Re: Sounds like a good idea
Spot on. That's one of the job a trusted Hub can do. The rest of the world just sees a GUID, while a Hub only issues what you want it to issue.
1196 posts • joined 6 Sep 2006
Spot on. That's one of the job a trusted Hub can do. The rest of the world just sees a GUID, while a Hub only issues what you want it to issue.
90 per cent of the review discusses design and usability (not performance or reliability).
So when do you suppose would be the optimal time to point out design and usability flaws?
A month before release? A week before release?
Heck, maybe six months after release we could have a little whinge: "Ooh, Microsoft designers. Can you redo X, Y and Z?"
Yeah. That'll work.
So the earlier the better, really.
I thought Hamburger has been done to death (even here) and hamburger menus are at least recognisable and make sense in places (like the Office apps).
But mainly because they're a symptom not a cause. The cause is the mandate to stick a generic / adaptable UX onto Phones, then not work out how to do this elegantly in advance, but instead let different teams cook up their own answers.
Maybe a generic / adaptable UX can't be done elegantly. But doing it inelegantly in 3 or 13 or 25 different ways at once is nuts.
"This is at pre-beta stage"
Well... It's been out for three months, and the fanbois sites are advising the two most recent builds are "good enough to test as a daily driver".
So I did. And this is what happened.
"Well, like the majority of people commenting here and elsewhere (from what I can see - please don't ask me for a detailed analysis), I object to the very idea of charges for format-shifting and backups."
I'm glad you mentioned that. That's a fair enough gripe, so would I. But there aren't going to be any charges for format-shifting or backups. 100 per cent of commentards who think there are wrong. Not even slightly wrong - completely wrong. The Government said there isn't going to be a levy and the industry hasn't asked. There was a small compensation fund mooted a few years ago, of a few million quid.
Do you think you or other commenters will start a campaign to stop such a fund being created? To stop British musicians being compensated just as European musicians are compensated? I am genuinely curious. If so, do you think this would be a popular campaign with the general, non-freetard public?
"STOP BRITISH MUSICIANS GETTING PAID" doesn't really sound like a winner to me. But maybe I'm wrong.
So. If commentards are angry about something that isn't going to happen (it was quite explicitly ruled out in Parliament, there hasn't been one call from any UK trade group requesting a media levy, most have also ruled this out)... then aren't we looking at some other phenomenon in these comments.
Something like a collective hallucination, or a persecution-induced or anger-induced psychosis?
Uh, Graham - why not read the two judgements, linked in the article, then Google the evidence, before offering armchair "common sense" economics?
The Government lost a million quid trying to make your argument, that didn't have the evidence to support what you say is "common sense".
Even the academics told to find the Right Answer (the same one that's in your head) couldn't find it; then the Government basically lied about the quality of evidence. And not surprisingly, got its bummed kicked.
You are basically saying the world should work in a particular way, and getting angry that it doesn't.
Perhaps you're making the argument that was lost in the 1990s about whether format shifting creates lost sales? That's gone now. Are you going to start a campaign to repeal paying musicians across Europe?
"Do I have to pay?"
No you don't.
(That disposes of 80 per cent of complaints here)
And nobody is obliged to give you or me free upgrades for life, every time a new format is devised. Nor is anyone obliged to buy a new format every time it comes out.
(It's nice to get free upgrades, or have multiple licenses bundled like we have today, but none of this is a human bleedin' right.)
(That disposes of the other 20 per cent of complaints).
"Once again, sections of the music industry attempt to punish those who contribute most to their profits, their incomes, by extracting more revenue from them for recordings for which they have already paid."
"Right now I'm part way through ripping my collection to hard disk. I'm not stopping now, regardless of the change in the law."
Of course, nobody will.
If you want the EU to repeal that part of the InfoSoc Directive that the principle of uncompensated copying is fine, please go ahead.
Congratulations for spectacularly missing the point.
The Government acted illegally and got its bum kicked. It spent a lot of money doing so, having been told that this is exactly what would happen. And now we in the UK don't have a format shifting exception again.
You applaud this incompetence, for which people would be fired in the private sector, because of your prejudices (ie, blind hatred) align with the Government's.
Thanks. You got the point.
