Yes, I did. Probably a bit too trusting and gullible. But the bootstrapping/office comments pushed my buttons.
I started two companies. The first failed (1). During the year or so that I was involved, I spent a lot of time doing startupy things - networking sessions, hanging out at a coworking space in Cambridge, pitching, applying to accelerators, etc. The local startup community, event organizers, angel investors, the media, and some people affiliated with the local higher education establishment encouraged this startup behavior (or startup theater). I feel they looked down on any startup that didn't fit the mold.
Here's one small example: When you meet someone else in the local community, one of the first questions they have is "Where are you based?" In my mind, this is a test of legitimacy. "Real" startups say something like:
- Kendall
- Seaport
- Cambridge Innovation Center
- Dogpatch
- The accelerator gives me a desk and WiFi.
I feel that founders who answer "Starbucks" "The Library" "Home" or "Virtual Team" aren't taken seriously. That's how I feel now, at least, sitting in my living room. Even though my 2nd company has products, profit, and growth (2), it's not taken seriously as the first, which never had a dime in revenue but was based in the CIC, applied to accelerators, etc.
It usually takes distro developers a while to vet kernels and ensure stability with their userspace stuff. 3.7 and 3.8 had a few regressions, and were skipped by a few distros. 3.9 only made it into Debian Stable last month (as a backport from testing).
On Ubuntu, you can always get some newer kernel versions through apt-get, but the default will always be what they consider to be stable (especially for an LTS)
Don't hold your breath. You can record whatever an internet browser is playing (or any other application, basically) using third party programs. There isn't a defense against this on Pandora's end.
But when you record an MP3 and then compress it again to MP3 you've then doubly compressed it with a lossy format. Besides, I personally feel like, if someone wants to go to the trouble to record a song streaming from Pandora, who can really feel threatened? If you've experienced buying and shopping for music legally, it's a pretty nice experience. You can browse everything and it's nicely organized. You can get full album art and correct ID3 tags. You can choose the explicit versions of albums. Pirating music really isn't that nice of an experience. And if you really want to support an artist, just buy some merch or go to a show. And for independent bands, the Pandora plays and especially album sales is real money (if you sell an album for $10 online, the band makes something like 50%). It actually feels nice to pay for things especially when it's obvious that as a whole, these talented people make almost no money on average. But more than being altruistic, it's just nice to be a part of modern culture and follow bands, much like people follow sports. Getting some new album and reading reviews and going to their shows is really just a lot of fun.
This really just looks like sour grapes from Microsoft to me.
There's no reason they couldn't have both...
Buy a physical disk? Trade use it like you always have, but you don't get to make use of all the fancy cloud features.
Buy your game online? You'll need to phone home every once in a while (24 hours was a bit harsh, maybe more like 1 week), and you can't trade it like physical media, but you get the fancy new lending features.
Decide you like the new way better? Convert your physical copies into 'cloud' copies and throw out the disks.
The problem with convert to cloud is that it would require every Xbox to go online in order to check with the mothership before running the game, even from a disk. Otherwise you'd be able to share the disk with offline users who could continue using the physical copy.
They had two choices:
Require an internet connection before running a game. (the 24 hour check)
You're thinking a bit closed minded. There are other ways to tackle the problem depending on how user friendly or user unfriendly you want the console to be. For example:
1. Converting to cloud could require users to trade in the physical disk at a local store for a digital CD key. A pain for users but by making this a known requirement up front, users won't be able to complain about it and it may convince users who are on the fence to just get the digital copy from the start.
2. Require all games to have a CD Key (acts as the same key for converting to cloud) and a small footprint installable component. Tell users that you don't need an internet connection to validate but if you do connect to the internet, the Xbox One will periodically "phone home" and check to see if your CD keys are legitimate. It won't stop sharing the physical copy after converting to cloud, but it would make it much more of a hassle and prevent multiplayer games from being shared easily. Bonus for users who are converting - the digital version of the game can be installed via the disk so they don't have to wait to download the game to convert it to the cloud. This would also make reinstalling much faster so long as users keep the physical copy.
There are many other possibilities that have been mentioned already so I'll stop here. Just note that this isn't an either or situation. There is a lot of flexibility here.
You're still thinking inside the box a little. Gamecube used a variety of patented format cds and encryption keys stored in a small area of the cd for their copy protection. [1]
Or, you know, just turn off the always-online or check-in-each-24h requirement and just lock down the hardware from sideloading games onto it. Even without that, something tells me people would still buy games.
You could mail them the disk, and maybe a small processing fee. They could then destroy the disk and convert the license token to a digital copy. It would cost the customer, but since they could have bought a digital copy in the first place it seems fair.
