is that it is being restricted for the sake of doing so, not in an effort to prevent redistribution. No, this is not the argument. Your argument has been, that it's to prevent illegal distribution and just glossing over the fact that publishers have never been friendly to any kind of consumer rights in regards to their products. My argument is that fair use is being restricted in an effort to prevent all kinds of redistribution. This would include loaning a book to a friend, making a video recording of a TV show for later, selling your old media at a yard sale, and the liberal licensing of that media for educational purposes. |
| 06-11-2005 12:17 PM | |
| remilard |
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLRodgers
Piracy is the same as shoplifting, only a hell of a less chance of getting caught. And more people will take you seriously if you concoct rationalizations for why it is okay. |
| 06-11-2005 11:47 AM | |
| JLRodgers | Piracy is the same as shoplifting, only a hell of a less chance of getting caught. |
| 06-11-2005 04:02 AM | |
| Satyagraha | So corporations have a legal duty to make as much profit as possible no matter how they go about it? |
| 06-11-2005 03:32 AM | |
| remilard |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satyagraha
But rather that they are actting to maximize profits as this is all that they care about, Correction 1: They are legally obligated to maximize profits subject to the law, it doesn't even matter if they care about it in the US Correction 2: It is about piracy, from their POV minimizing privacy maximizes profits. |
| 06-11-2005 03:27 AM | |
| Satyagraha |
I don't think it is because of 'piracy' (there's some propaganda for ya). But rather that they are actting to maximize profits as this is all that they care about, sony are really bad with it, the PSP for example, buy one copy of the movie on DVD & then buy another version for the PSP. If restricting you means they can get more money, they'll do it, and unfortunately the government will help them. |
| 06-11-2005 02:30 AM | |
| remilard |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daral
I'm going to have to agree with kirk. Right now, the DMCA is being used by numerous companies to prevent a variety of fair use activities. Basically, they design a DRM mechanism to prevent ripping music from a cd (for example). The DMCA makes it illegal to create or distribute copy protection circumvention technology, so it's illegal to circumvent their DRM despite the fact that you're only doing so to carry out a legal act (ripping the songs). What kirk is describing is already going on; the legal circumvention and restriction of fair use. It's all in the DMCA. I agree that fair use is being restricted, Kirk's argument is that it is being restricted for the sake of doing so, not in an effort to prevent redistribution. I would argue that you are prevented from making personal copies only because you can make and distribute copies as easily as you can make personal copies, i.e. I am arguing that the entire motivation is to control distribution. |
| 06-11-2005 02:28 AM | |
| remilard |
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkjobsluder
Actually, your point seems to be that the media production industries are simply acting defensively. However, legal and technical "copy protection" has never been just about preventing illegal redistribution but about power and control in preventing some of the legal rights that consumers have in regards to IP. If we can assume these corporations are acting to maximize profits, how does restricting the legal rights of the customer create a profit, in and of itself? |
| 06-11-2005 02:17 AM | |
| Daral |
I'm going to have to agree with kirk. Right now, the DMCA is being used by numerous companies to prevent a variety of fair use activities. Basically, they design a DRM mechanism to prevent ripping music from a cd (for example). The DMCA makes it illegal to create or distribute copy protection circumvention technology, so it's illegal to circumvent their DRM despite the fact that you're only doing so to carry out a legal act (ripping the songs). What kirk is describing is already going on; the legal circumvention and restriction of fair use. It's all in the DMCA. |
| This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |
| Posting Rules | |