I think that privacy is a legitimate concern. I haven't looked at it close enough to form an opinion. I've been reading the other posts on this and the point has been made that Google isn't using their dominance to impede the rest of the market. I'm particularly impressed with the general consensus that Google has been promoting open standards. I think that on that basis alone, it would be hard to make an antitrust claim stick.
I'm sure you already know this, but for the record, they were sued for making third-party browsers perform poorly on Windows. They changed the API used by Netscape without telling Netscape what they were doing. I'm pretty sure Netscape wasn't the only victim.
Unless MS can get over its paranoia about customers leaving them for open, interoperable systems, they should be broken up. They should have been split into OS, Office, Internet and application server companies. Hopefully, this administration will see the need to do so.
Yes, but we're not talking about a bank where everyone involved would lose their life savings. This is not Lehman Bros or Enron. This is a company that has consistently produced outstanding results.
Thanks for some fine reasoning with experience. I've had mixed feelings about this so here is what I do:
I have a debit/ATM card. I use it like a credit card on the internet. When I make purchases in person, I use it like a debit card. The idea is that when I want cash, I get it at the market or some other place where I buy stuff. That way, the terminals are supervised and I'm in a bright, well lit area when I get my cash.
I have also heard that the fees are lower for debit card transactions than for credit card type transactions. I feel like I'm giving the place of purchase a break when I do this.
I've been doing this for years and have never had a problem with it. I also have a separate account where the majority of the funds are kept so I can't be completely cleaned out.
As you say, the only thing that the release of VP8 might do is make it harder for patent holders to collect licenses. To my mind, this draws attention to "what was Google thinking?" Considering the very deep pockets of Google, Google has to have consulted legal counsel regarding this release. They had to have weighed their exposure to lawsuits over the release of this codec. And surely, they have cleared the title to ensure that there are no patents or other encumbrances that could vitiate their action.
One other element sitting in the sidelines is the current and pending Bilski decisions. Google is demonstrating an awful lot of confidence in their release that others will be precluded from initiating patent infringement suits based on previous and the potential outcome of the Bilski cases (among many others, but this being the current focus of patent law).
I also agree with your comments on the role of FOSS. FOSS seems more like a source of inspiration rather than a threat.
I applaud Google for helping to set a foundation for free and open video codecs. I hope this works out for everyone, too. Google seems to be inspired by FOSS.
Perhaps it would then follow that customer ignorance of how a supplier makes its money is a requirement in capitalism. If every business relies upon lies of omission in order to generate a profit, then I think the problem is much bigger than the question of whether or not the market is really free.
The question then becomes whether or not the customer is informed enough to make a profitable decision. To put this in perspective, the most successful businesses employ many years of experience focusing on suppliers. Their collective intelligence about their suppliers create downward pressure on pricing since they know more about a supplier than any single individual could.
To me, the cell phone bill is a perfect example of how customer ignorance works to the benefit of the service provider.
Ok, I'm not a web developer, but I follow the news and try things out on my browser, like the acid3 tests. I don't know the difference between the various markup languages. What I do know is that I want a consistent experience across the web. To help this along, I try to use a browser that supports open standards so that web developers get the feedback from my browser.
When I read a well reasoned debate, even on Slashdot (and it does happen), it's encouraging. I would much prefer that to the drama of a flame war. This comment is not just directed to TheRaven64, but to everyone who can participate in the discussion with reasoning, facts and references.
Since I can't know everything about web design, I try to use discussions like this as a chance to become better informed.
one thing I've never understood: if the newspapers wanted us to pay, would be they willing to provide advertising free news in exchange for paid access? I don't think so.
Last time I checked, Google was promoting open standards. Chrome scores rather nicely on the Acid3 test as an example. Chrome on Linux: 100. Even on Windows Chrome scores 93. IE on Windows: 12.
That's the biggest difference between the two to me.
I'm an American and a few years ago, I went to Vietnam to visit with family (someone married Vietnamese in the family). While I was there, I saw something really interesting in terms of a cultural bias. The Vietnamese have a very strong tendency to favor cooperation over competition. That's the duopoly. The last I heard, their economy was growing at 8% a year.
The Japanese also demonstrated this with their desire to build one of the fastest, if not *the* fastest internet infrastructures in the world. The goal became a matter of national pride more than how a few executives could figure out how to line their pockets and still deliver lousy service while derailing every other effort to improve matters for consumers.
