next »

[perkiset]

@Lamont: the iTunes store is a completely different story. I 100% agree that the iTunes store was a game changer. But IMO DRM has always been a thorn in it's side, not the reason for it's success. The iTunes store increased the convenience factor by an order of magnitude. I can string out an argument that could side with the notion that the iTunes store would not have been possible without DRM (in other words, the labels would never have allowed it) but I don't think that's where you were going.

@Nop: I think you're spot on about the corporate self image. I read, just a couple days ago, that Jobs never saw Apple as a computer company, in fact he modeled it after Italian car companies  the brilliance of his vision though, was that the real value of their offering was the result of the technology, not the technology itself.

Hmmm... Sounds a lot like Nutballs and my current power point sales deck...

[lamontagne]

I can string out an argument that could side with the notion that the iTunes store would not have been possible without DRM (in other words, the labels would never have allowed it) but I don't think that's where you were going.

that is exactly where I was trying to go. I always seem to have the problem of going from A straight to Z (the string of arguments) and have trouble explaining the middle part. Of course the ipod would have succeeded a great deal more if there was no DRM, but that would require that the record industry not giving a flip about money at all, which isn't going to happen. Managing to work out the DRM issues with the record industry and stay in good graces with artists was the thing that set it off. Without working out these DRM issues you cannot create an itunes store, record companies won't go for a solution where things can be freely distributed.

Nop, I know you love history, but I would say having the belief that history will always repeat itself is sticking yourself in a mental box. Almost every venture I take fails, but if I believed this was always the case because the first 9 ventures failed I would never succeed. Just because everybody else has done something and it has failed does not mean you give up all hope and say it can't be done.

Google is attempting to make the jump from the Web to the TV. Actually, google is attempting to make a system where anybody can start a TV Channel and therefore there will ALWAYS be something on tv, with millions of channels. Basically everybody entertaining everybody with googles ads for commercials. You are both a TV Channel and a TV Watcher, and neither requires a great deal of cost to get up and running. Taking the Web to the TV has been tried so many times it isn't funny, by many many companies. google may succeed, maybe not. Even if they fail another company will still try again, in a different way.

[nop_90]

Nop, I know you love history, but I would say having the belief that history will always repeat itself is sticking yourself in a mental box.

I did not say that "history repeats itself" Anyone who things that is silly
I was saying that in the case of the ipod you where historically wrong.

To ease human thinking people use analogies.
I use the analogy of buckets of UDP packets, pipes for TCP streams.
It is a useful analogy. But a false one.
History can be used as an analogy. Even if the history is "false" .
But everything a human uses to see the world is an analogy. If it was not our brains would explode.
The problem is 99.99% of the people think the analogy is real

History teaches you that a lot of things are decided by accidents.
That is not to say your tortoise idea is wrong. The tortoise moving forwards increases the odds of a good accident to come your way.

[lamontagne]

Agree. I know I'm a stubborn ass and a little snarky. It comes from just agreeing with what the majority believes when I was a little kid, and then finding out later the majority are a bunch of tards. I use the mailbox for UDP packets, the telephone for tcp streams, and the home address for the ip address. lol.

[perkiset]

that is exactly where I was trying to go. I always seem to have the problem of going from A straight to Z (the string of arguments) and have trouble explaining the middle part. Of course the ipod would have succeeded a great deal more if there was no DRM, but that would require that the record industry not giving a flip about money at all, which isn't going to happen. Managing to work out the DRM issues with the record industry and stay in good graces with artists was the thing that set it off. Without working out these DRM issues you cannot create an itunes store, record companies won't go for a solution where things can be freely distributed.

Then I totally get you.

Google is attempting to make the jump from the Web to the TV. Actually, google is attempting to make a system where anybody can start a TV Channel and therefore there will ALWAYS be something on tv, with millions of channels. Basically everybody entertaining everybody with googles ads for commercials. You are both a TV Channel and a TV Watcher, and neither requires a great deal of cost to get up and running. Taking the Web to the TV has been tried so many times it isn't funny, by many many companies. google may succeed, maybe not. Even if they fail another company will still try again, in a different way.

I think that Google is trying to move the computer experience to the TV, while Apple is trying to richen the normal TV experience. Big difference there. It will be interesting to see if people really want to make use of the multi-tasked, PIP style interface and capabilities that Google wants to make available via GTV, as opposed to the more simplistic, I Want My Movies kind of attitude that Apple is pushing with the new ATV. IMO, no one yet has managed to make a full computer experience attractive in the 8-10' interface distance, so I'm most intrigued to see if Google is righter about how people want to move forward (more complexity per device) or Apple is (as an archetype, not necessarily a vendor) with less complexity, more access.

[daviator]

I'm most intrigued to see if Google is righter about how people want to move forward (more complexity per device) or Apple is (as an archetype, not necessarily a vendor) with less complexity, more access.

I share your intrigue on this subject.  I've actually been quite curious as to how many people are actually using the new features of the "internet-enabled" TVs that have become the norm over the past couple of years.  My two flatscreen TVs predate this phenomena, but earlier this year I installed a new Samsung TV for my mom, and explored those features.  I concluded that they were 99% useless.  Do I want to call up web pages on my TV?  No.  Do I want to watch grainy Youtube videos on my big TV?  No.  Do I want to call up weather forecasts or movie theater schedules on my TV?  Not really, it's much easier to do so on a smartphone or PC.  The Netflix streaming movies might be occasionally useful, but until they have streaming of more (and more current) films and in HD, it isn't that compelling either.  Pulling up horoscopes and stock quotes on the TV?  I laugh at the former and think this is the wrong device for accessing the latter.

