If you want to avoid looking like a complete idiot, learn what words means before calling someone else a dumbass.
Revenue is the amount of money flowing INTO a company. Cost is the amount of money flowing OUT of a company. Profit is the difference between revenue and cost.
Changing cost DOES NOT AFFECT REVENUE, it affects PROFIT.
Haha! That is a good one. So this tiny percentage of people who can't influence the device manufacturers are going to have a significant impact on the USED market? Seriously? And how many people care about the resale value of a relatively cheap item anyway?
Yes, the market can do whatever it wants. But please, don't try to claim that the people commenting on this article are supporting 'the market'. The number of people who will put an OS other than the one it came with on any device (computer, tablet, phone, embedded devices) is vanishingly small. There is zero market for devices that let you do that. I don't see much acceptance of that on here.
The market can reject it, true. The market should reject it? Why? If the vast majority of users don't care in the slightest about booting an alternate OS, why should they reject something on the basis that they can't boot an alternate OS? The market will reject it? No way.
The people on here are not rallying in support of the market, they are complaining because the market has eliminated a choice they prefer. So instead, they use phrases like "hardware manufacturers should be required to ship machines with no keys installed" and "anyone who owns a machine should be able to install whatever OS they want". That does not sound like the market talking to me.
Why, exactly, do you expect the "vast majority of ARM devices will be locked to Windows only"? There are millions of ARM devices in use today, with the Windows marketshare being approx 0%. Do you expect Apple and all the Android device makers to just give up and switch to Windows-only? The idea is ludicrous. The only way that would happen is if Microsoft produces such a superior product that people simply stop buying Apple and Android. Do you forsee that happening?
Anyone who OWNS the machine should be able to install AND BOOT any OS they want.
This is just plain false. Anyone who OWNS a machine should be able to use that machine as the manufacturer sold it. Period. If you buy a machine that says it is Linux compatible, then you should be able to boot Linux. If you buy a machine that says it is OS agnostic, then you should be able to boot any OS you want. If you buy a machine that says it runs Windows 8, then you should be able to run Windows 8.
Nobody is required to produce a product to your liking, ever.
Nobody is stopping you from doing whatever you want with your device that you own. Hack it up, replace the UEFI, overclock it, replace the processor, throw it in the river, do whatever you want. It's your device. But NOBODY is required to make it EASY for you to modify the device to your liking, or to make it easy for you to use the device in a manner other than as sold.
But there's the thing. This does not affect devices you now own in any way, shape, or form. This affects devices you may own in the future.
So you are saying it is a matter of produce what you want. What is being produced (in the future) is Windows tablets. Why should they be expected to do anything other than run Windows? They are advertised as Windows tablets, they are sold as Windows tablets, and that is what you get - a Windows tablet. Just because it is made of components that could be doing something else doesn't mean that the manufacturer has to make it easy (or even possible) for you to do something else. The steel in the hammer I have could just have easily been forged into a socket wrench, but I don't complain that my hammer does not function as a socket wrench. If you want to hack up your Windows tablet to make it do something else, go for it - nobody is stopping you. But they don't have to make it easy.
If you want to run Android, buy an Android tablet. If you want to run Windows, buy a Windows tablet. If you want to run anything you feel like, buy a general purpose tablet. But complaining that your Windows tablet doesn't run Android is just stupid.
Absolutely, why not? Nobody is required to produce something just because you want it. No doubt some people would find it very interesting to be able to modify how the processor in their computer works (change the pipelining, add scalar processors, etc). Does that mean that processor manufacturers should be 'required' to only build processors out of discrete components? Is it OK for them to make it harder for people to modify the processor by using chips?
I see you didn't answer the 'why we should care' question. Don't you also give up those freedoms by borrowing a book from a library or friend?
If you are going to say 'but you paid for the book', so what? We pay for lots and lots of things that aren't permanent. If you go to a concert, show, or movie, you pay and don't have anything permanent. Same with eating. Why do books have some sort of special status that means we are 'ignorant masses' if we don't recognize the need for those 'freedoms'?
On the other hand, I think I gain a few freedoms with ebooks, but I don't consider people to be 'ignorant' if they don't agree with my choices. For instance:
Freedom to purchase and begin reading a book at any time Freedom to not have to find somewhere to keep the book (either while reading or when done with it) Freedom to not have to find a way to dispose of the book when I am done with it Freedom to carry all my books with me when I am going somewhere Freedom to not cause damage to the environment every time I buy a book (making/recycling paper, printing, transportation are not exactly environmentally friendly processes)
The "went flying" and "ripped off" stories are independent of each other. Whatever the reason (went flying, wouldn't sign an NDA, etc) IBM and Kildall did not make a deal (although Kildall claimed he met with IBM, IBM says he didn't). There is no indication Gates had anything to do with that.
