At the low-budget end of the film market, Kickstarter is already replacing Hollywood angel investors and YCombinatot is bringing in more conventional VC startup money. What I'm proposing here would simply accelerate the process.
As for legacy content, even MICROSOFT can figure out that masters of films or records in archival storage that just sit there make the owner no money. There's a lot of long-tail potential in the vaults of Universal. Why should a movie or record EVER go out of print?
But those concerns are for grownups. You can go back to dreaming of being sparkly. And hope the next VAMPYRE you see isn't carrying a Zune.
We can hope that everyone actively involved has figured this out and the real Net war in progress is over how much Hollywood is going to get paid to go away. Perhaps Hollywood should get what it wants to ensure that these people get an early start on partying themselves to death.
And that is exactly what they should do.
No advertising or product sales or even a visible presence until the stock prices of these companies drops far enough that the members of the Net Coalition can buy the biggest MPAA studios and RIAA labels out of petty cash. Then fire the management of these companies and replace them with people who know something about music in thel digital age. I believe that the tech industry can probably manage the IP portfolios more rationally and profitably than the jackass incumbents in any case.
The *AA wants censorship? I think they should get it. Enough of it to destroy them.
One of these days, a lawsuit-proof mobile OS might prove extremely valuable. Imagine the next generation of mobile OS products based on WebOS and Maemo rather than banned-from-sale iOS and Android.
And an object lesson as to why tech companies should compete on technology and marketing ability rather than on the ability to suppress competitor's products via legal means would also be a good thing, and better it be that companies I am not involved with provide it.
"Not exactly poor" indeed.
Nobody is suing about it.
For a tablet/smartphone manufacturer, having a superior UI backed with lawsuit-proof code is the way out of the legal clusterfuck involving Apple, Google, and even Micro$oft . . . which appear to have collectively concluded that since they can't compete on superior technology, that their road to future growth is to sue its competing OSs out of existence.
Personally, I hope Apple and Google and Microsoft succeed in blowing each other out of the mobile market.
So I run Kubuntu on all 4 of my machines, including the netbook. If some way is found to make it impossible to run KDE on Ubuntu, I'll go back to Debian.
But because all the OSes are going to be extended to the mobile, all the vendors are making changes to the DE at the expense of some discomfort of the users.
Desktops are not smartphones,. The main differences are far more screen real estate (true even on a netbook with the screen the size of a tablet
Certainly, a single unified UI is convenient for developers. But if the price of developer convenience is mass migration to the competition, it's not worth paying.
You and others who think like you do should feel free to run your ideas up the flagpole, but if they do not fit our perceived needs, don't be surprised if the salute you get is a raised middle finger if you are annoying enough about pushing it.
You're posting from a Mac, right?
For routine desktop productivity of the sort required to be able to afford the geek lifestyle, desktops matter.
An experienced typist on a conventional keyboard might be good for 75-90., the world record is 200+. Few of us will ever remotely approach these speeds, this indicates what's physically possible for humans operating human hands. 10 fingers is faster than 8 fingers and two thumbs.
Which is why serious document production is going to be done on conventional keyboards, not virtual or thumb for the foreseeable future. If I have to type a 66 page document (that was a few months ago) I'm using all my fingers on a physical full-size or close to it keyboard.