The Vietnamese and the Japanese are essentially descendants of the Chinese so they would share the same cultural value of favoring cooperation over competition. They have demonstrated this value over and over again with their resilience through wars, economic strife and growing pains.
In America, the profit motive seems to have priority over all other concerns in business. The profit motive overrules the desire to cooperate hands down, every time, at the firm level, and often within the firm. This behavior stems primarily from the desire to avoid shareholder lawsuits over share value in publicly held companies. Another motivating factor, in my opinion, is that executives who have so much money that they never have to work again start to see economics as a game of monopoly. Instead of being satisfied, they strive to get more and more. The result is that there is less and less for the rest of us to earn. Which brings "the rest of us" to the point that we can't even buy the stuff we make here, and we're getting to the point where we can't even buy the stuff "the captains of industry" want us to import from China.
Competition is not a sin. It's a part of life. But competition taken to it's logical conclusion is the decline of America. Until we get it that we're a team together and that there are bigger problems to solve than how to dominate a market, we're going to face a serious decline in our standard of living relative to other nations.
In Microsoft's fantasy world, everyone uses Windows, Microsoft development tools and there is no competition. What could they do to regain my respect? Stop lying about their competition (especially Linux), drop their patents and lawsuit threats, embrace and support open standards without extending them with proprietary lock-in. Put customers first before the egos of executives and shareholders. Quit trying to embrace, extend and extinguish FOSS.
Oh, and they could try making better software instead of spin.
I know. They have a business model they are trying to support, and shareholders to satisfy. But their all-encompassing, over-arching, take-no-prisoners attitude has gotta go.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that privacy is a legitimate concern. I haven't looked at it close enough to form an opinion. I've been reading the other posts on this and the point has been made that Google isn't using their dominance to impede the rest of the market. I'm particularly impressed with the general consensus that Google has been promoting open standards. I think that on that basis alone, it would be hard to make an antitrust claim stick.
I'm sure you already know this, but for the record, they were sued for making third-party browsers perform poorly on Windows. They changed the API used by Netscape without telling Netscape what they were doing. I'm pretty sure Netscape wasn't the only victim.
Unless MS can get over its paranoia about customers leaving them for open, interoperable systems, they should be broken up. They should have been split into OS, Office, Internet and application server companies. Hopefully, this administration will see the need to do so.
Yes, but we're not talking about a bank where everyone involved would lose their life savings. This is not Lehman Bros or Enron. This is a company that has consistently produced outstanding results.
Agreed.
Yes, but they also know the alternative is to pay the banker interest.
Thanks for some fine reasoning with experience. I've had mixed feelings about this so here is what I do:
I have a debit/ATM card. I use it like a credit card on the internet. When I make purchases in person, I use it like a debit card. The idea is that when I want cash, I get it at the market or some other place where I buy stuff. That way, the terminals are supervised and I'm in a bright, well lit area when I get my cash.
I have also heard that the fees are lower for debit card transactions than for credit card type transactions. I feel like I'm giving the place of purchase a break when I do this.
I've been doing this for years and have never had a problem with it. I also have a separate account where the majority of the funds are kept so I can't be completely cleaned out.
Just my $0.02.
I think that Google, with a bank full of money to pay lawyers, would have checked with counsel to figure this out.
As you say, the only thing that the release of VP8 might do is make it harder for patent holders to collect licenses. To my mind, this draws attention to "what was Google thinking?" Considering the very deep pockets of Google, Google has to have consulted legal counsel regarding this release. They had to have weighed their exposure to lawsuits over the release of this codec. And surely, they have cleared the title to ensure that there are no patents or other encumbrances that could vitiate their action.
One other element sitting in the sidelines is the current and pending Bilski decisions. Google is demonstrating an awful lot of confidence in their release that others will be precluded from initiating patent infringement suits based on previous and the potential outcome of the Bilski cases (among many others, but this being the current focus of patent law).
I also agree with your comments on the role of FOSS. FOSS seems more like a source of inspiration rather than a threat.
I applaud Google for helping to set a foundation for free and open video codecs. I hope this works out for everyone, too. Google seems to be inspired by FOSS.
Microsoft tried to do the same thing with IE6. Look where that got them.
Perhaps it would then follow that customer ignorance of how a supplier makes its money is a requirement in capitalism. If every business relies upon lies of omission in order to generate a profit, then I think the problem is much bigger than the question of whether or not the market is really free.