When IBM and Kildall didn't make a deal, IBM went to Gates for an OS. Gates bought QDOS from SCP and turned it into MS-DOS.
Kildall later claimed that QDOS (which was written by SCP, not Gates) was a ripoff of CP/M.
IBM offered CP/M as an OS on the PC, but nobody bought it.
How the hell did Gates know EXACTLY how much DOS was going to be worth? That is one incredibly stupid statement. The value of DOS is determined by how many copies were sold, and NOBODY knew how many that was going to be. IBM was entering an existing market, and that market was not exactly huge. Prior to the introduction of the PC there had been about 1.8M personal computers sold, mostly by Apple, Atari, and Radio Shack. And the PC was not exactly cheap, it cost over $3K with monitor, etc (at the time a TRS-80 was going for about $600). In the course of the next decade, about 48M PC-type machines were sold.
So for me to believe that Gates knew EXACTLY how much DOS was worth, you are going to have to convince me that Gates not only forsaw the success of the IBM PC, but also the entire clone market (that would up selling many more PCs than IBM did). No way.
For the same reason that IBM used another company's processor, off-the-shelf components, and didn't protect any of their stuff. They did not expect it to be successful.
Again, Gary Kildall was approached by IBM BEFORE GATES WAS. He just couldn't be bothered to show up.
More important, Gates did not have any dealings with Kildall. Gates bought qdos from SCP.
Next, if this was such an awful deal for SCP, why did they make it? Did they think Gates was just dangling this money in front of them for fun? Or were they being greedy, thinking about how much money they were about to make selling a worthless OS to this dope?
Last, what do you think Gates and SCP should have done? SCP was not exactly holding the crown jewels, they had a tiny OS that Gates could have simply rewritten if the terms were not what Gates wanted. Nobody, including Gates and IBM, had any idea of how big DOS was going to become. IBM thought so little of the potential of the PC that they spent almost nothing on it, protected none of it, and outsourced the software to an unknown. Not exactly the actions of someone who expects the market for that product to be huge.
Ever hear of the stock market crash? That is why the rules are there. Without inside trading laws, as soon as the 'insiders' (which are generally high-level executives, not regular employees) realize that things are going badly (which they will always know before the public does) they can dump all their stock, making the price plummet, and the outsiders lose their shirts.
The major flaw with your premise (and your little story) is that you are looking at it in hindsight. In your story, Depp KNOWS that books are valuable and that he is ripping the families off. THAT is what people boo at. Gates, at the time, did NOT know how much DOS was going to be worth. Kildall thought so little of the value of the PC that he couldn't even be bothered to attend a meeting with IBM. IBM thought so little of the value of the PC that they spent almost nothing developing it, and didn't protect any of it. In fact, they thought so little of it that the left the software up to an outsider!
So what did Gates do that was so awful? He was tasked with getting an OS for the PC. He could have spent a few months writing one, but instead he paid a decent sum for one already written. If he had written his own, would that have made SCP any better off?
I really don't see what 'unethical' thing Gates did. The real mistake was SCP selling their IP, instead of licensing it. A mistake which Gates was sure to not repeat.
That is not an 'entirely legal' fashion. It is the classic definition of a 'trust', and is why we have anti-trust regulations.
None of what you wrote has anything to do with what Gates did. He offered a price, and it was accepted. There were no underhanded dealings going on. He didn't have a trust. He (Gates) could have just as easily walked away from the deal altogether.
Insider trading isn't "considered" illegal, it IS illegal - there is a law against it. It is illegal because that is the rule for being a publicly traded corporation - everyone gets info affecting the price of the stock at the same time. If that were not the case, people inside the company could profit at the expense of the other shareholders.
None of that has anything to do with private dealings. In fact, it is likely that Gates was under an NDA and could not say anything about the IBM deal, as IBM had not yet announced the PC. Divulging the IBM deal could not only have insider information ramifications, but remember that at the time IBM was under a consent decree that prohibited them from 'pre-announcing' anything.
The people of the United States, as embodied in the federal government. One owner. You, as an individual, do not own the Washington Monument or any part of it.
