NamelessMofo’s Techdirt Profile

On the post: Apple's Next iTunes Plan: Movie Rentals?

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 18 Jul, 2006 @ 11:09am

Sorry, Apple will bomb on this one

I can't understand how anyone would prefer to watch a movie on a tiny screen. Even though the iPod can connect to a TV, it won't offer better then standard definition, and this is at a time when the market is moving to high definition.

I am happy to see that Apple realizes they cannot create a market for selling movies through iTunes, and instead opt for a rental model. Still, I would find it ridiculous to spend 30 minutes downloading a poor quality movie file when I could just take a drive or walk to my local DVD rental store in the same amount of time. Of, I just walk to my mailbox and receive new movies through online DVD rental services.

I personally prefer watching a movie in high quality video and sound. While I can tolerate watching television shows or music videos in low quality, I cannot tolerate compromising on quality when it comes to movies, and I think most people will find that to be the case. Movies on EVERY mobile format typically bomb, like UMD and the PSP.

I cannot see Apple offering HD movie files for playback on an iPod or TV through an ipod either. The file formats will be too large for quick downloads and you will use up too much disk space on the iPod to make it practical. I could only hope that perhaps Apple offers low iPod quality movies, and offers high definition movies playable through iTunes on any PC or Mac with TV out.

I think the entire model of selling or renting online digital movie files is a flawed concept, at least for portable players, and I don't even think Apple can make this a successful market. It will be a novelty for a short while, and Apple may even flaunt a "1 million movies watched" announcement, but ultimately I think their "iMovie" download service will fail miserably. Unless the iPod offers WiFi connectivity and can stream HD content, this market will never take off.

Ultimately, I find this endeavour laughable as Apple hasn't even positioned themselves to make a Mac work well with home theater systems. Few offer digital surround capabilities and the pitiful 6 button remote is a joke compared to full fledged Media Center PC's which can actually be used to navigate and control a computer, rather then advance to the next song/video or control the volume. Unless Apple is planning to offer a dedicated HTPC box, I can't understand their drive to offer movies online, if all they intend to do is force people to compromise on quality in order to play on or through an iPod.

On the post: iPods Cause Autism With Non-Existent Mercury?

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 17 Jul, 2006 @ 12:21pm

Hmm, that explains it

Brits are calling it Autism, I just think its an increase in general stupidity over there. Like baning standby modes in electronic devices to save energy. Anybody think about inbreading? I doubt it is limited to the royal family.

On the post: No, Mobile Phone Antenna Booster Stickers Don't Work

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 17 Jul, 2006 @ 10:29am

How about this claim?

I saw a few years ago stickers you can put on your cell phone battery that would someone both decrease the charge time, and also increase the standby/talk time of any phone. It would somehow align the electrons properly to improve the batteries ability to take and give out a charge.

The bottom line is, there are lots of stupid people out there, and when you make a claim that is subject to subjective results (i.e. I think I get 1 bar better reception since I put on this sticker, or get a few minutes extra talk time, or it seems to charge faster with the sticker), then you have a market to make money.

Its like snake oil or herbal medicine, I mean, sell something in a bottle and claim it will improve your life, your always going to get the placebo effect in many people claiming improvements since using it, but medically speaking, the stuff does nothing. All you need is one stupid person claiming the stuff works, and you have a market because stupidity is contagious. How about that medal bracelet that is supposed to cure everything from arthritis to bad posture and improves your golf game to boot?

The Internet compounds the problem because there is no way to tell the difference between a legitimate vouch by a customer/scientist that something works, and the clever marketing guru flooding the net with positive "reviews and commentary" along with "Scientific facts". Even this comment board is filled with claims that these thing work, and the geekier idiots here are actually trying to offer scientific facts that suggest it should be able to work or won't work, which further exacerbates the problem by offering both proof and doubt.

Lets put it this way, do you honestly think some $5 (or whatever the price) retail strip of metal will make your $200 cell phone get better reception? And why wouldn't the cellphone companies improve their product to get better reception by adding a few cents worth of metal to the phone, or at least sell you a $20 strip of metal that is an "authorized accessory".

