Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:P2P (Score 1) 182

by Dynedain (#46830237) Attached to: How Much Data Plan Bandwidth Is Wasted By DRM?

There are many other questions, specific to the situation at hand, but that general one is a good abstracted start that you can use to generate the questions that this community will thrive on.

But separate your answer from your question. Generally speaking the Slashdot users want to engage, and when you present something as a fully answered question akin to a thesis or whitepaper, it turns off this crowd. In that scenario you will only get contrarian responses at best.

Use the medium and the community for its strengths, rather than a comments section for an otherwise push-technology like the typical news website.

But again, consider your goals for the discussion, and structure your message to drive the kinds of responses you want. By this I mean the formatting, the voice the length, and the style rather than the content of your argument. In a technical analogy I'd point to the underlying SQL structure of a database query and response, rather than the specific field names requested (your argument) or data returned (responses).

Comment: Re:P2P (Score 1) 182

by Dynedain (#46830083) Attached to: How Much Data Plan Bandwidth Is Wasted By DRM?

That would have been a much better question.

My short hypothesis to this new question is that Netflix and Hulu are tied to a business model that requires focuses on ease of use. If you've used either of their apps, they are very simplistic, especially compared to an interface like iTunes which tries to do it all. Netflix and Hulu both focus on doing one thing in the digital distribution space, and doing it well.

In fact, it's quite telling that Apple, the undisputed king of focusing on user experience, has such a challenge in iTunes. Making a myriad of conflicting user scenarios straightforward and non-daunting is a very difficult task. Once are talking about offline storage, you open up your platform to be impacted by a lot of things that are outside your control. The most obvious ones being available space, library management, and available resource management. Imagine having to replicate all but the sharing functionality of DropBox, and do it within your simple media browsing and playback app. The result is going to be something akin to the monstrosity of iTunes.

Comment: Re:P2P (Score 1) 182

by Dynedain (#46829777) Attached to: How Much Data Plan Bandwidth Is Wasted By DRM?

If your question truly is "how much bandwidth is wasted", you didn't try to answer it. Instead you immediately veered off into a different argument about DRM = Streaming = BAD = Business Decisions.

If you want an answer, total up the estimates of YouTube, Netflix, and Hulu traffic and divide it by the estimated number of unique views (instead of repeat views).

Compare with the data rates of download-only services and make a case for whether or not instant availability is worth the sacrifice.

Do that, and this probably would have been the discussion you had hoped it to be.

Comment: Re:P2P (Score 1) 182

by Dynedain (#46829743) Attached to: How Much Data Plan Bandwidth Is Wasted By DRM?

1) The argument doesn't hold just because you swap the terms. Instead, the article should be titled "Why doesn't Netflix allow local caching of streamed content like Google Play?". Your entire argument is that there are business decisions at play, which has absolutely nothing to do with the technical delivery methods or hot-button issues like DRM and data caps. And the fact that this is driven by business decisions is the blatantly obvious answer that anyone in this community would give. So what is the value to the Slashdot community in your long post vs. an open-ended question?

2) I used Music because it's a clearer example of sequential changes in business models being driven by user behaviors rather than DRM or business decisions. Video digital distribution effectively happened later (bandwidth feasibility) and so the various models of distribution are being tested and offered simultaneously, and content providers are trying to learn from the Music example.

Your approach to this whole story makes it look like you're abusing your editorial privileges to pat yourself of the back for proving how smart you are. I'm sure this is unintentional, and you truly meant to inspire discussion. But the format and content of your message is insulting to your community who are here to engage, not to simply listen. (did you pay attention to the community vs. audience discussion in the beta shitshow?). John Katz has been mentioned elsewhere on this topic. As an editor he did the same thing back in the early 2000's, and the Slashdot community universally loathed him for it.

I said this elsewhere, but I'll repeat it here. If you ask us a question, let us answer it. Ask good questions, that are designed to draw out discussion, and we'll like you for it. Ask the obvious, and then proceed to give us the answer in sermon form before we get a word in edgewise, and you'll continue down the John Katz road.

Comment: Re:P2P (Score 1) 182

by Dynedain (#46829571) Attached to: How Much Data Plan Bandwidth Is Wasted By DRM?

Congratulations, you just said in 3 sentences what previously it took you 9 paragraphs and a misleading title to do.

You answered your own question, and pointed to several companies doing it in ways that are very public and which are well understood by the /. audience.

You didn't bring any new understanding, and you didn't prompt a meaningful discussion with an open-ended question. You simply ranted for 9 paragraphs about how Streaming and DRM collectively suck because you personally can't pre-download specific content from certain specific services.

  Tailor your questions to your audience. If you know the answer already, the /. users probably already do as well. When that happens, rewrite your question to be open-ended!
  If your goal is to encourage discussion, ask the question, and then step back to let your audience answer it.
  Use the right terms, don't redefine them to mean something else just so it supports your argument.

Overall, you would have gotten a lot less flack if your post was:

What's the future of digital media delivery?
With recent focus on streaming media services, customers are caught in the battle between content producers and network provider data/bandwidth caps. Will more streaming services build in local caching like Spotify or Google Play? Will we see the end of DRM-protected content like iTunes? Will DRM become enshrined in cross-service standards like HTML proposals? Does anyone manage this problem well and make money at? Is the idea of personal content libraries dead? Is streaming a sustainable business model?

Everything you said in your original post would have been brought up and compared in the discussion threads and /.ers would be appreciative of the discussion instead of badmouthing your writing abilities and your non-argument.

Comment: Re:Here's the real waste: (Score 1) 182

by Dynedain (#46829341) Attached to: How Much Data Plan Bandwidth Is Wasted By DRM?