Who is this "everyone" that is "surprised" that you only license Windows? Even with FOSS, you only have a license - you do not "own" the code. There can be only one owner of a thing, and in the case of Windows, that owner is Microsoft.
Wrong. The rule is that you can install an antenna in an area that you have exclusive use of. In other words, a lease. Similarly, in the airport case the airport can't ban devices in an area that you have leased, because that area is for your exclusive use. None of that applies to attendees at an Olympic venue.
I intentionally chose the giant antenna because it illustrates the point: either access to the airwaves trumps property rights, or it does not. If you can not interfere with my usage of the airwaves on your property then it does not matter whether I need a giant antenna or I have a pin-sized transmitter - you can't interfere.
Of course, that is not the case. Access to the airwaves does not trump property rights, and you can ask me to both not erect a giant antenna and not use my pin-sized device.
IF the AP is operating legally within the parameters of the unlicensed band there is nothing they could do about it. Of course, if they are operating legally their range is very limited anyway, and would probably not reach the venue, or would be swamped by the signals in the venue.
No, I am not too lazy to read it, but apparently you are too stupid. The airport thing was a STATE GOVERNMENT trying to enact a rule regulating spectrum use. States do not have the authority to do that, hence why the article is talking about jurisdiction. Furthermore, the airlines in question were leaseholders in the airport, and their leases had no such restrictions on WiFi use. Being a leaseholder means that the space is theirs to do with as they please, within the boundaries of the lease.
The airport was not trying to control devices (which they can't do because of the leases), they were trying to regulate spectrum (which they have no authority to do).
This is not the same thing at all. This is a private entity saying 'here are the rules for you being on my property as a guest'. There are no leases. The FCC does NOT trump your property rights.
US spectrum rules say that you can't interfere with transmissions (ie no signal jamming). They don't say anything implying that you are allowed to operate a device on someone else's private property. I doubt that rules anywhere else are much different from that. You wouldn't think it legal for a HAM operator to erect some giant antenna in the venue just because he has a license to use spectrum, would you?
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to avoid looking like a complete idiot, learn what words means before calling someone else a dumbass.
Revenue is the amount of money flowing INTO a company.
Cost is the amount of money flowing OUT of a company.
Profit is the difference between revenue and cost.
Changing cost DOES NOT AFFECT REVENUE, it affects PROFIT.
Dumbass
Haha! That is a good one. So this tiny percentage of people who can't influence the device manufacturers are going to have a significant impact on the USED market? Seriously? And how many people care about the resale value of a relatively cheap item anyway?
Yes, the market can do whatever it wants. But please, don't try to claim that the people commenting on this article are supporting 'the market'. The number of people who will put an OS other than the one it came with on any device (computer, tablet, phone, embedded devices) is vanishingly small. There is zero market for devices that let you do that. I don't see much acceptance of that on here.
The market can reject it, true. The market should reject it? Why? If the vast majority of users don't care in the slightest about booting an alternate OS, why should they reject something on the basis that they can't boot an alternate OS? The market will reject it? No way.
The people on here are not rallying in support of the market, they are complaining because the market has eliminated a choice they prefer. So instead, they use phrases like "hardware manufacturers should be required to ship machines with no keys installed" and "anyone who owns a machine should be able to install whatever OS they want". That does not sound like the market talking to me.
Why, exactly, do you expect the "vast majority of ARM devices will be locked to Windows only"? There are millions of ARM devices in use today, with the Windows marketshare being approx 0%. Do you expect Apple and all the Android device makers to just give up and switch to Windows-only? The idea is ludicrous. The only way that would happen is if Microsoft produces such a superior product that people simply stop buying Apple and Android. Do you forsee that happening?
Anyone who OWNS the machine should be able to install AND BOOT any OS they want.
This is just plain false. Anyone who OWNS a machine should be able to use that machine as the manufacturer sold it. Period. If you buy a machine that says it is Linux compatible, then you should be able to boot Linux. If you buy a machine that says it is OS agnostic, then you should be able to boot any OS you want. If you buy a machine that says it runs Windows 8, then you should be able to run Windows 8.
Nobody is required to produce a product to your liking, ever.
Nobody is stopping you from doing whatever you want with your device that you own. Hack it up, replace the UEFI, overclock it, replace the processor, throw it in the river, do whatever you want. It's your device. But NOBODY is required to make it EASY for you to modify the device to your liking, or to make it easy for you to use the device in a manner other than as sold.