Stupid is as what you buy, and people make money knowing this. I actually respect someone that sells stuff that is unfounded and useless but still gets rich from it. There is nothing illegal about this, its not even fraud. How can you claim its fraud when you get even a few people claiming it works for them?

Now if you will excuse me, I have to tend to my pet rock collection and my sea monkeys which I am SURE will hatch today. At least rubbing my Chia pet is brining me luck, the $400 in lottery tickets I bought with numbers picked from fortune cookie numbers won me $20 last week.

On the post: Still Looks Like Spam To Me

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 17 Jul, 2006 @ 09:59am

Sorry

Using email for advertising should simply be outlawed, period. Even for "legitimate" reasons.

I see advertising on the Internet, on TV, in the movies, hear it on the radio, see it in magazines and newspapers, have it delivered to me through snail mail, see it on billboards, sides of buses, bus stands, sides of trains planes and automobiles, sides of buildings, in buildings . . . everywhere.

Ask me if I REMEMBER ANY ad I saw coming into work today!

Do companies honestly believe that email marketing is necessary to be added to this deluge of IGNORED content? Does email advertising offer some staying power over the slew of other methods we get advertising?

Do what I do, set my email inbox to only accept whitelisted addresses. I am tired of spam filters missing 50% of the spam, I am even tired of people sending me chain mail or joke lists. If your on the whitelist, I want to hear from you, if you're not, then either you send spam or send something I don't want to see. If you want to be on my list, then I need to talk to you in person first, or call you, or some other method of contact or opt to receive your newsletter or whatever.

Its time for people to grow up and realize that the reason why spam continues is that people are too afraid of missing that important email, or loosing contact with someone they haven't preconfigured to be included in their whitelist, and they have to get over it and make the switch. Instead of adding people to a trusted list of acceptable emails, we want to allow ALL emails through, and then sort out which ones are good and bad, and add the bad to a filtered list, and this method doesn't work. You will receive 100 bad emails for every good one you get, it is eaiser to filter on the good stuff.

I think ALL email needs to go through a handshake process, if your receive email from somone not on your whitelist, you are asked if you want to accept email from that person, is so, it adds it and every email sent then on from that address is accepted, if not, then it is blocked. Further to that, the blocked request is sent to the source ISP or your email server, and if the same address gets blocked some pre-defined amount of times, the email address is permanently blocks or suspended, period.

Anyways, marketers thinking email is a valid method for advertising need to be lined up and shot. It will NEVER be an acceptable source of advertising, and regardless of how cheap it is, valid marketing and spam will always be lumped together, and if you started only adding trusted addresses to a whitelist rather then accepting all email, then you will find that both spam and email advertising will end.

On the post: Velveeta Fanboys Beat Out Apple Fanboys?

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 13 Jul, 2006 @ 01:42pm

The survely looks like this

What do you like most?

A) Sony
B) Getting a root canal without pain killers
C) Getting an enema
D) Getting kicked in the nuts

The problem is that while Sony won the poll and got the "Best Brand" reputation, it only got 30% of the votes.

What this means is that Sony is COMPLETELY in the wrong business and just proves that they have no idea what their customers want.

People can come up with statistics to prove anything. Forty percent of all people know that.

On the post: No, That Phone Isn't Broken, It's Just Unusable

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 13 Jul, 2006 @ 12:32pm

What the UK should do

Ban stupidity, they can do that after they ban the standby mode for electronic devices, and raise their island because of the melting Arctic ice .

On the post: Didn't Like UMD? Don't Worry, Sony's Got Another Locked Down Format For You

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2006 @ 11:23am

The problem

Sony needs to decide if they are a consumer electronics company, or a media content provider. They can't be both because they are failing in both markets.

Too often Sony cripples their own innovation because they need to ensure any new media format or electronics component can't be use to copy their movie, music, or game division content allowing for rampant piracy.

