I find it hard to be sorry for the music companies; They produce "by the numbers" music, and rip off next to all genuine artists, by calming that the cost of production through distribution is 99.9% of earnings... Akin the the movie industry claiming that a recent Harry Potter film didn't make profit...
But I don't support piracy either, artists need to eat, and diverse to profit from their work too...

It's not just digital downloads that have changed the music industry, i.e. distribution; an album can be recorded "at home", if ya know what your doing. So if the cost of production and distribution are not prohibitive factors, so how dose the industry justify the "mark-up"?

Radio you say. Yes the network to promote the music is "buttoned up tight", and the relationships go way back, so penetration is still an issue, though it shouldn't be...


Materialism vs. Virtual downloads: When I was a kid, there where these things called cassettes, you could even copy music on to them, but it was never as good as getting the whole package, album art, song lyrics, etc. Paying for a digital download still don't feel as "good value" as having the product sitting on my shelf.
If you buy an album these days, your lucky if you get more than a single sheet of paper, badly printed, and I cant remember the last time I saw lyrics...

So I pose the question; Has the reduction of the physical product made it easer to see value in the digital download, or has it blurred the line between a copy and the real product?

I see digital download(low profit) as eating in to physical record sales(higher profit), rather than offsetting the piracy numbers, so why dose the industry fixate on a non-markets rather than retaining(premium) paying customers?

PS. I've read statements recently that movie studios are becoming "more concerned about loosing distribution than the issue of piracy", very strong words...

Steve was a man that was unafraid of big ideas, could see outside of the box in a way that few are able, and was capable of changing the world, and he did...
He was instrumental in redefining the stigma related to technology, and raised the bar for his competitors and contemporaries.

While he polarised the 'community', and ruffled more than a few feathers, he dragged many industries, sometimes "kicking and screaming", into a new future; we are all better off for his contribution.
The seeds that he planted will grow for years to come; the legacy of Steve Jobs will live on.

I will remember Steve as the man that made technology ubiquitous and am sorry that he was not given that chance to watch his creations flourish.

Like the Joker "needs" Batman; the I.T. world needed Steve Jobs, we are all diminished without his presence...

Mr Shatner, my question is offbeat, so feel free to take it anywhere;

If you could, would you become Captain Kirk?
And what do you imagine an average day would be like, if you were...

Also, thank-you for choosing to become an actor, and creating one of the most iconic characters of modern times.

With Apple trying to ban any product that is seen as a threat, via their patents, now the opposition are teaming up; what if Apple's tactics turn against them?

If the "tablet patent' Apple is using to try and ban the Samsung devices is overturned, and it should be (the prior art discussions here are evidence enough), the door will be open to the original IP holders, in this case most of the companies are represented in this "opposition".
I'm wonder when IBM will play its trump card and join the ranks? Or Microsoft even...

What if the iPad was banned for the same reasons Apple are trying to ban the Samsung devices?
Or that Apple's uncompetitive practices initiated a structural separation of the company?
Or that the monopolise they have built in the music, games and video industries via iTunes where opened to the competition?
And lets not mention the lobbying...

Apple has been playing a dangerous game for a long time, it's only a matter of time before the "competition" will have had enough.

We'll just have to wait and see where this one leads. ;)

It's a sign of the times, the percentage of the population capable of coming up with a new idea is shrinking, and the model employee(technical) is now too specialised to see the big picture dew to technical requirements, etc... Not to mention the fact that most things have already been done.

Innovation is now something that is attained through acquisition of other companies. Recognise.

For a small company to "make a splash", hold on to their "idea" and be the one to profit, a patent is the only option.
At the end of the day, most starts-ups want to be bought-out, so a patent is essentially the dominant currency of today.

The age of "Inverse outsourcing of innovation", is upon us.

One of the primary objectives of wikileaks, is to present this information in a way that is not illegal, and to protect the identity of the people involved. It's one of the reasons it has been so successful, as opposed to Anomalous... Those kids are headed for trouble, and I certainly do not condone their actions...

There are no hidden agendas, it(wikileaks) is for us, the people of the world, we diverse to live in a world that is not governed by the greedy and morally unsound...

As for this current slip-up, I think I'm safe to say that, it is NOT the intent of wikileaks to undermine it's authority and legality, and in no way should this action compromise the continuing objectives of the movement.

Just don't forget that there are many people with vested interested; those that oppose the idea generally have something to hide, and more often than not, they have the power to manipulate and influence, in this instance, I see reality distortion and a bit of sabotage thrown into the mix for good measure...

Just another day in the mud for wikileaks!

I remember playing with one of these as a kid(dad an IBMer), was awesome, but after dad told me how much it was worth, I didn't feel comfortable walking around with it... It was too big for a kid to use while standing, and I didn't want to be the one answering the question of "what happens if it is dropped"!