Sounds like politics. I'm sure we're not hearing the whole discussion. There's nothing stopping a Steam-like DRM option to link a game key to your account or a Steam-like offline mode once you've authenticated once. These schemes are not some fabulous new invention. They have been implemented in the real world for the last decade. If you like them, I suggest buying a Steam box.
Analyses like these seem to forget how much the software of consoles has changed over the last few years. This next generation likely to evolve much faster. The hardware is already obsolete, and it hasn't been released yet. The software is what matters, and it will change. Both Microsoft and Sony have clearly stated that they intend to grow their server farms and make them integral to the experience. So whether you're connecting to Smartglass 2.0 or iPSN, the experience in seven years will not be the same as the experience today.
I found physical media authentication unnecessarily cumbersome in the 90's. It's pretty funny that it's still necessary in some cases, but that's DRM. Too bad that just offering incentives for connecting to official servers isn't the standard means of encouraging legitimate sales. People are lining up for content they could easily get for free on services like Netflix, Spotify, and Steam because they provide superior experiences. I've never downloaded a legally questionable game copy, but I'm still not interested in these backward console DRM schemes, whether through fragile optical discs or constant surveillance. I can do better elsewhere. But I'm looking forward to what they come up with next.
It would be an extremely safe bet to say that will be the case within a year of two of launch. They're scrambling too much to change what they've got for the difference to be possible in 6 months, but the differentiation will definitely happen.
That would require some form of one disc identifier and a one time (at least) authentication to ensure that someone who had converted their discs into cloud copies hadn't passed off their disc to someone who was now playing offline with the disc.
It's also not clear if there will be a physical power button, meaning the only way to turn the damn thing on will be for Kinect to hear the phrase "Xbox On", meaning stuffing it in a cupboard won't be a particularly effective idea.
When I turn it off I'll probably disconnect the power and turn it back on when I want to play it.
In fact I bet it would be easy to create a pi hack that let's me turn the power on and off with a button.
I also doubt they won't have a button, what happens if my mic breaks?
If someone has had their real name on their profile at any time, and later changed it, it's pretty easy to still find using the real name. Trivially so if they chose a username that contained their real name.
First of all, smart companies understand that the key to profit margins is to have barriers to entry. The need to develop a dealer network is a huge barrier to entry, and car manufacturers have an interest in preserving that.
Secondly, choosing to expand vertically can be a fast route to chaos. For instance suppose that Ford decided to get into running its own dealerships. All existing Ford dealers would get nervous, many would switch brands, and others already sell multiple brands and would direct their customers away from Ford. Therefore Ford would have to be very, very careful about opening its own dealerships.
Thirdly, even if car manufacturers want to get rid of the dealership model, none want to say this where any dealers might hear. Because of fear of the same kind of chaos as before.
So for all three reasons, there is no way that Tesla is getting any support for this from other manufacturers.
Anyone else find it ironic that the article opens with Apple being the victim of a broken patent system, when they have a long history of using the same broken system to their own ends?
Apple is not a non-practicing entity. Regardless of your feelings toward them, they're actually selling products that use many of the technologies they've patented. They're nothing like Intellectual Ventures and their ilk.
I should clarify: I attended a US university, so we didn't partake in the Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer. Rather, we participated in a similar ceremony for an organization called the Order of the Engineer. The Wikipedia entry on the Order of the Engineer alludes to what you're saying though; it mentions that they tried to bring the Canadian ritual to the US but experienced legal troubles including some related to copyright.
"Illegal" is probably the wrong word to use here, since the iron ring is not governed by any municipal, provincial, or federal law.
I have a B.Sc. EE and yet work mostly in web/mobile software. I don't consider or present myself as a "practicing engineer" but I still wear the ring as a reminder of the obligation I have towards anything I create for other people to use. I probably wouldn't give it to my girlfriend to wear, but to each their own.
Actually it is the right word. The ring is a registered symbol of the Corporation of the Seven Wardens, and wearing or displaying one without their permission (via having been obligated) or attempting to sell one is illegal in exactly the same way that using any other entity's trademark without their permission is illegal.
That said, if you've been obligated and are working in a technical field, but don't really consider yourself an 'engineer' you can still wear it, so long as you hold yourself to the values it represents.
The ring is a registered symbol of the Corporation of the Seven Wardens, and wearing or displaying one without their permission (via having been obligated) or attempting to sell one is illegal in exactly the same way that using any other entity's trademark without their permission is illegal.
How is it NSFW? It is an article that is about video streaming on scale. Yes it does mention it was for a porn site, but it really does not have much to do with the article. If you work somewhere where this would be viewed as inappropriate I am not sure what can be viewed at that employer.
