Goodbye LPSG and...

[B_VinylBoy]

I got that the first time, maxcok.
Just like anything else you want to buy, you get what you pay for. The cheap internet options are just that... cheap. The big companies promise a lot, take a LOT of time to address service issues and do things like put service caps on your bandwidth when you don't even realize it. The fact that some companies would force you to get a business account for something as simple as a static IP or a few extra e-mail accounts is a major tell on just how poor the service might be.

Case in point, my current provider is Speakeasy. They cost more than Verizon, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner or any of the major names, but I get amazing service with almost no downtime whatsoever. I'm not on hold for 2 hours... at the most, I've been on hold for 5 minutes waiting to speak to someone. The customer service people actually know what they're talking about, so if you need things explained to you like a normal person or like a cybergeek, they can speak the language. AND, they don't care where you go online or what you download. You can go nuts on BitTorrent and not have to worry about the feds knocking on your door. You could stream porn 24 hours a day in your home via your own static IP and they don't care as long as you're not spamming.

If you ask me, that kind of stress free service is worth the extra $20-$30 a month. Then again, I'm a computer nerd that practically lives online so there you go. :biggrin:

 

[lucky8]

Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions.
Apple & Google's main product has nothing to do with television or music. Those are just parts of the one thing they're really trying to sell. Hardware.

Just look at the history of the iPod. If it was really an issue about selling music, then Apple would have made the device not only play a precise file type, but they would make it so the only music you could add to it was purchased through the iTunes Music Store. Considering their user base, they could have easily implemented this. Apple doesn't care whether or not you get your music from your CD collection, from digitized, scratchy vinyl found in your attic, or if you download all of your music from BitTorrent. All Apple cares about is that you're playing it on an iPod.

And don't get me started on the iPhone. The fact that phones can easily be hacked to use T-Mobile, and after 2-3 years they still haven't addressed that should be a real tell. :wink:

Yes, but Apple's hardware is dependent upon fast, unrestricted internet access. The whole issue of net neutrality revolves around ISPs restricting access to sites that use "too much" bandwidth as well as restricting customers who visits such sites on a frequent basis. Example: YouTube (owned by Google) is a plague on ISP bandwidth. If you can't use all of the perks of an Iphone or IPad, then why buy one?

"Just look at the history of the iPod. If it was really an issue about selling music, then Apple would have made the device not only play a precise file type, but they would make it so the only music you could add to it was purchased through the iTunes Music Store."

Exactly like I said...giving the consumer what they want. Steve Jobs understands there's more money in giving us what we want right now than there is waiting and drawing out the process over a decade...he also understands that ISPs are currently the biggest threat to Apple's business model...

 

[HazelGod]

Both of these companies publicly support net neutrality...restrictions would kill their business

Google, I'll give you the benefit of doubt on...but there's nothing pro-consumer about Apple. Mediocre products, unimaginative last-generation technology wrapped in homogenized packaging and given a pretty user interface...then marketed to nitwits as the niftiest things under the sun.

Just look at the history of the iPod. If it was really an issue about selling music, then Apple would have made the device not only play a precise file type, but they would make it so the only music you could add to it was purchased through the iTunes Music Store.

Um, that's exactly how the first generations of iPods worked. They only played music from iTunes that came in a DRM-wrapped proprietary Apple encoding format. It wasn't until they realized people weren't swallowing the turd that they allowed MP3 format files to be played, and it was even later that they stopped using DRM to lock their files purchased through iTunes. Every time users figured a way to do what they (the device owners) wanted, Apple pushed down mandatory software and firmware updates that either blocked those functions or disabled the devices entirely. Yeah, very pro-consumer practices.

I'll give Apple credit for fucking up the anti-competitive business models of both the recording industry mafia (RIAA) and the telcom providers (AT&T)...but don't believe for a moment they did so with any other interest in mind than overtaking those monopolies for themselves.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Yes, but Apple's hardware is dependent upon fast, unrestricted internet access. The whole issue of net neutrality revolves around ISPs restricting access to sites that use "too much" bandwidth as well as restricting customers who visits such sites on a frequent basis. Example: YouTube (owned by Google) is a plague on ISP bandwidth. If you can't use all of the perks of an Iphone or IPad, then why buy one?