DRM is a tool for ensuring copyright is respected.

In this case the parent is pretty clearly arguing copyright alone is insufficient because digital distribution has made supply and demand an ineffective tools for managing copyright.

DRM brings back the ability for publishers to use supply and demand economics by enforcing copyrights.

Comment: Re:P2P (Score 1) 182

by Dynedain (#46829257) Attached to: How Much Data Plan Bandwidth Is Wasted By DRM?

It is not DRM that enforces it. In fact, I don't think you understand what DRM is.

If I write a proprietary video player, using a proprietary codec, and I stream you videos that only work in that player, that is not DRM just because I was too lazy to provide you a local caching method.

DRM is not "make it inconvenient for me to use with something else". Digital Rights Management is verifying that playback is appropriately licensed. That's it. A key requirement of any DRM schemes is "make it inconvenient to copy" and "make it inconvenient to play with something else that might allow copying". But that doesn't automatically mean that anything difficult to work with is magically DRM protected.

Your question and argument is that DRM is substantially impacting bandwidth, which is patently untrue.With or without DRM, the volume of streaming traffic will be effectively the same. The vast majority of people do not and will not cache content unless their playback/media management system provides that functionality. Streaming is here to stay because it is convenient. Spotify, iTunes Radio, Pandora, etc are destroying the MP3 market the same way iTunes and Amazon MP3s destroyed the CD market. Because the convenience of instantly playing something unplanned and on demand is more desirable than convenience of carrying around a curated library of personal favorites.

Yes, there will always be room and a need for hybrid approaches for streaming vs. local cache, and the market is experimenting with those business models and technology patterns now. But again, the impact is not driven by DRM, but by how people expect to engage with their media.

Comment: Re:P2P (Score 1) 182

by Dynedain (#46829169) Attached to: How Much Data Plan Bandwidth Is Wasted By DRM?

You still don't get it.

If they want to, Streaming providers can build ways of allowing offline playback, and still use DRM. Spotfiy does this today.

Instead of complaining about DRM, you should be complaining about Streaming. If my phone can't store a full clip, then whether or not DRM is used has 0 impact on whether or not I stream on each playback or cache it.

Your aggrandizing is not the deep philosophical question you think it is, and there are plenty of examples on how companies have solved your non-issue. Whether or not companies choose to invest and do so is a completely different discussion than "How much bandwidth is wasted by DRM"

Comment: Re:P2P (Score 1) 182

by Dynedain (#46827939) Attached to: How Much Data Plan Bandwidth Is Wasted By DRM?

Hulu and Netflix use streaming models. Whether or not they use DRM is irrelevant.

iTunes has both DRM and DRM-free content. They operate a model where you download. Both formats work for offline playback.

Amazon also has pay now, consume later content. Again, with and without DRM.

Spotify, which operates on primarily streaming model, offers content for local download and offline playback. Again, DRM doesn't affect this ability.

Your entire premise and argument is flawed because you equate DRM to Streaming.

Comment: Re:Cross training (Score 1) 226

by Dynedain (#46826607) Attached to: How 'DevOps' Is Killing the Developer

In a large organization where its not possible to talk to everyone informally. And if some dev sitting in a corner downloads his/her favorite framework, nobody will know. Until the dependency lists are compared and someone finds out that this person went off on their own.

When that dev breaks the build on the continuous integration and automated test servers, it's pretty easy to point fingers and make them go back and remove their framework and rebuild to the agreed-upon project standards. The framework shouldn't be in your project source control anyways.

Turning over server administration to a DevOps role doesn't require turning over local workstation administration. If it did, no one would ever be able to contribute to open-source projects hosted on Github. And I think they've proven that huge development teams can work together without burdening what goes on with the physical desktop in front of you.

Comment: Re:Cross training (Score 1) 226

by Dynedain (#46789791) Attached to: How 'DevOps' Is Killing the Developer

If your projects can't handle things like dependency lists, package managers, and actual planning, then of course it's going to fall apart like you describe.

I don't know about where you work, but where I work, people actually talk to each other and plan what versions and which frameworks we'll be using rather than just setting everyone off willy-nilly and pray that it all works before being pushed to production.

Comment: Re:Cross training (Score 1) 226

by Dynedain (#46780209) Attached to: How 'DevOps' Is Killing the Developer

We have local workstations, dev servers, staging servers, and production.

Devs can do whatever they want on their local workstation. In any given week, I work on 2-3 different projects with radically different stacks. Central IT (which is technically outsourced to a stand-alone company that supports us and the other companies owned by our Fortune-500 overloard) has absolutely 0 knowledge of what we do and what we need to support our work.

Devs also usually have sudo access to the dev servers, but rarely install things there.

Devs never have admin access to staging, but they usually have the ability to do deploys from the build server.

Devs absolutely never have admin access to prod, and can't do deploys to prod either.

Dev team builds, tests and does whatever is needed on local and dev servers. They're responsible to make sure their stuff works and when ready for testing, trigger an automated deploy to stage. They don't have the ability to install any dependencies or configurations on stage, so if they run into problems, they need to negotiate with DevOps. QA validates on stage and has client do UAT on stage. If everything passes, DevOps manages the deploy to production.

That's a grand total of 3 "technical" people on the small project. Dev, QA, DevOps. Large projects will have multiple people in each role, but we still structure the same way.

Comment: Re:Cross training (Score 1) 226

by Dynedain (#46774983) Attached to: How 'DevOps' Is Killing the Developer

No. Not if they are working on production code.

Why in the hell would anyone be working on production code on their local machine?

We're saying the same thing about Devs and Production environments. But somehow you've extrapolated that into Devs not having admin privileges on their local workstations which is absurd.

Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.