923 posts • joined Wednesday 6th September 2006 11:02 GMT
Re: So not landfill Android then?
Yes, I was very impressed, it's a bit of real quality and the best bargain out there for £130. It doesn't come gummed up with cruft like TouchWiz either - which makes a big difference. Moto cut all the right things. The profit margin is thin to non-existent, but Motorola needs to make a splash and this will do as a loss leader.
Re: So not landfill Android then?
It's horribly confusing - two writers having two different opinions.
We'll send round a Doctor, please have a lie down and keep away from sharp objects.
Re: Here is my proper review
"Since the article is not really a review "
Er, correct. It is not a review at all. The word "Analysis" clearly confused you into thinking it was a review.
So apologies for that :)
You can use the mobile websites. But you can't use the social integration, since Microsoft stores your FB/Twitter handle (but not password) alongside a Microsoft ID.
Re: Re: right vs privilege error again
I have always found this a strange argument: because creators get a small proportion of the value they receive - they should get even less. Or nothing at all.
As an academic you don't make much money from selling your rights in a marketplace because your work isn't worth very much in that marketplace. Which isn't to say it isn't very good. But this may have skewed your perspective.
"Most musicians get much more from the paid performances they do (even for tips on free gigs) than from album sales."
So if they don't play live, they starve. Remember that proportionately more revenue is retained by the live promoter (and pocketed by the beer company) than by the musician. Yet all the while you can be sure that if people are enjoying the live performance, they are probably enjoying the sound recording too.
The challenge here is to restore the link between popularity and revenue. No matter how much lipstick you put on this pig, what you are advocating is charity, and a much less fair world.
Re: Re: right vs privilege error again
"However, it is a very bad argument to claim that reducing the set of exclusive rights enjoyed by some group of people (such as copyright owners) is the same as depriving them of their property and therefore an illegal violation of human rights. If you follow that argument then all sorts of legislative progress become impossible."
Copyright actually is already recognised as a human right - you've missed that boat.
Your idea of "progress" is somebody else's tyranny. That's generally why we have legal protection - to protect the individual from people like you.
Re: Re: right vs privilege error again
I'm arguing that you want the moon on a stick, Larry, and you're not going to get it. I'm so sorry.
Re: right vs privilege error again
"isn't any kind of property"
It doesn't really matter what you think IP is, or what I think it is. It's a property right in Berne, in WIPO, in many other treaties and conventions - and in over 100 national statutes.
Best of luck changing all those.
You've made the same error the IPO made, in pretending that IP wasn't a property right... and finding the reality whacks you on the head.
Freedom from Google = potential service revenue.
Re: Re: Phages in Russia
I detect an envious researcher.
Thank you for such an interesting contribution to The Register, James.
1) At SpinVox, a business based on a fraud, you were performing a public relations function. You may not think you were, but that's what your job was. Indeed, you were the *only* public face of SpinVox for a week after the BBC revealed the true nature of the fraud, at which point the grown ups had to take over. For this, you have my sympathies:
"We’re really not avoiding being honest" -
To defend the fraud you were either incurious or dishonest - I prefer to believe the former.
An enduring memory of SpinVox's "demo day" is the CTO advising you not utter a word. Quite wise, I think, in retrospect.
2) "A cursory glance at my LinkedIn will tell you that I 'appear' to have five years of finance experience (2001-2006)."
Is this what you mean?
"LWT: Duties included: Processing monthly payroll. Evaluating and distributing staff expenses for the LWT Factual department."
"Contributions Clerk: Daily Mail - Duties included: Processing invoices for contributors for the Daily Mail. Cutting, marking, pricing and processing the all printed images."
If you hadn't become so obsessed with posting photos of yourself onto the internet, you could have had a promising career as an accountant. It's a good job, my Mum always said.
3) You gave the BBC a view on Twitter's business prospects. Since your job today relies on Twitter's continued success, so I would expect this to be positive.
Re: I expect to get a zillion downvotes but...
"No one ticked the box that says the NSA can read my mail."
Indeed not, but as Google successfully established with Gmail reading is not really "reading" is it? It's just hanging around innocently, whistling.
Re: Something wrong with that pricing...
You've overlooked VAT, the price Nokia quotes is "before subsidies and local duties and taxes".
Mr Osborne must have has cut.
Re: Re: Linux
I was thinking something similar.
I could have done everything I've done here in Abu Dhabi from an RT tablet, and so probably from Ubuntu too. (Although I'd have to use an Evernote clone). I used to enjoy using Ubuntu 10.10. Then Unity happened.
Re: All new Nokia tablet....=]
It's a deal breaker for some, but for others RT puts Office in a cheap, 15 hour laptop.
Re: Re: how much?
I'm being told to expect c. £399 without keyboard and £99 for the keyboard, incl VAT.
