Friday, September 26, 2008

MySpace vs iTunes: Let the Games Begin

So, anyone logging into MySpace today might notice the new music player options you now have. Here's a story that lays out the deets in depth, but the gist of the whole deal is that now, much like iTunes, you have access to hundreds of thousands of songs. You can buy them as on iTunes, but it'll be through Amazon's music service, and it won't limit the number of times you can transfer the song.

But fo' free, you can create up to 100-song playlists from their libraries—which they hope will soon surpass iTune's 8.5 million songs. You can host top 10 playlists on your page now. So now your friends can hear all 10 of your favorite sad songs, or the eight songs that made you feel, like, different from most people, or the nine songs that make this particularly Thursday strangely funky fresh. Does anyone care?

Indie labels do. Earlier this morning I got a press statement via email from Charles Caldas, CEO of independent labels global rights agency Merlin, stating that Koch, Beggars Group and Domino (9% of the U.S. digital recorded music market) are not part of this inaugural launch and are still in negotiations with MySpace. In essence: As of this second, MySpace can't really say they're honoring the indie artist because all indie artists are not yet part of Invasion 2.0. But they probably will be soon. Just not right now. Possibly a moot point as of the very near future.

Anyway, seeing as how people have been saying MySpace jumped the shark already, what do we think of this new razzle-dazzle? I tried it out this morning for a minute and was pleased to find my old-school '90s-core faves and early Cure records and shit right there for the playlistin'. I'll still buy from iTunes, though, because there I won't be inundated with a bunch of ad crap and irritating smiley faces popping up. And, I can't say how much time I'll commit to creating playlists simply because I can.

Thoughts? Feelings? Outrage? Eh?

From : http://blogs.nashvillescene.com

MySpace Music Launches, Takes on iTunes

Partnered with four record labels, can MySpace music dethrone the king of digital music retail, iTunes?

The online music business is a virtual monopoly, with Apple tightly at the reins.  With 70 percent of the MP3 player market under its grasp, and over four billion songs sold, it should come as little surprise that iTunes recently became the nation's largest music retailer -- online or off.  While smaller players like Rhapsody and Napster trying to pick at Apple's armor, few have mounted a real challenge.

Now a new competitor seeks to change all that -- MySpace.  MySpace has long had close ties with musicians.  Where smaller competitor Facebook focused initially solely on individual profiles, MySpace made band profiles an integral part of its experience.  The result was a pop culture phenomena, in which artists such as Katy Perry, Kate Voegle, Sean Kingston, and Lilly Allen have launched highly successful careers largely driven by the buzz they created on MySpace via catchy featured tracks.

Thus it was perhaps inevitable that MySpace, which has made more than a few musicians' careers would start selling music. 

That time is now, as today MySpace Music officially launched.  The new endeavor was cooked up by MySpace owner and media mogul, Rupert Murdoch.  Securing the support of all four major record labels -- Sony BMG, EMI Group, Universal Music Group (UMG), and Warner Music Group (WMG) -- Mr. Murdoch's social giant may have the firepower needed to go head to head with Apple.

The site is also partnering with Sony ATV to score the support of independent labels.  With "indie" everything being the hottest trend in music at the moment, the support of independent labels such as The Orchard, Alternative Distribution Alliance, Caroline, RED, and Fontana, which Sony ATV is partnered with, should be critical.

The new deal is also critical to Amazon, as it has partnered with MySpace to provide the tracks.  Arguably, the two need each other greatly as MySpace has a huge profile, but no distribution network, while Amazon has the distribution network without the high profile.

Working in MySpace’s favor is the fact that 65 percent of its users already have streaming music in their profiles, putting its user base at over 78 million -- more than Apple iTune's 50 million users.  In total, MySpace plays a whopping 6 billion songs a month -- more than Apple has sold in its career.  Another key advantage is MySpace’s streaming music player which will integrate into its store.  A playlist of over 100 songs can be made from the store's library of searchable tracks. 

These songs can be listened to, in their entirety, free of charge, so users have a great way of checking out music before buying, unlike in iTunes, which is more restrictive about previews.  Other sites such as iLike have had success with such playlist strategies, but they have been limited in that they send buyers to a separate site, while MySpace handles everything on-site.

One trouble spot for MySpace may be the lack of a complete solution.  While Apple offers hardware and software -- everything needed for a complete music solution, MySpace is not getting into the physical MP3 player business.  While its tracks can play on iPods, it does not have the all inclusiveness which Apple enjoys.  Another sticky spot may simply be how entrenched Apple is among users who are willing to legally buy music.

