Wow. I'm not sure where you live Michial but here in Hong Kong apple were far from the first to release a phone/pda/mp3 player combo and your most basic GSM handset had pager functionality much earlier than that.
Apple were the first to release a phone with a multitouch interface, nothing more or less. They didnt invent it but innovation is in the execution right? And now they want to execute HTC...
I can easily see a group making the right steps to survive in a new reality without "getting" that there is new reality in the first place.
And lets face it while its possible to make a decent living in that new reality, only the labels still promise to deliver yesterday's dream of mega bucks, wild groupie sex, fame and all the trappings. However much they are in it for the music the old dream is still there in the background.
They missed the opportunity to avoid alienating billions of music fans to the point where most see nothing wrong with copyright infringement and so many see infringing as a way of 'getting back' at the recording industry for their abuses.
If they had moved to protect their copyright given monopoly by embracing the changes rather than opposing them they would be better monetizing music today.
Importantly, while the economics suggest this could only ever be a case of delaying the inevitable, the delay would have given them more time to adapt to a new reality. Time they no longer have.
I suppose I can understand it as some sort of temporary measure to douse a flame war. On the other hand a good part of the value is the comments - whether or not I choose to make a comment myself, other peoples comments are often as compelling (in not more) than the article itself.
By the time I got around to reading the Techcrunch post it was too late to join in any meaningful discussion. It had degenerated into a cesspool of accusation and counter accusation. Like scottbp I declined to comment.
It is dumbfounding that people who hold themselves to be intelligent can take a few cases where some company has abused the system and lay the blame on the exploited immigrants rather than those that exploit them. Lowering the debate to racial vilification is deplorable.
But, much as I deplore the hateful views Vivek opposes, much as I oppose those views he wants to suppress, you cannot address ignorance with censorship.
The US owes its prosperity to migrants. Migrants built the nation, migration provided the stimulus that fueled its growth throughout the 20th century and migration will ensure its future. No nation that has closed its borders has prospered.
Refusing to engage and correct bad ideas is no way to address them
I'm more inclined to believe Nokia when they say that they spent the first two years negotiating with Apple and only went down this path when talks broke down.
I don't think you need to look to Machiavellian motives for what Nokia are doing. The patent system allows Nokia to get a cut from the other manufacturers of GSM (and derivative) standard handsets . Why shouldn't Nokia expect to get the same from Apple? This is mature technology from decades old work - its practically money for nothing. Why wouldn't you expect Nokia to exploit the mess of a system we have to get money for nothing?
Whether Nokia are deliberately exploiting the system to hold apple back doesnt really change the underlying problem: The patent system is broken. The outcomes it encourages are clearly counter to the original intent. The system needs to be reformed.
An Amateur artist can just be about the art. A professional though needs to be thinking about how to build a profession, a business, an income around that art.
If you don't want to think about how to use your art to make a living, then a best you're really only an amateur. That's OK. It's up to you; who knows? You might get lucky. And the industry is there waiting to help themselves out. Just don't be too surprised if you get ripped off.
It really depends on what intellectual property is. Patents and Copyright might form a legal framework on which you can pretend that ideas can owned, but this blog highlights the problems with that distortion regularly.
But if you can accept the concept that ideas can be owned in the first place then trade secrets like the "secret sauce" to their page rank algorithm are as much "property" as ideas covered by patents are. From this it follows that Google are totally reliant on their IP. Without their page ranking technology they would be nothing.
On the other hand intellectual property is an oxymoron and any treatment of ideas as property is a distortion.
Murdoch knows search and news have become symbiotic. But he wants a larger slice of the pie. Understanding his starting position is weak he's come out with a threat made credible by his reputation as a septuagenarian autocrat.
Murdoch and his advisers are not stupid: they know the threat to block their content from google is empty, but they need to start somewhere in their bid for a share of the advertising dollars that google has lured away from them.
I disagree. The same technology they use to identify where you are can be used to localise or globalize the ads: Not in the US, only show ads for global brands; have a sales office in India, show the ads you sold to Indians. Using Canada as an example most US adds that are nationally relevant are going to be relevant there too. You only *think* Canadians are strange, they're actually a lot like you.
It really *is* about the content industry and the way they do distribution.
You see back in the olden days they used to contract with a local distributor in each country to distribute the reels and collect the royalties. It kind of made sense when they had to load all those canisters onto a steamer and ship them across oceans. Everyone was happy and most people wore an onion on their belt (which was the fashion at the time).
As far as the 'content industry' is concerned the olden days never ended and Hulu can only show the content in the country they have licensed it. If they want to show it in Canada they need a license from the Canadian rights holder. They haven't done that (yet) so blockedy block.
Google haven't paid anyone to move their YouTube traffic (or other traffic) from peering points to the consumer for a long time. But they do spend a lot of money expanding and maintaining their extensive global network that moves traffic between their data centres and from data centres to peering points.
Major Telcos speak only of the former when they talk about Google getting a "free ride"; Google speak only of the latter when responding that the Telcos must maintain net neutrality; Analysts and journalists happily emphasise whichever fits their agenda.
So YouTube wasnt a bad investment because the bandwidth costs didnt turn out to be crippling as some predicted? OK. A little one dimensional but I guess I can live with that.