video feed?

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]Are you going to bitch about your local auto parts store for not having an EGR valve for your '73 Gremlin in stock? I don't think so. (It's essentially the same thing...sorry mac users. You can replace Gremlin with the foreign luxury automobile of your choice if it makes you feel any better  )[/Q]
Of course not, I'd just go to the other store. Then again, if it was the only store within an hour drive... or the only store period that could offer what I need.  You damn well better believe I'd bitch until I got it.

[Q]I'm not too familiar with comptability issues, but would it cost them more to make the video compatible with Mac? It would make sense for them to cater to the larger audience if it was a cost issue.[/Q]
No, it really wouldn't be much more expensive... maybe a *tiny* bit, but not significantly, and certainly not long term. Maybe there'd be a tiny little investment to begin with, but once it's set up, it's set up - they don't have to support Macs, just give us a way to do it.

They wouldn't even have to change away from Windows Media. There's a Windows Media Player for the Mac (oddly named, I know), and it supports most of the Windows Media codecs. All they have to do is pick one of the ones that are supported cross platforms. Luckily, they seem to have done this. I know there have been several sites that stream college hockey (audio usually) that just happen to chose one of the ones that only works on Windows... annoying.

Or, how about this... QuickTime... completely supported on both Windows and Mac, and the streaming server software is FREE . That's right, free... no paying MS to use their server software or license their codec. Free streaming software, open-source even, I believe. And, you support more people with it.

Good explanation of why it bugs me, I hope?

[jason]

(Not sure where this response best fits, so I'll tack it onto BRA's.)

Not wishing to be involved in any part of the Mac vs PC discussion, but just to clarify: I agreed about them being unprofessional because I thought the mocking tone of their popups was not really befitting a business. The messages themselves are very tame --and humorous-- but seem out of line for a commercial enterprise. I think we all need to keep a sense of humor about this stuff; I take ribbing from my Mac using friends and I give it right back, all good naturedly. As for supporting one technology but not the other, I don't think that's unprofessional, just unfortunate for those on the outside (like me with Win98; I can't use iTunes).

Now back to what is important, the possible availability of video: I got a response to my email to i2sports. The important points: The schedule is "tentative". They are waiting for "final confirmation" from Cornell Athletics, including whether the video will be "free or pay-per-view".

I'm happy to hear that we may be getting video, and I'm even willing to pay for it, but it begs the questions: If Cornell Athletics is going to make this pay-per-view, why is it not part of or in lieu of the RealONE Pass subscription? Conversely, If Cornell is going to make this free, are they still going to make audio available only for a fee? Either way it strikes me as odd.



Post Edited (10-22-03 00:17)

[jeh25]

DisplacedCornellian wrote:


Are you going to bitch about your local auto parts store for not having an EGR valve for your '73 Gremlin in stock?  I don't think so.  (It's essentially the same thing...sorry mac users.   You can replace Gremlin with the foreign luxury automobile of your choice if it makes you feel any better  :-P )

Ah. But that is the problem with your analogy.  The stream will work fine if you can get around their lazy browser/platform identification scripts. Such scripts are a crutch to unprofessional "web designers" that cannot be bothered to adhere to open standards.

Do I expect the NAPA around the corner to stock a cam shaft for my '74 alfa? Hell, no. But I also expect the Sunoco around the the corner not to fit their pumps with a special adaptor that only alllows domestic cars to fill up, because it is "easier" for the pump jockey at the full serve island.

Imagine pulling into a gas station in your BMW/Audi/Ferrari/whatever, only to discover than you cannot physically get the fuel into your tank, inspite of the fact that the engine would run fine on it if you could only get the fuel into the car. Then imagine that instead of saying "hey, sorry those autoshut off nozzles won't fit the filler neck on your car, you'll have to use the pump around back" the guy smirks at your and says "that's what you get for not buying  a real 'merkin car."

[DeltaOne81]

Well said, John. Seems to fit this situation exactly. Luckily it appears to be workable this time. We'll see for sure.

[Al DeFlorio]

I'd guess the percentage of Mac users out there is closer to the percentage of fuel cell users than the percentage of foreign car owners.

How many Sunoco stations can handle fuel cells?;-)

[DeltaOne81]

Um, if you wanna talk arithmetically maybe, but the number of fuel cell users are like 0.00001% and Mac is 3%ish on the desktop and 6-7% for laptops. So try again :-).

Anyway, back to the original topic, which is certainly more important... turns out there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
[Q]Details of the Cornell Hockey webcasts are still tentative. As of last
communication, Cornell Athletics wish us to offer the webcasts for $7 per
game, or $75 for the season pass. I expect that the details will be worked
out before Friday.[/Q]

[Al DeFlorio]

From Automobile Magazine:

"Imports claimed more than 40% of total US light vehicle sales for the third time this year, an ominous sign for Detroit. Last month [July 2003], the imports sold a record 56.8% of all passenger cars, as well as 48.9% of minivans and 37.2% of SUVs."

Bit of a difference in market share between 4% ::rolleyes:: and 40%.:-)

[DeltaOne81]

Yeah, it certainly is, a factor a 10. But to compare it to fuel cells, it's probably a factor of a million. So that's why I said try again :-), unless you're talking arithmetic, in which case it's a 36% differences versus a ~4% difference.

But I think we could agree that there's a bigger gap between 0.000004% and 4%, than there is between 4% and 40% - at least as far as the industry 'supporting' something.