MySpace Music has some high profile advertisers for its launch -- McDonalds, State Farm, Toyota, and Sony Pictures Entertainment.  In an amusing play Sony Pictures Entertainment is running ads on users’ integrated players, advertising its upcoming indie flick, Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist.  Toyota will be giving away free songs on Tuesdays.

Jamster is partnering with MySpace to offer downloadable ringtones.

The new service sells mostly DRM-free tracks from Amazon.  The file format is 256 kbps mp3 and tracks start as low as $0.89, cheaper than iTunes’ $0.99 starting rate.  The current catalog features 5 million songs, compared to iTunes' 8 million songs.

From : http://www.dailytech.com/

Windows 7: is it Vista SE or Windows 2010?

As Windows 7 moves towards Beta 1, with an end-of-2009 target for final release, Microsoft will puzzle over how to position the next-gen OS.


Windows 7 is gearing up for its public debut at next month’s Professional Developers Conference (PDC) be held in Los Angeles, where Microsoft will distribute the first widely-available preview edition of the OS.

All attendees at the premier techfest (APC among them) will receive a 160GB USB hard drive containing a fresh-baked ‘pre-beta’ build from the Milestone 3 series beyond the current m3.6780 edition. The hand-out will be repeated at the annual Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (WinHEC) to be held in early November. PDC and WinHEC have both been crucial seeding platforms for Microsoft to distribute advance copies of previous Windows releases in varying pre-release stages.

Towards Beta 1

Legendary Microsoft watcher Mary Jo Foley reports there is currently no Milestone 4 on the Windows 7 roadmap, so the next stop is Beta 1. This could conceivably queue up for broad release by December as Redmond’s Christmas present to its devoted fans.

Assuming Microsoft follows that up with a Beta 2 by the middle of 2009, Windows 7 could hit Release Candidate stage during the third quarter of the year – putting the OS on target to hit Microsoft’s goal of shipping Windows 7 before the end of 2009.

This doesn’t mean that boxes of Windows 7 will be lining the shelves next to must-have Christmas gifts such as the Steve Ballmer action figure. Simply sending the release-to-manufacture’ (RTM) build off to the DVD duplication houses and making it available for download by selected customers (as was done with the ‘business’ release of Windows Vista in November 2006, prior to the actual consumer launch in January 2007) would be sufficient for Microsoft to trumpet that Windows 7 shipped on time.

It’s also questionable that Windows 7 needs broad release by Christmas. Major OS advances like XP and Vista are the ones which benefit most from a pre-Christmas release because they’re so closely tied into the sales of new PCs. Windows 7 isn’t an OS that will send shoppers rushing to buy a new desktop or notebook.

Which raises the question of exactly what Windows 7 is, and how Microsoft will frame it in relation to the Windows platform in general and of course Windows Vista in particular.

Vista SE...

With advances in the kernel, networking system, user interface, desktop applications, hardware and device support, Windows 7 is certainly more than a mere Service Pack. It’s closer to the realm of a mid-life update in the shape of Windows 98 Second Edition or the R2 editions of Windows Server 2003 and 2008.

Should Windows 7 settle into that groove, it presents Microsoft with two immediate challenges. First, what to call the OS? If it’s not a significant advance from Vista (and all signs indicate that to be the case), then it would make sense to retain the Vista brand and promote Windows 7 as a ‘one step better’ upgrade to your Vista PC. Does this mean we’ll see something along the lines of Vista SE, Vista 2.0 or Vista Plus?

Secondly, will this Vista variant be a sufficient drawcard for current owners of Vista PCs? Microsoft can’t expect to set the cash registers ringing by tossing high-priced boxes onto the shelves. It may be smarter to price Windows 7 in line with its ‘upgrade’ status, around $100-150, and perhaps even make some of the core improvements available as a free download while tempting users to pony up for the sweeter stuff.

... or Windows 2010?

The alternative, of course, is to draw a line in the sand and relegate the ‘Vista’ brand to Microsoft’s company timeline. A return to the simpler year-branding which Microsoft pioneered over a decade ago (and which it retains for most of its client and server software) would result in Windows 2010.

‘Twenty-ten’ is a catchy name, to be sure. But such a move would imply a solid break from the past (which Microsoft may not be willing to entertain) and substantial step forward from Vista (which Windows 7 is not), leaving the company open to claims that Windows 2010 is more like ‘Windows 2007 and a bit’.