The question then becomes whether or not the customer is informed enough to make a profitable decision. To put this in perspective, the most successful businesses employ many years of experience focusing on suppliers. Their collective intelligence about their suppliers create downward pressure on pricing since they know more about a supplier than any single individual could.
To me, the cell phone bill is a perfect example of how customer ignorance works to the benefit of the service provider.
Ok, I'm not a web developer, but I follow the news and try things out on my browser, like the acid3 tests. I don't know the difference between the various markup languages. What I do know is that I want a consistent experience across the web. To help this along, I try to use a browser that supports open standards so that web developers get the feedback from my browser.
When I read a well reasoned debate, even on Slashdot (and it does happen), it's encouraging. I would much prefer that to the drama of a flame war. This comment is not just directed to TheRaven64, but to everyone who can participate in the discussion with reasoning, facts and references.
Since I can't know everything about web design, I try to use discussions like this as a chance to become better informed.
Thank you.
That would put Alex Brown right up there with Miguel de Icaza. Now they are both Microsoft Developer Tools.
Yes, you're right about that. I think of the "news hole" when I read the paper, even on the web. I figured a simple registration would be enough.
Thanks for the enlightenment. I wasn't even thinking about the customer data.
one thing I've never understood: if the newspapers wanted us to pay, would be they willing to provide advertising free news in exchange for paid access? I don't think so.
"Idiot" seems rather harsh. Maybe we could be nicer by designating him as a Microsoft development tool.
I think he means, "Send a memo to Mark Shuttleworth," but I could be wrong.
Amiga.
Great sig. Mind if I use it somewhere else?
You can find it here:
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/USLsettlement.pdf
Enjoy.
Last time I checked, Google was promoting open standards. Chrome scores rather nicely on the Acid3 test as an example. Chrome on Linux: 100. Even on Windows Chrome scores 93. IE on Windows: 12.
That's the biggest difference between the two to me.
Ah, you've seen the Road to Serfdom.
That's probably all anyone can say at this point.
I thought it was a great ad because of the way the ad illustrated the simplicity of using Google. I still remember the last line about the crib.
I'm an American and a few years ago, I went to Vietnam to visit with family (someone married Vietnamese in the family). While I was there, I saw something really interesting in terms of a cultural bias. The Vietnamese have a very strong tendency to favor cooperation over competition. That's the duopoly. The last I heard, their economy was growing at 8% a year.
The Japanese also demonstrated this with their desire to build one of the fastest, if not *the* fastest internet infrastructures in the world. The goal became a matter of national pride more than how a few executives could figure out how to line their pockets and still deliver lousy service while derailing every other effort to improve matters for consumers.
The Vietnamese and the Japanese are essentially descendants of the Chinese so they would share the same cultural value of favoring cooperation over competition. They have demonstrated this value over and over again with their resilience through wars, economic strife and growing pains.
In America, the profit motive seems to have priority over all other concerns in business. The profit motive overrules the desire to cooperate hands down, every time, at the firm level, and often within the firm. This behavior stems primarily from the desire to avoid shareholder lawsuits over share value in publicly held companies. Another motivating factor, in my opinion, is that executives who have so much money that they never have to work again start to see economics as a game of monopoly. Instead of being satisfied, they strive to get more and more. The result is that there is less and less for the rest of us to earn. Which brings "the rest of us" to the point that we can't even buy the stuff we make here, and we're getting to the point where we can't even buy the stuff "the captains of industry" want us to import from China.
Competition is not a sin. It's a part of life. But competition taken to it's logical conclusion is the decline of America. Until we get it that we're a team together and that there are bigger problems to solve than how to dominate a market, we're going to face a serious decline in our standard of living relative to other nations.
To put this post in context, check out this video to see what I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YExl9ojclo
In Microsoft's fantasy world, everyone uses Windows, Microsoft development tools and there is no competition. What could they do to regain my respect? Stop lying about their competition (especially Linux), drop their patents and lawsuit threats, embrace and support open standards without extending them with proprietary lock-in. Put customers first before the egos of executives and shareholders. Quit trying to embrace, extend and extinguish FOSS.
Oh, and they could try making better software instead of spin.
I know. They have a business model they are trying to support, and shareholders to satisfy. But their all-encompassing, over-arching, take-no-prisoners attitude has gotta go.