When you look at it, there is no other company out their that has their fingers both in the content players and the content makers. Why is Apple so successful? Because while they may have some DRM in iTunes and iPod, they do not limit the iPod to only run DRM files. Microsoft might make games, but games are not Microsoft's bread and butter, so content protection isn't a top priority. Sony keeps insisting on crippling new products in order to protect their media property.

Sony should spin off their stake in movies and music and video games so that they don't have to continue this schizophrenic existence. Without having to impose DRM in every digital device they make, perhaps they could make an iPod, gameboy, DVD or Xbox killer.

For now, every time Sony fails in a hardware venture, they just make another Spiderman sequal to pay the bills.

On the post: You Really Don't Need Solitaire In 3-D

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2006 @ 11:09am

Re:

The video card needs replacing after 6 - 12 months if you want to play a whole new generation of games with graphics that leapfrog the consoles.

For state of the art, PC's are already there, consoles were made on last years technology. 3 Years from now, consoles will still be using last years technology.

On the post: Things Microsoft Shouldn't Do: Promise Faster OS Release Times

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2006 @ 07:02am

How can you say this is status quo

People will complain about Microsoft for no good reason, and it is just a sign of naive ignorance.

During the 90's. Microsoft developed 7 versions of there OS, and this not including server versions of NT4.0 and Windows 2000 and mobile CE versions and embedded versions. And guess what, people bitched and complained about how fast Microsoft was rolling out operating systems. People couldn't understand the need to upgrade from Windows 95 to 98, and the SE and then ME and then 2000. People said it hurt the industry because it forced people to upgrade rapidly wasting money unnecessarily.

Now, people are complaining about how long Vista is taking, saying that the years involved in development, and constant postponement is hurting the industry?

WTF!

I am sorry, but when it comes to Microsoft, I am tired of the "Status Quo" of being negative about anything they do, especially with there is no thought or reason for it. And the person who submitted this article a completely MORON! It is obvious he knows nothing about Microsoft's game plan, and has ignored developments in the Microsoft camp in order to lash out with is obvious bias and unfounded hatred.

Microsoft is heavily going in the direction of online services, their whole Windows Live product line is a testament to that. As well as the whole .Net platform which is geared towards developing online services. But they can't just end traditional desktop application support in one go either. Rather then just saying "Customers want online services" Microsoft is tentatively rolling out online services to see if customers bite. I mean, how many dot.com bombs have happened because corporations under or overestimated the needs of customers. Consider that still a large part of the population doesn't have broadband service, putting all your eggs into online services doesn't make sense.

As for making Vista too bloated? I mean, come on, get real guys. Microsoft is finally doing what Apple has done, added a decent search index system, gadgets, and other bells and whistles that make an OS easier to use. What people perceive as bloat, the UI, Microsoft is finally utilizing the full power of your system by leveraging your idle GPU to render UI components. The UI does not tax your CPU, thus allowing your CPU to be used for the intention of the application, not to render the application.

Nobody complains about Apple not providing a lightweight OS environment and turning to online services. Its this kind of double standard that I find is just a sign of ignorance, how Apple does everything right, and Microsoft wrong, when in fact they are doing the same thine. Why not complain that Apple should move its iLife applications as online services, rather then weighing down and OS with over 10 gb of files.

Anyways, I am not Microsoft's champion either, and they have done some vile business practices in the past. But I develop Windows applications, and I have to find the silver lining, and I find that Microsoft is doing more right then wrong these days. Just that stupid moronic people can't let go of the past, they are still bitter about the whole 90's Microsoft to realize Microsoft has moved on and making an OS for the 21st century.

Finally, if you have not USED Vista, then you have no business saying there is no reason to upgrade. Use it, even once, and you will find it to be streamlined and worth an upgrade over XP, even in just the way it organizes multimedia. There are numerous performance and power efficiency options that I like (hybrid drives and Superfetch) The only feature excluded is WinFS. But I would still recommend that you get it with a new computer when you buy or upgrade to one because Vista is all about leveraging new hardware features.

On the post: Nielsen To Begin Measuring How Many People Aren't Watching Commercials

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2006 @ 01:24pm

What Bargain?