There’s also room for a high degree of dissatisfaction from customers who install Windows 2010 and end up staring at the desktop wondering exactly what has changed from Vista and was it worth the money?

So far, all the signs are that Microsoft’s strategy with Windows 7 is to underpromise and overdeliver - the exact opposite of the Longhorn/Vista experience. If so, Windows 7 may be forced to remain a Son of Vista rather than the Future of Windows.

From : http://apcmag.com/

O'Reilly Updates Mac OS X For Unix Geeks for Leopard

O'Reily has updated their book, Mac OS X For Unix Geeks. The fourth edition covers OS X 10.5 Leopard and has been expanded with deeper content.

"If you're a developer or system administrator lured to Mac OS X because of its Unix roots, you'll quickly discover that performing Unix tasks on a Mac is different than what you're accustomed to. Mac OS X for Unix Geeks serves as a bridge between Apple's Darwin OS and the more traditional Unix systems. This clear, concise guide gives you a tour of Mac OS X's Unix shell in both Leopard and Tiger, and helps you find the facilities that replace or correspond to standard Unix utilities," O'Reilly said.


Not only has the book been updated for Leopard, but additional depth has been added, including a discussion of Ruby and using Mac OS X as a server.

The book teaches the reader how to:

  • Navigate the Terminal and understand how it differs from an xterm
  • Use Open Directory (LDAP) and NetInfo as well as Directory Services
  • Compile your code with GCC 3
  • Port Unix programs to Mac OS X with Fink
  • Use MacPorts to install free/open source software
  • Search through metadata with Spotlight's command-line utilities
  • Build the Darwin kernel

OReilly's Mac OS X For Unix Geeks is priced at US$34.99.

From : http://www.macobserver.com/

Increase your productivity by using 2 monitors

How'd you like to increase your office productivity by as much as 50 percent? Add a second monitor to your computer setup. Once you do, you'll never go back to using only one monitor again.

For example, you can open a document or presentation on one monitor and use the other to conduct research on the Web. Or, see your e-mail arrive as you work. Photo editors really benefit from having an image open on one monitor and the tool bars in full view on the second monitor. Video editing suddenly becomes almost as easy as the TV commercials promise.

What you need

Adding a second monitor to your system is easy. First, you have to check to be sure your computer has a dual-output video card. If it has a single-output card, you'll need to add a second video card.

A dual-output video card runs about $100, depending on the specifications. A single-output card costs slightly less. Your computer may already support dual monitors, though, because many newer computers do.

Installing a video card isn't difficult, but you may not want to mess with it. An electronics store can install a card for a fee.

You could also buy an external monitor adapter, but internal cards perform better. If you use two video cards, the cards should have the same specifications. That way, there will be no lag between the monitors.

Choosing a monitor

You can use an old monitor if you have one. The experience is better if the monitors are the same size. Even better are identical monitors.

These days, you can find bargains on flat-panel monitors. Go for a 19-inch monitor if possible. Otherwise, a 17-inch screen is good. Anything larger than 19 inches may strain your eyes if you sit close.

The monitors and computer should have matching ports. Many monitors have both VGA (analog) and DVI (digital) connections. This makes things easier.

Before buying a monitor, judge the picture quality in the store. Pay attention to the contrast ratio. This is the difference between the whitest whites and the darkest blacks. Aim for 500:1 or higher. Higher ratios yield more shadow detail.

Response time is equally important. This is the time it takes for a pixel to change color. Lower numbers are better. Accept no higher than 12 milliseconds. Slow response time can result in smeared movement in videos.

Screen resolution refers to the number of pixels on the display. The higher the resolution, the smaller things like text appear on the screen.

Monitors can be adjusted to different resolutions. However, flat panels usually work best at their native resolution, which is expressed by figures such as 1,600 by 1,200 pixels. The two monitors should have the same native resolution. But you may need a resolution other than the native resolution of a particular monitor, so check the monitors in the store to be sure they work for you.

You don't need a brand-name monitor. Many companies buy panels from the same manufacturers. But pay attention to build quality. It should have a sturdy feel and solid buttons. A good warranty is also important.

Setting up the monitor

After you have both monitors connected to your PC, plug in both and turn them on. In Windows Vista, right-click the desktop and select Personalize. Click Display Settings. In Windows XP, click Start, then Control Panel. Double-click Display. Open the Settings tab.

