The whole effort smacks of incompetence. The pricing, the access, the workarounds, the investment costs, the lack of distinction between products and services (vs paper, vs apps, vs website), the customer service, the illogical arguments, the changing features, and the obscured realities just says this is a humongous study in failure at every level of its business.
It's amazing how much failure there appears to be at the NY Times. They are failing at every turn. And I'm really surprised by it. Even if you think that pay walls can work (which I don't), the execution on this is horrible.
Those judges and need to wake up and smell the ink drying on the paper. Pens are the real threat.
Haven't they seen the James Bond movies?? Those pens ARE mightier than the sword. Three clicks and its all over - just like Goldeneye.
Pens are so universal - EVERYONE has a pen - and you can't be to careful with them. Pencils are bad enough that they could actually be used as a sword. Smartphones and other "pager-like" technology are small potatoes compared to all the BICs and Montblancs out there.
They already use chalk to draw people in court. There isn't a need for potentially deadly and terrorizing "writers" out there blowing up the courts.
*** Disclaimer: Just in case it wasn't obvious, this is supposed to be sarcasm.
That's what I thought. I thought they could be taking a "one time charge" to hide their real troubles. I don't know if that easy when you start comparing last year's debt to this year's debt unless it grew by that exact $40m.
I also wonder if they're just taking previous investments in their systems and totaling it up to $40m because, somehow, a $40m investment is now a marketing tool and promotes how "valuable" it is.
Or, perhaps, they had to re-engineer the whole thing not because of what the current system could do but what they want to do in two, three five years down the road?? I doubt they have that foresight, though.
Forgetting that consumers actually want this convenience, Time Warner is doing the reasonable thing for everyone involved.
The networks are adding their shows on Hulu at no cost to the consumer. The stations are offering their content over the internet for free, as well. Time Warner doesn't get anything but their internet fees which people would likely pay for without these services. Therefore, they face a risk that people will cut the cord and go internet only.
Except if they offer their channels on mobile devices they can help add value to their cord option and keep customers paying. I know several TW customers in NYC who want this type of offering - otherwise, they can just go to any Starbucks and stream shows over their internet and have food and coffee while doing so.
So Time Warner's streaming plans help everyone and it's a reasonable response. Consumers get yet another way of viewing content. Time Warner doesn't lose business from cord cutters.** And the networks can still show ads for their channels and content.
** And cord cutting *WILL* happen. It's just a matter of time. It's what people want and as traditional broadcasting revenue shifts around, so will the availability of content. The viewers have the dollars and networks/advertisers chase them. If people have to give their money to some other venue to get what they want, the traditional producers & deliverers will run after them and offer the services they want to pay for.
Microsoft hasn't been a growth company for a long while and I'm sure they know their cash cow is dying. They, themselves, can be a target of this law. It's stupid of them to think they wouldn't.
It's the next IP arms race. Get your products out there in the hands of your competitors as quickly as you can so you can "allege" they didn't pay for it and bar the sale of their product.
Just wait until this starts being enforced and you'll see how dumb this idea really is.
And I, for what its worth, would love it if someone claimed all of Microsoft's X-Box or boxed software cannot be sold because AutoCAD wasn't paid for by the molding companies that make the hardware or packaging.
Wow, awesome reference! I haven't thought of Nuclear Assault in a while (after leaving my metal days behind when I graduated high school). I know the song you're talking about. For some reason, I only bought Something Wicked but I'm very familiar with the band and the song you mention.
One, cars are closed systems so its attractive to some (not to others, of course).
Two, most people would see this as a platform investment like Android vs iOS and like a brand association like Benz vs BMW.
Three, the car customization market is HUGE; the demand to modify a car (including software) is established and strong.
Fourth, every car made today is run by software so this shouldn't be a huge stretch.
As for whether or not the apps could compete for essential system resources that control acceleration, braking, steering, & shifting, see my third point.
I've actually thought about replacing the chips in my cars. But I haven't wanted to get under the dashboard to do it. If I could install an app that would let me change the traction control programs, shift timings, and throttle control with an app, I'd love it.
Granted, I understand that in a closed ecosystem apps can be controlled and the controllers might not want to allow apps that could have an effect on warranties. But because the aftermarket is so strong, I can see this happening - even if it isn't sanctioned with new cars.
