Slashdot Mirror
Embracing Digital Photography
MBCook writes: "This story at ZDNet seems to be an omen of things to come. It describes how Kodak discovered that when their software is installed on XP and someone plugs in a Kodak camera, Microsoft's software is always the one that comes up. The article also mentions that it is also quite a effort to make the Kodak software come up ever time." Yet another software maker finds that the maker of the OS gets first dibs...
...I can see that god damned smirk on his face through the scope of my sniper rifle.
i fucking do not buy fucking microsoft products. Shame on me: I've used fucking win95 for half-a-year five years ago, but it was stolen, I did not buy it. I never could have an idea to buy such a shit. But it hurts when microsoft is fucking trying to get in what is not their fucking buisness. it fucking hurts when they fucking attack GPL - especially in view that i finally made my fucking boss beleive, that GPL is gooooood. an i feel fucking pain for fucking users fucking their sysadms for fucking windoze glitches. fuck it.
I wonder when they'll start charging for keystrokes. Maybe I'll write my own "add-in" where I'll redirect the pic to my website where I'll take a cut too, and then pass it on to the destination.
There's a difference between software companies making assumptions, and ones who take payments from other companies and bug you with their ads(essentially they are). Granted, if XP was free, fine, let M$ have pop-up windows and redirects go on all the time, but when paying $200+ for an OS you sort of assume that you might not have to be subjected to mandatory ads.
Yeah.. and just how is this different from ordering a book at Amazon through some kid's website which links to a 'partner' site ?
Then You pay even more groups :
1. VISA, or whoever Your cc company is.
2. Amazon
3. The partner site, for selling an Amazon book.
4. The kid, who gets a silly click-fee.
Sure, You might argue that the difference is that You have a choice to either
1. Bypass the kid's ID tag in the URL.
2. Bypass the partner site.
3. Bypass Amazon by buying the book in a local bookstore.
But isn't just clicking that "Order this book" link so much easier ?
That's what MS is doing... You could just as easily bypass their software and just download the pic to Your drive and manually upload to whichever printing service You wish to use.
The article mentions that MS had contacted them repeatedly, and Kodak simply did not act or not act quickly enough.
Whether or not this is true remains unknown to us, and as the interviewer didn't bother to counter-direct towards Kodak on that issue, we don't have Kodak's stance on that one either.
This is precisely the case. The Kodak installer doesn't register itself correctly in order to do its job on WinXP (no wonder, it was released way before), and Kodak is insisting that, using their camera, there should be *no* choice of printout services by the user. MS on the other hand takes the position that there should be a list of such services (which, yes, is initially populated by MS). This is the reason for the entire conflict. Wake up folks, the big bad monopolist in this case *isn't* Microsoft.
.. the quote from MS saying:
"Any suggestion that we had hidden motives in the design of Windows XP is untrue."
Erhmm... gee, you've just been found guilty of being a monopoly. Everyone has known you're a monopoly for the last 7 years or so. Suddenly in your new OS it's much easier for people to use your products instead of someone (Kodak) elses, AND it's part of a business plan that's going to give you constant revenue by charging per picture processed through said software?
Gee, I wonder if I believe them?
In fact, when pasting from either browser to Word 2002 (Office XP Trial edition), you get a (gasp!) Smart Tag asking (if you click on it):
Keep Source Formatting
Match Destination Formatting
Keep Text Only
Apply Style or Formatting...
Are the system calls that perform this cut and paste even available to non-MS developers? Yes.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/ipc/hh/winbase/clipbrd_3a43.asp
There are plenty of things to worry about related to MS without imagining new conspiracies where they don't exist. I'd be more worried that the Anti-OSS license from that Moble Internet Toolkit gets applied to all future MS SDKs. Worried more for MS, but worried nonetheless.
DCMonkey
I'm sorry if you work for a fascist company that doesn't understand things like "cost" and "quality" but some of us are a little more fortunate. I provide excellent service, and my customers are happy. And I do it without Microsoft products. Amazing how that works.
What is *not* appreciated is the idea that I was advocating the GPL, or any particular license or competing product. In fact, I never once mentioned anything like that. Do not assume that because I post to /. I must favour any certain model of software licensing. In fact, if you must know, my preferred alternative to Microsoft is nothing. I don't believe most people need computers at all, much less the giant bloated applications so many people try to use. It would be fine with me if the entire consumer computing market went away. Microsoft is really just a symptom, an elegant cautionary example of what large numbers of stupid people can do.
There's an even deeper conclusion to be reached here - instead of putting together a costly porting effort, they could do something that makes everyone happy - publish the programmer's manual to the device. DOS users get their software - subject to approval by their OS vendor - and everyone else gets to write their own, including the necessary low-level code. Who loses? In a commodity market, nobody. Digital camera interfaces are hardly revolutionary - the improvements are all inside the box - so a competitor would not likely find the documentation valuable. In short, there is a solution to this project that places the cost of development right where it belongs - on the users.
Of course, in that scenario, people who use Microsoft-unapproved operating systems will end up winning, because they will have freedom to choose which of the 71 apps they downloaded and built they will use at any given time. Meanwhile, the Microsofties will be using whatever they're told to use. Which is just the way they like it.
Fucking put up or shut up, folks. Don't like Microsoft's evil business practices? Then it's so simple: don't buy their products. So much righteous indignation, and yet so little sense... It's hard to argue with Mr. Gates when he says his customers like his products...after all, you keep buying them, don't you?
Nice theory the problem is that most of the people that they hope to sell to will. And lets face if if Kodak does not support XP and Fuji does most people will just buy a fuji.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
The question comes down to when you install the Kodak software, does it do everything it needs to do to let it be the one notified when a camera is plugged in?
Yes, they worked with MS to develop a standard, and now this standard is in Whislter. So, since the user may have Whistler/XP, a camera but no software, MS has included some default software to deal with the camera - same way Media Player can play MP3's but is not the best task for the job.
So, did Kodak do everything possible to make their software be the application on XP that does this? It sounds, from the article, that someone just decided to try it on XP on a whim.
I would be interested to know what those nine-clicks were that are required to change the settings. Why doesn't their install program do that - or was it only designed for 9x?
Hell, I upgraded to HPUX 11 recently and it comes with CIFS. Should I be suing HP saying they are trying to shut out Samba by having that installed on port 139, or be happy they are adding a feature?
As for the whole charge-for-pictures thing, bummer, but they didn't have to sign the contract. Interesting revenue streams though.
So you think that Fuji will have an easier time getting XP to not use the MicroSoft version than Kodak has? It's not like MicroSoft has anything specifically against Kodak that they don't have against other makers.
Of course, the camera should work with XP-- it would probably be practically impossible to prevent that. But the software need not, and the software presumably comes with the camera.
I'm still seeing new boxes with '98. If OEMs aren't switching over to 2000 yet, it'll be a long time before they go to XP. The people who are getting free upgrades with their boxes will probably not take them, since upgrading a windows box is too difficult for your average user and XP seems to offer fewer features and an unfamiliar interface.
Kodak will have plenty of time to produce a version that works with XP if XP gets adopted. For now, it's probably better to tell customers not to get XP and ask for 2000 or before when they buy a computer. No point in making it easier for MicroSoft to get XP adopted if they're not going to be nice to developers.
Kodak still controls their own packaging. They could probably simply say on it that the software and camera don't work with Windows XP. Considering how much trouble MS is going to have getting people to switch to XP, it might be best to simply discourage the use of XP if MS is going to do this sort of thing.
If people have the impression that, if they switch to XP, they'll have to go through a complicated process to get their computer to work with their camera, plus pay extra to get prints, it's only to MS's disadvantage.
;)
--
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
It's not that your opinion is unpopular, but that your facts are wrong.
I'm using windows 2000, and it's NEVER crashed on me!
I've used Win2k and is has crashed on me. Multiple times. I have friends who've used it and it's crashed on them. Multiple times. When I tried to install it at home, it "forgot" that I had a CD-ROM device. It never installed. In other words, it's really not that much more reliable than any other windoze.
integrated REALLY WELL, on a level that no one else has done before, and i think it's GREAT!
That which is convenient to you is not necessarily good for capitalism. Capitalism works only when products can compete based on their merits. When Microsoft released products that are integrated (also known as "bundling") then they are making the sale of one product contingent upon another. This is never good for consumers. It means that their competitors are fighing an uphill battle on a way-unlevel playing field. Microsoft will ultimately win, but not for any capitalistic reason. And when they have no competitors and thus no reason to innovate, how much more can they charge for nothing? The sky is the limit!
