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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:The 6th gen was a spike above the normal trend (Score 2) 232

I think it has more to do with the iPhone 6 generation being a very popular upgrade, mostly due to the larger screen sizes.

Am I the only one who remembers the pre-iPhone6 fanbois sneering at the Samsung phone large screen and insisting that the iPhone was "right-sized"?

That goes to show the level of iPhonyness of the Apple zealots.

The millions of iPhone SE sales probably mean that some of those small screen fans really were fans of small screens, and still buy small screened iPhones.

Comment Re:Doomed to fail (Score 1) 121

This sounds a lot like Comcast's XFinity, where you sign in to a website to watch cable TV. Good job guys, you've finally done what Comcast did 3 years ago... And you managed to limit it to only your channels. Now I can get less than 1/5th of the total channels for 1/3 of the price. What a bargain.

Yup. Their channels. Plus tons of others from other companies. Also the merger was just announced, and not approved yet. They don't really own those channels yet.

Comment Re:Doomed to fail (Score 1) 121

This is just silliness. The trend is very much toward being able to pick and choose what shows we want to watch, when we want to watch them. Preferably commercial-free. (I pay don't even mind paying for commercial-free content, I already pay Hulu the extra $4/mo.)

The idea of 'channels', 'stations', 'broadcasters', and someone else picking out the programming we might be interested in going the way of the floppy drive. Telling someone like me you're offering 100 channels is nonsense and useless information. I'm more interested in what programming/content there will be to choose from, and if I can't choose, not going to subscribe, end of story.

Bad business choice on AT&T's part. Will never make money. Will definitely not lure 'cable cutters.' We're a whole new breed of content consumer, unlike the cable-television junkie of old.

I'm a cable cutter. Playstation Vue subscriber. And depending on the particulars (locals, cloud DVR, specific channels in the 100 package, etc), I might even switch. In my market, Vue has locals (CBS, FOX, NBC + On Demand only ABC). They have all the local sports regionals, plus all the major cable sports (BeIn, NBCSN, FS1, FS2, all the ESPNs, SEC, etc). That alone is easily worth half the $45 I pay. Cable News, plus eight other cable channels I watch at least one show on easily pays for the other half. My kids watch Nick, Disney, etc on top of that. My wife watches TLC and others on top of THAT. There is no scenario I see where it'd be cheaper to ala carte things, go see how much CBS All Access charges to figure it out...

Comment Re:Comcast (Score 1) 121

Hell, what about the cap on my U-Verse data service? It's the only hard line available, in city limits, yet it's too slow to even support U-Verse TV.

AT&T owns DirecTV and already said DirecTV Now viewing will be zero rated. Regarding the above AC post about Comcast cable cap, you just pay them extra for unlimited. It's going up to a $50 option, which stinks, but for me, $100 total (Comcast 90mb down, 15 up, unlimited bandwidth) isn't the worst deal. I subscribe to PS Vue for another $45, and I'm still paying less than I used to for "traditional TV", plus I don't have "traditional cable boxes" littering my house.

Comment Re:Also, is it a la carte? (Score 1) 121

Again, if not it's worthless. I'm tired of paying for stations and content that I would never in a million years want to watch. If one penny of my money goes to Bravo, for instance, there is no amount of value you could add elsewhere which would persuade me to help pay for their "reality"-TV drivel.

I'm holding out for the day I can get a la carte channels. We pretty much watch AMC (Walking Dead) ,History (Vikings), BTN/ESPN/2/3 (college football & basketball), Fox (Gotham) and HBO (GOT, Westworld, movies, etc.). Also throw in a dash of CNN/Fox News to get both sets of propaganda, and I'd be good to go.

I mean... assuming HBO is $15 (because it is), and ESPN would be $15 (because they get a TON of money from cable and satellite companies now, by far the highest paid), you'd have to be able to get AMC, History, FOX, CNN and Fox News for a buck each to equal the $35 from DirecTV Now. Now granted DirecTV's service won't include HBO at that price point, but I'm not sure skinny bundles are going to save anybody money in the next few years compared to $35 to $55 fat bundles from Vue, Sling, now DirecTV, and coming soon Hulu and Google.

Comment Re:Also, is it a la carte? (Score 1) 121

Again, if not it's worthless. I'm tired of paying for stations and content that I would never in a million years want to watch. If one penny of my money goes to Bravo, for instance, there is no amount of value you could add elsewhere which would persuade me to help pay for their "reality"-TV drivel.

If it's $35 for 100 channels and covers all the channels I care about, I could care less if $34.99 goes to Bravo. Honestly, as "attractive" as the concept of paying for the channels I want and nothing else, when I see the pricing of CBS All Access, HBO Now, etc, I'll just keep the 100 channels of PS Vue I have and be happy. Unless this is a slightly better package, then I'd switch.