First, commercials existed because people were getting over the air television signals for free. Like with Radio stations, commercials were a way to subsidize the transmission and development of content to put on the air.

Today, most people pay for cable or sattelite. Why should we pay $80+ a month and still be forced to watch commercials.

Somewhere along the way, radio and TV separated. You can still get free radio, but put up with the ads, or you can subscribe to satellite radio, and get it ad free.

Where is my subscription based ad-free televison?

In any regards, I think they have this all wrong. There has never been any guarantee that the commercial that airs is being watched. People always could either change channles, mute the TV, leave the room or turn the TV off for a few minutes. All that will result from this kind of "rating" system is that Advertisers will for more obnoxiouis and in your face advertising mechanisms, like forcing you NOT to fast forward your PVR recordings, or pop up ads during regular television broadcasts.

Advertising is a billion dollar industry, and I think this is an industry soley created by advertising agencies. Does McDonald's really need to advertise? Do you need tampon or diaper commercials? Do you need car commercials? I mean, we are inidated with advertising with products we either already readily buy in massive quantities, will buy regardless of the advertising, or are so brand fixated on particular products that no amount of advertising will take us away from them.

In fact, some of the most successful "brands" are things like no-name or store brands, people people buy them because its the cheapest. You can advertise Tide all you want, but when the no-name or store brand is $4 cheaper per bottle, who cares.

It is time for the advertising industry to accept the fact that consumers need a break. Rather then trying to figure out more ways to inidate us with advertising, why not realize that you have had us hooked for years now and advertising has become redundant and in many cases, ineffective.

If I need to buy toilete paper, I get whats on sale, I don't care what any commercial full of kittens have to say. I don't wipe my ass with kittens.

On the post: Instead Of Whining About Microsoft, Websense Tries Innovating

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 10 Jul, 2006 @ 11:27am

predatory pricing?

As for predatory pricing, OneCare live costs $49.99 a year, while after rebates and such, Norton Internet Security (with AV and a firewall) costs about $39.99 a year. For the last 5 years I have bought upgrades with mail in rebates for Symantec products for around the same price.

I don't think an AV tool should cost an arm and a leg to buy, so those companies wanting to sell super duper antivirus software for $129 per computer need to get a life.

By that argument, then the whole Open source community is anti-competitive because they offer free alternatives to ALL retail software. Why not go after AVG which offers a completely capable and robust anti-virus tool for free? I am probably not going to get Norton Whatever 2007 because AVG is more then capable of handling protection on my computer. Why not sue Sun for making a completely capable but free Office Suite?

People like to go after Microsoft because that is where the money is, period.

On the post: If You Have A Screenplay Worth Millions, Shouldn't You Back It Up?

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 07 Jul, 2006 @ 12:20pm

First

I mean, I now it is hard to reproduce something like a screenplay from memory, the guy should have a pretty clear memory about how the plot went. If the guy is worth his salt as a writer, then he will rewrite the plays, and by doing so, make them better in the process. This is of course assuming the guy was sober when he writes.

Second, get a friggin clue buddy. Saving documents to your desktop, the guy probably had hundreds of icons on his desktop. I can't stand moronic people that don't LEARN how to use computers, they just are lazy and drop files on the desktop because they are too stubborn to figure out how to do things properly.

In any case, I agree that this case would have been tossed out. I mean if the guy got paid and then the files were deleted, and he had to return the money, there would be damages, but not before he sold the screenplays.

Finally, 2.7 million for 3 screen plays? The average Hollywood screen play for unknown or first time writers is around $100,000, and that is being generous. Who is this guy, Michael Crichton?

On the post: Does Google Need An Independent Review Board To Look Over Rankings?

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 07 Jul, 2006 @ 08:54am

No

While I do agree that Google needs to be accountable for how it ranks websites, and provide an outlet to handle appeals and complaints, (better then they apparently do now), I don't think that any government has a right to establish a law which states how Google should rank or run their company.

Google provides a service and if people don't like that service, they can complain to Google. If Google chooses not to respond or resolve the complaint, then that opens up the doors for litigation by the offending/offended parties. This is how capitalism works, you have the right to run the company largely in your own way, but if you piss off your customers, then prepare to accept responsibility for it. The legal system gives everyone a fair chance to resolve their issues in court, regardless if its Joe Blow web Schmo or Google.

While there are universal laws about how a company is supposed to be set up and maintained and protects both entrepreneur and customers rights, the moment the government steps in and says this is how your supposed to run your company specifically, then that is the day communism takes over the world.

On the post: RIAA Got It Wrong, Convenience More Important Than Free To Students

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 07 Jul, 2006 @ 07:17am

Nothing is both FREE and EASY

Although its every man's dream.

But, I digress. I got 20 "free" songs when I signed up with Vonage, one of the few perks of that disaster. Anyways, when I finally got the code to get my free music, I went to the website, which was part of the puretracks.com company, and then tried to get my free music. Browsing and adding songs to the cart was easy, although the selection wasn't great, and when I went to check out, Vonage said that I should enter the value of 20 songs times $.99 when I entered me certificate ID. That would leave me having to pay for the taxes. I screwed that nonsense and put the full total of the order including taxes, and it accepted it.

The fun came when I wanted to actually download the music and play it. The download engine didn't seem to work on Firefox, and even using IE was spotty. It took way too long to download the music. The REAL joyous part of the experience was when I tried to play the DRM protected songs in Windows Media Player 10, and the player wouldn't play them, period. I tried to find a utility to remove the windows DRM on the music, ( I mean, I do legitimately own the music at this point), but after browsing many suspicous websites that wanted to set way too many cookies and run way too many scripts and active X controls, and downloading one dubious application which only crashed my system (but wasn't reported as a trojan by Norton Anti-virus) I almost gave up on the songs.

I finally installed Windows MP 11 and tried it one last time, and I actually was able to unlock the songs and listen to them. I promptly made a CD of the music and then ripped it into iTunes to put onto my iPod.

The moral of the story is, be wary of anything Vonage offers you, because it probably sucks in reality.

On the post: Wiki Demonstrates How Yellow Pages Are Obsolete — Gets Sued For Its Efforts

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 07 Jul, 2006 @ 06:58am

Trying to maintain online presence

I can see, to a point, how the Yellow Pages Group wants to keep an edge over such free projects like yellowiki, but to sue is ridiculous. What right does Yell have to prevent someone from freely posting online contact information on a free wiki?

There is no way to stop the proliferation of voluntary information on the web. Except for perhaps trademark infringement using Yellow Pages or a yellow theme could be fought over, the actual information and purpose of the website cannot be disputed.

A wiki that allows businesses to freely post advertising and contact information is as legal as most other practices on the web.

I would suggest that Yellowiki change its name and continues to offer a free international service to allow business and individuals to post advertising and contact information and destroy greedy corporations like Yellowpages providing a service which is no longer something to have to pay for. Call it Bluewiki. Make Blue the new Yellow. Create a brand rather then leaching off another brand, then there won't be any reason to be sued.

On the post: Price Discrimination Lowers Overall Prices; But Still Pisses People Off

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2006 @ 12:19pm

Trying to justify getting ripped off

Sorry, I don't buy it. Don't charge me $100 for a different color to offset "production costs". That is pure bullsh*t. Apple knows that the black ones are cooler and so force the more popular model to be more expensive.

Instead, charge $50 extra for each color to make the them cost the same.

I can agree that if Apple sold only the black model, and then charged $200 more for pure profit because they knew they had a popular model, I wouldn't complain because people will buy it regardless, but Apple makes it so obvious that price discrimination is apparent. I am surprised the black iPods are not more expensive then the white ones.

Of course, they can get away with it because it just proves that many Apple users are just dumb schmucks with more money then brains and its all about style over substance. They probably are also the same people that will wait 6 months for that "special limited edition color" of a backordered VW Jetta rather then getting one in a different color that is already on the lot. Better yet, get a car without the ego.

