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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:"TV series" (Score 1) 438

I think it loses the ability to call itself a "TV series" when it refuses to air over a conventional method for getting television into your home... Just sayin'.

How come? Consider the source of the word "television," tele meaning from a distance, and vision being to view something. The show is still being presented to a large audience over a great geographic distance, you're still viewing something remotely from where it's produced. Only the technology behind it has changed, moving from radio frequencies over the air to radio frequencies over a coaxial cable, and now to pulses of light over fiber.

Yes, but the model up until now has mostly been either free (OTA) or paying for an entire service (cable, minus the odd premium channels). This is streaming, which inherently limits the available quality to whatever CBS feels like providing and whatever your available bandwidth can handle; with ATSC OTA there's little reason to made content look worse on purpose, though cable/satellite is a mixed bag (cue up the stories of Comcast squeezing more and more channels into smaller space).

I love Trek, but I hope this flops so CBS will know their service is lame.

In what way is it "lame"? Shows cost money to produce, and that money has to come from somewhere. Consider that a lot of scripted prime time shows cost in the $3-4 million range to produce. You'd need 3-4 million people to chip in a buck to cover the cost of a show, but consider how many shows CBS is running and how many shows people watch. Scorpion, The Big Bang Theory, 2 Broke Girls, NCIS and its two spin-offs, Blue Bloods, The Good Wife, Code Black, CSI and CSI: Cyber, Extant, Limitless, Hawaii Five-O, Madam Secretary, Elementary, The Mentalist, Mom, The Odd Couple, Person of Interest, Stalker, Supergirl, Life in Pieces, Criminal Minds, and the pending Angel from Hell, plus a few more. That's a lot of money, and considering that ads on the web don't snatch nearly the same kind of value as ads from OTA/MSO grab they have to make up the deficit somewhere.

So that's $6/mo to cover the production of more than twenty five different scripted television shows (not to mention the cost of licensing NCAA games, game shows, news programs, and reality shows). Assuming an average run of 25 episodes per season for each show, and a 12 month run, that's 12 per episode that CBS is getting to cover the cost of production of everything, advertising/promotion, and bandwidth for streaming. Even if you only watch three shows, you're paying 96 per episode which is cheaper than the going rate on iTunes, Amazon Prime or Google Play.

The money they make off of television advertising (OTA/cable) is pretty big, IIRC. Also, FWIW, CBS made a profit of $1.4 billion last year... hardly sounds like they're hurting. I guess what I'm getting at is... they appear to be forcing people into a specific service using a name brand they know will get at least some people to bite. You have a loyal fanbase, why potentially ruin that by forcing them on to your platform? To make it so you have to pay for it AND can't skip ads?

Comment Re:"TV series" (Score 0) 438

Yeah, I haven't had cable in 12 years or so. It's been a combination of OTA television (local news, some prime time television now that they're mostly off the reality television bender they were on for ten years) and torrenting. If I'm going to pay $15 a month for something as limited as what CBS is offering, it better be advertising free.

Comment "TV series" (Score 4, Insightful) 438

I think it loses the ability to call itself a "TV series" when it refuses to air over a conventional method for getting television into your home... Just sayin'. I love Trek, but I hope this flops so CBS will know their service is lame. (But if it flops, CBS will likely blame Trek and keep pushing ahead with the service anyways).

Comment Assembly (Score 2) 429

As languages further abstract away the underlying hardware, it's helpful to understand how it all works. Especially if you've never had to step into an assembly language debugger. The most likely (and probably relevant) architecture would be x86/x86-64, followed closely by some variation of ARM. IA64 isn't relevant, but if you read up on a little bit of it (there was a series of articles on Raymond Chen's blog a few weeks back), you'll learn about an interesting take on a processor architecture (which offloaded much of the optimization work to the compiler; it was also heavily slanted towards parallel processing unlike x86).

Comment Re:Sounds good. (Score 1) 614

Hmm... I don't know. It's a value proposition for me. I've been cable free for over ten years. If there's some show I want to watch badly enough, there's the internet, for everything else, OTA HDTV works great. I couldn't stomach paying $40+ (and up to $90 if you actually wanted a choice of channels), that's $480 to $1080 a year, for the privilege of perhaps seeing something entertaining (but we don't guarantee that).

Comment Decent... (Score 4, Interesting) 259

...but still lacking. I'm sad to see they're going with a proprietary memory card for games. I was hoping, at worst, they'd have two memory card slots, one proprietary one for games, and a standard SD or MS slot for expanding memory. Also sad to see video out is gone (PSP had video out at least, and I was hoping for a mini-HDMI connection or possibly wireless HDMI (since the standard is almost complete IIRC)). Oh well... maybe next console generation.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 700

Let's have a close look at these claims of yours...

What has been lost on the PS3: - Emotion Engine (hardware) First gen PS3 was very expensive, people bitched about the price and Sony responded by removing the PS2 compatibility. Sony still sells the PS2 console so there was no need to punish people who wanted a PS3 by forcing them to subsidize the PS2 owners. Less hardware = cheaper console.