Comment Re:No you don't (Score 1) 245

There are a lot of things where you can open up the laptop and start working immediately, but the phone will need connecting to an external monitor and keyboard before it's equally useful. Even putting a picoprojector in the phone won't entirely solve that, as you often don't have a useable projection space.

For you, sure. For me, yes. But for many consumers, no. My wife doesn't use her work laptop at home for anything other than actually working at home. She gave her iPad to one of our daughters. And she lives, outside of work, on an iPhone. Doesn't want a laptop. Doesn't care about a laptop. No, laptops will never 100% replace desktops. Desktops will never 100% replace workstations. Workstations will never 100% replace servers. Servers will never 100% replace mainframes (well... maybe they will). But for the great masses of people, they will.

There was a commenter above who said it's all nonsense because it can't run 64 bit apps like Maya. That's true, it can't. But it's still good enough for most people, and they will continue to erode sales, the same way high end smart phones have eroded sales of both point and shoot cameras and DSLRs. Things just get good enough for most people.

Since it's Slashdot, I guess I'll make a car analogy. What percentage of cars are sold in the U.S. with a manual transmission? Are manual transmissions better for some use cases? Sure. But automatic transmissions have taken over and will dominate the market.

Comment Re:No you don't (Score 1) 245

How many mainstream PCs do you know of running Xeon or Opteron CPUs? How many have more than eight physical CPUs in them? How many have more than 32GB of RAM? How many have Tesla, Quadro or Titan X GPUs in them?

That's what I thought.

How many mainstream PC users do you know of needing Xeon or Opteron CPUs? Or more than eight physical CPUs in this? Or more than 32GB of RAM? Or Tesla, Quadro or Titan X GPUs in them? That's what *I* thought.

Seriously, nobody said high end workstations and servers should go away. Just that for most consumers and business users, a laptop on the desk with an external monitor is pretty much covering their needs.

Same way nobody said DSLRs and medium format cameras will ever go away. But the iPhone or Android in most people's pockets suits their needs.

Comment Re:Got a better deal (Score 1) 198

Meanwhile, I watch about 97% of what I download.


"OMG, you're a filthy pirate for downloading our show," wail the production companies' pitbulls.

Here's an idea: make the programs available legitimately at a reasonable price. No DRM and decent quality, same as the "pirate" sites offer. At a reasonable price. Ad-free, same as the "pirate" sites offer. Sweeten things with higher quality video & audio, 5.1 audio and subtitles to encourage payment as an alternative the free "pirate" offerings. And make it available right away. Withhold the DVDs and/or encumber what limited download options you do offer with DRM and you're just pissing in our corn flakes. Nobody likes piss-soaked corn flakes.

Reasonable price + ad free = don't go together. Sorry, but the ads are keeping prices down. I get that you think prices are too high, but they'd be higher still if everything worked the way HBO did. Or your programming wouldn't have ads, but would have sponsors, and would be interrupted from time to time for fund raising, if it worked the way PBS did.

For us, stealing everything just doesn't feel right. Yet we have TV's in places where cable jacks aren't, don't like the bulky cable boxes anyway, etc, and went with Playstation Vue (no Playstation required, you can go with a $40 Roku or Fire TV Stick as a one time per TV purchase). We pay $45, get all the locals (because we're in one of select markets), get just about every channel other than BBC America and CW we care about, the CW now offers their shows free via an app, and have a 30 day cloud DVR so yes, we skip commercials.

Someone will inevitably say but what if I want to watch it 40 days later??? Yup, that's a trade off we made. If it ever did happen, maybe it eventually shows up on Netflix. Maybe I drop $2 on Amazon to watch it. Maybe it just wasn't a life altering all important thing that I couldn't live without.

My concern with pirating, besides the ethical and legal issues, is that if it becomes popular enough, there won't be anything to pirate. If nobody paid for anything, they'd stop making it.

Comment Re:Funny thing is (Score 1) 120

Amazon is simply handling the money portion of the transaction, the seller is the vendor, I'm aware of that when I make the purchase. It is typically shipped directly from the vendor. Often, the vendor is the actual manufacturer.

So, you have a business relationship with Amazon.

Amazon has a business relationship with the vendor.

If I walk into a business that hosts several other merchants (think a jewelry store where 100 vendors pay a small rent and set up shop), or a flea market, and I buy from one of these vendors, my relationship is with them. The fact that one uses Square for payment doesn't change that, any more than I'm a customer of Hulu, even if I downloaded it from the app store and used an in app payment system to subscribe.

Same reason if you walk into a Best Buy, they will price match against Amazon.com after verifying that the seller in question is Amazon itself and not a third party merchant.

At best, one could say I have a relationship with BOTH parties in this scenario.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Consider a spherical bear, in simple harmonic motion..." -- Professor in the UCB physics department