And don't tell me they have an advantage because they work on the OS too. AOL/Netscape or even Yahoo or whoever coulda done the exact same thing better, but they didn't.
Did AOL/Netscape get a free ride on IBM's coattails and then enact a horrible (but wonderful... for Microsoft) licensing scheme that was later declared illegal? AOL/Netscape did *not* have the incredible luck that Microsoft had.
microsoft has some pretty good ideas, and a lot of the time they have em and deploy em first.
The fact that they have more money than God helps this out. Money is power. And if it weren't for MS-DOS they would have none.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I have USB reader for my digital camera. It doesn't work half the time. Some kind of conflict. It causes the system to crash on startup if you have it plugged in while booting the system. It causes the system to crash if you are using it while using anything else except copying the files from the card.
I use my handheld (and the CF slot) to copy the files over.
The manufactorer knows of the problem but basically said tough.
If it works from Kodak, I would use it.
My IS department is properly cynical about many Microsoft things, but as long as our accounting system runs under Windows, we really don't have much choice for the bulk of our desktops.
I've been saying for years that accounting is the killer app for linux. If you get the accounting department using linux, the rest of the company WILL follow. No ifs, ands or buts.
~ a low user id is no indication I have a clue what I'm talking about.
It works! There are 11 pages which reference Linux. The last one - on the second page - is a form which asks all sorts of details, surprisingly your e-mail address is a voluntary one. One of them is "Which o/s do you use?" Linux is the radio box at the top of the list! Now TELL THEM Be truthful now - remember they can tell from their logs what your browser and o/s are.
As I much as I can't stand Microsoft, I am going to go out and buy as much stock as possible. This is one of the absolutely best ideas for a revenue stream ever! It's like multi-level marketing to the Nth degree. Windows/Microsoft becomes the middleman in every single transaction that passes through their approved vendor lists. Think of the potential in the number of transactions, a penny per web search, a nickel per roll of film, a dollar for every airline ticket, hotel room or car rental and that's just the beginning. The income potential here is absolutely enormous.
Wow.
-harry
My IS department is properly cynical about many Microsoft things, but as long as our accounting system runs under Windows, we really don't have much choice for the bulk of our desktops.
We could shift some workstations to iMacs or Linux, but it would mean more stuff for the IS fellow to learn, and that would make things a lot more difficult. As long as everyone uses the same crummy product, he only has to learn, well, the same crummy product. And I can see his point, surely.
In short, I don't think the IS department feels it has much choice, even though Office runs just fine on a Macintosh, and an iMac would cost about the same as the cheap "network computer-style" systems he bought for our low-level people. It's a simple matter of not wanting to ascend another learning curve; no secret bribes or anything from are needed from Microsoft to keep him there.
D
----
Everyone that has been watching knows that Microsoft XP is not an OS. It's a operating suite. Microsoft has been working on this for a really long time, They could care less about being the OS, they want to be everything you use. They want the Browser (and got it basically) They want to control the audio and video media, espically streaming media... and dont be suprised if a new replacement for bmp or jpg pictures that has "better compression" comes out soon after XP is released. Microsoft is scrambling now to take it to the next level. Corperate and home are not upgrading as instructed by Microsoft so they need to start forcing the issue. I almost wonder when we will start seeing incompatable software hitting the shelves... New Office XP2000 requires Windows XP, MoneyXP, SQLserver XP requires Windows XP server.... etc..
Too many of us are putting along sucessfully with the older stuff and that really pisses off microsoft marketing. (I use successfully loosely.. If it wasn't for the Linux servers here we'd be dead many times.)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
>Besides, it's up to that same .com whether to go
>the microsoft way or another way, no? Of course,
>that's where antitrust comes in.. because there
>may be no other choice.
I REALLY don't mean this as a troll or anything, but do what you gotta do...
Doesn't this mostly depend on an MS competitor (proprietary or otherwise) to come up with an equally viable product for a non-tech industry...?
If all it takes for Joe's Photo Lab of some town of 6000 in central Kansas to offer this service is a single phone call to an 800 number in the back of an own-your-own-business wanna-be entrepeneur magazine, yeah, MS is probably gonna win...
-l
"But Microsoft hasn't backed down on plans to charge a per-photo fee for images that are sent through Windows to Microsoft's partners, others in the industry say. One of those partners is likely to be Kodak rival Fuji, which already works with Microsoft in an alliance with its MSN Internet service. Microsoft says terms of its contracts with photo-finishers aren't final; it won't comment on how these companies will be charged."
As Mr. Gerskovitch said, "Together, we built a highway that everyone could travel, and Microsoft put up a tollbooth". This is not an isolated problem, this seems to be what MS wants -- they want a cut every time anyone running their software buys anything via the net. If you buy your wallet from me, is it reasonable for me to charge you a nickle everytime you take it out to buy anything? Especially if you didn't know that's what the deal would be?
You mean Kodak should wait and watch Microsoft screw them royally and then file a pointless lawsuit which they would undoubtedly lose? Oh, but let's assume for the sake of arguement that Kodak does win the lawsuit - which would be at least 2-4 years after initial litigation. By then they would have lost both marketshare and customers (to Fuji who is in bed with MS) - and with Microsoft then arguing that Windows XP is obsolete anyhow. Too bad.
While I have no sympathy for Kodak (and other such corporations trying to kiss up to Microsoft - like HP), I quite understand their actions. Wake up Kodak, Microsoft is a monopoly that doesn't play fair just like you were at one time.
You'll actually get plenty of hits on a search for "Linux digital camera"... they are already on the ball.
Just last week I saw a MSWord document printed with 'number of copies:3' set in the properties window, and 2 of the prints had 43 pages and the third had 44, according to the page markers...
Deep sigh. I wish they would solve the image+caption+move_to_next_page-hang bug in OpenOffice, that's the only one I've seen in that one yet (except, of course, for the annoying file incompatability problems with even Staroffice5.1)
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
Same old story, how many times have we heard it? In the early 90s, I was still able to feel sympathy whenever a story came out about a Windows developer getting backstabbed by Microsoft. Then after a dozen or so instances over a few years, where idiots still didn't learn from the mistakes of those who preceeded them, I stopped feeling sorry for them, and started laughing at them. Whenever someone makes a deal with the devil, it always ends the same way: with a pitchfork rammed up their ass. It gets to be a classic punchline, the same every time. Instead of the joke getting old, it becomes anticipated and expected. When the Church Lady says, "Who could it be? Oh, I don't know. Could it be..." it's built up and you know what's coming next, but it's still funny.
But just as sympathy had given way to sadistic pleasure at the lemmings' misfortune, there finally came a point where my pleasure was replaced by anger at the victims themselves. "We were legitimizing NT as a Web server platform," Tim O'Reilly said. The victims weren't just screwing themselves, they were making the world a worse place in the process, by increasing Microsoft's power.
And that's why now, I can only say: Fuck you, Kodak. Your loss is Microsoft's gain. Your loss isn't nearly as important as the fact that you, like O'Reilly, have helped to "legitimize" them, which helps to insure that you will not be the last lemming. You've helped to pave the way for future victims, with one more bullet item on the feature list in Microsoft brochures.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
But now, many "old economy" companies, like Kodak, want to get their fingers into Net services. These companies can afford their own antitrust lawyers, they have their own image of respectability, and they don't depend on Microsoft's goodwill for short-term revenue or stock price. Therefore, they have more to gain by playing hardball with Microsoft than by meekly cooperating with Microsoft's business plans.
The 800-pound gorrilla has to start playing with the 1500-pound tigers.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Eeuh, what are we going to do tomorrow Bill?
Same as we do every night Steve - Try to take over THE WORLD!!
-- Cheers!
There have been cases where companies with as little as 10% were declared a monopoly. Or something close. A merger between two companies in (IIRC) the shoe business was denied because together they controlled 10% of the market.
The article also mentions that the software redirects users to sites that have paid Microsoft to point them there. Kodak was furious about this but now farther down in the article it says
"The company's plan is to use the Internet to drive its digital-camera customers directly to Kodak picture labs to buy their prints"
Now how is this any different than what Microsoft is doing?
I'm not fan of Microsoft by any stretch of the imagination but it seems rather hipocritical.
The problem really only boils down to Microsoft no longer letting software set preferences. And that sucks.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
> If you didn't use *shudder* XP you wouldn't have
> this problem, now would you?
You mean *shutter*.
Sorry, bad pun.
--- witty signature
The digital camera software that comes with any camera I have seen so far is garbage. The most I use it for is copying the images to the computer, and I don't realy care who's software it is.
Kodak does not make money selling software for their cameras, they make money selling cameras!
