According to some articles I've read it is very hard to port the Skype protocol (or other protocols) to WebRTC because WebRTC is relatively high level. MS's proposal is for a lower level API that would allow different protocols to be implemented over it including Skype. They argue that higher level API would be provided through libraries.
The issue MS has with WebRTC is that they cannot easily and reliably port the Skype protocol over to WebRTC because WebRTC is relatively high level. They propose lower level API that would allow more kinds of protocols to be implemented. They argue that higher level API would come through libraries. The WebRTC proponents argue that the core use case of WebRTC is browser to browser communication and as such the API should be higher level and if you want to do browser to Skype for example you are screwed. Frankly I think they are full of shit.
Even if you were right (and you are not) many people consider "writing to the standards" to mean "it works in Chrome and Firefox" and this is definitely not what it means.
From experience - I used to think I would not use touchscreen on an ultrabook but when I got one... I LOVE IT. I use it more than I use the trackpad and I sometimes catch myself stretching my arm towards my non-touch desktop monitor instead of the mouse to do things like scroll in a browser. Touch screen is especially useful as a replacement/addition to the trackpad in cases you are using the laptop without a mouse.
To be fair ultrabooks with similar specs (i5/i7, 4/8GB RAM, 64/128GB SSD) are not much cheaper and this one has powerful dedicated NVidia GPU. People who play games on laptops with connected monitor, mouse and keyboard can actually play on this and you get a tablet and a handheld console for when you travel.
While MS as a company is big about dogfooding (as every company should be) they don't force employees to use particular product. Of course when you get a new phone as Christmas bonus or something it will be a Windows Phone but this is different from what you describe.
While it is true that the trackpad is a proxy interface it is a fact that it is in every laptop (ultrabooks, convertibles, etc.) I am lying in bed right now and typing this and I cannot imagine where I would put a mouse. Also if I am on a desk and using a laptop keyboard I would prefer to use touch to scroll or zoom instead of move my hand to the mouse. Moving your hand from the keyboard to the mouse is often harder than moving it to the screen.
I've been using Windows 8 on a touch enabled ultrabook and I LOVE it. I regularly stretch my arm to my regular desktop monitor and remember that it does not have touch. Of course I do not use only touch. I use keyboard and trackpad but some operations (specifically scrolling and zooming in the browser) are so much easier with touch than they are with the trackpad. Sometimes I even start and close apps with touch. I am not even talking about metro apps (which are mostly useless at this point). I am talking about regular Windows. After using it for a while I am sure touch is here to stay at least in the ultrabook and laptop form factor.
Please explain why Windows is a monopoly but youtube isn't! a) there are at least two operating systems that you could use for desktop computers (and they existed for 20+ years) b) there IS particular reason to continue using youtube. This is where users are and you may have a subscriber base that you cannot migrate to another service. Same as with OS monopoly.
So how did MS had a monopoly on the OS when they were sued for abusing it? After all there were Linux and Mac OS and they were surely more popular than Vimeo or the other services I had never heard of.
OK but MS does not want to copy the content. They want access to the service. And YouTube is a monopoly because this is where the users are. The existence or quality of the competing service does not matter. If you want to find a video you go to youtube. If you want to upload a video that is seen by anybody you go to youtube. This is what makes it monopoly in the sense that Windows is a monopoly.
Well I hope they do take them to court. I doubt they want to though. Even if they win in 5 year the mobile OS wars will be over anyway. Also either me or you (or probably both) do not understand what monopoly means in legal terms. To me stating that there is competition to youtube is like stating there is competition to Windows (in the 90s) After all Linux and Mac OS did exist back then.
WP has several apps based on the mobile site or based on crawling the HTML but they want a full featured native app like iOS and Android have.
WinRT has in no way dominant market position so I doubt anyone would win anything over the bootloader issue. If anything MS wants to have problems with that. That would mean they've actually sold a significant number of RT devices.
Stop with your copyright bullshit. MS wants access to the YouTube service same like the access Android and iOS gets. If it costs money they should charge MS. If they don't agree on the price they go to court to determine the price. YouTube is a monopoly and if anti-trust laws mean anything they should be legally forced to provide the same conditions to everyone free or paid.
That's right! Does Microsoft have legal obligation to provide access to APIs they use for their browser on their desktop OS with a monopoly market position to competing browser vendors? Were they legally force to release the specification of their server protocols and document formats?
No they cannot buy their own servers with all the user uploaded content on YouTube. YouTube is a monopoly in a field which Google uses to block competition in another field. While I do not agree with anti-trust laws on principle would you be happy if Netscape were told that they can develop their own operating system to deploy their browser on. What would you say if tomorrow MS remotely uninstalls Chrome and redirects google.com to Bing from all Windows PCs?
Slashdot Mirror
According to some articles I've read it is very hard to port the Skype protocol (or other protocols) to WebRTC because WebRTC is relatively high level. MS's proposal is for a lower level API that would allow different protocols to be implemented over it including Skype. They argue that higher level API would be provided through libraries.
So how does the fact that "Nobody uses Microsoft's browser by choice" changes the fact that it is the most used browser in the world?
Also I use it by choice and know many people who do too.