The Government on the advice of an activist copyfighting IPO tried to argue black is white, got walloped, and it cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds.
If commentards had to pay a few hundred thousands of pounds for every barmy assertion, I think it would concentrate minds wonderfully.
Yep, which takes you to two Pebble apps.
The commentard is clearly allergic to reading.
Not quite. You're right that the WP community revolted, and made their own changes to disable the WMF's WYSIWYG (Visual Editor). But WMF buckled a few hours later, as it lacked the powers to force them to use anything.
Since then, WMF has sort of given itself the power to override democracy if it doesn't like the decision:
"Another anti-BBC polemic from Mr. Orlowski."
This isn't just wrong, it's wrong in a quite interesting way.
Assuming I am "anti-BBC" presumes two things, and then assumes everyone who disagrees with these presumptions is either morally defective, or stupid, or both.
"If the BBC is made to do something it doesn't want to do, British TV gets worse"
British TV can be very good. The BBC has historically contributed to making great TV, as have other companies, once they were allowed to. Today, you don't even need to ask permission to make great TV. Lots of excellent science TV being made today is not even broadcast.
The primary goal of any examination of British TV should be how to make British TV better, not how to preserve this or that institution or corporation.
When the BBC was a broadcast monopoly it fought the introduction of ITV tooth and nail, and the newspapers backed it up. What followed was a renaissance in British TV and the BBC itself. Sometimes what the BBC wants to do isn't best for the BBC. Sometimes what the BBC hates and fears turns out to be very good for the BBC.
2) "A flat rate TV tax is the only way to fund the BBC and any change in that is bad for both the BBC and British TV".
The BBC could be enormously richer and financially secure if restrictions on how it operated and how it raised revenue were removed. Many of the fairness complaints would also disappear. The people who oppose the lifting of these restrictions tend to be major commercial rivals - not me. A wealthier BBC could bid for sports rights that are out of reach today. It could offer far more diverse programming than it does today. Ways of making the BBC richer that the present BBC management fears should not prevent these being discussed.
The commenter's presumptions are not just childish, but sentimental.
Please see the response to JH123 and then express the threat level as a probability.
(It died today anyway).
Thanks, but you don't really challenge the proposition that it's a bogus scare that won't be implemented, which is fairly critical context needed to understand this story.
I know some people will want it, Europe has professional copyright bureaucrats who would love to start another society or four. But you've missed two important things.
One, the amendment wouldn't be on the table if the rapporteur hadn't done such a bad report. One things leads to another.
Two, these are the stages that would need to happen to lose the Panorama exception.
1.The European Council writes exactly the same amendment. Council members vote on it. Since most of its members have a Panorama exception they would vote against it. It dies.
2. But assuming it doesn't, it goes to Parliament, where MEPs are from countries that have a Panorama exception and don't want it. They vote, it dies.
3. But assuming it's still alive, it has to be implemented in all the countries in Europe that have a Panorama exception. Which is most of them. They have an exception because it's a good idea. So it never gets into legislation. Because if it goes to each Parliament, it dies.
It was never a danger to either photographers or Wikipedia. Oettinger ruled out any prospect of 1) today.
I agree with you actually, it is overused.
It's a figure of speech, though, that applies here. The doofus Amendment wouldn't have been tacked on to the rapporteur's report if the rapporteur hadn't made a doofus suggestion. That's because she doesn't understand the framework at all, she doesn't understand why people need copyright, and why we have exceptions.
He's also wrong when he says Google is in the position of being "judge and jury". It isn't at all. That wasn't challenged either.
2. didn't need 1. to happen. It happened because there are more choices of media, and more choices about how you get your TV.
The best thing I've seen recently is The Secret History of Our Streets, BBC factual at its best. Incredible research worn very lightly:
Then I found out its 3 years old. Lost the habit.
That's a fascinating concept of justice you have there.
It's one we abandoned a few hundred years ago, but fascinating nonetheless.
If Jolla send us one, we'll review it. Maybe they don't think it's ready?
Huawei is employee owned. These things aren't hard to find out, you know.
Fair enough! It sounds fine, no wobblies on the noise cancellation. We'll add this to the review.
The idea that you think your property rights are "bollocks" shows what a good job Silicon Valley has done brainwashing you.