"Just look at the history of the iPod. If it was really an issue about selling music, then Apple would have made the device not only play a precise file type, but they would make it so the only music you could add to it was purchased through the iTunes Music Store."

Exactly like I said...giving the consumer what they want. Steve Jobs understands there's more money in giving us what we want right now than there is waiting and drawing out the process over a decade...he also understands that ISPs are currently the biggest threat to Apple's business model...

I think you give Apple a little more credit than they're due. Don't get me wrong, I love Apple... been an avid Mac freak since the 80s, but even I don't give them ultimate praise. Let's focus on the iPod again. Were they really giving people everything that they want when they requested it? That's subject to debate, considering what was available at that technologically and the features they decided to add to each progressing model.

The iPod has been in existence since 2001. It took them three years before they decided to make a model with a color screen, four years before it could play video, six years before it had a touch screen and up till last year before some of the models could record video and have a built-in FM radio tuner. Many of these features were available in other, rival portable MP3/media players before Apple decided to do it themselves. Color screens were already in most portable gaming systems going back to the early 90s. It wouldn't have taken them much to include these features into their iPods sooner. In reality, Apple did drag out the iPod over nearly a decade, adding one or two new tweaks to the unit necessary to keep them on top of the competition.

Here's how I see it - What Apple gets right is their presentation. Starting with the announcement of the iMac G3, Apple made sure that their items simply looked good. Even if you don't want to buy a Macintosh product, everyone waits with baited breath to just see how it looks. The other thing is their focus on making things as easy as possible to use, which has been their credo since the very beginning. Unlike past and rival MP3 players that came and went, Apple reduced the use of a complex unit to one button. The final piece of the puzzle is, without a doubt, iTunes. When that debuted in 2001, it was the first audio organization program that truly made sense. Many other audio players before that had several problems recognizing various CODECs and different file formats. Many times, I used to receive an MP3 from a PC user (or send one from my Mac to a PC user) and there would be problems playing the file. iTunes solved much of that, by making sure it took care of the three most useable file formats at that time. The most important of them all... it was free, unlike many other audio players that offered a light version first, then tried to entice people to pay for one with full features (WinAmp, RealPlayer, etc). The actual iTunes Music Store didn't even come into play until three years after. But before anyone could actually buy a song from Apple, between the hardware and the software they established themselves as the leader. Apple is notorious in giving people just enough, without going overboard with all the features. Essentially, they're giving people what they want (as you implied), but they are making people wait for it.

As for ISPs being a threat, I have to partially disagree. Apple's main selling point is their hardware. Whether or not an ISP wants to limit bandwidth or access for certain customers doesn't really concern them at all, the same way that it didn't concern them that people were most likely downloading music from Kazaa or ripping them from their own CDs instead of repurchasing everything through iTunes. As long as they continually make a sexy looking device that is easy to use and gives people just enough to keep them interested, they will always sell products. As long as any outside service doesn't try to intentionally block iPods, iPhones and iPads from using their devices, Apple will gladly work within the constraints of other entertainment & technology conglomerates to get what they want. Besides, it's not as if anyone with an iPhone couldn't get the lowest price package, never use the 3G services from AT&T, find unrestricted hotspots and use Skype to make as many free phone calls they want.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Um, that's exactly how the first generations of iPods worked. They only played music from iTunes that came in a DRM-wrapped proprietary Apple encoding format.

Not 100% accurate. All iPods could play a variety of audio formats including AIFF and WAV which was devoid of any priority formatting. iTunes would let you rip a CD in standard AIFF without converting it to MP3 even before the iPod came into existence several months later. The problem is, of course, is that AIFF & WAV are uncompressed formats that are usually ten times the size of the MP3. The only way you could maximize the storage on an iPod was to stick to the defaults they provided, but you were not forced to use them.