The issue MS has with WebRTC is that they cannot easily and reliably port the Skype protocol over to WebRTC because WebRTC is relatively high level. They propose lower level API that would allow more kinds of protocols to be implemented. They argue that higher level API would come through libraries. The WebRTC proponents argue that the core use case of WebRTC is browser to browser communication and as such the API should be higher level and if you want to do browser to Skype for example you are screwed. Frankly I think they are full of shit.
Even if you were right (and you are not) many people consider "writing to the standards" to mean "it works in Chrome and Firefox" and this is definitely not what it means.
From experience - I used to think I would not use touchscreen on an ultrabook but when I got one... I LOVE IT. I use it more than I use the trackpad and I sometimes catch myself stretching my arm towards my non-touch desktop monitor instead of the mouse to do things like scroll in a browser. Touch screen is especially useful as a replacement/addition to the trackpad in cases you are using the laptop without a mouse.
The speed of JS in IE10 is pretty decent.
To be fair ultrabooks with similar specs (i5/i7, 4/8GB RAM, 64/128GB SSD) are not much cheaper and this one has powerful dedicated NVidia GPU. People who play games on laptops with connected monitor, mouse and keyboard can actually play on this and you get a tablet and a handheld console for when you travel.
Their whole company is aimed at hardcore gamers.
While MS as a company is big about dogfooding (as every company should be) they don't force employees to use particular product. Of course when you get a new phone as Christmas bonus or something it will be a Windows Phone but this is different from what you describe.
If SC2 supported LAN would all of them have bought it? Did they buy CS and SC1?
Because you don't have internet in the office? Also you are not the poster who complained about it :)
So how many hours of gaming did you do over LAN in 2012?
Blizzard does not support server editions of Windows. Even if they did I don't know how 6 is "similar number" to the number of Linux distributions.
While it is true that the trackpad is a proxy interface it is a fact that it is in every laptop (ultrabooks, convertibles, etc.) I am lying in bed right now and typing this and I cannot imagine where I would put a mouse. Also if I am on a desk and using a laptop keyboard I would prefer to use touch to scroll or zoom instead of move my hand to the mouse. Moving your hand from the keyboard to the mouse is often harder than moving it to the screen.
Oh, come on. "Default" in this case means you have to press the Windows key to get to the desktop. Big deal!
This!
I've been using Windows 8 on a touch enabled ultrabook and I LOVE it. I regularly stretch my arm to my regular desktop monitor and remember that it does not have touch. Of course I do not use only touch. I use keyboard and trackpad but some operations (specifically scrolling and zooming in the browser) are so much easier with touch than they are with the trackpad. Sometimes I even start and close apps with touch. I am not even talking about metro apps (which are mostly useless at this point). I am talking about regular Windows. After using it for a while I am sure touch is here to stay at least in the ultrabook and laptop form factor.
Please explain why Windows is a monopoly but youtube isn't!
a) there are at least two operating systems that you could use for desktop computers (and they existed for 20+ years)
b) there IS particular reason to continue using youtube. This is where users are and you may have a subscriber base that you cannot migrate to another service. Same as with OS monopoly.
Still why should they miss the opportunity to have Google slapped in the hand?
So how did MS had a monopoly on the OS when they were sued for abusing it? After all there were Linux and Mac OS and they were surely more popular than Vimeo or the other services I had never heard of.
OK but MS does not want to copy the content. They want access to the service. And YouTube is a monopoly because this is where the users are. The existence or quality of the competing service does not matter. If you want to find a video you go to youtube. If you want to upload a video that is seen by anybody you go to youtube. This is what makes it monopoly in the sense that Windows is a monopoly.
Well I hope they do take them to court. I doubt they want to though. Even if they win in 5 year the mobile OS wars will be over anyway. Also either me or you (or probably both) do not understand what monopoly means in legal terms. To me stating that there is competition to youtube is like stating there is competition to Windows (in the 90s) After all Linux and Mac OS did exist back then.
WP has several apps based on the mobile site or based on crawling the HTML but they want a full featured native app like iOS and Android have.
WinRT has in no way dominant market position so I doubt anyone would win anything over the bootloader issue. If anything MS wants to have problems with that. That would mean they've actually sold a significant number of RT devices.
Stop with your copyright bullshit. MS wants access to the YouTube service same like the access Android and iOS gets. If it costs money they should charge MS. If they don't agree on the price they go to court to determine the price. YouTube is a monopoly and if anti-trust laws mean anything they should be legally forced to provide the same conditions to everyone free or paid.
WTF are you talking about. Google is restricting access to their service to competitors. Copyright has nothing to do here.
That's right! Does Microsoft have legal obligation to provide access to APIs they use for their browser on their desktop OS with a monopoly market position to competing browser vendors? Were they legally force to release the specification of their server protocols and document formats?
Oh, wait...
No they cannot buy their own servers with all the user uploaded content on YouTube. YouTube is a monopoly in a field which Google uses to block competition in another field. While I do not agree with anti-trust laws on principle would you be happy if Netscape were told that they can develop their own operating system to deploy their browser on. What would you say if tomorrow MS remotely uninstalls Chrome and redirects google.com to Bing from all Windows PCs?