I'm actually in the group you're talking about. I rip all of my discs, keep them stored locally on drives at home, and prefer to properly own the films that I plan to re-watch repeatedly, rather than relying on Netflix or the like. But please note that my previous comment uses the term "digital distribution", rather than "streaming", and that renting was only a small portion of what I was discussing. I used that term quite intentionally, because I wanted to include digital purchases made from online-only distributors, and I stand by my comments when understood in that light.
"Cheapskates" and "people who don't care about the benefits offered" are not synonymous terms. And small wonder that a film that only appeals to niche collectors would be released using the format that appeals to niche collectors.
It would be great to get a series on one or two disks instead of these huge boxes.
Who would use them? Serious question.
Netflix likely won't adopt any future disc standards for the disc side of their business. Blu-ray is already an additional charge, and they've made it very clear that they view that side of their business as a dying, legacy one, and they even made an effort to divest themselves of it back when they tried to split it off a few years back. Storefront video rentals are nearly extinct, with Redbox and digital distribution displacing them, and Redbox certainly won't be offering whole series anytime soon, since it makes no sense for them to do so. For movies, blu-rays already serve all of their needs. In other words, there's no market for AD rentals.
I suppose Amazon and other retailers may sell the discs, but who would buy them? Hardcore collectors, sure, but outside that niche? The way I see it, you primarily have two types of folks:
1) The folks already using blu-ray. Theoretically, AD would draw primarily from this group, since they are the ones who would care about any benefits it has to offer, but it seems to me that its primary benefit is easier distribution than blu-ray, which is something that digital distribution already deals with for most people, and it's already being adopted by this group as the next step beyond blu-ray. As for content availability, most people would prefer to purchase a few extra blu-rays during a transitional period to the digital distribution that they've already started adopting, rather than investing in an entirely new format so that their shelves will be a bit tidier.
2) The ones who have to be dragged forward. They're the ones still using DVDs and who will only upgrade when they are forced to do so. Since AD players are likely to be backwards compatible with DVDs, these people will see no reason to purchase anything more expensive than DVDs, which, as is the case today with blu-rays already on the market, will keep the market for DVDs alive and healthy. They'll never upgrade to AD, since AD isn't forcing them to upgrade in the same way that DVD forced them to upgrade from VHS.
Really, the only use I see for these discs is...wait for it...archiving. Assuming they have a decent shelf life, I could see these replacing, or at least supplementing, the backup tapes that are still widely used in business settings.
Bit rot actually does mean what he thinks it means. And it means what you think it means too. Both uses for the term are correct.
Some of us don't mind blasts from the past.
Just thought I'd respond to your response with "I agree". Note that I didn't make any value statements about whether or not being able to use Mono in that fashion was a good idea. I merely pointed out that it can and is being used in that way, and that his statements regarding
Maybe I'm reading into it a bit, but I doubt the guy is so obtuse that he doesn't realize there's enough money to go around for the various forms of locomotion. I think this is just some defensive posturing he's doing in public to try and paint his company's products in a better light against the soon-to-be competition.
Here's what I see:
1) iRobot is a major supplier of defense and security robots currently in use by the US military.
2) iRobot's entire lineup is based on wheeled or treaded robots. There's no indications of them being anywhere close to fielding a walking robot of any sort.
3) Meanwhile, Boston Dynamics, a small company that wasn't yet a credible threat, has been working on both bipedal and quadrupedal robots for DARPA that are to the point where they're being field tested by the military.
4) Then, Google bought Boston Dynamics, meaning it suddenly has far more resources available to it than before, making them a much more credible threat.
5) And now, shortly thereafter, iRobot's CEO suddenly comes out trashing the technology used by the competition, just as that technology is reaching a point where it can start entering the market.
As I said, I might be reading into it a bit, but the timing and notions just seem weird. For instance, going back to the summary (emphasis mine):
The reason it has taken so long for the robotics industry to move forward is because people keep trying to make something that is cool but difficult to achieve, rather than trying to find solutions to actual human problems.
This is pretty clearly posturing on his part, since he has to be aware that none of his Roomba products can navigate stairs, an extremely basic and common component of building interiors. It's obvious that his products are not offering "solutions to actual human problems", or at least not to all of the problems, and he's scared that others will realize it too. It's good that he is, since his company isn't set up to deal with it, from what we know publicly.
It is restricted to a single market, that appears to be beginning to shrink.
Au contraire, Mono is in wide use (and growing rapidly) and lets you use
True, but we know from ST:DS9 that they'll switch over to holographic interfaces sometime in the late 2300s or early 2400s (or, at least they did in a future timeline in one episode).
Them not being able to participate is a drawback.
Sure, but I was talking specifically about perceived drawbacks that were the cause for being barred from participation and how the military thought it was addressing those with its DADT policy, whereas no drawbacks preventing participation were being addressed here. That is, the reasons they were barred from participation are still just as (in)valid as they were before, but now Fedora is willfully ignoring that fact. Yes, their lack of a participation is a drawback, but their lack of participation is not a drawback that is (recursively) keeping them from participating. It's a symptom, not the cause, and I was talking about causes.
As for the rest, that's a topic I don't want to argue, so I'll leave it for someone else. I mostly agree, but with some caveats.
Because the government thinks it's in its own interest to enforce those laws, otherwise they'd have wiped them out already, given that they're the only ones keeping them on the books.
This allows individuals in restricted countries to contribute to greater software quality and security without the perceived drawbacks [...]
What perceived drawbacks? In the case of the military's DADT policy, regardless of what the law was, there was a concern about how having homosexuals openly serving would affect the performance of units. In this case, however, individuals from those countries are simply barred because the US has cut off exports to those nations and requires that all US companies be proactive in doing the same. Nothing more. No perceptual issues at all. If the law was off the books tomorrow, virtually every open source project would welcome their participation with open arms.
That's why Fedora's DADT policy is quite different from the one employed by the US military. It does nothing to address the issue. It doesn't somehow change their nationality or alter the law, and it can't eliminate a perceived drawback since there isn't one. All it does is cover up their illegal participation.
Personally, I think the law is out of touch and needs to be amended, but that doesn't give Fedora the right to do as they please.
The situations are rather different. The stated purpose of the US military's DADT policy (which was repealed back in 2011, incidentally) was to allow homosexuals to serve while eliminating the perceived drawbacks (specifically, a reduction in unit cohesion and morale) that came with having them serve openly.
In contrast, the stated reason export restrictions are in place is to sanction or otherwise prevent the sharing of goods and information with certain countries. Fedora's DADT policy does nothing to address those issues, since those reasons are intact, regardless of whether the individual's nationality is known or not. If anything, it may make the problem worse by providing a false sense of legitimacy and legality to the nature of the business relationship, encouraging others to break the law as well. All Fedora is trying to do is eliminate their own culpability through willful ignorance, but the law makes it clear that they are required to proactively ensure that the people they share their data with are not from export-restricted countries. Willful ignorance is no excuse.
To be clear, I'm NOT addressing the topic of how things ought to work, how things should be, or whether these restrictions make any sense at all. That's a discussion for another comment thread.
The others invaded Bajor.
They lawfully occupied it. You Federation shills are so transparent in your efforts it's not even funny. You preach about peace, transparency, and freedom from oppression, while secretly engaging in the same tactics you publicly abhor.
(and suddenly this comment got way more serious and allusory than I intended)
No worries. If we, as a community, had to give each other nickels every time one of us did that, I'd be poorer for it, rather than richer.