Heck, if windows supported them all, they could avoid the software altogether and just provide drivers.
Personally, I'll stick with my vaio, my cybershot, and my 'proprietary' memory stick that just looks like a drive when I plug it in.
Right.. because they are providing a 'service' in acting as a conduit between the user and the .com photo printing site.
.com whether to go the microsoft way or another way, no? Of course, that's where antitrust comes in.. because there may be no other choice.
That, combined with passport, and it really can be that simple.
So, as much as *I* don't like the idea of MS-centralized everything, I can see where they are going, and I can see why it will be popular.
Besides, it's up to that same
I believe that was supposed to be a stab at Corbis, which Gates owns.
<--#insert file="witty.sig"--
The reason lawyers make so much money is because there's more to the terms they use than the dictionary definition. Monopolies are companies who exercise a large amount of control over a given market. Now, if you were paying attention in that little lawsuit thing with Microsoft, you'd remember that MS was trying to define their "market" as "personal computers", ideally including everything from mainframes to your car's ECU. In that definition of the market, MS certainly doesn't have a monopoly. However, in the market where they ACTUALLY compete (that is, Intel-based home and business computers), they control upwards of 80% of the market. And they can and do exercise their monopoly power in illegal, anticompetitive ways.
Keep your ad hominem attacks on the playground. If you want to have a discussion, feel free to continue. If you want to act like a dick, don't think I'm going to trouble myself to respond further.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I don't know about you guys, but I think that MS is pushing things at a time when they aren't as strong as they used to be.
Sure, the anti-trust ruling was recently overturned in part, but that whole process sent an important message to the industry - that MS really is prepared to do almost anything to win, and that there are large companies that oppose them.
Microsoft still dominates the desktop, but important mindshare is being lost as Windows loses ground on the sever market. This doesn't matter for users of digital cameras yet, but the decision makers in companies are beginning to consider alternatives, something they haven't done in a while.
That, coupled with the fact that no one really wants a new version of Office, means that their revenue is under pressure. So they try to insert themselves in other people's revenue streams. This might be just the exact wrong time to be attempting all this.
I know MS still looks as strong as ever, but something like 40-60% of it's revenue comes from Office upgrades, of which a large percentage is bulk corporate purchasing. If any of this drys up, or slows down (as it did with the introduction of Win2k), then any kind of revolt on behalf of the companies providing supporting programs to Windows (like Kodak) could really be trouble for MS.
So will Kodak now start looking to expand their software onto other platforms? Someone should inform their execs that when you lay with the devil you often get burned.
Seriously, I predict an increasing groundswell of support for Linux over the next few years. Kodak making their software for Windows actually helps Microsoft. Microsoft needs Kodak to make their software for Windows, as much as Kodak needs to make their software for Windows. But as Microsoft burns one partner after another, their behavior will begin to show up in corporate spreadsheets as a risk factor. A neutral playing field will start looking much better.
Right now, Microsoft has the market lead and so companies feel that they have to support the platform. Microsoft's executives feel secure that they can use their market lead to crush competitors and partners alike. Eventually companies will start to quietly support Linux (the 'up-and-coming' platform). The overbearing hubris that the companies top executives have always displayed will not let them change their behavior, since they believe they own the PC market, and so more and more companies will look to support other platforms. As the network effect dies out, Windows will have less of a stranglehold on the market, and, in the end, it will be the world against Microsoft.
I'm siding with the world.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Read the WHOLE story with a little history in mind. Microsoft sent up a trial balloon that got shot down by a powerful corporation. We've seen throughout this particular round of betas all sorts of ridiculous action where Windows defaults to behaviour that forces competitors out of the market. Another poster even goes so far to say that this shouldn't even have been posted because it OLD NEWS. Unfortunately, it's obvious that Microsoft will dominate a lot of new markets unless each and every case is shouted down one-by-one. So, they changed this one anti-trust law breaking, monopoly extending behaviour. How many more mines have they sewn into the OS to blow up your desktop when you install a competitors product?
Like it or not, Windows is a defacto standard, and a lot of companies must interact with it if they want to stay in business. If we don't want the entire country to be owned by Bill Gates, then we must make sure that the computing environment is open to all. My advice to companies that choose compete with Microsoft on Microsoft's turf would be to die quietly, except that Microsoft controls nearly all the farmable turf.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
--
Charles E. Hill
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Not the point. I would have had to pay for Office97 regardless. I didn't have a choice.
Yes, I did just that -- take an install disk for Office95 and install it.
It required me to uninstall Office97 then reinstall Office95 (on 60 machines) since Dell automatically installed 97 regardless. Waste of time, waste of effort, waste of money.
--
Charles E. Hill
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Yes, Kodak tested on a beta of XP.
Just like people using DR-DOS tried to test a beta of Windows. Of course MS fixed that "bug" in time for the release but by then the damage was done, wasn't it?
There's no way Microsoft will fix this without a lot of noise/threats from Kodak now.
Now, does anyone really *need* to upgrade to XP? Come on!
... "Fine, don't upgrade to XP (or YQ or ZR)! Have fun downloading your 10 Gigapixel photos over a USB line, and playing Quake 7 at 3 fps, suckers."
Today, no. In a few years, maybe. When all the new games only look good and run properly with Active X 10 (Active X X?) and wouldn't you know, dispite M$'s best efforts, it can only be supported on Win XP or "better" OSes (really, they tried, honest.). Or when a new HW bus comes out that makes FireWire look like USB and makes USB look like the parallel port and the new standard simply can't be ported to Win 9X or NT.
I can see it now
Or how about when you buy a new machine? If you don't build your own system you'll probably pay for XP or W2K whether you like it or not. And then what? Retire your old Win box to use the old licence on your new machine? It's a retail licence, right? Oh, well no worries, I'm sure that retail copies of NT and 98 will be available forever.
(note to the flamers, I'm not saying that M$ dosen't have a right to behave this way)
- bridgette
Kodak hasn't ported their software to other platforms because, other than the Mac, they'll sell maybe 6 of them
Chicken and egg...
The probelm from the open source POV is that often hardware companies will not even supply the information to have someone else write software...
:But either way, I should not be forced to use
:IE for a web browser, or their photo software
:for my camera. For that, I must (must, by
:choice) use inferior products, which just pisses
:me off.
Microsoft doesn't force you to use anything, you install it, if the OS pops up a program you don't like it, CLICK THE X AND RUN THE SOFTWARE YOU WANT!
Microsoft says that they make software that is easly to use, and they do. Their software treats you like like you are a moron and when most of the computer world doesn't know that you can install and run any software that is made for your system/OS, or you can close a program that you don't want to run, then your problem isn't Microsoft.
It's people who think that dummies can use computers. Just because the space shuttle has nice colored buttons, everything labeled for you, and mission control telling you what to do, doesn't mean that Joe Sixpack needs to drive the thing.
Computer were, are, and will always be for the Geeks.
IE has a way of insinuating itself into Mac OS X, so much so that I had to delete the whole fucking thing to keep it from constantly getting re-set as both my default browser and the default app to open .htm and .html files.
It's not surprising that MicroSquish makes life difficult for Kodak engineers. I'll bet they're planing to charge camera manufaturers a royalty to be able to make their cameras talk to windoze machines at all.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
MS Knowledgebase Q188074 - Low Disk Space Notification Received When Drive Is[NOT!] Full
Works on 98 and 98SE. Oughta work on WinME.
>Besides, it's up to that same .com whether to go the microsoft way or another way, no?
oh, not all printing services are MS only.. a http-upload and some server-side processing works fine, and is as platform-independant as it gets. Interesting too is the higher number of users with a mac in the graphics business, which made platform-independance a requirement, especially now that we're starting to see PDA and digital cams getting combined. hook up your GSM, and upload your pictures anywhere. I would give a link, but I'm slightly biased here, since I wrote the scripts.. but it's there, it works, and is platform-independant.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
accounting, sales, marketing, execs - they all use winblows. they're forced to - they have no choice - the i/s department usually only supports M$ on the desktop.
And the real MS customer - the i/s department - is usually very happy with the products they buy from MS. I think the greatness of MS is in how they realise who the customer is (i/s) and who they can ignore (the end users).
I'd like to read more about how MS does this. I suspect there is plenty of dirty tricks going on here.
For a moment I thought this was going to be a thread about digital photography and how Kodak was doing something innovative to increase picture quality or something like that. I guess I should have seen it when the word "embrace" was used.
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
In yesterday's WSJ article, they state that the latest XP beta cuts the number of clicks required to make Kodak's software the default down to one.