It wasn't until they realized people weren't swallowing the turd that they allowed MP3 format files to be played, and it was even later that they stopped using DRM to lock their files purchased through iTunes.

Every time users figured a way to do what they (the device owners) wanted, Apple pushed down mandatory software and firmware updates that either blocked those functions or disabled the devices entirely. Yeah, very pro-consumer practices.

Sorry, but I will disagree with you on this.
To start, iTunes already established itself as an audio player that would play all basic audio formats (sorry Windows users, but Windows Media is not a basic audio format. More on that later). When the iTunes Music Store was implemented, you could still bring in your own music from various other sources regardless if there was DRM protection on it or not. Like I stated to lucky before, Apple didn't care where you bought your music as long as you were playing it on their hardware.

DRM would have never been a concern if it wasn't for the music industry acting all paranoid. At first, they thought only a few people would buy the music from iTunes and then turn around and share it with everyone like Napster. Apple didn't care either way, but knew they had to do something to keep the music executives at ease. The fact that you could buy a song from iTunes with DRM protection and then convert it to a different file type in the same program and essentially bypass the DRM, supports this theory. I remember plenty of times purchasing a song from iTunes and then converting it from the file I purchased to an AIFF, WAV or another file format. I had to do this if I wanted to burn an audio CD in a different program like Toast Titanium, which at the time was a much better CD burning tool than iTunes. After working at a computer store that specializes with Mac products for nearly 6 years, you'd be amazed at the number of people who still don't even know you can change the preferred file format in preferences. But I digress...

When the iTunes Music Store started to become a big player, that's when other companies complained that the music you purchased from there would not work on their players. To some degree, their arguments were not completely honest since for a long time you could convert the files before moving them to another program. The truth of the matter was... competitors wanted to be able to connect their MP3 players to the computer, completely interface with the iTunes software and utilize the store. The DRM was just a convenient scapegoat because it put the focus on the music and the store instead of the software itself, and with a panicky music industry seeing its CD sales falling to digital downloads they too joined in the fight. In the end, Apple knows that it's the 1-2 combination of the iPod and iTunes software that made that unit what it is today. It established itself as the leader with that business model even before Apple started selling MP3s. As long as you couldn't connect a Zune to your computer and interface with the iTunes software they developed they didn't care, so dropping DRM was a no brainer.

Also, regarding their firmware updates that "blocked functions"... I don't blame that on Apple either. Case in point, the iPhone. Notice how it's pretty easy for most savvy people to jailbreak a phone and use T-Mobile services and non-approved apps despite all of the firmware updates? If Apple really wanted to prevent people from using T-Mobile on their phones, they could. They could put something in their phone OS to intentionally block the protocols. But they don't, because they don't really care. AT&T are the ones who cared. It was their rates, and they knew they could charge as much as they wanted since they were the only phone provider that could "legally" use and sell the iPhone in America. Of course they would go after Apple if they allowed such an obvious hole in their hardware, so they pressured them to make more firmware updates to make things difficult for the average user. Apple needed AT&T to push their iPhone to the world, so they had to play by their rules... in the same fashion that Apple played by the music industry's rules with the iPod until it managed to get so many units out there that they could start making their own demands and standards.

I'll give Apple credit for fucking up the anti-competitive business models of both the recording industry mafia (RIAA) and the telcom providers (AT&T)...but don't believe for a moment they did so with any other interest in mind than overtaking those monopolies for themselves.

In all honesty, I don't think they want to take over the music or phone industry. They just want to sell the hottest device to use them on, and with some clever strategies they managed to get some of the biggest companies to play themselves.

 

[slurper_la]

After appointing a former cable industry lobbyist to FCC Chair, Obama finally comes around...

Bold Obama Stand Shakes Up Net Neutrality Debate
Bold Obama Stand Shakes Up Net Neutrality Debate

 

[slurper_la]

and in related news:

Finally, Some Good News For Anyone Who Owns A TV Or A Cell Phone
Finally, Some Good News For Anyone Who Owns A TV Or A Cell Phone