As said, Real was the way to watch online videos in the 90s. The adware/malware/virus-like approach certainly harmed the company. But the reason Adobe's Flash became ubiquitous for watching web videos in the 00s is because it made the process easier. Much easier. Flash is simply a much better product for consumers versus what Real offered.
Real tried to be everything to everyone. It took over all file formats on your computer, even though you told it not to. It would interrupt for updates all the time, so there was always that extra step when you wanted to watch something. There was a "free" version and paid-for versions, sometimes updating would turn your paid-for version into a free version. After a while, dealing with Real became too much work.
Flash was simply simple. You installed it and you could play games, videos, and music while online. That's it. Is it any wonder it won the online media battle?
Google's customers are its advertisers. So it has never really had a need to provide customer service to its users. That's obviously changing. If Google is going to sell phones and provide office software and expect users to use those products and services, eventually it will have to start providing support.
I think one of the reasons people think of Google so favorably is because for the longest time we've been users and never had to actually contact Google directly, in comparison to companies such as cell phone and satellite companies, who are universally reviled.
This is a turning point for Google. Now that it expects its users to also be customers, let's see how much longer the Google love-fest will last. My guess is that it won't last very long. Providing customer service is expensive. Providing quality customer service is really expensive and is very difficult. The balance between giving your service employees enough power to actually solve problems, without having them give too much away at great costs, is nearly impossible. Even Apple doesn't get it right every time.
"So then, if pot is so harmless, you wouldn't mind if somebody drove while stoned."
God, are you retarded or what? Under your "argument" sex should be illegal, because you certainly would not want someone driving while having sex. All sports should be banned, because you certainly do not want someone driving while playing football. And most certainly sleeping should be banned, because absolutely no one should sleep while behind the wheel.
Legality or illegality doesn't change the nature of the substance, only its connotation.
Gee, you just proved Urza9814's point. Pot only has the connotation of being bad because it's illegal. Not for any objective basis.
"The Albuquerque Journal reported on the lawsuit in a copyright story published Wednesday."
You should put an (SP) next to the use of "copyright." It obviously (well at least to me) should be "copyrighted story." It certainly was not a story about copyright.
When I first read it I assumed it was your error. But since it's in the original, you should make that clear.
"Google would link directly to AP member websites who posted versions of AP stories, driving more traffic to those newspapers sites"
Mike, news websites do not want traffic. Every time a search engine or a news aggregator sends traffic, the publisher complains about stealing. What news websites want is revenue. They have no plan for it, but they know that if the stealing would stop, the money would start flowing.
This is the news equivalent of the music industry's "three strikes" pipe dream. If you kick people offline, people will magically start buying music digitally encoded on plastic again.
"We are talking about hundreds of companies, thousands of individuals, and millions of statements that have been made..."
You seem to think that arguments can be correct depending on who spoke them. You're wrong. It does not matter who spoke the argument, if the argument fails, it fails regardless. Whether one person made it or a million people made it.
And I never claimed that anyone contradicted themselves. I realize that there is more than one person defending the copyright industry's various government granted monopolies. My point is that the arguments are all over the fricken place. But that's because they're not concerned with being right. They'll simply do or say anything to keep those cash-cow monopolies.
"noting they couldn't really complain given their success"
This is a hoot! As been said a million times, the biggest obstacle facing any up-and-coming artist is obscurity. The internet helps to solve that problem by allowing bands to have access to the world. (They still have to create music that's worth listening to or no one will bother listening.)
So the copyright industry has argued in the past, "Oh sure, P2P helps up-and-coming artists in helping build fan bases, but it hurts established artists because fans will simply download rather than buy."
Now they're arguing the opposite. That, for some bizarre reason, the internet hurts up-and-coming musicians while leaving successful musicians unharmed.
It's almost as if the copyright industry does not care whether its arguments are valid or accurate. They're just throwing them out regardless of whether they stick.
On the post: Rob Glaser Leaving RealNetworks; A Chance To Reflect On How Being Anti-Consumer Fails In The Long Run
Re: Re:
I guess I'm lucky, even with my single-core systems (such as my son's Aspire One netbook) I've never noticed that Flash is a resource hog.
On the post: Rob Glaser Leaving RealNetworks; A Chance To Reflect On How Being Anti-Consumer Fails In The Long Run
Re: Re: I wish
On the post: Rob Glaser Leaving RealNetworks; A Chance To Reflect On How Being Anti-Consumer Fails In The Long Run
Re: I wish
You can download the Combined Community Codec Pack for free and use the included Media Player Classic to watch Real formats.
On the post: Rob Glaser Leaving RealNetworks; A Chance To Reflect On How Being Anti-Consumer Fails In The Long Run
Real tried to be everything to everyone. It took over all file formats on your computer, even though you told it not to. It would interrupt for updates all the time, so there was always that extra step when you wanted to watch something. There was a "free" version and paid-for versions, sometimes updating would turn your paid-for version into a free version. After a while, dealing with Real became too much work.