In both Vista and XP, you'll see numbered boxes representing the monitors. Click Identify Monitors. A "1" appears on your primary monitor. The other monitor displays a "2." Click and drag the boxes to change the designations.

Select monitor 2 and check "Extend my windows desktop onto this monitor." Click Apply. You can then open programs and drag them between monitors.

Third-party programs improve the dual-monitor experience. UltraMon ($40) places a taskbar on each monitor. Buttons help you arrange program windows on the monitors and you can apply different wallpapers to each monitor.Multimon does much the same for free. Add Multishow if you want different wallpapers. You'll find links to these programs at www.komando.com/news.

From : http://indystar.gns.gannett.com/

T-Mobile G1 (Google Android Phone)

Sure, it looks like an iPhone in a Sidekick body. But slightly awkward design aside, the T-Mobile G1 "Google Phone" establishes Android as a slick new entrant in the smartphone space. It promises to be a fun, powerful Web-centric handheld when it launches on Oct. 22.

The G1 starts out looking like a somewhat chunky (4.6" x 2.1" x .62") PDA-phone, topped by a big 320x480 touch screen. The touch screen is wonderfully quick and responsive. Below the screen are five buttons and a small, slightly slippery track ball. Slide the screen to the right and turn the device 90 degrees, though, and it reveals a full QWERTY keyboard of slightly rubbery, nicely separated keys. There's a miniUSB charging port on the bottom, and a MicroSD memory card slips into a difficult-to-open slot to the right of the keyboard. (The phone comes with a 1GB card.) On the back, there's a 3-megapixel still camera.

The real news here, of course, is Android, Google's all-singing, all-dancing, all-open-source new operating system. It ran quickly and efficiently on the G1's 400 Mhz Qualcomm processor. Unlike with the iPhone, there seem to be several ways to accomplish any task. You can scroll through Web pages with your finger or with the trackball. To search contacts, you can swipe with your finger or start typing on the keyboard. To dial the phone, you can tap the Dialer icon or the physical Phone button.

There's something ideological about all these options. Apple makes it clear that there's one way to do things, Apple's way, and it's the best way. But Google says they're about openness, open source and open choices. That makes for an interface that's a little bit more confusing than the iPhone's (but still far, far easier than Windows Mobile) and more customizable for different tastes.

The G1 starts out with a desktop that's a lot like your PC desktop, with four standard application icons and a clock widget you can move around. You can flick left or right to find two more black desktops, or pop out the phone's full application menu from a tab on the right. The application menu looks a lot like the iPhone's home screen: big, clear icons for various apps. To dial the phone, you can either use the physical keyboard or a Dialer app with a virtual keyboard. We didn't feel any haptic force feedback on the touch screen, though that becomes a lot less important when you have a physical keyboard.

In our hands-on time, we couldn't test the G1's reception or phone calling ability. The G1 works on T-Mobile's 3G network, on foreign 3G networks, and on GSM EDGE networks all over the world, including in the US. The G1 also has Wi-Fi, though you can't use it for phone calls. We got 600-700 kbps on a speed test Web site using T-Mobile's 3G connection, which is a decent speed. You won't be able to use the G1 as a 3G modem for your PC, T-Mobile execs said at the G1's launch.

The G1 works with mono (but not stereo) Bluetooth headsets and has voice dialing on board. We couldn't find a dedicated wired headset jack; presumably, it'll use the USB port for wired headsets. T-Mobile says the phone has 130 hours standby time and up to 5 hours talk time, which is good for a 3G phone

From : http://www.pcmag.com/

AT& T, Verizon to Refrain From Tracking Users Online

AT&T and Verizon, two of the nation's leading Internet service providers, pledged yesterday to refrain from tracking customer Web behavior unless they receive explicit permission to do so.

The announcement, made at a Senate committee hearing, represents a challenge to the rest of the Web world, where advertising is commonly delivered by companies that record a consumer's visits across multiple Web sites. The practice, known as "behavioral targeting," is largely invisible to customers and generally done without their consent.

"Verizon believes that before a company captures certain Internet-usage data . . . it should obtain meaningful, affirmative consent from consumers," said Thomas J. Tauke, Verizon executive vice president.

AT&T's chief privacy officer Dorothy Attwood made a similar pledge to legislators, and then, taking aim at Google she noted that AT&T's promise to get consumer consent is an advance over others in the industry.

