Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

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 but 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".

Slashdot Top Deals

Is it possible that software is not like anything else, that it is meant to be discarded: that the whole point is to always see it as a soap bubble?