Now I have to start working on the in-dash computer/radio/nav system that interfaces with the on-board computers so I can build that 3rd party app ecosystem. #BusinessIdea
I'm pretty sure that most people don't want these searches. States are trying to think of ways to get around them by inventing laws that criminalize the activity. Because they can't refuse the federal government, they think drastically.
Instead, their elected officials should put their foot down and change things at the federal level. But then they look soft on terrorism and get thrown in jail for aiding the enemy.
But the point is that the effectiveness - even under select enforcement - is zero because when word gets out that someone stops someone else from milking a cow because of a photo, they'd get smacked by the public; see the Streisand Effect.
And again, most people who want to take photos of poor animal treatment don't care for trespassing laws - why would they care about IP laws like this? Most non-activist people probably won't know about the law and probably won't be selected for enforcement. When they are, Mike will report on it and see the Streisand Effect again.
Now I'll admit I still have faith in the courts, public opinion, and the Streisand Effect to level the playing field. I know that it isn't always the case. Over time, however, bad laws are defeated - by repeal or by becoming marginalized by society as a whole; those obscure laws from the past that are selectively enforced after the public deemed them outdated also become subject to their outcry getting that selective enforcement dropped.
And it shouldn't have to be that way. This is a stupid law that does set bad precedents. But I'm saying that bad ideas are doomed to fail no matter what; its one of those universal truths. So some individuals might suffer to ultimately keep laws like this from affecting the masses, their public troubles with these laws will keep us all more free in the end.
Or am I being too hopeful here and we should all give up?
Wouldn't they have a fair use argument? I know it would involve a legal battle but the publicity for issuing a "takedown" or something would do more damage than animal rights groups taking photos.
Its not going to stop the activists from taking photos. Most activists don't care about these types of laws to make a point - just like the trespassing laws.
Even if it passes, it won't actually do much. That's not to say I want anyone's free speech in jeopardy because of some special interest. But I'm confident that the effectiveness of such a law would be zero.
Of course it does. Loss-less refers to the compression, not bit depth. If you make a FLAC out of a 16-bit CD and a FLAC out of a 24-bit master, the FLAC on the 24-bit master will still sound better. The DB range is much greater with 24-bits which means that instead of (roughly) 65k levels you have 16m levels. That's a huge difference in audio clarity.
WAV is also loss-less because there is no compression. But make a WAV file out of a 16-bit CD and compare it to a 24-bit WAV file created out of the "master" and not only are you going to get a better sounding file, but it would be larger, too - almost 3 times the size.
I wrote something about this the other day and I agree that most people won't be able to tell the difference. Only a select few - and mostly those who listen to classical music - will benefit from this (besides the labels and Apple).
Apple gets to sell newer iPods. New storage capacities would be needed for the later files and new hardware needed to process the 24-bit audio. They also get their 30% of any "upgrade" fee like they charged for iTunes Plus files.
The labels get to charge more money like they once did for iTunes Plus files and also charge a re-buy fee to "upgrade" any existing music.
Not worth it if you ask me - much different from earlier format shifts (vinyl to cassette, cassette to CD, CD to MP3) where there was some value in the purchase.
Wow, that's a yottabytes! (Sorry, couldn't resist but you posted great, geeky reply. Not too many people know what a yottabyte is.)
Different industries do ask for more personal information to receive benefit or employment. The adult film industry (by law) tests for STDs and performers can't work without a clear HIV test. Your car keys aren't taken but your driver's license is and your driving record IS checked. People with a history of smoking can be charged a premium for health care.
Our government doesn't guarantee you a job that has no screening - especially in the private sector. What it does do is help protect a person from discrimination on the basis of things that are beyond their control and some personal choice - race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. You're free to start your own business if you don't like the practices and enforce your own hiring rules so long as they don't discriminate.
But that said, I am in total favor of the ACLU winning this (if they take legal action) - I'm not happy with the slow erosion of our privacy either. But that's happening because we as a society are asking for more and more Facebook, not because the Feds or private employers are asking for too much. As society becomes more open, it is reasonable to expect employers to ask for this information as part of a background check.
On the point about applied THEN asked... its no different than a drug test at any other place of employment. I applied to a job then was told to take a drug test. You don't always know if a company has a drug testing policy before applying or not.
And again, I fail to see how this is different. If one's Facebook stream shows you doing or taking something illegal, then how is this test isn't the same as a drug test.
Perhaps its not as defensible in court as a drug test if you were to not get hired (or fired) but it could be construed as another test for illegal activity. And in a correctional facility, don't you want that?