"Google's practices exemplify the already-extensive use of online behavioral targeting," she said, citing for example its use of tracking cookies through DoubleClick, its display advertising arm. "We encourage all companies that engage in online behavioral advertising . . . likewise to adopt this affirmative advance consent paradigm."

Google issued a brief statement citing its membership in an industry group, the Network Advertising Initiative, that has guidelines for protecting consumer privacy. Those guidelines do not include such a broad requirement for consumer consent, however. Google also sought to distinguish between the tracking techniques that it and other Web companies employ from the arguably more invasive methods some Internet service providers have used.

Microsoft issued a statement saying they were "reviewing" the proposal.

Time Warner Cable, another major Internet service provider, said it supported requiring customer consent but emphasized that it should apply to "all companies involved in targeted online advertising."

Exactly how much information Internet service providers and Web sites ought to be able to gather about consumers has become a growing concern on Capitol Hill, Silicon Valley and elsewhere.

Companies have built an array of techniques to record the actions of users as they move across the Internet -- namely tracking "cookies," "beacons" and "deep packet inspection," which essentially looks at every packet of information delivered on an Internet line. Those tactics allow companies to record what Web sites customers visit, what products they purchase, even what newspaper articles they read. Advertisers use this information to determine what ads to deliver to that person's computer.

The crux of the current dispute is whether consumers should have to "opt in" -- or affirmatively consent -- to be tracked or whether they should merely be given the opportunity to "opt out" of tracking if they don't like the idea.

Google, Microsoft and many other Web companies have espoused the "opt out" model.

They say this is enough to give consumers "control" over whether their activities are tracked.

Moreover, these Web companies minimize the privacy threat posed by the information collection, noting that the data is not linked to a person's name, but to a number or Internet address.

Finally, they argue that forcing users to "opt in" could wreck the Internet economy because so much of what is presented on the Web is supported by advertising. If given a choice and clear notice, most people probably would not "opt in" to tracking -- and advertising would suffer, industry officials said.

"If Congress required 'opt in' today, Congress would be back in tomorrow writing an Internet bailout bill," said Mike Zaneis, vice president of public policy for the Interactive Advertising Bureau, a trade group. "Every advertising platform and business model would be put at risk."

Today, as a matter of practice, only a small percentage of users avail themselves of the "opt out" choice they are commonly given.

A Consumer Reports National Research Center poll released yesterday found Americans are concerned and confused about their Internet privacy rights.

The poll, which Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) cited during the hearing, showed that 72 percent of Americans are worried that their online behavior is being tracked and profiled by companies. Many also overestimate the extent to which the law protects their privacy.

According to the poll, 43 percent of Americans "incorrectly believe a court order is required to monitor activities online." Another 48 percent "incorrectly believe their consent is required for companies to use the personal information they collect from online activities."

House and Senate members have been holding hearings with an eye toward legislation regarding consumer privacy.

Some critics viewed yesterday's announcements skeptically, suggesting that even the stricter "opt in" scheme could pose problems. Mildly worded warnings could lull many people to "opt in" despite the risks, they said.

"What they should be saying is, 'We are going to be collecting every move of your mouse on every Web site on a second-by-second basis.' But that would scare too many people away," said Jeff Chester, of the Center for Digital Democracy. "They're going to craft some kind of proposal that claims to be informed consent but simply gives them political cover while they engage in full frontal behavioral targeting."

From : http://www.washingtonpost.com/

AMD Re-brands Itself As Fusion

AMD has launched a new campaign called Fusion. The company offers no technical specifications but says it will offer an improved user experience. Fusion compliments the AMD brand with integrated ATI graphics.

Advanced Micro Devices is also offering free software that promises to speed up Microsoft's Vista. Vista is the latest Windows operating system.

By: Andy Hodges
Sep 26, 2008 02:08 AM GMT


AMD has totally re-branded itself as "Fusion". There's an article on NewsOXY's AMD News page which further describes the new campaign. However, there are no technical specifications.

"AMD's new campaign unveils how its computer chip design enhances productions through the integration with graphics chip maker ATI. Advanced Micro Devices purchased ATI in 2006.

The main theme is "Fusion" which appears in every advertisement. "

The chip maker is using the name "Fusion" which brings both AMD and ATI technologies together. The company is focusing on how chips are used and replacing the "smarter choice" tag ling that appeared during last year's holiday season.

It is one move that AMD is making to compete against rival Intel.

From : http://www.halflifesource.com/