However, we all know that the average user won't do that one click or even notice when they are given the opportunity to do it. So, the MS version will be used by the majority of digital camera users until it becomes the "standard".
The WSJ article even states that on rotating a picture, the MS version tells you it must ruin the picture to rotate it. The Kodak engineers just laughed at this error message. The sad thing is that most users will never know that there is something better.
WSJ Article (Requires registration of sorts.)
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
But the kodak software forces you to use Kodak's service for the same thing.
Absolutely True, but I didn't by a Microsoft Digital Camera. Digital photography is the 1232nd business MS has entered (brokering prints from digital images is 1307). They'll suck at these like they suck at everything else that they try to take by force. (They don't suck at "taking by force".)
Also, Kodak does provide the printing service they are forcing you to use. OTOH, MS charges you to use somebody else's service. The reason MS gets to charge that tax is because they make their software the default. That is the issue.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
True, but Kodak obviously wants to make sure hteir stuff will work 1st go when the final product arrives.
Otherwise they'll lose millions of clueless customers b4 they learn about whatever patch they create.
---
"Yeah I like that idea too. I especially liked it the first time I saw it in The Gimp."
Yes, and some of us have tried the Gimp, and really don't like it. At all. And neither did the family. Get off the OSS high horse for a moment. Some people don't use it. Often the learning curve it too steep for average users. The imaging software that came with our scanner, while less powerful than the Gimp, does everything we need, with a nicer interface and very friendly to the computer illiterate. And since it came with the scanner, I consider its cost negligible.
http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
"Uhh, that's a pretty shitty reply to a joke."
/. Open Source Elitism actually ;-) Which you might not be guilty of, I don't know. But I stick with the standards. If not, I apologize.
;o) I understand software just fine, been a Helpdesk weenie on and off for over 3 years. And believe me when I say supporting MS products is cake compared to Linux. But then half those people only run linux because its 'cool.' ::sigh:: what has the world come to these days.
Standardized reply to
"Sounds like someone is bitter because he can understand quality software."
Sounds like someone is bitter because they can't spell.
http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
This looks like a real shame. Kodak's software features described in the article sounds like photo software I'd actually enjoy using. I especially like the 'digital negative' to retain unedited copies. I know, i can make that myself, but I know my family members don't remember to do that most of the time. Which leads to a lot of griping.
It probably doesn't help Kodak's cause though to laugh at MS's window-box warnings, it might make them mad. And whats this about miscommunication?? Is that translated as "We ignored kodak until it was too late for them to stop us?"
http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
Are they upset simply because Microsoft beat them to the punch with the same business model?
Microsoft didn't beat anybody to the punch on ordering prints online. All four of the companies that make cameras and prints (Agfa, Fuji, Kodak, and Konica) have had online photo services for a while, and have been integrating those services into the software included with cameras. Other digital camera manufacturers have been signing deals with middleman providers like Ofoto or Snapfish. Every company in the digital camera business knew that easy online ordering of prints was important to "average" consumers.
Microsoft saw somebody else suceeding online, and tried to take all the business for themselves.
Proud to be / Smiley-free / Since Nineteen / Ninety-Three
I agree that Kodak makes some awful software, so I wonder whose fault this really is. I've got a DC-265 and under Win98 it was a pain to use
The DC-265 is old, for a digital camera. Most manufacturers have better software now, and definitely easier to use than the old Kodak software.
In fact, (and what ZDNET glosses over) several manufacturers are moving towards "no-click" photo transfers. The EasyShare cameras mentioned in the article use a docking cradle. Users pop the camera in the cradle, hit a button on the camera, and the pictures are transferred without the user having to go into software. (The cradle recharges the camera battery while it's at it.) I've worked in camera stores, and I know there are people who need things that simple, and that Kodak is going to advertise these features heavily.
Som, That's the other reason Kodak is so angry. Microsoft has sabotaged Kodak's entire advertising strategy.
Proud to be / Smiley-free / Since Nineteen / Ninety-Three
That crazy sentance in the second paragraph should read;
Additionally, XP is beta code (insert "Duh!" here). It's not exactly unheard-of for software designed for previous versions of any operating system to have problems on new, beta versions. Isn't it just a little disturbing that Kodak is threatening to unleash lawyers before the XP now? Shouldn't they wait for the release, then if it still overrides their settings and they're absolutely sure its not a malfunction in their install process, then they should consider legal action.
No, you are the idiot. There have been legal cases (sorry, I can't remember the specifics) where a company with as little as 70% market share has been declared a monopoly.
--
Lord Nimon
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Anything they can potentially charge you for, they will eventially charge you for, once they've eradicated all competition. That's why Linux pisses them off so much. They just get into the swing of things after eliminating OS/2 and all off a sudden this upstart comes along and offers the public a way out. A way out that is becoming increasingly viable despite the company's best efforts.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
We should approach Kodak about implementing the standard on Linux and making that their preferred platform. We won't ever try to embrace and extend their stuff, no sir!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Well, let's see. Anybody else see this as the likely way this situation panned out?.
Kodak develops software with MICROSOFT Visual Studio using MICROSOFT Windows 2000 clients.
Kodak discovers their new software doesn't work the way they want in XP.
CEO sits down at his MICROSOFT Windows workstation, opens up MICROSOFT Word and types a letter of complaint. CEO then opens up MICROSOFT Outlook and sends the letter through his MICROSOFT Exchange and MICROSOFT proxy servers.
Sorry Kodak. In all likelyhood, you played a roll in growing this giant. Now you have to learn to deal with it.
David
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
That clause would most likely backfire, and wouldn't be as effective as some might think. Many, many movies are already using Linux for special effects, so that wouldn't impact Kodak. Those that use Windows might just decide to succumb to the digital camera technology that is being used for the next Star Wars movie, and a few TV shows now. Kodak is already in trouble on the movie front, since film-free digital cameras are on the way. I think their best bet is to develop these digital cameras and help build them to work with the special effects software currently available on MacOS and Linux. That could help swing the big Hollywood players against Microsoft. Studios don't have a lot of political and financial power, but some of their parent companies do. (Have you heard of Viacom, Vivendi, General Electric...?)
- W. Blaine Dowler
http://www.bureau42.com
This story looks all too familiar. Over a year ago, I build some dynamic 'Not Found' error pages for a webserver. The error page would attempt to provide some useful links, such as the site map, and a search engine form to try and get the user back on track. I went to show off my work to my manager, who uses Internet Explorer. I just about hit the roof when the page came up that pointed to msn's search engine! Rather than displaying the page sent back from the server (like a good HTTP-compliant browser), IE provides it's own error page! If Microsoft can throw away something as open as HTTP and replace it with their own proprietary subset, it's little wonder that their internal drivers would do the same.
Face the facts, if you use Microsoft products, you should expect to have to do things Microsoft's way. What Kodak needs to learn from this is how important it is to start developing for other OS's like linux. By making their drivers / software run only on Windows, not only are they doing potential customers a great disservice, they're also shooting themselves in the foot!
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -- "Step Right Up", Tom Waits
But the kodak software forces you to use kodaks service for the same thing.. so you still don't really get a choice.
--
Free Mac Mini
The problem, in my opinion is that microsoft is charging a tax on the photo.
That is your ass, and this over here is your elbow, and NO they ARE NOT the same thing.
You're right, but look at it from Kodak's perspective.
Kodak know some people don't like to tweek; that fact is the premise behind the digital camera they are looking to market. They are making a system that is easy for a consumer to take, manipulate, and get prints of a digital photo.
Problem is, Kodak is a slave to what the operating system lets them do. Microsoft is inserting themselves into the process and making it difficult to change it to the way Kodak has designed their offering. By making it difficult, they have practically guaranteed that folks, who bought the camera for simplicity, will use their software and ways of doing things. They've manipulated the environment to grab a piece of the action.
An analogous situation might be a e-tailer setting up a site on the net. Internic sees that the services he's offering seem pretty popular. So, to get a piece of the action, they reprogram their DNS servers to redirect all their traffic to his or other sites for, say, a $0.10 a lookup. Seem fair?
The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
A services model for business is exactly what they're doing. They're shifting their revenue stream away from the operating system, so that in a few years time, they can justify giving the operating system away free of charge.
It's not that different from what many Linux companies are doing. Service fees are the way of the future.
Wrong! If I don't want to use MS' software, I'll turn it off. It's not that hard really. But I'll be dammed if I'm going to have a camera company (or MS for that matter) dictate to me what software I use to edit MY IMAGES!
You're using her as bait, Master!
They can afford antitrust lawyers because they can't afford not to have them and right now they are running scared because digital cameras are slowly but surely moving film companies into the "buggy whip" category.
