XBox is huge. It's becoming the media center for an American Consumer household. That means paying $60/year just for the "privilege" of watching Netflix in HD through your 360.
Wait 2-3 (or 4 or 5) years where a Windows Phone can play an XBOX 1 game or an XBOX 360 game in your hand. Wait until Microsoft comes up with something like Apple's AirPlay where Windows Phone apps can utilize a full 1080p screen.
Wait until they integrate more cloud services with the 360. And unveil their own Siri. Or make it so your XBOX 360 can message your phone every time a certain trend on Twitter is mentioned (agent based voice search).
Wait until an entire household of teenagers gets used to talking to their 360 to control it, having it integrate with their phones, and having it manage their social networks and cloud services, AND play some amazing games....
I have a feeling the 360 and the whole Xbox line is going to a very valuable investment and one of MS's cash cows. All of the "convergence" waves Apple is currently riding are also there for Microsoft to ride...
Uh, yes, Microsoft DOES charge you a fee...it's called "paying out the ass for your tools".
What did Visual Studio Enterprise cost last time I looked for a small company (like a start up)? $1600 a pop. More than what's needed for a Mac Mini, an iPod Touch, and a Apple Developer License/Cert.
The same tools (XCode) cost $5.
(And you'd still have to pay for your hardware/OS on top of that $1600). And that's not counting MSDN fees, either.
Make no mistake: Microsoft milks its marketshare of developers just as much as anyone else. It's just a different way of pricing.
>Again, you are making choices for them. You don't see anything wrong with this? Nobody is guaranteed a living. However, you should be given a chance. You are taking away that chance completely.
I don't even see where this is coming from. I think you jump over a few points in your logic here, or you just know nothing about an industry which you're trying to debate about.
>Over time, people with your attitude have pushed many artists to go with big labels.
NOPE. Where are you getting your talking points? The RIAA's "downloads = lost sales" page?
If people didn't broaden the market and fanbase for independent music and independent labels, it wouldn't exist, and you'd only have major label music.
They have little to no chance making any kind of living on their own (because people just share their music and don't pay for it). So, the label offers them money and some sort of living.
The labels offer an incredibly bad deal. And all the artists who, you know, actually make a living without belonging to a major label might want to have a word with you about your data.
>I hope you weren't charging any money, because you sure don't seem any better than a regular label.
Actually, we were tons better. We basically set up our store to be the reverse of the apple store: They get 70% we get 30% (agency model). So selling your album for $5 bucks nets you 3. The same album on iTunes, would you net you about $1.50.
Except, as an independent, you'd have to go through a service which functions as a 'label' that takes 50%. So an album that nets you $.75 on iTunes would make you $3 off our site.
Oh, and one of our founders actually owned an independent record label. The problem is, all of the small indies have no internet strategy, and everyone in the business knows that's the name of the game. Fortunately, sites like SoundCloud and Bandcamp are actually there for independent musicians these days.
I'd love to go on, but to me it seems like you have no clue as to what you're talking about and I've got better things to do than re-hash the research we used in our pitch. Good day!
Any briefing involving a secure area will mention that phones can be triggered this way, and that your customer (military, intel, DoD, or DOE) forbids their access for the very reason.
Wired broke the stories about the NSA monitoring something like 25% of all domestic cell phone traffic. The fact that all investigations into it have been stopped citing "National Security", and the former President Bush defended the tactic all are pretty good signs pointing to "YES".
>Without a way to make money, we will see less music. Why? Because artists will be forced to get day jobs. As it is, there is a small chance you will make a full living as an artist.
So? This is how it has been for centuries. Call it the invisible hand meets the art world. They can get jobs being music teachers. They can record using vintage equipment, like Blake Schwarzenbach did (used 4-track and 8-track recordings while he wrote for GamePro).
>If anything, it will kill the indy scene because the only companies that will be able to even come close to a profit are the the ones with deep pockets
Something tells me you don't understand the definition of "Independent Music".
