Yeah everyone in those countries are backwards and living in grass huts.:P
There are a lot more computers in those areas than people think. Sure some of them may be second hand and running a pirated copy of Windows or Linux so they're of no use to the likes of Microsoft.
Not that it matters much as a lot of the people that don't have computers probably don't because their priorities are different. Most people find clean water and food to be more desirable than a computer.
Until those things are sorted out there isn't much point in trying to get everyone in Africa online.
Actually that's a myth that came about purely because Sega's 16-bit era marketing which was admittedly cooler in most instances and Nintendo opting Mortal Kombat.
No serious gamer wouldn't have had a NES or a SNES nor was there anything particularly kiddy about the Gameboy. Until the PSX you could only play FF and Dragon Warrior games on a Nintendo system. In fact the Genesis didn't really have many decent exclusives. THe only it was really known for is being the system to have for sports because of the likes of Joe Montanna football. Other than that the SNES consistently beat it in having superior variety and games. Considering the NES era and the portable gaming market neither the NES or Gameboy could be the kiddy system...they were the only systems.
Nintendo has always catered to everyone and for some reason that is seen as a bad thing to some. The Nintendo DS does have some really poor casual games but then it has advance wars, ninja gaiden, Contra 4, Metal Slug, etc.
The N64 and GC only looked kiddy because of bad moves with proprietary formats making it less attractive to develop for them. Nintendo generally makes games for everyone so 14 year old boys can't prove they're men by talking about Mario 64. But even on those systems we had games like Blast Corps which is anything but kiddy.
Had the Wii allowed companies to port the likes of GTA4 to their system then developers would but it is a little risky when you have to create virtually everything from scratch to cater to the low-specs of the Wii.
As a result developers are just going to rip-off what Nintendo is doing, do it with less quality and enthusiasm and fail big time on the Wii.
If Nintendo maintains the same popularity they have now with a system with comparable specs to the competition then they can easily drawn in more hardcore gamers.
In fact the Nintendo DS is the system of choice for both casual and hardcore gamers because it has something for everyone unlike the PSP which is on life support.
It would be cool to have something like demolition man where the car fills with foam. I'm not sure if it would work in real life but someone should try it.
Department stores (and maybe even Wal-Marts) used to have suggestion boxes. As did many restaurants or often you'd get questionnaire cards with a purchase which often asked for suggestions on how they can improve. I suspect a lot of places still do this.
Google at least lays out all the terms and let you decide what to do. Most other suggestion methods say nothing and if they use your idea you don't even get a "shout out" so all Google has done was take an old idea and made it more open. If you don't like it keep your idea, implement it and patent it yourself. It's not rocket science.
I suspect most of the people moaning about this don't have an idea worth patenting otherwise they'd be doing that instead of sitting here and crying about Google wanting to eat their soul.
This is nothing new. It's essentially a suggestion box which companies have been using for ages. None of them ever paid you for your ideas.
Secondly you don't what they'll actually do to compensate you. My guess is they would do more than you think but saying so ensure you'll get every moron and their family suggesting anything and everything and it will turn into a legal mess.
It's same reason developers won't take unsolicited ideas from people. Most good ideas will be thought up by more than one person. So if Google were to pay for ideas and Person A gets picked but Person B gave a very similar suggestion then he'll get pissed off and want his compensation.
Or, you suggest something which, it just happens that Google has been working on for 6 months already. They don't give you the money because it's already 80% done. They release it you get hacked off and sue them.
As it is if they forget to give a shout out to someone with a similar suggestion what's the worse that happens, they list their name too?
You can almost certainly guarantee that if you really do have a load of good ideas they'll want to do something to make sure they stay with them and no other company and you could end up with a job there or something.
But the odds are still likely that most suggestions will have been suggested by hundreds, if not thousands of others so it becomes more of a voting system on what people want rather than you giving them the holy grail of internet business.
Can we quit getting links to site that give you like 3 lines of text per page? Despite having broadband it still take longer to load the damn thing than to read it so I won't. Let them get their ad hits from someone else.
Netscape 4 wasn't perfect but I think people are forgetting that IE 3 was complete and utter shit in comparison. So of course IE4 looked like a huge jump up.
You're right about the entertainment division. The 360 isn't even the market leader. The Wii is beating them hands down in every market. I know a lot of "real" gamers like to pretend Nintendo doesn't exist but they do and they've beaten everyone.
MS launched the 360 on an old business model that did usually had the first console to launch being the winner. Why did things going this way? Because console systems aren't that different and will sell roughly the same numbers so being out 6 months to a year will give you the lead. You'll probably get to drop your price first to sell a few more and it snow balls from there.
The downside to that model is that it is too easy to lose that position. MS isn't guaranteed to have their second place position next year. They only recently just made a profit from the 360 but between the exceptionally shit build quality of the 360 and their Zune failure, I think they'll have to work harder to prove they don't make total crap in the next generation.
If anything, if Nintendo decides to go after hardcore gamers too with their next system they'll wipe MS off the map.
You're right not all of their software is buggy. Some of it is just designed around keeping people stupid so they can't easily move onto other products. Like their point & click programming software.