Re: Best laws money can buy
You're right that the EU privacy law is mostly used by the super rich: Rooney set an important precedent there. Facts that were already in the public domain were included in a biography - Rooney successfully blocked publication.
#Chilling Effect No.1
No Win No Fee has changed everything - it's available for libel and has lowered the risk to litigants, turning into a speculative sport.
#Chilling Effect No.2
Free speech is far less free than it was 10 years ago.
Re: One show in isolation isn't meaningful.
"AllOfMp3 showed the way here"
By taking your money but not paying the creators? That's really a double fail. At least TPB is free.
Re: Another thought...
It's even easier for Spotify to identify your macro and cap plays per subscriber. Even if one subscriber plays a song 40,000 times, that's still a small portion of a tenner in a month going back in royalties. To really rig the system you'd have to hack Spotify itself - which is fraud.
You're assuming that Spotify has incredibly stupid techies is - they're not stupid at all.
Re: Re: Fantastic work on slimming it down
I agree, the 808 is top heavy but it's quite slim. It will go places a phone with a 4.5" or 5" display won't go. Phnarr.
Re: Great article
I can say with some certainty that nobody at El Reg denies the earth has a climate.
Re: please no...
Not even Stephen Fry??
Re: Must get in on this scam
I would suggest starting here:
Re: Re: "The UK is arguably the most tech-savvy nation on the planet."
Technology adoption closely tracks GDP, disposable income and urbanisation - as you'd expect. The WEF tries to do proper numbers here: http://reports.weforum.org/wp-content/pdf/gitr-2011/wef-gitr-2010-2011.pdf - but not for consumer technologies.
The UK very rapidly adopted micros, VCRs and DVDs, mobile phones, SMS and a whole bunch of other stuff. Except DAB ;-)
Re: Completely Wrong.
See the McKinsey link I have posted elsewhere in comments about costs. There are enormous opportunity costs to parking an intermediary in the middle of where an economy should be, capturing the value. The costs McKinsey doesn't calculate go on for generations.
"The author might be happy to pay subscription fees for everything, but what would this situation do to people in poor countries?"
Many things are "free" at the point of delivery but complex valuations and transactions take place out of sight, they are invisible. I am sure many things would remain free OTT and ad-supported too.
As for "poor countries" - perhaps they would like their own news media, their own culture industries, and would like to shape their own digital economy however the see fit, on their own terms - rather than remain some forelock-tugging outpost of the Google economy?
Just a thought.
Re: Flat-rate access
Good analysis. There isn't really an ISP business any more, and because they can't add value they have to cut cost - by making the experience as shitty as they can get away with.
It's still a poll tax, though, with the light user subsidising the heavy user. Once you change the incentives so that the valuable bits are being paid for, then it's in the ISPs interest to get them to you as fast as possible. They have no excuses left.
The figure comes from here, I suggest you read it carefully. There are costs to "free" I didn't have time to mention - a bit off-topic here.
"The less I spend on emails the more I spend on apples (at the greengrocers!)"
No. People buy as many as apples as they feel they need. They don't splurge £200 in Apples in one go and then let them go moldy. By contrast the willingness to spend on cultural goodies is enormous, it's a discretionary purchase, and we've all splurged. McKinsey is simply pointing out the obvious: we like paying for stuff. There is a huge disparity between what we could be (gladly) paying for and what we actually spend.
If the economy is bigger there are more opportunities for the taxman: more employees (income tax), more profits (corporation tax), more capital changing hands (capital gains tax).
Your reference to "multinationals" is particularly weird, because your logic entrenches the dominant position of a small number of US oligopolies, at the expense of many tiny local UK businesses (eg, games studios, small imprint poetry publishers, magazines). These are things we're quite good at. And these are businesses that generally pay their taxes, too.
Re: 100:1 it was due to DRM as well as stupidity
I'll take you up on that, Pu02.
I suggest £50. Now show me the money.
Re: Re: Solution
When the state gives one sector, or one company a huge advantage over the others, it is as you say, corporatism. This isn't some precursor to fascist economics however, it *is* fascist economics: the state picks "winners", and protects them.
Re: Re: Solution
"No, Capitalism is the pursuit of wealth"
So is doing the lottery every week. You're on to something, but you have to be more precise.
Re: Hang on...
"Hang on - moist [sic] of the infringements are done by a mere 3.2%? Doesn't this kind of blow the whole "piracy is costing us beeeeeeeelions!" thing out of the water?"
Only if you have a turnip for a brain. It means a) enforcement should be targeted at the wealthy few who do most of it and b) since they're generally wealthy, services should think about nice premium services.
Rewarding people who actually pay for stuff would be nice, too. ("FREEZE! IT'S THE FBI")
Re: Re: Concert spending
About a dozen studies. I know of one that says otherwise, the effect is neutral.
But I wonder which you'll choose to believe? With "copyfighters" it's all about choosing the evidence to back up your prejudice. You must reject all evidence that doesn't.
"Copyfighting" is really creationism's twin brother.