Flash was simply simple. You installed it and you could play games, videos, and music while online. That's it. Is it any wonder it won the online media battle?
On the post: Once Again, Google's Customer Service Is Becoming An Issue
I think one of the reasons people think of Google so favorably is because for the longest time we've been users and never had to actually contact Google directly, in comparison to companies such as cell phone and satellite companies, who are universally reviled.
This is a turning point for Google. Now that it expects its users to also be customers, let's see how much longer the Google love-fest will last. My guess is that it won't last very long. Providing customer service is expensive. Providing quality customer service is really expensive and is very difficult. The balance between giving your service employees enough power to actually solve problems, without having them give too much away at great costs, is nearly impossible. Even Apple doesn't get it right every time.
On the post: School District Considers 'Anti-Piracy' Education Campaign Based On Anti-Drug Education Campaigns
Re:
And that's exactly the point of this website. So what's your problem?
On the post: School District Considers 'Anti-Piracy' Education Campaign Based On Anti-Drug Education Campaigns
Re: Re: Makes sense...
God, are you retarded or what? Under your "argument" sex should be illegal, because you certainly would not want someone driving while having sex. All sports should be banned, because you certainly do not want someone driving while playing football. And most certainly sleeping should be banned, because absolutely no one should sleep while behind the wheel.
Legality or illegality doesn't change the nature of the substance, only its connotation.
Gee, you just proved Urza9814's point. Pot only has the connotation of being bad because it's illegal. Not for any objective basis.
On the post: School District Considers 'Anti-Piracy' Education Campaign Based On Anti-Drug Education Campaigns
Re: Re:
On the post: School District Considers 'Anti-Piracy' Education Campaign Based On Anti-Drug Education Campaigns
But they are analogous. Draconian legal attempts to solve both "problems" have actually made the "problems" worse.
On the post: AP Summarizes Other Journalists' Article; Isn't That What The AP Says Violates The Law?
Re: Re:
On the post: AP Summarizes Other Journalists' Article; Isn't That What The AP Says Violates The Law?
You should put an (SP) next to the use of "copyright." It obviously (well at least to me) should be "copyrighted story." It certainly was not a story about copyright.
When I first read it I assumed it was your error. But since it's in the original, you should make that clear.
On the post: Google Stops Hosting AP News
Re: Re: They steal too...
Agreed. By cropping it they had to re-digitize it, which creates an entirely new "digital" copyright.
On the post: Google Stops Hosting AP News
Re: Re:
Nope, I can and I did.
On the post: Google Stops Hosting AP News
Mike, news websites do not want traffic. Every time a search engine or a news aggregator sends traffic, the publisher complains about stealing. What news websites want is revenue. They have no plan for it, but they know that if the stealing would stop, the money would start flowing.
This is the news equivalent of the music industry's "three strikes" pipe dream. If you kick people offline, people will magically start buying music digitally encoded on plastic again.
On the post: Dear Rock Stars: Please Stop Claiming You're Just Interested In Helping Up-And-Coming Artists
Re: Outliers?
And that's one reason the labels are terrified. And here's the other one.
On the post: Dear Rock Stars: Please Stop Claiming You're Just Interested In Helping Up-And-Coming Artists
Re: Re:
You seem to think that arguments can be correct depending on who spoke them. You're wrong. It does not matter who spoke the argument, if the argument fails, it fails regardless. Whether one person made it or a million people made it.
And I never claimed that anyone contradicted themselves. I realize that there is more than one person defending the copyright industry's various government granted monopolies. My point is that the arguments are all over the fricken place. But that's because they're not concerned with being right. They'll simply do or say anything to keep those cash-cow monopolies.
On the post: Dear Rock Stars: Please Stop Claiming You're Just Interested In Helping Up-And-Coming Artists
This is a hoot! As been said a million times, the biggest obstacle facing any up-and-coming artist is obscurity. The internet helps to solve that problem by allowing bands to have access to the world. (They still have to create music that's worth listening to or no one will bother listening.)
So the copyright industry has argued in the past, "Oh sure, P2P helps up-and-coming artists in helping build fan bases, but it hurts established artists because fans will simply download rather than buy."
Now they're arguing the opposite. That, for some bizarre reason, the internet hurts up-and-coming musicians while leaving successful musicians unharmed.
It's almost as if the copyright industry does not care whether its arguments are valid or accurate. They're just throwing them out regardless of whether they stick.
On the post: France Considers 'Right To Forget' Law, Apparently Not Realizing The Internet Never Forgets
Re:
I was thinking the same thing. France is basically becoming the Florida of Europe.
On the post: Rednex Release New Single On Pirate Bay, Explain Why Record Labels Will Die
I agree. The labels will disappear in 2013. Unless some very underhanded legislation is passed between now and then.
On the post: Mexican Gov't Says Starbucks Can't Use Images Of Mexican Artifacts On Mugs... Without Paying Up
Re: Re: Surely
Next >>