From the client POV is has definitely improved in the latest version. Maybe administering it is a pain (I don't know as I don't admin Notes) but as a user it's definitely a huge improvement and worthy competition.
We bought into Sharepoint too. It's been installed sometime ago but no one really uses it because it's shit. Most people I know that have interacted with Sharepoint will say the same thing.
I'm sure they're getting a lot of new installs but it'd be interesting to know how many people actually keep it.
But as you've mentioned the only reason for those installs is purely a cost issue. MS can't compete in terms of quality. They know everyone is going to use their OS so give away server stuff for free along with the OS and you win.
I'm not sure I'd trust their server software even if they give me a licence for it. Everything I've ever heard from MS marketing tells me that free or cheaper software is actually more expensive than I would realise. So they can stick their CALs up their back side.:P
I think it's more the point that there is little growth left without MS completely killing off everyone else.
This isn't the 80's. Everyone has a computer now and the vast majority run Windows and if they have productivity software it's probably Office.
Sure they can grow on the server side but I certainly don't see people converting from cheaper open source software to more expensive, less freedom Microsoft software in this current economic climate. Unless of course MS drops their price but then, as an investment, they're not growing by slashing prices.
Yeah and if people didn't have Windows workstations I'm sure they would still want Exchange and SQL Server.
Just purely based on costs those two things would start looking really expensive when everything is open source and even potentially free depending on whether they want support or not.
Because an open source non-standard can easily become one.
In the case of OGG files. It isn't a standard but that's purely because no one wants to add it to their portable MP3 player or MS won't add it to Windows by default.
But let's say OGG becomes really popular tomorrow. Anyone can add OGG support to their hardware or software virtually over night.
Yeah it's so evil that they list all their supported browsers and might link to only two of them from the message but link to all of them from their help section.
The MS fanboys must be chucking chairs like crazy over the fact their favourite companies stinks and people are realizing this.
It would be interesting to see the actual message(I don't have IE6) but I suspect it's not as bad as some people think. MS fanboys are just gagging for Google to be as corrupt as their favourite company.
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest threat facing the internet in 2009 is pointless scaremongering laid out on more pages than it should be to get more ad revenue.
I'll enquire before hand.
Yeah everyone in those countries are backwards and living in grass huts. :P
There are a lot more computers in those areas than people think. Sure some of them may be second hand and running a pirated copy of Windows or Linux so they're of no use to the likes of Microsoft.
Not that it matters much as a lot of the people that don't have computers probably don't because their priorities are different. Most people find clean water and food to be more desirable than a computer.
Until those things are sorted out there isn't much point in trying to get everyone in Africa online.
Actually that's a myth that came about purely because Sega's 16-bit era marketing which was admittedly cooler in most instances and Nintendo opting Mortal Kombat.
No serious gamer wouldn't have had a NES or a SNES nor was there anything particularly kiddy about the Gameboy. Until the PSX you could only play FF and Dragon Warrior games on a Nintendo system. In fact the Genesis didn't really have many decent exclusives. THe only it was really known for is being the system to have for sports because of the likes of Joe Montanna football. Other than that the SNES consistently beat it in having superior variety and games. Considering the NES era and the portable gaming market neither the NES or Gameboy could be the kiddy system...they were the only systems.
Nintendo has always catered to everyone and for some reason that is seen as a bad thing to some. The Nintendo DS does have some really poor casual games but then it has advance wars, ninja gaiden, Contra 4, Metal Slug, etc.
The N64 and GC only looked kiddy because of bad moves with proprietary formats making it less attractive to develop for them. Nintendo generally makes games for everyone so 14 year old boys can't prove they're men by talking about Mario 64. But even on those systems we had games like Blast Corps which is anything but kiddy.
Had the Wii allowed companies to port the likes of GTA4 to their system then developers would but it is a little risky when you have to create virtually everything from scratch to cater to the low-specs of the Wii.
As a result developers are just going to rip-off what Nintendo is doing, do it with less quality and enthusiasm and fail big time on the Wii.
If Nintendo maintains the same popularity they have now with a system with comparable specs to the competition then they can easily drawn in more hardcore gamers.
In fact the Nintendo DS is the system of choice for both casual and hardcore gamers because it has something for everyone unlike the PSP which is on life support.
Well luckily anyone with a good idea should have the intelligence to decide whether they agree to the terms or not before submitting it.
It would be cool to have something like demolition man where the car fills with foam. I'm not sure if it would work in real life but someone should try it.
Department stores (and maybe even Wal-Marts) used to have suggestion boxes. As did many restaurants or often you'd get questionnaire cards with a purchase which often asked for suggestions on how they can improve. I suspect a lot of places still do this.
Google at least lays out all the terms and let you decide what to do. Most other suggestion methods say nothing and if they use your idea you don't even get a "shout out" so all Google has done was take an old idea and made it more open. If you don't like it keep your idea, implement it and patent it yourself. It's not rocket science.
I suspect most of the people moaning about this don't have an idea worth patenting otherwise they'd be doing that instead of sitting here and crying about Google wanting to eat their soul.