It doesn't matter if copyright lasts 2 or 2,000,000 years - if it can't be enforced.
That includes the same copyright that gives you ownership of your photos, by the way. Which Instagram and the UK Gov want to grab.
Re: No mention of CC
Of course it doesn't figure in the stats.
Somebody who "only downloads Creative Commons music and videos" is either telling a porkie, or is so unusual they deserve to be on the Fourth Plinth at Trafalgar Square.
Re: Concert spending
You're not really following the arguments or the evidence. There are many studies of this, discovery is an element but the overall effect is negative.
Which is what we'd expect. Why pay for something when the alternative is substitutable and there's no risk? That's a rational economic decision.
Re: "Excels as an integrated organiser"?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall any Nokia feature phones doing what you require in Paragraphs 1&2. Psion's organisers had a very rich Agenda, Nokia gradually made their phones dumber, with the 9300 Communicator probably being the last to have a semi-decent Calendar app. That was a Hildon device pretending to be a Series 80 device.
Very nice post, though TFMR. It shows how much work needs to be done, to get us to where we were in the 1990s.
Re: Re: rights/privileges again
"The purpose of IP Rights (including copyright) is surely to encourage the sharing of creative works"
The exclusivity is there to encourage trade in something we value highly as a society. It's the trade, aka a healthy market, that provides the incentive for the dissemination. It encourages investment in the business of disseminating the stuff.
Is a 1:1 exchange of an image "sharing" or is it "trade"?
Re: Two sides to the orphan issue?
This is the best explanation of how it's done today, with orphan works being made available to us in many forms:
And many good ideas for making digital copies of orphans abound, most OW schemes make use of narrow exceptions.
What the issue is here the proposal is so broad and clumsy (it was written by activists who don't really understand copyright, they're quite new to it, and not lawyers) it threatens primary licensing. The UK IPO had every opportunity to narrow the wording of OW/ECL so there would be no ambiguity and no threat to primary licensing at all. They declined the opportunities.
@ "Dr S"
Can you be more honest in your representation of yourself? Calling yourself "a copyright lawyer" implies you practice law, rather than study it.
You could start by providing your full name and credentials.
Your personal opinion on whether the UK contravenes Berne is counter to other expert rather better-informed opinion, and perhaps reflects your agenda.
Re: Re: Completely blown out of proportion
"What am I missing?"
I'll assume you're not trolling, anon.
You're missing pretty much everything, to be honest.
Allowing the commercial use of a piece of work without a license turns property rights upside down. The burden of proof falls on the property owner to seek redress. Any other property rights you'd like to rewrite. (Eg, "Nice sports car, shame the owner left a crappy lock on the door"....)
Try reading up some background, particular on property rights, why "diligent search" is nigh impossible, and think about market alternatives to screwing over individuals. Such alternatives exist and are widely supported, and benefit all parties.
And don't take my word for it. (Or anything).
Here's David Bailey on the subject:
Yes, *THAT* David Bailey. What do you think he knows about photography?
Re: copyright != human right
In other words, PyLETS, you have absolutely no idea you've just been shafted.
This is *very* bad news for the lube industry.
Re: Re: Excuse me
"Metadata stripping is already illegal.' But nearly impossible to police."
You'd be amazed how the prospect of dropping a bar of soap in the showers can focus the minds of a senior media executive.
Re: @Andrew Orlowski: Re: Excuse me
"It's not really illegal until the courts have started enforcing it. Have they?"
No. Good point.
Re: Completely blown out of proportion
You don't understand the law, Tim, and you don't understand the act. It's that simple.
"In all the cases laid out in the article here like users' photos on Facebook, Instagram, or Flickr then those photos immediately have an account associated with them, and the author can easily be found."
There are many ideas on how to deal with orphan works. The EU directive which would have become UK law forbids commercial use. But there has been nothing like this anywhere, which reverses the law so completely.
Re: Re: Excuse me
Image matching (eg, Getty PicScout) is now fast and reliable.
A registry of images (eg the copyright hub) would provide the author info. Large users who solicit and use "unidentified" photos (eg Daily Mail, BBC) could be obliged to register them. Metadata stripping is already illegal.
So Registry + ImageRecog + Law solves the Orphan Works "problem" with the law we already have, it removes uncertainty for users and creates a new market. This is all photographers were asking for here.
Other people have other agendas.
Of course, some people were in a hurry. When the
Re: IP profits lawyers and extortion style law suits
Ah, you don't understand how to protect IP.
That explains everything.
- It's true, the START MENU is coming BACK to Windows 8, hiss sources
- iSPY: Apple Stores switch on iBeacon phone sniff spy system
- Pic NASA Mars tank Curiosity rolls on old WET PATCH, sighs, sniffs for life signs
- How UK air traffic control system was caught asleep on the job
- Google embiggens its fat vid pipe Chromecast with TEN new supported apps