Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Network stations (Score 1) 24

Same with PS Vue. Not sure 100% on the count of 8, but it's around there. My understanding is it was relatively easy for these guys to cut a deal with the networks. Which is why you get On Demand the next day wherever in the States you live. It's been torture to cut deals with the Affiliates. So if you live in an area where the network owns the local affiliate, you're good. For example, in Miami, on Vue, we get live NBC, CBS and FOX. ABC is an actual affiliate, so we get OnDemand only. This actually works perfect for us, since there's enough news between the half a dozen or more cable news networks, plus the nightly and Sunday morning news shows on NBC, CBS and FOX to tide us over. And ABC sporting events tend to be live streamed on WatchESPN, so we can even watch basketball, college football, etc.

I suspect in the next year or two you'll see affiliates start to cut deals with guys like Sling, Vue, Apple, Hulu, SFN, etc... as the quality and quantity of programming of originals on Hulu, Prime and Netflix continues to explode, people are going to be more and more willing to live without traditional network shows. My children already don't really have a concept of TV as something different than Netflix. And we travel with a Roku stick when we go to hotels, because they really don't understand why they HAVE to watch commercials anymore. If the affiliates want to survive in their present form, they better license their stations, and quick. Because the monopolies are slowly ending. (And yes, I understand we're still stuck with one or two options for Internet service, but the television monopolies are coming to an end rapidly).

Comment Re:Uh, no. (Score 3, Insightful) 153

Because I routinely buy stuff from Amazon. As an Amazon customer, this offer makes no sense.

To you. To others, however (you realize this isn't creimer.com but slashdot.org) it might. Not looking for either of those phones presently (a little on the low end for me), but I've spent years with ads on my Kindle lock screen, which saved me maybe all of $20 on a Kindle purchase. Never bothered me once, and even bought a couple of things when they were good deals. Discovered a good book to read, and got a great deal on a SanDisk SSD that was advertised with special pricing for Kindle with Ads customers. Personally, I've never used a third party lock screen, nor do I use the lock screen all that much, so yeah, I would consider it if the phone was right.

Comment Re:Limited (Score 1) 83

Streaming really only works today because a majority of video watchers are not using streaming.

Where do you get that figure from? My understanding is that a huge percentage of people watching videos online are doing so via Netflix, Prime, Hulu, YouTube, etc. And with the exception of SOME Prime users (who can download for offline use), that's ALL, 100% streaming. Heck, we already know that Netflix has the single largest share of Internet bandwidth usage at 37%.

In the US we have a very large percentage of internet subscriber that can't download a two hour movie in two hours or less.

??? 4 megabits per second speed translates to roughly 1.8 gigabytes per hour, and it would seem that covers 80% of Americans. Seems like most Americans can download or stream 2 hour movies relatively easily.

It's just practical sense to download during off-peak hours and then watch whenever you want. Helps too if lots of people are downloading the same thing because then you can cache it on a local server, use multicast for a neighborhood, things like that.

Sure, unless you don't always know what you feel like watching ahead of time. Streaming services are popular because if I want to watch House of Cards tonight, but then actually change my mind tonight and want to watch Daredevil, well, no big deal. Offline playback capability is nice, but not the main feature for a lot of us.

Comment Re:iPod Classic? (Score 1) 225

Yeah. They could. They didn't. They might never. I just don't think everyone understands how little a market that is, and how unimportant it is. It's called atrophy. Phones have almost completely supplanted MP3 players. If you're looking for music playing innovation, watch the phone space. People are playing music on phones, largely by way of subscription services. That kind of leaves the non-Spotify, non-Apple Music running, non-cellular connected iPod Nano market as not an afterthought, but a non-thought. Apple doesn't care because hardly anybody else cares. Or maybe nobody else cares because Apple doesn't care. All I know is, the fact that they haven't discontinued the Nano or the Shuffle or the iPod Touch doesn't mean we should expect huge innovation in that space.

I don't even think they have competition anymore in that space. Is anybody seriously marketing an MP3 player? I don't think it's SanDisk's main target. Microsoft left. I don't think Sony ever did much in that space. Who is the major company that cares about this market right now? Samsung discontinued their non-phone music devices. I'm embarrassed I even type this much on the subject.

Comment Re:iPod Classic? (Score 1) 225

Apple's been slowly dying for many years now depending on who you ask. I hope I die that slowly. But even if they are (one "bad" quarter aside there's little evidence), it still doesn't mean there's a huge demand for iPod Classic. Even if they sell for a lot of money on eBay. That just means the extremely small base of people who want them are willing to pay a lot because of the relative sparse availability. MP3 players, especially HDD ones aren't big anymore. Ask SanDisk. Microsoft. Ask anyone.

Be honest, if Apple produced a $300 iPod "Classic" with a 256GB SSD and an option for a $400 512GB version... would they make a $10 billion business out of that? Because if it isn't that big, there's just no chance they are interested. When they did a billion in AppleTV a few years back it was a "hobby business".

Comment Re:iPod Classic? (Score 2) 225

The tech 'challenges' in getting an iPod classic to accept flash are ... uhm ... how to put it. Solved.

They use a standard (in antiquated) interface which you can readily buy an adapter to use an SD card.

http://www.imore.com/iflash-co... $60 buys you a 256GB flash drive from a dozen different retailers

Apple just loves to artificially inflate the cost of memory in it's devices to drive up profits. They could easily make a cheap, large iPod ...but it would invalidate why they charge so much to get 128GB in an iPhone.

That is how YOU solve the problem of upgrading YOUR HDD designed iPod. That's really not the way a company would go about making an iPod Classic SSD edition. But hey, go for it. I'm sure iPod Classics are pretty easy to get on eBay.

Never said it was challenging to do. I said they didn't care to bother based on the way the market is today. I'm staring at my iPod right now. It probably hasn't been plugged in to charge for months. Truth is, I'm RARELY without WiFi or Cell coverage. When I am there's usually some cached music on my phone, plus tons of downloaded Podcasts. My bluetooth headphones have a few gigs of memory for downloaded music. And eventually, I'll get off the plane and go back to having my entire library available for streaming. And even THAT is old fashioned since it seems the market is moving away from streaming YOUR library and towards subscription services such as Spotify or Apple Music.

I know it's hard to believe, but Apple isn't going to just drop an SD card adapter into the iPod Classic manufacturing line. First of all, they'd have to spin up an iPod Classic manufacturing line. And right there is probably reason enough not to bother. It's just not worth it.

Millions of iPod Touches and tens of millions of iPhones. 128gb and less space because streaming. That's just what they're focused on. I'm not saying guys like you don't pine for an alternative. I'm just saying guys like you aren't really where Apple is focused.

Comment Re:New iPhones (Score 1) 225

If they're going to do new iPhones, they need one that costs $99 or less. He spends time talking about the Chinese market, but they're not going to grow in that market anytime soon unless:

1) the phone is capable and cheap, as the market of Chinese people who can afford a $699 phone is saturated 2) the phone is made in China and likely co-marketed by a Chinese phone manufacturing company as the Chinese government wants to move their industry up the value chain

Oh stop. Just stop. They don't want a $99 iPhone. I don't mean Chinese people, or Slashdot users... some of them certainly do. But Apple isn't interested in that market. They don't NEED one (I wish my company's revenue dipped to barely $50 billion in one quarter). I just don't understand the logic that company A "HAS" to do something. They really don't. They make so much money now, I can't imagine why they would be interested in a higher volume, lower margin segment. Does Ferrari look at all those Toyota Camry's moving each month and say "man, where did we go wrong?"

Slashdot Top Deals

Waste not, get your budget cut next year.

Working...