But there's the thing. This does not affect devices you now own in any way, shape, or form. This affects devices you may own in the future.
So you are saying it is a matter of produce what you want. What is being produced (in the future) is Windows tablets. Why should they be expected to do anything other than run Windows? They are advertised as Windows tablets, they are sold as Windows tablets, and that is what you get - a Windows tablet. Just because it is made of components that could be doing something else doesn't mean that the manufacturer has to make it easy (or even possible) for you to do something else. The steel in the hammer I have could just have easily been forged into a socket wrench, but I don't complain that my hammer does not function as a socket wrench. If you want to hack up your Windows tablet to make it do something else, go for it - nobody is stopping you. But they don't have to make it easy.
If you want to run Android, buy an Android tablet. If you want to run Windows, buy a Windows tablet. If you want to run anything you feel like, buy a general purpose tablet. But complaining that your Windows tablet doesn't run Android is just stupid.
Absolutely, why not? Nobody is required to produce something just because you want it. No doubt some people would find it very interesting to be able to modify how the processor in their computer works (change the pipelining, add scalar processors, etc). Does that mean that processor manufacturers should be 'required' to only build processors out of discrete components? Is it OK for them to make it harder for people to modify the processor by using chips?
I see you didn't answer the 'why we should care' question. Don't you also give up those freedoms by borrowing a book from a library or friend?
If you are going to say 'but you paid for the book', so what? We pay for lots and lots of things that aren't permanent. If you go to a concert, show, or movie, you pay and don't have anything permanent. Same with eating. Why do books have some sort of special status that means we are 'ignorant masses' if we don't recognize the need for those 'freedoms'?
On the other hand, I think I gain a few freedoms with ebooks, but I don't consider people to be 'ignorant' if they don't agree with my choices. For instance:
Freedom to purchase and begin reading a book at any time
Freedom to not have to find somewhere to keep the book (either while reading or when done with it)
Freedom to not have to find a way to dispose of the book when I am done with it
Freedom to carry all my books with me when I am going somewhere
Freedom to not cause damage to the environment every time I buy a book (making/recycling paper, printing, transportation are not exactly environmentally friendly processes)
The "went flying" and "ripped off" stories are independent of each other. Whatever the reason (went flying, wouldn't sign an NDA, etc) IBM and Kildall did not make a deal (although Kildall claimed he met with IBM, IBM says he didn't). There is no indication Gates had anything to do with that.
When IBM and Kildall didn't make a deal, IBM went to Gates for an OS. Gates bought QDOS from SCP and turned it into MS-DOS.
Kildall later claimed that QDOS (which was written by SCP, not Gates) was a ripoff of CP/M.
IBM offered CP/M as an OS on the PC, but nobody bought it.
How the hell did Gates know EXACTLY how much DOS was going to be worth? That is one incredibly stupid statement. The value of DOS is determined by how many copies were sold, and NOBODY knew how many that was going to be. IBM was entering an existing market, and that market was not exactly huge. Prior to the introduction of the PC there had been about 1.8M personal computers sold, mostly by Apple, Atari, and Radio Shack. And the PC was not exactly cheap, it cost over $3K with monitor, etc (at the time a TRS-80 was going for about $600). In the course of the next decade, about 48M PC-type machines were sold.
So for me to believe that Gates knew EXACTLY how much DOS was worth, you are going to have to convince me that Gates not only forsaw the success of the IBM PC, but also the entire clone market (that would up selling many more PCs than IBM did). No way.
For the same reason that IBM used another company's processor, off-the-shelf components, and didn't protect any of their stuff. They did not expect it to be successful.
Claiming 'corruption' is just idiotic.
Again, Gary Kildall was approached by IBM BEFORE GATES WAS. He just couldn't be bothered to show up.
More important, Gates did not have any dealings with Kildall. Gates bought qdos from SCP.
Next, if this was such an awful deal for SCP, why did they make it? Did they think Gates was just dangling this money in front of them for fun? Or were they being greedy, thinking about how much money they were about to make selling a worthless OS to this dope?
Last, what do you think Gates and SCP should have done? SCP was not exactly holding the crown jewels, they had a tiny OS that Gates could have simply rewritten if the terms were not what Gates wanted. Nobody, including Gates and IBM, had any idea of how big DOS was going to become. IBM thought so little of the potential of the PC that they spent almost nothing on it, protected none of it, and outsourced the software to an unknown. Not exactly the actions of someone who expects the market for that product to be huge.