The gorilla may be tangling with the tiger, but the Tiger is old, toothless, and chained up.
You're using her as bait, Master!
Whats wrong with that? Methinks this article submission is just another pathetic excuse to trot out the "Billy-as-Borg" logo...
You're using her as bait, Master!
Monopoly: Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.
It has nothing to do with how many people buy the product. It has nothing to do with the fact that you don't buy the product. It has nothing to do with the fact you are an idiot.
But just to clarify... You ARE an idiot!
No, I believe him. They've never tried to hide the fact that they want to make as much money as they can, any way that they can.
From the linked article:
Microsoft continued to send out versions of Windows XP. Three weeks ago, Kodak got the latest, numbered "build 2481." Kodak engineers say this version has a new, simpler way to launch photo software after a camera is plugged in. Instead of a nine-click process of setting non-Microsoft photo software as the default, it lists competitors' programs alphabetically in a pop-up box, along with Microsoft's.
It isn't all they want, Kodak engineers say, but it's a big improvement. Instead of a roadblock, "it's just a speed bump," Mr. Gerskovich says.
[ 8< ]
In a letter to Microsoft after tensions began to ease last month, Mr. Gerskovich sought assurances that the pop-up box allowing users to choose their photo software will be in the final version Windows XP. "Our business plans depend on this, and its absence would wreak havoc on our digital camera strategy," he wrote. Microsoft says the box will be there, and that Kodak's software will launch easily, just as it has in past versions of Windows.
--
"We were being frozen out," says Mr. Gerskovich, a 44-year-old Kodak vice president. "Consumers were effectively being denied a choice of which photo software they could use. More important, they should be able to send photos to any Internet printing service they choose--without paying a tax to Microsoft."
Ok, fine.
Now explain this to me.
Kodak so far has been unable to create digital products or services that could replace film in the all-important consumer market. Mr. Gerskovich's camera and its allied software are seen as the best hope. The company's plan is to use the Internet to drive its digital-camera customers directly to Kodak picture labs to buy their prints.
Are they upset simply because Microsoft beat them to the punch with the same business model? Kodak is trying to use their software to steer customers to use their products. Microsoft is trying to use their softwarwe to steer customers to use their products. What the heck is the difference?
No Zen is good zen
Kodak's problem is that their profits come from photographic film, not cameras. And photo film is on the way out. After a century of industry dominance, the end is in sight for Kodak.
Well, if we consider XP to be Windows 2001, then it looks like it's assuming that two years later, there will be an 'XP-2' or 'Windows 2003', and it's giving you the option of purchasing an upgrade, including, probably, a streaming install. The horror...making it convenient and easy for end users to upgrade their OS. Those Micro$$$$oft BASTARDS!
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Unless of course you meant that Kodak was the 800 pound gorilla waiting to be eaten by the 1500 pound tiger.NET? If Microsoft says "Lie on my dinner plate, NOW" what is Kodak supposed to do about it?
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
[o]_O
Anyone ever see that Dilbert cartoon where Dogbert makes a billion dollars with his software company? They go out walking and Dilbert says, "Yeah, but money can't buy a sunset, Dogbert."
To which Dogbert replies, "No, but I licensed the digital rights."
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
When they came for the 'net browsers, I said nothing, we wern't really interested in the net anyway. When they came for the audiophiles, again it was nothing to do with us so we let it happen. Now they're coming after us - who's going to help us?
Any other company & my heart may blead a little, however, Kodak locks you into their proprietry quasi-tiff format once you start using their software. I think it's a bit rich that they're pissed Microsoft are trying to lock consumers away from what Kodak's been locking them into.
Get the Hell off my planet, you slimy mobster Bush!
Yes, beause there going to stop support for the other OS's. That will send mangement, and IT drones into a dessision spiral, which will result in "nobody gets fired for using IB..er, Microsoft products"...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Thats not the issue, the issue is how hard it is for a 3rd party vendor(Kodak in this case) to be able to have equal footing with MS 'approved' vendors.
If kodak wanted to:
a)create software that forces any digital camera to only use there software, or
b)made it extremely difficult to use any other source besides Kodak to display/post digital pictures to the net.
then they would be doing the same thing. of course Kodak wants users to use there services, but as long as they don't make it difficult for users NOT to use there saervices, there fine.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
One of the key points that hasn't really been looked at enough is the fact that Microsoft's monopoly (for all intents and purposes) allows them an incredible amount of leverage with regards to the development of new products for Windows. Microsoft Windows, whatever version you use, is the operating system of 90% of the world's desktop computers (servers are a different matter although Microsoft does have significant market share in that department, too). This means that if you want your product to be efficient, easy to use and powerful (in other words, if you want people to want to use it) then you need access to the Windows source code. And since Windows is part of the closed-source old-school business world, then you have to do things Microsoft's way. And if you don't like it, then fine. They can find another business that will, or develop their own product and use their leverage in the OS market to drive you into the ground - one example most commonly referred to is the MSIE/Netscape debate, where MS's "incorporation" of its free browser reduced Netscape's market share from 80% to 50% in about two years (if anyone has any further details or constructive to add here feel free to post them).
So it doesn't come as any suprise to me that Kodak is getting its ass kicked by Microsoft in the same way that Netscape was. My question here is shouldn't this be under scrutiny by the Department of Justice (a department that many people regard as a toothless tiger, but they do the important task of bringing attention to such issues) in the same way that other similar tactics were during the antitrust investigation? All constructive comments are welcome.
Self Bias Resistor
----------
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend.
So what happens when Bill Gates dies or retires? Will Microsoft continue as the evil empire, or will they fade to become just another big tech company? It happened to IBM in the "last generation." (Of course, if Bill Gates has a grievious head injury and miraculously recovers, then we are all screwed. ;-)
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
EVERYONE wants you to see the X-10 camera thing. According to the New York Times, the X10 website was the #2 website visited in the country. That's sad. Here's to worldwide host file editing....
IMHO, it seems that you are on the extreme opposite side of the spectrum on this issue. You counter those with righteous indignation; essentially those who bitch about MS products yet still buy them. And you ask people not to buy MS products if they have problems with the software or their business practices.
Let's be realistic here. The entire subset of the population that isn't completely satisfied with MS products is not going to outright boycott Microsoft. If that were the case, this would not even be an issue to argue about. Some people have to use Microsoft products (jobs, educational institutions, lack of technical expertise, etc.).
I use Microsoft products (I have to for my job like a lot of people out there). I am not completely happy with every 'feature/bug' with the products, but as a user, I feel I have a right to voice my opinion without people tossing it aside and telling me to use something else
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." - Jack Nicholson
"Microsoft rejects any suggestion that it misbehaved." So, the tip of the day is really trying to get me to buy microsoft stock? it seems that although you can add new cameras/companies, you must have an MCSE and/or be a professional digital technician to do it.
In IE for Windows you need to hit ctrl-enter to get it to do the www. and
I'm sick of hearing the "I've got a hair up my ass and I'll fly off the handle at the slightest provocation" crap.
Unfortunatly I've got to use his crap at work. This means that I'll be handing in my resignation tomorrow.
If Bill Gates was a European, he'd have been jailed by now!.
The problem is, I don't know if I can see a real problem with this. I mean, by pushing the ability to have users easily be able to print photos online, they'll find that their revenue is increased, and Microsoft benefits from the 'tippage' from this usage. I would imagine that those companies that work with Microsoft would do better than those that don't...But then again, who is MS to dictate to other industries how competition is going to be handled...The companies pay for the convenience of Microsoft pushing users to their site. Who knows, only time will tell how succesful this is..For all we know, this could backfire horribly in MS's face when it comes time for the companies to pay their dues. I'm sure extortion, which is pretty similar to what Microsoft is doing, is illegal in at least SOME areas in the world ;)
"Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
Not to sound too cynical, but do you see how terribly you've affected them?
The analogy to envelopes is a good one but this bit:
So, I suppose that would mean we might all end up paying for the right to print to a printer since it will one day be a service on a Windows XP machine.
No way, no how. The costs of the COBOL dinosaurs printing alone would send the managment in my shop screaming for an alternative. In a way I wish it would happen, we'd be a Linux shop overnight.
~~ What's stopping you?
...because everyone knows how terrible Kodak's software is, anyway!
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
Let the next Round of Lawsuits begin.
Personally, I prefer to break up Microsoft into as many pieces as possible, but what do I know.
After all, I am only a consumer.
As long as MS has my money, why would they even care?
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
A substantial portion of MS's bottom line comes from government purchases. Which every American taxpayer contributes too.
