Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
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).
This is idiotic; what would stop someone from driving to AZ, NV or Oregon and buy a TV from another state?
Well, given that the two largest population centers (SF Bay, LA) are not a 20 minute drive to the border, how much money would be saved driving out of state? The cost of gas to drive to and from the border would outweigh the savings on a cheaper, less-efficient set. On top of that, the energy bill for the TV will be higher over its lifetime. If you are going to be buying a huge TV, then you'll need an SUV or a big truck, and that doesn't sound like a cheap tank of gas.
I think most people will just buy a TV at Best Buy and call it a day.
Twitter content is like content on the web: some of it is valuable, but most of it is garbage. If you have a good search tool, you can more quickly get to the real value and out of the noise. Don't be distracted by the mindless chatter. And, if it turns out to be a fad, it will be gone soon enough.
I need to get back to coding.
On top of that feature, though, Lala also lets you listen to songs you don't own. The first listen of any song is free, at least. So this "network DRM" just prevents someone from grabbing the URL to one song and then posting that URL around. Some files are your own bytes that only you should have access to, and some files are in the catalog that anyone can potentially listen to.
Now, the 10-cent price-point for a streaming-only song comes with the limitation of being web-based. Some people like this product, others don't. If you don't, that's fine, and that's your option to not pay for a more limited product. But some people appreciate the much lower cost for "web songs", especially since they can apply those 10 cents toward an mp3 purchase if they decide to actually buy the DRM-free mp3. I like it (but I'm clearly biased) because I work at a computer all day with headphones and then listen to music through my computer at home. I'd rather not spend $0.99 per track, and I'm too lazy to use BT that often.
The article mischaracterizes the company and our product. There is a hefty chunk of FUD in there. Lala is like the Amazon mp3 store with two major additions: the 10-cent stream-only product, and an online collection. It is that straight-forward at its foundation.
The company may flop in the end, but the numbers don't show that at the moment.
Again, the whole point of the "network DRM" is just to prevent people from casually grabbing the file that we stream. You can call that DRM or call it one-time URLs and authentication.
And it's spelled "moron".
Yes, we have a scanner. Downloading it and running it is completely optional. The only thing we do with it is to grant access to allow you to stream the music you already own. It's not a conspiracy, seriously. It ties in directly to the concept of putting your music collection online. If we can get people to use Lala like some people use iTunes (which requires all your music to have people use it regularly), then we'll have more opportunities to sell them DRM-free mp3s.
But we also have a 10-cent price-point for unlimited streaming of a song. You pay 10 cents and you can then stream that song on the website as much as you want. It goes into your online collection. That is there to help us cover our licensing costs that we pay to the labels. Will it work? Some people like it. Are they fools to buy it? Depends on your perspective, but there is always the risk that Lala goes out of business, sure.
So you combine the 10-cent "web song" which lives in your online collection with the music you already own (we don't care where you got the files), and now there is only one place to go to access your music, and that is Lala. That's the concept, at least.
Yeah, we got investment from a music label. They are not a controlling interest, and they have never approached us with any evil demand for info on what people upload. They agreed to this feature (after having sued others over the same concept years earlier) because they have learned lessons of the past. They have a long way to go, though. They're slowing learning.