It was limited compared to today's expectation, in most ways at least, but it was real, and it was on-par with laptops at the time, specs-wise. I even put Civilization and SimCity on it!

Tablets these days are consumer devices, even though they cost as more than a cheap laptop and a half as capable. Just goes to show what a fat advertising budget can do...

Funny how Steve talks about his "competitor", Bill, but fails to mention their "competitor", IBM. Reality distortion 1990's style!

+1

Still tempted to find one of those watches!

I'm wondering if this is a swatch stealth viral advertising campaign!?
Or just the ramblings of a mad man...

I'm just wondering when we'll start getting the pen/digitiser as well, the TOS version uses a Pen for input where the TNG version is button based, and possibly touch, though I cant remember seeing anyone using it that way in the show...

Though the "station", in TNG, are all 'touch screen', so I'd assume the PADD's are also capable...

But lets not forget the first non-fictional tablet was the IBM Thinkpad Slate, 1992...

Me, it's only when an update requires a reboot, so not even monthly these days. Touch-wood, but I haven't had a 'crash' in years!

I use Win7 on a velociraptor for my desktop, when waking from sleep mode the screens often take longer to 'wake up'.
A regular boot, is less than a minute.

It's a different issue with laptops though, using 'hibernate' mode, rather than 'sleep ' and the combination of lots of memory can still be slowish without an SSD.

The slowest boots and shutdown have got to be when using a 'remote desktop', i.e. syncing your desktop with a server over a network...

I call the death of needing to boot up!

I'll be playing the nintendo version rather than the zynga one; ya gota watch out for these Skinner Boxes!

But in all seriousness, there will be good and bad examples of gamification, the ones that are tied to "rewards programs" will probably be as numerous as the "entertainment based" title, and there will be people that take it to the point of neglect, it's human nature...

Imagine what's going to happen when "Augmented Reality Glasses" become available and where all playing games 24/7...

Perhaps we need to make games to make people addicted to being "more functional"...

If you haven't read the book, you should, it will "open your mind"...

The "Primer" is an awesome concept, and I'm sure we'll see something like that someday...

It's been a while since I read it, but isn't the main concept that "When a child can learn at their own pace, from a high-quality source, their potential can be maximised, regardless of socio-economic factors".

And that, "It wont be long before AI is teaching our children, and it will be smarter, more knowledgeable and more patient than the best human teacher", and that will create a device bigger divide between the generation than, say, the Internet has today...

It would only be Gamification if the desire to learn was fueled by the achievements, rather than the joy of understanding and as presented in the book, and the outcome of that 'knowledge is power'...

You've got to wonder why a body of governance that is responsible for advising parents as to the suitability of media for their children, think that they are entitled to prevent adults from enjoying media specificity created for an adult audience. Completely overstepping their authority if you ask me.

If you look at the list of modified titles and non-released games, dew to the lack of a +18 classification, none of the games are anywhere near justifying a Not Classifieds, so why prevent adults from playing these games?

Is it that they think parents will still but these games anyway?
Anyone who values the classification system will abide by it, and anyone else, well, it's not as if they don't have the right to buy it, and make that assessment for themselves, because at the end of the day, it's just an advisory...

While I acknowledged that the iphone was an evolution, it was as much deevolutionary as evolutionary, there where, and still are huge aspects to the platform(PocketPC) that still are not present in the Apple or Android equivalents, the only area that was at all impressive was the pretty interface, and that was a no brainer, if Microsoft didn't walk away from the PocketPC market, it would have come...

There where a few PocketPC device towards the end that had graphic chips, so it could do all the snazzy stuff we all expect today. That was the big change, and apple was right to wait for them to "make the push", it's just a shame that MS never released a Graphic and UI centric version of PocketPC, things might have been different.

You've got to ask why they did though, I wonder if MS has regained that market share with Phone 7 they enjoyed with PocketPC; Some wheeling and dealing you'd have to suspect...

And it's not that good(the UI), certainly nothing evolutionary about it, it's essentially the same interface as the PocketPC, but with tweening animation of the transitions...

The one thing Apple did to was advertise the bugger out of it! Now every pleb want a shiny apple device, it obviously make people "feel" good to have one, but that's just coz your mate has has one, and emperor Steve ordains it on your box every day!

But in all seriousness, I'm not saying the PocketPC was better than today's, devices, but for their time, they where much more impressive. And yes it was a cobbled together solution, a showcase of what could be done, and yes, I still had a regular mobile, but seriously, no one reacts to a iPhone like they did when they first saw the iPaq, its common place today, and everyone has one!

But back to my point, at the end of the day, if a product is really better, they shouldn't need to mess with their competitors...