So while you stop buying MS products. Ask your representative to stop buying them too.
But, don't bother anyway. I think he'll listen to Bill Gates instead of you.
After all what's good for MS is good for Amerika. HAHAHHAHAH!
--------
get jiggy w/ ayn rand!
This is actually another example of future microprofit billing, which is here to stay. I think that eventually all transactions through APIs in the OS will eventually have a 'toll' associated with them, and that giant servers behind the scenes will route the funds into the proper accounts of microsoft's partners. it wouldn't surprise me if microsoft added a micropayment billing API to directX, like DirectBill or something, which monitors all types of traffic through a GUID which the backend servers use to adjust micropayments to the partners.
Hm. I should probably patent that before it gets out to the public.
D'oh!
And I love it when monopolies whine about other monopolies taking away their monopoly.
---
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Windows ME does a similar thing to XP. I first noticed this when I installed a beta of Windows ME. I have a kodak DC 280 camera, and I assumed that somehow installing ME over 98 overwrote my Kodak software. I reinstalled the Kodak software, but there was no way to access it. As soon as I plugged the camera in, a Microsoft "Digital Photo Wizard" would pop up in my face and start asking questions. As far as I could tell there was no way to turn it off!
And, in my opinion, while the Kodak software wasn't anything special, it didn't have all the annoying "Are you sure? Y/N" features of Microsoft Wizards.
The other automatic thing I found really annoying about ME is the low disk space notification. While using my laptop, which only has a four gig drive, I'll often have only 200 megs or so free. On the taskbar, a hard drive icon with a big word bubble would appear warning me to correct the situation, and there was NO WAY to turn it off short of deleting stuff. I seems to me that a gentle reminder would have done the trick.
Three weeks ago, Kodak got the latest, numbered "build 2481." Kodak engineers say this version has a new, simpler way to launch photo software after a camera is plugged in. Instead of a nine-click process of setting non-Microsoft photo software as the default, it lists competitors' programs alphabetically in a pop-up box, along with Microsoft's.
Seems more fair to me.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
That's one of the downfalls of our capitalist system (not that I know of a clearly better alternative). If there aren't many stories to print, make something into a story. Try to get the words "sex" and "scandal" in the headline if you can. Or "Microsoft" and "opress" or "abuse". Then you'll sell papers, regardless of the facts. Better yet, set up a web site where people read a headline, then write big, long comments about it, and then moderators, who also only read the headlines choose comments that most agree with their political philosophies. Go ahead, mod me down.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Right.
The article is about the idiot-proof software that comes with digital cameras. How many people do you think using the idiot software are capable of using Linux. None.
If I was Kodak, I'd be furious. They're big, but are they big enough to take on Microsoft?
It won't really affect geeks, though. No one i know with a digital camera uses the manufacturers software, they just copy the pics from the card to the hard drive and then go to Photoshop.
Kodak is not saying every digital print must flow through Kodak. They are only saying that after you install a Kodak camera + software, and plug it in, the Kodak software you just installed should come up, and I agree.
Kodak is BETTING THE COMPANY on digital cameras/film/prints. Do you really think their team of engineers couldn't solve a 'minor technical issue' over the course of a year? Of course they could. Microsoft is making it hard for them.
Example: Joe Sixpack plugs in his Kodak camera, MS's software pops up, along with a button that says "order a 5x7 of this picture". He clicks it, orders, and Photoprinter.com or whatever owes Microsoft a nickel. Jesus.
Do you have any idea how much it costs to port software? Unles it was written to be cross-platform in the first place, you have to rewrite most or all of it from scratch. Add to this the costs of QA, marketing, inventory, sales and shipping for multiple SKUs, product managers for each platform, etc. etc., and there is absolutely no business case for supporting anything other than the most lucrative platforms.
When I worked in consumer software (think two Very Big Name kids/game/home sw companies that now exist in name only) I used to talk myself blue in the face, trying to convince management to do our Windows-only products for the Mac as well. And these were shops that, until recently (this was ca. 1992 - 1995) had had major Macintosh presences. Management's argument? "Mac has 8% market share. We can't justify the development costs". I used to rage against this attitude, but now that I'm older and a little wiser, I can understand it.
Companies have to make money. They have to justify the expense of developing something based on the number of units they expect to sell. They can't just say (even if they'd like to) "Gee, we really support the free software community. Let's do SuperFoo 2001 for Linux and BSD, 'cause that's The Right Thing To Do." Yeah, Kodak sell cameras, not software, and yeah, a lot of geeks who buy digital cameras use alt-oses, but they still have to consider the costs involved.
You can say that toolkits like Qt and Gtk and such will make porting software a snap. They don't. I've written lots of crossplatform code, and used and written crossplatform toolkits. Let me tell you, it's not that easy. A widget set will get you a long way, as will simply writing your core code with wrappers for platform-specific bits. However, you still need to deal with GUIs, drawing and text routines, event handling, interface standards, and a million other little idiosyncracies, not to mention resource formats. You can abstract a lot of that out, but you know what? It's a full-time job for several people to maintain the code needed for each platform. And let's not even talk about QA.
The bottom line is that we're not relevant to the vast majority of the consumer software industry. 2% or whatever of the market does not exactly make the beancounters wet. Yeah, this is changing, but it's the current state of affairs. Plus, of course, there's the fact that the culture expects the product to be free. But that's another long argument...
What if life is just a side effect of some other process and God has no idea we exist?
And I don't suppose that could be because of the 180 day trial period of the beta, could it?
Wasn't it suppose to be "Where do you want to go today?"
Ie. The OS's purpose is not to direct the user to sites against their will, but to facilitate the user in choosing where they want to go. Maybe like context menus for files of a type they should add some interface between hardware and the web... so you can choose which you want to use. MS still has a lot to learn from BeOS and OS/2 on file associations, obviously.
Otherwise we will keep seeing these Explorer vs. Netscape battles over your html files. This time battling over your hardware/software connectivity.
There is nothing wrong with registering printing solutions separately from camera hardware, but the OS should provide you with a list of choices which you can sort and delete or filter however you want...easily. It should not get in the way.
Interactive Visual Medical Dictionary
I can see a problem when Microsoft makes it very difficult to use any non-MS product as default. If someone goes through the hassle of installing third party software, they should be given the choice to make it the default. I can see my brother installing it two or three times before calling me to find out why it doesn't work. Has anyone tried WinAmp or Netscape on XP yet? Can they still get set as defaults?
On the other hand...
When is Kodak going to port this software over to Linux or BSD? No plans yet? Well, if you dance with the devil, he gets to call the tunes.
Viv
-----------
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
What prevents Kodak from writing a script that automates this nine-click process, so that the users only have to click once or twice to set the Kodak software as the default, if they so desire?
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
My favourite (snort) bug in Word is a problem with page numbering. Sometimes Word won't update its "number of pages" field automatically, so you often get printouts with "Page 1 of 1", "Page 2 of 1", "Page 3 of 1", etc. in the footers. This bug has been in every single version of Word for Windows since at least version 2.
In every Microsoft thread, there's always someone who will complain about the Bill Gates as Borg icon that Slashdot uses. I haven't seen him/her show up yet, but when they do, I hereby give you a virtual slap upside the head.
But issues like this aren't Microsoft specific. There's lots of evil software companies that do lots of evil things. How many times have you installed software on a Win machine only to find out that it took over file extension associations without asking first?
I'm finally fed up with MS myself and I'm weaning myself off their products. I've put together a RH Linux system at home and am learning what I can. And being the "PC guy" for many friends and family, I'm recommending to them all that they avoid XP like the plague (I can't possibly recommend Linux to them because these are people who can't set the clock on their VCR).
Thankfully, I'm seeing more and more articles like this, and with any luck Joe Public will start to take notice. Circuit City learned a harsh lesson in pissing of the public with their DIVX scams. If we keep up the pressure, MS will learn the same lessons.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
I'm sure this has already been resolved, MS just had to find the registry key and change the setting to load the Kodak software rather than the default MS software.
There are lots of things to bitch MS out about, but this is a long reach from being a newsworthy issue.
This is where I keep my clever quotes "" Yup I only got a pair, so I better not waste em!
I think that the engineers at Kodak should apply a little LART. Have their software work great with Win98 & Win2K, but have the program bugger-up at random times when used on WinXP. :P
/*drunk.. fix later*/
So, what if i buy a digital camera and don't purchase Kodak's software? Me being a normal end-user, i'd rather SOMETHING pop up than nothing, leaving me sitting there thinking I did something wrong.
.com onto what you typed, and does it for you.