"[AO]The laws are there to protect you and your work from exploitation that you don’t agree with, by somebody much more powerful – such as a record company or Google. But in the copyfighter's mind, this is inverted, and the purpose of the law is oppression, prohibition and exclusion.
It's far easier to persuade people to relinquish their freedom if they do so voluntarily. Even better if they do so with a smile. I think it's Big Tech's greatest achievement, to be honest: to get people actively campaign against their own interests.
cf Lenin, and "useful idiots".
Sorry, but you don't really understand the law - which is a bit alarming even for a hobby photographer.
You may be being hassled under terrorism laws, but that is nothing to do with copyright.
The "freedom of panorama" doesn't need "saving", as this is not a legislative proposal.
The main complaint with the copyright system today is that people get ripped off, and can't get access to justice. This applies to you whether you are an amateur or a pro. You expect to be ripped off, and can do nothing about it.
This affects livelihoods. Whether term duration is 70 or 90 years doesn't really affect livelihoods at all.
Sorry, but you need to much better informed before you can comment usefully.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 27, Paragraph 2
“Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author”)"
American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man of 1948
Article 13, Paragraph 2
“Every person has the right…to the protection of his moral and material interests as regards his inventions or any literary, scientific or artistic works of which he is the author”
Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1988 (the Protocol of San Salvador)
Article 14, paragraph 1 (c)
“The States Parties to this Protocol recognize the right of everyone…[t]o benefit from the protection of moral and material interests deriving from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author”
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1952 (the European Convention on Human Rights)
Article 1 of Protocol No.1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law”
Just as useful is Samuel Johnson in 1773:
"There seems to be ... in authours, a stronger right of property than that by occupancy; a metaphysical right, a right, as it were, of creation, which should from its nature be perpetual."
What you're saying is that you want none of this to be real, so removing rights from people is painless and has no collateral damage.
Author's Rights are human rights
It's a Human Right as expressed in
"Jolla's Sailfish platform show what Nokia could have had, an independent platform that was good enough at the time which now runs android apps. Basically, if Nokia had put the effort into Meego that they put into WM, I'm certain it would have turned out differently."
If Meego had been as slick as it was in the N9 but two or three year earlier, then I'd agree. By 2011 nobody else wanted Meego and Nokia didn't think it could build an ecosystem on its own. The board agreed.
It's not as convenient. RFTA next time.
"For 4p a day..."
Bloody hell, I hope you don't teach maths.
14,450 / 365.25 = 39.56p a day.
You're off by a factor of 10.
You make a lot of interesting points but none of them address the objections to the BBC that have been raised. Just repeating that's its traditional and that you like it hasn't stopped other institutions getting shafted. They were traditional and well-liked too.
Also, you could have declared that you worked for the BBC.
"But would I think lead to less people subscribing as and when they needed to tighten their belts for whatever reason"
But the number of "it's worth it for Radio 4 alone" comments here shows how much more revenue it could get.
You can do the modelling for yourself on the back of an envelope. We've done it before (search for Elstein). Even with 20-30pc refuseniks you're looking at a lot more money, because it's cheaper than all the other subscription services. Would you cancel the BBC before you cancelled Netflix.
It's smart to jump before you're pushed sometimes. But if you were smart you probably wouldn't be in BBC strategy.
The sources for all the numbers are in the story, you can look them up yourself. The ones you doubt were compiled for the BBC Trust.
You seem a bit concerned that the poor (with their ghastly satellite dishes) might move near you, possibly lowering your house price. But at the same time you're happy for them to subsidise what you use.
"I. I'd pay a chunk of the license fee for Radio 3, and I only regularly listen on a Saturday morning.
2. I'd pay almost all of the license fee just for Radio 4. It's great, really. I'm not a heavy user but there's no commercial equivalent.
3. I'd pay the license just for 6 Music, and would do so just for Radcliffe & Maconie."
Great post, Andrew.
From your numbers it looks like you'd pay almost 2x the current license fee to get services you value, maybe £250-£300. I know some people who'd pay even more.
Even at £500/yr it's still much cheaper than Sky.
This is a compelling case for the middle class users paying subscriptions - it suggests the middle class don't pay enough. Until that happens though, the poor who don't use it subsidise your media habits.