That's why I think Hayes' analogy was good. If you want to replace 'foreign' with 'BWM', or some company with ~4% market share... yeah, you'd probably be fine. I think the only reason John picked that category to begin with was to use the attitude comparison... "that's what you get for not buying a real 'merkin car."

[Al DeFlorio]

Don't go into marketing if you think targeting (or writing off) a 4% subset of the total market is comparable to targeting a 40% subset.;-)

And if you think "attitude" is the problem, reread apple's posting above, which says it perfectly.  Mac users love to "give" but readily whine when someone gives back.:-P

Look, if BMW came out with a car that required a triangular nozzle to fill its gas tank, how many stations would add a special bank of pumps just to fit them?  What percentage of gas stations offer diesel?  If you buy a diesel car--attractive though it may be to you--don't whine when your local corner gas station can't fuel it.



Post Edited (10-27-03 07:27)

[jtwcornell91]

Al DeFlorio wrote:
Don't go into marketing if you think targeting a 4% subset of the total market is comparable to targeting a 40% subset.;-)

But isn't going out of your way to insult an alienate a 4% subset when you could easily provide a service accessible to everyone stupid, or inconsiderate, or both?

What's also frustrating here is that the company with the lion's share of the OS market benefits from producing software which shuns open standards in order to encourage content producers to help them crush competing OSes.

[Will]

John T. Whelan '91 wrote:

What's also frustrating here is that the company with the lion's share of the OS market benefits from producing software which shuns open standards in order to encourage content producers to help them crush competing OSes.

Well, why adhere to standard when you can crush everyone else and simply make the standards yourself?  Sure, it's not fair to everyone else and sometimes those self-made standards are pretty crappy, but you gotta admit, the power to do whatever the heck you want in that industry would be pretty damn cool.

[Al DeFlorio]

John, few dislike Microsoft and their methods as much as I do.  And I don't care for the wise-ass attitude these guys took toward Mac users, either.  (Just like I don't care for the holier-than-thou attitude of too many Mac users toward the Wintel community.)  But Microsoft's behavior and relative "goodness" or "badness." isn't what we're discussing here.

John's analogy--much as I like and respect him for so many things--simply distorts Mac's position in the market, and I pointed that out.  Maybe the implication that Macs are the BMWs and Ferraris of the personal computing world while Wintel machines are painted as the equivalent of clunky American cars seemed a bit gratuitous and self-serving, too.;-)  (See "holier than thou" comment above.)

I'm no fan of closed systems, either.  I spent ten years in a division that tried to convince my employer of the need to embrace open systems, but it didn't take until after I'd retired and the new chief from the outside came on-board.  Then, it was quickly good-bye OS/2 and hello Linux.

Interestingly, in my view, the most-closed of closed systems is the Mac.

[DeltaOne81]

Al, Al, Al...

You really gotta listen to what I say. I never said that there's no difference between 40% and 4%. I merely said it's a lot less significant than between 4% and millionths of a percent. Therefore making John's analogy more accurate than your fuel cell one. That's all I said. I readily admitted that there's a 10 fold difference. I just said your million-fold difference was a bit further off than his 10.

As for the attitude thing... I've had plenty of frank, good natured exchanges about the differences. I have plenty of stories to back up why Windows bugs me beyond all believe (yes, personally experienced). But there's a difference between Mac users saying "Macs rule" and then some PC-centric operation refusing to make minor concessions to support Macs. My (or anyone's) opinion don't prevent you from doing something, where as actions can.

[Q]Interestingly, in my view, the most-closed of closed systems is the Mac.[/Q]
Care to explain? At least, from a practical point of view. If you're talking hardware, yeah, but that doesn't prevent people from doing anything... other than building and selling Macs. Practically, you may have had a point with OS 7, 8, 9, but I don't think it holds anymore. I'd like to hear though.

[Al DeFlorio]

Sheesh, this is difficult.  If you choose to ignore one-trillionth of a total market or one-billionth of a total market or one-millionth of a total market, what difference does it make?  None of 'em are significant, even though the last is a million times the first.  Four percent is still a relative nit compared with forty percent--which is a sizable chunk of the market at which to aim your product.  If 40% of cars were diesels, every gas station would have a diesel pump.  But at 4%, I suspect most wouldn't bother.

"If you're talking hardware, yeah..."

When you figure out how to run MacOS without hardware, let us know.  Until then--like your local gas utility--Apple's got you where you don't want to be squeezed.  See Economics 101--or was it 103?

[DeltaOne81]

If you're gonna say that 4% of the market it roughly equivalent to 4-milllionths, then we're just gonna have to agree to disagree.

[Q]When you figure out how to run MacOS without hardware, let us know. Until then--like your local gas utility--Apple's got you where you don't want to be squeezed. See Economics 101--or was it 103?[/Q]
301 ;-).

But you didn't answer what was the main part of my question about that. Which was name what practical difference it makes. I'll give ya one... Apple's hardware products tend to be a step more expensive (at least in initially cost). But anyone who buys a Mac knows that going in and has already decided it's worth it. So if you're argument essentially boils down to "Macs are more expensive", it's been said and admitted thousands of times, and disproven dozens of times in terms of long-term costs / ROI.

MS's closed system however prevents other people from accessing their content, forces people to use MS software to access the content (if it's available), to go through MS databases to use systems (.net / passport), and prevents competitors from competing on even grounds, giving MS the edge on any tool they wish to take over (browsing, media, email, etc). It decreases competition and quality of choice. They even take open standards and corrupt them and promote their corrupted version (Java), so that things that are intended to run on any platform can now only work right on theirs.

Are you saying Apple's system does similar things? Or just that you have to pay a few more bucks up front?