Ever notice that a plain vanilla install of Redhat, if you click on a URL it launches Netscape? Who said i wanted that?
My point (yes, i have a point) is that for certain things, software developers everywhere (not just OS developers at M$) have to make assumptions for "general use".
For those of us that need to change it, we can. If this post is more of an outcry of bad business practices, well, we already know that microsoft is guilty of that.
You can't assume that everyone wants to tweak the hell out of their OS and make it run exactly the way THEY want it too. Most end users are happy with the fact that they don't need a PHD to turn things on. The assumptions that software developers make contribute to that fact.
Perfect example, pop open netscape, IE, mozilla, what have you, and just type "google" without quotes in the address bar. The browser assumes that you actually want to append www. and prepend
Software developers making assumptions about their end-users habits has been happening for years. I don't see why it's earth-shattering that M$ does it.
Yes, my girlfriend is a BitchX
Now, I'm no expert, but doesn't Windows offer a descent scripting service for installers or or Kodaks programmers just so inept, they can't script those 9 mouse clicks. I ask seriously since being a Mac person, these kind of issues don't come up...
Burn Hollywood Burn
To get ther they'll have to use Windows as a stepping stone. Throw all of their Internet properties into the user's face when they first boot up. Try to get as many users to sign on until they become as big as AOL. It worked for AOL with their CD's.
You had 5,000 copies running already and you couldn't come up with a copy of the Office95 installer to setup these new PCs ? Start blaming your company rather than Microsoft.
My personal favorite method is to use rox-filer with the icon size set to huge, associations with gqview and imagemagick's convert for thumbnails.
CF is definitely the way to go if you buy a digital camera.
I love it. Microsoft decided that instead if selling off windows desktop space (like they have in the past to the likes of AOL and software vendors such as Quicken), which is a limited comodity since it had dimentions defined by screen resolution, they would be better off preferred connectivity options, which represents a residual revenue stream. This represents a more or less unlimited resource that Microsoft can license repeatedly, and more importantly, can alter in realtime on internet-connected desktops, for eample, if one vendor wished to terminate it's agreement with Microsoft, the company can (in realtime) pull that vendor's listing from within Windows, much as a web publisher would pull the vendor's ads from a website. On one level it's vary sleezy. On another, it's just good business.
It's a characteristic of the new and ever-changing marketplace that Kodak could not have foreseen such a thing and explicitly forbidden it within their written partnership agreement. On the other hand, it has bacome a hallmark of Microsoft to actively seek out cuch loopholes and make extensive use of them in business dealings with partners.
--CTH
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
What the hell are you talking about?
They may have only just found out about it like Kodak and are only slower and/or less public on the uptake. Someone had to be the first to complain, why not Kodak? I expect we'll hear from others soon.
Yeah everyone already knows whats Microsoft plans to do tonight: "Try to take over the world!"
OK let me get this straight. First, IBM. Now, Kodak.
What other companies that hold/held monopoly power are going to complain about someone else's monopoly next?
U.S. Steel? AT&T? Tim Horton's?
not that I think Kodak is wrong to cry foul, but come ON guys don't you remember EASTMAN KODAK CO. v. IMAGE TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., et al. ??
uh, here's the link. They were convicted of violating the Sherman act in '92.
href=http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1Shame they pulled out those smart tags for the time being, i think the more stupid steps MS takes , the more software developers will look at alternate OS's which i think is a good thing, when the time comes microsoft will be alone with its perfect OS that noone wants too use, cause like they said it will get worse with these anti-trust actions and more expensive cause of the same reason.
;)
Where is this years MS license burning party ? i still got a couple at home i dont use
Well, I got www.google.com to come up. So, who's right here? Are the people that didn't get the MSN page wrong? I'm sick of hearing the "well it didn't happen to me, so it couldn't have happened to you" crap.
If there was a "-1 Not Funny", that'd be my most used mod.
The flip side to this is that maybe it will end the eternal, retarded jockeying for file-type association that every program vies for.
In Eric Cartman's whiney voice:
No RealPlayer! I don't want you to open my MP3s!
Of course ultimately, it should be the end-user's choice on which programs open certain file types (or devices).
EASE OF USE! EASE OF USE! EASE OF USE!
People rather ease of use even at the expense of fair trading.
There are so few people who want to set their computer up. They just want it to work. Linux et al. REQUIRES much setting up effort!! Once setup its brilliant BUT it requires much effort to setup.
Hence until there is an easy to setup alternative OS consumers will take the easy option even if that means handing the collective computing soul to just one company.
Not the point is it? How would you feel if you were Nikon,Minolta, Canon and had paid bundle fees for software that your customer never got to use? Also, it won't be fixed. RC1 is out right now and lock-down for October delivery means that there is about a week to go. They aren't about to yank out a "feature" like this at thsi late stage unless they are compelled to. That would likely mean some form of delay, but if I were Kodak I would be seeking an injunction. Cheerio
The point is Kodak developed this interface with Microsoft for XP and got screwed. So it isn't just a question of what happens to the user, Kodak feels like they got robbed here, and they literally may have been. Read the Wall Street Journal article (July 3rd) for more details.
Again, missing the point. It's theft, hijacking, call it what you like. The quality of the software (or their hardware for that matter) isn't the point. I also think that the readership is missing the point that ANY camera plugged in regardless of manufacturer will default to MSFT's photo editor whether you want it to or not -- that's the real point.
No brainer - the manufacturer of the printer. Customers are cheap - we want the most we can get for as little money as possible. If we had to pay some fee each year for printing to a freaking printer we bought - hell no. The customers would revolt and switch to other software hands down.
However, extorting the manufacturer is MUCH easier. They (Micro$oft) develop the printer install app to make thigns easier for 'certain' companies who pay for the privledge of hassle free printing and installing - and threaten anyone who doesn't sign teh agreements to pay Microsoft for each page printed that their printers will be difficult to install and use. What would you do? If your stuff is a hassle ot us - customers go elsewhere and you go out of business - unless of course you're Micro$oft :) So you agree to pay the extortion, boost your prices to cover it since everyone else is and the customers unwittingly pay Micro$oft more and more money through back end agreements like this.
2 years from now, after WIN XP has been out for a while you ask ANY average user if they realize that part of their photo printing charges went to Microsoft just because they used WIndows and they'll give you deer in headlights looks.
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
Only if the API supports it - otherwise without the source you'd be hard pressed to modify teh behavior of the OS with a patch. Which is why bundling, though not inherently wrong, can be so dangerous and abused.
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
Of course this isn't the issue here. *slap* Bad Microsoft. But we are talking about beta software here. I am quite sure it will be fixed.
'Same speed C but faster'
If it is the first, what is to keep M$ from charging me to print to my HP printer or save a document? This just sounds really wack to me. Next M$ will send me a bill for posting on /.
'Same speed C but faster'
It sounds like of the many companies making digital cameras, only Kodak has a problem with this anti-competitive practise. I'm guessing it is because the others don't want to make software. Since Kodak's is better than Microsoft's, they want everybody to use the default software and take away Kodak's advantage. I hope that Microsoft can not get away with this. It is a conspiracy to reduce competition
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
Kodak seem to be upset only because Microsoft got in the way of their attempt to tie their online prints service to their camera. At least Microsoft gave companies that do prints but not cameras a way to get in on the action.
The idea of charging for browser slots is not new. Netscape made almost all their money from the browser that way. AOL is simply one long infomercial for AOL's "partners".
Personally I get real peeved when companies mess with my file associations, particularly when they don't ask me. If there is a way to stop such meddling in XP I am all for it.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I'll tell you. When we get lawmakers/judges that have a clue. This stuff is going to go on as long as Microsoft keeps getting away with it. In effect, MS is continually rewarded by strongarming competition!
I vote with my dollar -- MS hasn't seen any of my money for a long, long time.
I was fiddling around with my new XP beta and accidently set the year to 2003. Now evertime it starts it asks if I want it to check for a new version of Windows and includes a space to enter a credit card number. WFT!
What is pirate software? Software for inventory of stolen treasure?
It isn't all they want, Kodak engineers say, but it's a big improvement. Instead of a roadblock, "it's just a speed bump," Mr. Gerskovich says.
IOW, later builds address Kodak's issues. Amazing that the WSJ chose to bury this fact.
Really? My IE just gave me a "Page cannot be found" error when I typed only google. Mozilla brought up www.google.com though.
So I opened up my trusty My Pictures...select a image...clicked on "Order prints online". It walked me through a wizard and guess what? Kodak was one of the companies I can order my pictures online with (RC1 build). Geee wiz....the writter of that article needs to check their facts first before they publish an article....just goes to show you to not believe everything you read online. If you want screen shots of all of this....ask.