"Sky certainly should not be allowed to be a pay TV platform (in many countries) AND ALSO have control of Pay TV channels. They must divest Sky1, Sky Sports and Sky News etc, or be a content provider and divest of the Satellite Pay TV platforms."
I think beer should be free, and benefits the population enormously. That doesn't mean its going to happen.
Europe isn't the USA, Europeans aren't going to abandon 40 languages for slacker English, and have the same income across the EU. Well, at least not overnight. So in the mean time, we can expect that attempts to coerce a single market into existence by dictating the terms of trade that result in harm, are going to meet resistance.
Ansip didn't spend any time listening to small indies, but took what the soap-dodgers told him on trust.
If you think that is weird, check out the stuff about how the cloud makes us E400bn richer ... just like that.
Like the USA?
+1 for 4DOS. It was the first thing to install on a new box.
This isn't a argument over whether our personal data has value when processed. Tim says none of the value accrued by the processing should go back to the people who contribute it. There shouldn't be an economic relationship or a market in data.
Obviously, thermometers are not really in a position to bargain.
"Tim's argument works only if the individual are able to control"
Tim's argument works only if the individual is UNABLE to control'
Tim's argument works only if the individual are able to control either your privacy or your property rights.
As DropBear and others have pointed out (better than I can), merely being able to withhold the data, and to name a price, makes you an economic participant. You'd have a market for that data.
So tech companies would have to bid for your data, or induce you to part with it in other ways.
Of course this is the last they want. Silicon Valley isn't really all that innovative - it's extremely lazy, and basically relies on legal loopholes, and the bet that people won't assert either privacy or property rights.
File Tim's pieces under "Free Marketeers Who Hate Free Markets".
Under Steve Jobs, Apple didn't do any UI testing. So doesn't your third paragraph contradict your second?
When Bell uses jargon in the AMA (which isn't very often) he explains what it means.
Speculative. The opposite was actually true, as we've reported.
Nokia/Microsoft couldn't compete with the strongarm tactics of Apple, which had trouble shifting the 5c, and the spiffs that Samsung threw at the channel. Smaller vendors couldn't get release slots - literally.
Uh, you do know that the RIAA doesn't represent the movie industry, but the music industry?
You want the other Ass.
"Either taxpayer money is always found to "fulfill a pressing need for local cultural diversity" (aka. vote buying of the "creative types" because no-one is actually interested enough for the product to make economic sense) or else the market is totally not as bad as continually portrayed."
Well everyone likes a good whinge. There is a market for niche stuff today, I doubt if all of it would be viable if territoriality was abolished.
Not really, the objection is at the B2B level.
"No you don't have to sell to anyone - you just can't limit the license to certain eu countries."
Same difference. It means that in the EU you'll have to er, sell to anyone.
Even if I improve your shop analogy to say "I cannot charge French people more" it doesn't hold up, because by opening a shop you're obliged not to discriminate. Whereas price discrimination is absolutely essential in this market.
Probably because the headline is misleading - we'll fix it.
What's called (propaganda-friendly term) "geoblocking" really means "freedom of licensing". The EU wants to stop this.
Of course if you think Europe is one country with one language, it's logical. If you think Europe is lots of countries with even more languages, then the reform is coercive.
"Doesn't un-recouped just mean that you royalties have not exceeded your advances?"
Sales royalties, yes. There are other royalties that the record company cannot control.
"Conventional wisdom is that you enjoy a lifetime in music not by making royalties on music sales so much as by touring, selling merchandise, etc."
Conventional wisdom from ... who? People quoting 20-year old Steve Albini and Janis Ian articles on Slashdot? Or from people who have helped destroyed sales, who have absolutely no vested interest at all in telling you that artists should sell more T-shirts?
Sales were once at a level that a sick artist didn't have to go on the road even though they have cancer, like Levon Helm had to:
"I'd feel more charitable if the Tidal crowd on that stage made music that I'd want to hear. Why would I want to encourage more of that that garbage?"
OK. We get it. But there are two things here, 1) liking/trusting the music that the people involved, and 2) the viability of their proposition that someone can do better than Spotify.
"How could I trust these identikit-surgeoned airheads to promote original bands?"
Because Jay Z has quite a good track record doing so?