On the post: Online Casino Reveals That People Would Bet Their Mortgage Online

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2006 @ 10:52am

Gambling in Canada

Its like the government in Canada has a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other. Over the last decade, they have allowed the building of a significant number of casinos (largely on native reserves), but then struggle with defining the morality and legality of gambling and how to protect citizens from the dangers of obsessive gambling.

Its like with cigarettes, on the one hand the governmet puts out millions in advertising and law making to stop people from smoking and prevent it in public places, and yet, make no effort to outright ban smoking because of the tax revenue and industry it creates for the country.

I live in a country of duality on almost every single issue, where the government both supports and objects to the issues they rule on. I wish my government would just grow a set and pick a side.

On the post: Forget Walled Gardens, AOL May Go Completely Free For Broadband Users

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2006 @ 06:51am

Should have become Google, period

Honestly AOL had the numbers and potential to have become Google like 10 years ago. If they stopped their subscription service and ISP access, and instead became a free web portal offering things like content filtering for children, better search capabilities, and consolidated content, then I think AOL could have become Google before Google even knew what to do with itself.

I think it is too late now, with Google dominating the web as it has. AOL couldn't develop their own AdSense, AOL won't be an effective search engine, AOL won't be able to compete with both Google and MSN for being a free online portal.

This is AOL's writing on the wall, something that began over a decade ago when broadband started becoming in the dominant method to connect to the Internet.

What AOL should do now is mail out billions of apology letters for inidating us with bad quality products and services for so long.

On the post: New Casino Business Model: Any Time Someone Wins, Blame The Software

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 05 Jul, 2006 @ 12:40pm

Well

I have always found it slightly dubious to put my money into a "computer" slot machine. I mean, honestly, do we really think the results are random, or do the casinos hit a button every now and then to pay out on demand.

But theses days, even the so called mechanical slot machines are all computer controlled.

I think that if this case has any huge impact on customer relations, then casinos should be forced to ban computerized slot machines by law, and instead rely soley on mechanical processes for true random results.

Until that happens, I will play poker or blackjack so I know that there is some fate in how I win or lose.

On the post: The Latest Solution To File Sharing: More CD Packaging!

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 05 Jul, 2006 @ 11:53am

It does make sense, but does it?

First and foremost, no online retailer of music is doing it right. Not even iTunes.

I mean, they just distribute the song, with the cover artwork, and fill in a few ID3 fields.

What about lyrics, additional artwork, credits and props. And, who is the person playing that piano or violin? I mean, I don't know why people are not suing companies like iTunes which pretty much strip the copyright and credit information off of every song ( I would have sued if I was a violin player or backup singer trying to make a name for myself by playing backup for some popular singer or band ).

Sure, Apple releases the digital booklet, but I mean, they don't even do that well. The digital booklet isn't viewable in the iTunes player, and the iPod doesn't support it. It would be nice on the current generation of iPods to allowed the digital booklet to be viewed like a slide show, but the file format is simply not supported by the ubiquitous music player.

I have felt that the only way to compete with digital music is for CD vendors to make the packaging more "collectible" and make all the content you can't get with your digital file more interesting.

Recently, this was accomplished with Tool's 10,000 Days CD, whose enhanced packaging includes stereoscopic glasses embedded in the case and the included booklet has stereograms of band members and interesting artwork. The fact I bought it for $9.99 while the iTunes music store is selling it for $12.99 finally made me realize how stunningly overpriced online music is.

I both welcome and abhor this new trend, as I don't feel I should have to pay more for fancier packaging. I am afraid with this new trend that that Tool CD would have been $21.99 because it was in a "collector's" packaging. While the $9.99 version would be in a plain cardboard sleeve. Why not simply make the packaging more interesting, and give people a feeling they are not getting ripped of with $9.99 or $12.99 CD's.

It is stunning to see how much the music industry just does not get its consumers. Largely, we have given them this level of power by happily buying billions in music sales in years gone by without much complain, but now, even when consumers are revolting and distributing music for free online, the music industry is still trying to find ways to make more money, by inflating the cost of something by putting it in a slightly fancier packaging.

Don't tier CD prices, just be more inventive with your packaging and keep the prices at or even below online album sales!

NamelessMofo 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (160)