Silly Rabbit...Sig's are for kids.
Why don't they just port to Linux? I know that most people use Windows, but that will probably change with time if all the current Microsoft rubbish continues. That way, Kodak can claim to have been ahead of the trend, and won't have to worry about Microsoft's tax.
"They could probably simply say on it that the software and camera don't work with Windows XP."
Briliant! Not having their software working on the OS that lots of people are going to rush out and purchase because it is the latest and greatest from micro$oft is definitely the best way to get market share.
Or not.
You almost have to admire micro$oft. How many other companies out there can treat customers, partners, governments, and competitors with such contempt, and still become one of the most significant and powerful monopolies on the planet?
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
"Gee, I wonder if I believe them?"
Why would you say that?
It's not like Bill was dishonest or evasive when questioned during the anti-trust trial. Or that they submitted (badly) doctored videotaped evidence, or staged rigged comparisons between their product and a rivals...
Oh, wait...
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
I'm just wondering. Whenever you install anything, usually isn't it supposed to ask you if you want to set it as the "default" program to pop up? This was never mentioned, all it said was the it "took 9 mouse clicks" to do it. Need more info!
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
I didn't say that Microsoft's behavior was nice, merely that Kodak has behaved similarly in the past. Furthermore, Kodak had a choice: develop open standards or try to ride to market dominance on the coattails of Microsofts monopoly. Kodak made the latter choice. That carries the well-known risk that Microsoft is going to turn on you. Kodak should live with the consequences of their choice.
Kodak is BETTING THE COMPANY on digital cameras/film/prints.
Welcome to the business world. Kodak made choices, and they have to live with the consequences (as does Microsoft). The courts will work this one out, and it should stand as a warning to anybody else throwing their lot with Microsoft. I don't see any reason to feel particularly sympathetic towards Kodak given their track record.
Of course, the defense "we want to make it simpler" does have a kernel of truth: ultimate pushbutton simplicity means relieving the user of the choice of a company to send their prints to. But average consumers face that choice in the real world, so they are probably capable of making it on-line as well, without being infantilized by either Kodak or Microsoft.
Yea, as commented before, I'd love to use something else, but at the moment I'm slightly restricted to using M$ for some few reasons. Yes, I can almost put up with them trying to make me use their software, but automatically running software other than the manufacturers'? Not cool, Bill.
The day that I get paint starting up when I open my photoshop document? Oh yeah. Somebody's getting a cup of bees in the mail.
- Relativistic? That's barely Newtonian!
NO!
It's not that Microsoft wants to compete for the same product or service.
It's that Microsoft is making it technically impossible or very very unfriendly for you as a consumer to choose to use anyone else's product!!!
Microsoft prides itself on making the user experience "easy" and "user-friendly". Usually this means making it simple to change preferences. Even that stupid paper clip was easy to banish permananently.
But what should raise the red flag is when they make something hard to do. Like set your default camera software to Kodak. Microsoft's goal is to make everything easy. So if it's hard to do, it's very likely that this is intentional.
-----------------------
-----------------------
Stay in school, kids! Peace out, Dubya
One word of advice for Kodak ... if possible, port the code to 'other' platforms, and GPL the darn code. It might buy Kodak the survivability it seeks ... and deny others the ability to blackmail them to get their app on top.
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
Even though Kodak's business is focused solely on photography, and ours is in everything but fast food, ours will be better!
Bah... monopolies give me a headache.
Screw 3...
There are two solutions to this problem that I can see would be fairly easy to implement:
1) (the better) In the next build, MS sets up their software to only start if no other camera software does.
2) Kodak can release an update that automatically sets theirs to be first, eliminating the tech support issues.
This whole thing about collecting a small fee if the photos pass through their software is very much like the adressee paying the envelope maker for receiving one of their envelopes.
At first, I thought it might be like paying the US Mail twice. Once when the sender applies the stamp and then when the envelope is delivered. Of course, then I realized that the "stamp" in this case is the customer's ISP.
I feel that it is terribly wrong to charge for simply being the vehicle that the consumer uses to upload files to their ISP.
Of course Microsoft is working towards a fee for services model of business, even though Microsoft says that is why Linux companies fail. So, I suppose that would mean we might all end up paying for the right to print to a printer since it will one day be a service on a Windows XP machine. Do you think they would charge the consumer or the manufacturer of the printer?
--
.sig seperator
--
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
It seems a little base, but doesn't this sound like typical ZDNet tomfoolery? What would it take to get Kodak to remind their customers to reinstall their software after upgrading to XP? It just seems like the associations are screwed up. (Which happens all the time with MIME types on my Linux box. I can't tell you how many times RealPlayer has wanted to make itself the default MP3 player).
Kodak wants users to use their services, but as long as they don't make it difficult for users NOT to use their saervices, they're fine.
(note that "there" != "their" != "they're")
We're talking lowest common denominator here. Having a default is putting up as effective a barrier as they need. MS have made it easier to select Kodak's software, but as theirs is still the default, they've as good as captured all the non-techies who wouldn't be able to figure the process out and wouldn't be bothered to call tech support. Kodak is doing the same as MS...
43rd Law of Computing:
The only Windows users around here will either:
That said, those who decry M$ in a formulaic manner on
43rd Law of Computing:
...and now I'm about to get modded down for doing so. Or possibly up, as I'm deviating from the news item's point of view and that seems to be a surefire way to get modded up nowadays. Or possibly both. What the hell, moderate me how you want. That's not my point. This is:
Why are Kodak whining? Because Microsoft themselves are doing with their software exactly what Kodak wanted to do with theirs. See the article:
Mr. Gerskovich's camera and its allied software are seen as the best hope. The company's plan is to use the Internet to drive its digital-camera customers directly to Kodak picture labs to buy their prints. Any Microsoft obstacle would be a critical strategic blow to Kodak
You see? It's not that they are driving customers to certain printers by default, without their choice, but rather that they get to do this rather than Kodak themselves! You may argue that Kodak, as the people who sold the camera, have a right to do this more than MS, but from where I'm standing this is a distinct case of the pot calling the kettle black.
43rd Law of Computing:
From the article:
Mr. Varma adds: "Any suggestion that we had hidden motives in the design of Windows XP is untrue."
Riiiiight!
The article had a good point, that Capitol Hill didn't give a damn when it was MS vs. other software companies, but when it was a household name like Kodak, then they take notice.
Now, (in my mind) I'm the last person to encourage lawyers, but we need more "traditional" companies to do the sort of thing that Kodak did, and stand up to MS. Since the Congresscritters know that Joe Citizen doesn't care about iWhoeverTheDotComOfTheWeekIs, but know and understand "Kodak", they pay attention.
I think Kodak could have got an injunction if they really wanted. I also hope the NY AG uses this in the new MS hearings.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Apple took 'regions' (something MS gui's STILL don't do), icons and menus from Xerox labs. But the clipboard was developed at Apple.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
If you didn't use *shudder* XP you wouldn't have this problem, now would you?
"Press any key to begin."
"Press any key to begin."
"AnyKey? Where's the AnyKey?" - Homer J. Simpson
I'll start with the usual, "why does this surprise anyone?" /. until the October release of XP (Newsflash: all links to "Emeril live" redirect to "Cooking with Ballmer!".) Seems to me that MS is peppering its software with these "features" in the hopes that no one will notice until it's too late. And if someone does notice, they remove it/mitigate it.
.f
I predict stories like this will continue to flood
I thought we all knew their corporate slogan was "Just Do it (until you get caught)."
the day is soon approaching when i will through away my win98, gaming box. I wont have all the great games to play, but at least I wont be supporting industrial tyranny. I hope Kodak frags microsoft in court. I also hope that other companies become aware of what MS represents and begin exploiting the wide open Linux market
Without having seen the exact implementation of Microsoft and Kodak's different photo software, it's hard to make a judgement - unlike what everyone else here appears to be doing.
It's entirely possible that Microsoft may have written better camera controlling software than Kodak. It's not a foregone conclusion, by any means - but I've seen some pretty awful driver software for the digital camera I own - one that crashes the machine on a regular basis, at any rate - and I'd have no problem using a competitors product if it was more stable and fully featured. Even if the competitor was Microsoft.
Besides, I'm inclined to blame Kodak on this one - it's up to their installer to make sure that their software can be run properly.
Food for thought, at any rate.
http://www.themeparks.ie
Microsoft may be dumb - but they're not dumb enough to try and bill possibly the largest section of intelligent computer users out there :)
http://www.themeparks.ie