So I wonder if I am just different than most consumers, or if these features are largely useless.  And in the "Google TV'- vs. "Apple TV"-model debate, I am thinking people will go for simplicity over complexity, and that doing computer-ilke stuff from your couch, way across the room from your TV, just doesn't strike me as something most people will want to do.  But I eagerly look forward to seeing what will actually happen in the marketplace.

[nop_90]

It comes from just agreeing with what the majority believes when I was a little kid, and then finding out later the majority are a bunch of tards.

When I was a kid, I was backwards in that respect.
For example, I grew up in a conservative bible thumping community.
Majority of people, including kids, talking about this invisible guy in the sky.
No word of a lie. I remember a pastor's kid telling me how their car was out of gas, and they prayed really hard and the gas tank got a 1/4 more full.

But this is where I fuked up. I thought people did not believe this rubbish, but they where just pretending.
It took me years to figure out majority of people believe stupid shit like this, therefore the "majority are a bunch of tards".
So the problem in this case was my theory was incorrect. If I had only known this years ago I would be a zillionaire 

After 2003 (the itunes store) is when it really begins to grow. Now we can attribute the growth to various factors but I would say that the itunes store is the
...
biggest factor. Sure in 2001 it may have been great for you, but was it a success yet?

.
We can all fall in this trap. Especially when you use previous history for a present day scenario.
The 2003 turning point was caused by "March 2003 Disasters March 4, Davao, Philippines: A bomb in a backpack exploded in the Davao".
Ok i just googled 2003 disasters and randomly choose that one

Google is attempting to make the jump from the Web to the TV. Actually, google is attempting to make a system where anybody can start a TV Channel and therefore there will ALWAYS be something on tv, with millions of channels. Basically everybody entertaining everybody with googles ads for commercials. You are both a TV Channel and a TV Watcher, and neither requires a great deal of cost to get up and running. Taking the Web to the TV has been tried so many times it isn't funny, by many many companies. google may succeed, maybe not. Even if they fail another company will still try again, in a different way.

I think I watch maybe 4 hours of TV a week tops. In the 4 hours is included when I might watch a movie on DVD.
I have no idea what will happen in this case. Also I can not think of any way how I can profit off this google or apple TV.
I do enjoy watching TV evangalist. Some crap about invisible guy in the sky who loves you a lot. But if you have any natural urges, since he loves you so much you will burn all up. And then how this invisible guy is totally powerful, but needs the TV evangalist to collect money for him.

Maybe I can become a google TV evangalist

[isthisthingon]

I have a hard time wrapping my head around why C/C/P is so difficult. Why did it take Apple a year+ to get it out? Why will it be missing from W7? Does Android do it well? I have no idea. Seems like this would have been a top-line priority.

Resources, for the most part.  Then performance and data integrity.  A PC has the luxury of lots of really fast RAM access compared to handhelds.  So allowing a free-form C/C/P operation on a handheld is roughly analogous to permitting ad-hoc queries in a production environment where the SLA guarantees performance for others impacted by these resource and bandwidth hogs.

But try doing a copy/paste in Notepad with 10 million rows in a CSV file.  It's not fun and as far as I could tell last time I tried and rebooted, it was frozen indefinitely.  Why would anyone do this?  Mass data uploads into a cloud  

So my guess is the support questions of "it keeps freezing up on me" when users inadvertently copy some graphic emailed to them far outweighs the feature deficit.  But in truth, how about a "Safe Copy" that prevents this mess in the first place??  

[perkiset]

I think Lamont hit it dead on earlier talking about the interface. I kind of ground through some situations imagining it with touch and when you factor non-input CCP it becomes much tougher. And to your point, CCP a whole web page ... to what? Using what stack etc is a huge nightmare. So in retrospect I'm more impressed.

[lamontagne]

We can all fall in this trap. Especially when you use previous history for a present day scenario.
The 2003 turning point was caused by "March 2003 Disasters March 4, Davao, Philippines: A bomb in a backpack exploded in the Davao".
Ok i just googled 2003 disasters and randomly choose that one

True. Correlation does not imply causation, something I should have spotted immediately in my attempt to argue my point. I'm usually better at not falling into those sort of traps.

Also was reading a great post today about the secrets of steve jobs success. found it on news.ycombinator.com , a somewhat hidden gem of a site that should be on everyone's favorites list IMO...sometimes it can get a bit "guru" type, but mostly great stuff. this became my primary news source after the influx of digg users/rally publicity to reddit, and the decline of quality over there...

Post is here:
http://www.cultofmac.com/john-sculley-the-secrets-of-steve-jobs-success-exclusive-interview/21572

I've become more of a different mindset these days about everything. I no longer really dislike any one thing over another (be it apple vs microsoft vs linux or britney spears vs eric clapton). I listen to everything I can and keep up on everything I can (I don't ignore all apple news just because I personally don't like apple stuff).

[perkiset]

I agree, great article.

And good for you, BTW. Very eastern. I'd not expect that from someone with your accent