Ever hear of the stock market crash? That is why the rules are there. Without inside trading laws, as soon as the 'insiders' (which are generally high-level executives, not regular employees) realize that things are going badly (which they will always know before the public does) they can dump all their stock, making the price plummet, and the outsiders lose their shirts.
The major flaw with your premise (and your little story) is that you are looking at it in hindsight. In your story, Depp KNOWS that books are valuable and that he is ripping the families off. THAT is what people boo at. Gates, at the time, did NOT know how much DOS was going to be worth. Kildall thought so little of the value of the PC that he couldn't even be bothered to attend a meeting with IBM. IBM thought so little of the value of the PC that they spent almost nothing developing it, and didn't protect any of it. In fact, they thought so little of it that the left the software up to an outsider!
So what did Gates do that was so awful? He was tasked with getting an OS for the PC. He could have spent a few months writing one, but instead he paid a decent sum for one already written. If he had written his own, would that have made SCP any better off?
I really don't see what 'unethical' thing Gates did. The real mistake was SCP selling their IP, instead of licensing it. A mistake which Gates was sure to not repeat.
That is not an 'entirely legal' fashion. It is the classic definition of a 'trust', and is why we have anti-trust regulations.
None of what you wrote has anything to do with what Gates did. He offered a price, and it was accepted. There were no underhanded dealings going on. He didn't have a trust. He (Gates) could have just as easily walked away from the deal altogether.
Insider trading isn't "considered" illegal, it IS illegal - there is a law against it. It is illegal because that is the rule for being a publicly traded corporation - everyone gets info affecting the price of the stock at the same time. If that were not the case, people inside the company could profit at the expense of the other shareholders.
None of that has anything to do with private dealings. In fact, it is likely that Gates was under an NDA and could not say anything about the IBM deal, as IBM had not yet announced the PC. Divulging the IBM deal could not only have insider information ramifications, but remember that at the time IBM was under a consent decree that prohibited them from 'pre-announcing' anything.
The people of the United States, as embodied in the federal government. One owner. You, as an individual, do not own the Washington Monument or any part of it.
Who is this "everyone" that is "surprised" that you only license Windows? Even with FOSS, you only have a license - you do not "own" the code. There can be only one owner of a thing, and in the case of Windows, that owner is Microsoft.
Well, do enlighten all us poor slobs as to what these precious freedoms are that we are giving up, and why we should care about them.
Wrong. The rule is that you can install an antenna in an area that you have exclusive use of. In other words, a lease. Similarly, in the airport case the airport can't ban devices in an area that you have leased, because that area is for your exclusive use. None of that applies to attendees at an Olympic venue.
Correct, and that is exactly what is happening.
I intentionally chose the giant antenna because it illustrates the point: either access to the airwaves trumps property rights, or it does not. If you can not interfere with my usage of the airwaves on your property then it does not matter whether I need a giant antenna or I have a pin-sized transmitter - you can't interfere.
Of course, that is not the case. Access to the airwaves does not trump property rights, and you can ask me to both not erect a giant antenna and not use my pin-sized device.
IF the AP is operating legally within the parameters of the unlicensed band there is nothing they could do about it. Of course, if they are operating legally their range is very limited anyway, and would probably not reach the venue, or would be swamped by the signals in the venue.
No, I am not too lazy to read it, but apparently you are too stupid. The airport thing was a STATE GOVERNMENT trying to enact a rule regulating spectrum use. States do not have the authority to do that, hence why the article is talking about jurisdiction. Furthermore, the airlines in question were leaseholders in the airport, and their leases had no such restrictions on WiFi use. Being a leaseholder means that the space is theirs to do with as they please, within the boundaries of the lease.
The airport was not trying to control devices (which they can't do because of the leases), they were trying to regulate spectrum (which they have no authority to do).
This is not the same thing at all. This is a private entity saying 'here are the rules for you being on my property as a guest'. There are no leases. The FCC does NOT trump your property rights.
US spectrum rules say that you can't interfere with transmissions (ie no signal jamming). They don't say anything implying that you are allowed to operate a device on someone else's private property. I doubt that rules anywhere else are much different from that. You wouldn't think it legal for a HAM operator to erect some giant antenna in the venue just because he has a license to use spectrum, would you?
Wifi interference is not prohibited, operating Wifi devices on their private property is. Two completely different things.