And when 2,000 other people suggest the same thing then why do you deserve the copyright and patent?
This is nothing new. It's essentially a suggestion box which companies have been using for ages. None of them ever paid you for your ideas.
Secondly you don't what they'll actually do to compensate you. My guess is they would do more than you think but saying so ensure you'll get every moron and their family suggesting anything and everything and it will turn into a legal mess.
It's same reason developers won't take unsolicited ideas from people. Most good ideas will be thought up by more than one person. So if Google were to pay for ideas and Person A gets picked but Person B gave a very similar suggestion then he'll get pissed off and want his compensation.
Or, you suggest something which, it just happens that Google has been working on for 6 months already. They don't give you the money because it's already 80% done. They release it you get hacked off and sue them.
As it is if they forget to give a shout out to someone with a similar suggestion what's the worse that happens, they list their name too?
You can almost certainly guarantee that if you really do have a load of good ideas they'll want to do something to make sure they stay with them and no other company and you could end up with a job there or something.
But the odds are still likely that most suggestions will have been suggested by hundreds, if not thousands of others so it becomes more of a voting system on what people want rather than you giving them the holy grail of internet business.
I think if you were able to block the Redmond area from posting on Slashdot then they would disappear.
Can we quit getting links to site that give you like 3 lines of text per page? Despite having broadband it still take longer to load the damn thing than to read it so I won't. Let them get their ad hits from someone else.
Netscape 4 wasn't perfect but I think people are forgetting that IE 3 was complete and utter shit in comparison. So of course IE4 looked like a huge jump up.
You're right about the entertainment division. The 360 isn't even the market leader. The Wii is beating them hands down in every market. I know a lot of "real" gamers like to pretend Nintendo doesn't exist but they do and they've beaten everyone.
MS launched the 360 on an old business model that did usually had the first console to launch being the winner. Why did things going this way? Because console systems aren't that different and will sell roughly the same numbers so being out 6 months to a year will give you the lead. You'll probably get to drop your price first to sell a few more and it snow balls from there.
The downside to that model is that it is too easy to lose that position. MS isn't guaranteed to have their second place position next year. They only recently just made a profit from the 360 but between the exceptionally shit build quality of the 360 and their Zune failure, I think they'll have to work harder to prove they don't make total crap in the next generation.
If anything, if Nintendo decides to go after hardcore gamers too with their next system they'll wipe MS off the map.
You're right not all of their software is buggy. Some of it is just designed around keeping people stupid so they can't easily move onto other products. Like their point & click programming software.
From the client POV is has definitely improved in the latest version. Maybe administering it is a pain (I don't know as I don't admin Notes) but as a user it's definitely a huge improvement and worthy competition.
We bought into Sharepoint too. It's been installed sometime ago but no one really uses it because it's shit. Most people I know that have interacted with Sharepoint will say the same thing.
:P
I'm sure they're getting a lot of new installs but it'd be interesting to know how many people actually keep it.
But as you've mentioned the only reason for those installs is purely a cost issue. MS can't compete in terms of quality. They know everyone is going to use their OS so give away server stuff for free along with the OS and you win.
I'm not sure I'd trust their server software even if they give me a licence for it. Everything I've ever heard from MS marketing tells me that free or cheaper software is actually more expensive than I would realise. So they can stick their CALs up their back side.
I think it's more the point that there is little growth left without MS completely killing off everyone else.
This isn't the 80's. Everyone has a computer now and the vast majority run Windows and if they have productivity software it's probably Office.
Sure they can grow on the server side but I certainly don't see people converting from cheaper open source software to more expensive, less freedom Microsoft software in this current economic climate. Unless of course MS drops their price but then, as an investment, they're not growing by slashing prices.
I'm ignoring all the top 5 insurance companies now just to make sure I avoid your company.
Yeah and if people didn't have Windows workstations I'm sure they would still want Exchange and SQL Server.
Just purely based on costs those two things would start looking really expensive when everything is open source and even potentially free depending on whether they want support or not.
Because an open source non-standard can easily become one.
In the case of OGG files. It isn't a standard but that's purely because no one wants to add it to their portable MP3 player or MS won't add it to Windows by default.
But let's say OGG becomes really popular tomorrow. Anyone can add OGG support to their hardware or software virtually over night.
So says the person posting an exceptionally lame response as an anonymous coward.
Non-standard as in being open source and using the same rendering engine as Konquer and Safari?
Yeah it's so evil that they list all their supported browsers and might link to only two of them from the message but link to all of them from their help section.
The MS fanboys must be chucking chairs like crazy over the fact their favourite companies stinks and people are realizing this.
It offers links to Chrome and FF but lists IE7 and Safari as supported. In fact the only one they don't mention is Opera.
However in the Gmail help section they provide links to all their supported browsers (including IE7): http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=6557
It would be interesting to see the actual message(I don't have IE6) but I suspect it's not as bad as some people think. MS fanboys are just gagging for Google to be as corrupt as their favourite company.
Yeah it has nothing to do with the fact all web developers hate IE6 because it's horribly broken and should have died ages ago.