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...
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
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!
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.
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.
"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?
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
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"
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
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
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...
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.
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.
---
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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
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)
...because everyone knows how terrible Kodak's software is, anyway!
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
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.
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.
And I don't suppose that could be because of the 180 day trial period of the beta, could it?
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
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 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.
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
Shame 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
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).
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
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
Bzzzt! Untrue. The HTTP specification explicitly allows error codes to be replaced.
If the error codes had to be reported as generated it would prevent browsers implementing error codes in the users own language. If I go to a french server I don't want to have to use Babel fish to read the error response.
If the intention had been to simply display the error message from the server then we would not have bothered with error codes at all. The purpose of the error codes were to allow the client software to do something more useful to the end user.
You as the server writer might not like the error code handling of the client, but that is explicitly outside your remit. The client controls the user interface, not the server.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
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/
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.
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.
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?
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!