The fact is, the labels function as a market for pump and dump stocks, where the stock is a band or album. Independent music doesn't (or in my opinion, shouldn't) work that way. It can take 5 years for your album to blow up. (See: Mumford and Sons). You might have a bigger following only after you're dead and buried (See: Elliot Smith and Bright Eyes). You might have every single one of your fans wanting you to quit your main gig for a side project they've done (See: Death Cab For Cutie/The Postal Service).
Disclaimer: I am a founder of a failed start-up company that would work with artists in a way that was designed to supplant the labels and exploit long-tail effect, etc.
The sad, sad thing is that indie bands are getting picked off quicker and quicker by labels and pumped up for the first-album success. It's actually a huge issue (read up on MGMT) when the artists then try a new direction for a second album and the label is hesitant to financially support an album unless fans move the product in the first two weeks. This becomes at catch-22. How do you enjoy the success of radio play when nobody's paying to play you on the radio? This leads the labels to relegate these bands (by the second or third album) to a "we don't help you" status, forcing the band to break up or just be a small indie band forever on tour.
If anything, major labels playing in the indie scene is akin to making the indie bands "build on a flood plain".
TL;DR: NOPE. Artists make very little money from albums. It is known.
However, the FBI can send a remote message to ANY phone to turn on its microphone and essentially use it as a wiretap. That's been built into every phone in the USA for something like 10 years now. It's why you have to surrender a cell phone in secure locations and military bases.
That's old news. Said wiretaps have actually been used against organized crime in America in the past and is likely used with more success now.
Oh, and you do know that everything you SEND through a cellular network -- texts, pics, urls visited are logged, right?
The only way to have a private network is to own the network. And know your netsec.
Don't know why I'm being downvoted. Did you all want to discuss facts regarding Smartphones today and how that might impact law enforcement or did you all want to have a "police state! rabble, rabble!" circlejerk?
Carrier IQ is in iOS 5. It is, however, disabled by default. It is also buried in the second or third level down in Preferences, so its very unlikely a user will enable it by accident -- and will probably only do so upon the instruction of an Apple Store Support Rep.
It acts as a keylogger on some android phones, when Carrier IQ is put into a "debug state". The researcher apparently triggered that by accident without knowing. It's not the default log level. Carrier IQ is likely benign and this whole issue seems to be bad tech journalism and sensationalism.
Carrier IQ isn't used by all carriers (Verizon opts out, I believe) and the data transmitted is anonymous. I admit there is a risk with the data profiles being assembled, and being done so with ease not seen before, but the carrier IQ findings seem to be bad tech reporting and fear mongering. It really seems to be "not a big deal".
I am all for advocating privacy and a discussion about user's rights -- but I would like it if both sides left their hysteria at the door.
However, the only documented case of the abuse is on the "most open" hardware stack. Jailbreakers saw no keylogging on the iPhone. (In fact, it's disabled by default on the iPhone).
This is not the case with all state schools. Mine, for example, was contrary to that. Different colleges in the University had different tuition. Obviously Art, Theater, Music, and Engineering have different costs -- why should they all pay flat rates?
On top of that, majoring in something technical will also likely require more fees -- lab fees, computer fees, etc.
Oh, and your book costs will be higher. Textbook prices have tripled in the last ten years, so now an English Major is paying what I paid for Computer Engineering back in 2000.
XBox is huge. It's becoming the media center for an American Consumer household. That means paying $60/year just for the "privilege" of watching Netflix in HD through your 360.
Wait 2-3 (or 4 or 5) years where a Windows Phone can play an XBOX 1 game or an XBOX 360 game in your hand. Wait until Microsoft comes up with something like Apple's AirPlay where Windows Phone apps can utilize a full 1080p screen.
Wait until they integrate more cloud services with the 360. And unveil their own Siri. Or make it so your XBOX 360 can message your phone every time a certain trend on Twitter is mentioned (agent based voice search).
Wait until an entire household of teenagers gets used to talking to their 360 to control it, having it integrate with their phones, and having it manage their social networks and cloud services, AND play some amazing games....
I have a feeling the 360 and the whole Xbox line is going to a very valuable investment and one of MS's cash cows. All of the "convergence" waves Apple is currently riding are also there for Microsoft to ride...