Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re: Or, from another perspective ... (Score 1) 117

by AvitarX (#49319725) Attached to: Universal Reportedly Wants Spotify To Scale Back Its Free Streaming

hmmm, sleep is good...

I think my vague point was that the free radio offered by Spotify is (usually) better than playing from my (or another's) music collection. The free Spotify radio eliminates the need to buy any music, because it's better than the music one would select and buy on their own.

Unlike radio, which was a way to advertise music to buy, I regularly see Spotify (and even Pandora with it's limited selection) as a substitute for ever needing to buy music, far more often than radio acted that way.

This is leaving aside the fact that Spotify allows for custom playlists, and not just radio from a desktop (for free).

I think really, what the labels should eliminate, if they're that concerned, is the free playlist organization on desktops though, most people I know are still unlikely to stream too much music on mobile due to bandwidth limits (the caching feature helps with this though).

Spotify, even the free version, eliminates the need for a music collection, as it's better than radio, and knows about artists I don't know about, and when picking a specific song I like to base a station on, it does an amazing job of throwing together a playlist.

Having said all that, I subscribe, first to Spotify, to use it in my car, and then to Google Play, because I can side load what it is missing (mostly local bands from my youth).

Comment: Re: Idiot Parents (Score 1) 569

Which isn't to say that you're entirely wrong, only that the shift for the typical decent person to get so animalistic makes them incapable of bad behavior because of other effects.

And some people are probably more inherently against "bad" actions than others. I'm sure that there's plenty of people that need their higher brain to over ride a feeling of disgust for certain things, that others need their higher brain to prevent (violence being an example of something that can be justified, but some people find absolutely repulsive, and others love), it takes all ttpea. (Literally, for the long term survival of a gene pool)

Comment: Re: Or, from another perspective ... (Score 3, Interesting) 117

by AvitarX (#49316219) Attached to: Universal Reportedly Wants Spotify To Scale Back Its Free Streaming

Of course it's hurting sales.

Radio stations based on a song are often superior to my collection. At work it's all we use now, yeah yeah, anecdote.

Radio stations that play what we want are better than Dj ing from our own collection, and way better than the radio.

I was converted to a paying customer to get specific songs when I wanted too though. I think that what they really should attack though is custom playlists on the desktop (to maximize revenue, as a happy paying customer, I just hope they don't kill the concept of music subscription, I don't know how I'd discover new music without one).

Comment: Re:Seriously doubt it. (Score 1) 389

That's actually not a terrible point, but would be even better handled with a smartwatch I'd think.

Also, some of us like to know how much longer we'll be waiting, or at work, or etc. While truly not needing to worry about time would be excellent, if I'm just chilling at home, and am meeting someone at 8, I may want to know if I have time to vacuum before I start getting ready or not, I don't see how notifications could tell me that.

Comment: Re:$30 Timex (Score 2) 389

Thank you for that wonderful post.

Sadly true.

But it is so nice not giving a fuck. I carry a purse, and nobody gives me shit about it, because old, and I'm not really even that old at all. I really like that part of life, we're all the cool kids now, we can all do us and nobody really cares.

Comment: Re:He's right (Score 1) 389

The Vertu doesn't look behind the times to me. It has everything I was looking for in a phone and looks great.

Still, not spending 12k on it, and the concierge benefits say a lot about who the target market is (those that don't know how to type on an internet connected device).

I'll get the leather on my Moto X for a 20th the price...

Comment: Re:Where's the market overlap? (Score 1) 389

I wear a watch not as nice as yours, but it was cheap and gets compliments (just a random square guess watch with a simple silver face and date, 24 hr, and day of week wheels).

I definitely plan on buying a smart watch though, probably next generation (I want that lifespan, with the face on), or maybe a pebble steel if the color one brings the price down on the old ones.

If I can get a Zenwatch or a Moto 360 for $250, just a little smaller, and a little more life, I will.

I went without a watch for a while, thinking phone is watch, but since I started wearing one again, I miss it when I forget it.

For me the killer feature though is the customizable face, I want a Qlocktwo, for a fraction of the price. I am obsessed with time in words for some reason, I'm told it's crazy.

There's no market overlap for me I suppose, because I was a long way off from spending much on a watch, but I can see myself getting value from a couple notifications, and a watch face I like. I think they (smart watches in general, not the Apple ones, they have the battery I would need, but $350 is too much, and that's the frumpy one) will destroy the $150-$500 watch market. I'd be very worried if I were Fossil, or some other company in that range.

I think there's a decent chance they'll make watches over-all more appealing though, in which case the Swiss could win in the end.

I guess the real question though is about the batteries, if they are not replaceable, and only good for a year or two of charging, that's a real problem. I assume the CPU won't ever need to do much more with most of the processing coming from the phone, and the screens are already there from what I can tell.

yammer yammer, I'm tired.

Summary, I think the $100-$500 watch market will be destroyed, as people who want a watch choose those that can do a little extra. A smart watch with a good screen will be a logical choice for many people.

In the sciences, we are now uniquely priviledged to sit side by side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand. -- Gerald Holton