Problem there chief, but it's very likely many PS2 games could be done in software. Neverminding the fact that the PS2 hardware needed is likely DIRT CHEAP for Sony (PS2 is $100 retail, and I suspect they're raking in profits off of those systems at this stage of the game).

- SACD playback (software) Did anyone actually want this? While it's likely that a PS3 owner would have an HDTV, it's unlikely they would own a high end audio setup to take advantage of SACD. Anyone serious about this functionality would own a proper standalone SACD player. Less hardware = cheaper console.

It's software, not hardware. They flipped a bit and turned it off for the Slim units, there's nothing hardware related with SACD playback...

- USB 2.0 ports (hardware) Not sure if reducing the number of ports counts as a "lost feature". Two ports is likely plenty for most people, and it's easy to add your own hub to increase the number of ports. Less hardware = cheaper console.

Oversimplified. USB ports (the hardware) cost PENNIES. Trust me, knocking off two USB ports didn't save Sony (or the consumer, for that matter) anything. About the only complaint I have about the 4 USB ports I have is that all four are on the front. I'd have preferred one or two on the back for external storage (so it looks nicer in my rack setup).

- Full PS2 backwards compatibility (software) PS3 never had full PS2 compatibility in software, purely a myth perpetuated by the un-informed. First generation PS3 had full hardware PS2 support; second generation had a mix of hardware and software emulation. Made the PS3 expensive and added redundant capabilities as the PS2 was (and is) still being sold. Less hardware = cheaper console.

Okay, you're obviously "informed". Educate me how the PS3 isn't powerful enough to run PS2 software?

- Other OS Linux (software): retroactively disabled on older hardware as well now with the new update Debatable whether this was a usable feature or not. Linux on the PS3 was horrible and Sony's removal of the option on the slim models was met with little but a yawn and "so what?" It wasn't until Geohot paraded around his so called PS3 hack and thousands of pirates perked up with the hope of finally getting their hands on some free PS3 games did anyone care about the OtherOS option. Sony acted to protect their platform and the pirates raised a ruckus. Anyone who used the old model PS3 for Cell programming couldn't care less, they didn't use the PS3 for games or playing blu-ray.

If you're one of those people still pissed off over having to choose between OtherOS or games/PSN, direct your anger to Geohot for pissing in your pool.

Why would I direct my rage at geohot when it's Sony who disabled it? Am I pro-piracy? No. But I am definitely all about consumer rights, and consumers bought a COMPUTER when they bought a PS3. Sony decided, on their own, unilaterally, to force people to choose between losing their computer or losing other portions of the device THEY PAID FOR. As I've said in dozens of other places, I'll be shocked if a class action lawsuit isn't started over this. If there was ever a "line in the sand" moment for people to stand up, this was it.

- SD and CF slots (hardware Redundant hardware, PS3 already had USB ports and there was no need to provide multiple ports for the same function. Less hardware = cheaper console.

Again, dirt cheap hardware. Slightly more expensive than the two USB ports, but still nothing to write home about (likely less than USD $1.00 for the whole kit).

All I know is that I paid $600 for this system and it promised me the ability to install other operating systems on it. That promise has been broken, and not by accident, but purposefully, with intent and malice. That strikes me as actionable in the courts here (and obviously it's already heading that way in more progressive regions of the world; the person who got a partial refund in Europe being a leading example).

Comment Re:HA! (Score 1) 342

One of the primary issues this bug causes is that it resets the clock to 12/31/1999. Most content (in fact, all content that I'm aware of) has a "licensed starting" date/time, and none of the titles I have will work at all. This tells me that they must have a secondary clock (a "real clock") that they use to tell when licensed content is valid/invalid (so people can't just change the date/time back two days to play a demo that has expired, or a rental that has expired, etc).

And since the clock is obviously integral to their protection mechanism, it is a flaw in said mechanism.

Note: No, I have no inside information, but this seems to be a reasonable deduction given the evidence at hand.

Comment Re:Firmware 3.0 (Score 1) 427

Yeah, I think it's called "Divx HD", and there's already hardware coming with that certification. I do agree that Sony seems to be missing the boat when it comes to functionality beyond games, and I was personally hoping from something more from a major firmware revision.


Hell, it'd be nice to see them add exFAT support so I can watch movies larger than 4 GB on attached storage (currently only FAT32 is supported on USB mass storage class devices; this means full length HD content usually needs to either a) be copied from a DLNA network share or b) split in to separate files for storage on the FAT32 formatted device).

Comment Re:Firmware 3.0 (Score 1) 427

Whenever they update their Divx support the MKV support should be included (since the new Divx uses MKV files).

As for the rest, agreed. The web browser should just use some custom build of Firefox, and the PS2 backwards compatibility would help bring in the people who want to keep playing their existing PS2 games.

Slashdot Top Deals

Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson