So how is a B&W and Colour licence different than a low bandwidth and high bandwidth tv licence option?
That's the thing, I'm not saying it should cost the same but I don't want my broadband to like cable TV. I should pay one fee and have the ability to access anything. The only extra cost should come form the site rather than my ISP.
His time will come up eventually. They're just like any other large organisation and people can go unnoticed and other people get an exceptional amount of harassment. Just like we kept getting letters threatening the previous owner of the house despite being told that he doesn't live there and we have our licence.
Maybe they'll end up watching it. If the BBC just does what's popular then it's just doing what the other channels do so there is no real benefit to paying the TV licence on top of your cable or satellite charges.
The lack of ads alone doesn't make up for forcing everyone to pay for the licence.
They probably will never disappear forever. It would be silly to think that. But I think it's also silly to think they'll be number one forever.
It's rare that a company remains on top in their field especially in technology so they could very well end up like Apple. Maybe they'll end up a bit better than apple. Maybe someone will come to their senses and discover a way to easily create software that runs on any platform and then the market will be divided purely based on which ever OS people like the most.
I think the only thing that is certain is that they won't retain their monopoly position. Whether or not it's because a government steps in. I think it's more likely that MS will shoot themselves in the foot.
While at the same time it prepares peoplef or cable tv-like internet service and internet freedom dies.
If iPlayer requires more money to cover everything then they should have to do it through the licence and justify the increase. This isn't that different from the case of B&W and colour TVs. One gives you a better picture and you pay more for it through the licence if you want and it covers the BBC content only rather than making it easier for ISPs to convert the web into a very costly and limited network of packages.
You need to have a TV licence if you watching live TV on the PC as well. So then you'd have to prove you don't watch Prime Minister's questions, BBC news, football, etc.
It's also implied the iPlayer may show live content at some point as well. They know full well PCs are goinjg to become a major part of watching TV and they won't let that licence money disappear.
I suspect even now you'd get harassed and made to prove you never watch live broadcasts online if you opted not to pay the licence and got rid of your TV.
Let me get this right. I pay my TV licence which is supposed to give me access to the BBC's content but they now feel I should pay out extra for something I've already paid for?
I've used iPlayer like 3 times in my life. I shouldn't have to pay anything extra for it and certainly not £10 per month for something I rarely use. It'd be more cost effective to buy the content in DVD format.
If the BBC can't afford to do something with the licence fee then don't do it.
But on the other hand if your monopoly is based upon tying the IT illiterate into your system then they are going to expect their stuff to run.
Sure they could upgrade everything (printers, old software, etc) and it probably will run fine but maybe they should tell users what the real cost of upgrading to Vista will be.
I'm all for making people upgrade (getting rid of IE6 forever would be great) but you do have to make them aware of that and don't be surprised if most of them don't want to spend additional hundreds of dollars to get what they have no in XP but with a different GUI.
Star Office came with my EEE and as far as I'm concerned, there is no difference between the two other than the splash screen and some things like that. Perhaps there are other changes that I'm not aware of but I don't think most people would find a difference.
MS can compete in a free market if they compete fairly. Locking people's data into your own proprietary formats is not competing fairly in a free market.
When there is a monopoly there is always some alternative. For instance when Nintendo was done for their gaming monopoly in the NES days they weren't the only console.
However they had done things to make it nearly impossible for anyone to compete on a level playing ground and that is what MS is doing.
Where the next biggest alternative exists (Apple) MS has stuck their oar in to try and dominate the browser and office productivity on that system. So even when the average person does leave Windows they're still stuck with MS.
The JVM still has to work with the OS to make things work so things are different between the the JVMs and performance can vary depending on how the underlying OS deals with certain things.
My point is that Sun wants to push OpenSolaris into the desktop market to expand its user base.
Sure the server market still important to them and just as they don't want to lose the high-end user either. But I think you will see more of a push for consumer desktop usage from Sun in the future. If you look at the following link you can see what they're working on for OpenSolaris' dekstop and I wouldn't have thought Compiz would be a must have for CAD users.
Sun wants OpenSolaris to expand into the desktop market and perhaps they paid Toshiba enough and or Toshiba trusts Sun to support the OS more than other companies.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't think there were many people on Linux that are still using IE6. :P
You're right which is why it's good that someone is trying to force these idiots to upgrade to a real browser.
Do they need a link? All they have to do is click on Windows Update in their start menu.
Every time someone types Micro$oft some where out there a fat man throws a chair.
I'd rather have good products than having to send all my products back to a company no matter how good the support.
So how is a B&W and Colour licence different than a low bandwidth and high bandwidth tv licence option?
That's the thing, I'm not saying it should cost the same but I don't want my broadband to like cable TV. I should pay one fee and have the ability to access anything. The only extra cost should come form the site rather than my ISP.
It used to be the case that you would need to pay for a radio. Then they made it TV only. I suspect it will be PC only in the future.
You're right the BBC should know and that's why I've stated that you do need a TV licence to watch live broadcasts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5081350.stm
His time will come up eventually. They're just like any other large organisation and people can go unnoticed and other people get an exceptional amount of harassment. Just like we kept getting letters threatening the previous owner of the house despite being told that he doesn't live there and we have our licence.
Maybe they'll end up watching it. If the BBC just does what's popular then it's just doing what the other channels do so there is no real benefit to paying the TV licence on top of your cable or satellite charges.
The lack of ads alone doesn't make up for forcing everyone to pay for the licence.
They probably will never disappear forever. It would be silly to think that. But I think it's also silly to think they'll be number one forever.
It's rare that a company remains on top in their field especially in technology so they could very well end up like Apple. Maybe they'll end up a bit better than apple. Maybe someone will come to their senses and discover a way to easily create software that runs on any platform and then the market will be divided purely based on which ever OS people like the most.
I think the only thing that is certain is that they won't retain their monopoly position. Whether or not it's because a government steps in. I think it's more likely that MS will shoot themselves in the foot.
While at the same time it prepares peoplef or cable tv-like internet service and internet freedom dies.
If iPlayer requires more money to cover everything then they should have to do it through the licence and justify the increase. This isn't that different from the case of B&W and colour TVs. One gives you a better picture and you pay more for it through the licence if you want and it covers the BBC content only rather than making it easier for ISPs to convert the web into a very costly and limited network of packages.
You need to have a TV licence if you watching live TV on the PC as well. So then you'd have to prove you don't watch Prime Minister's questions, BBC news, football, etc.
It's also implied the iPlayer may show live content at some point as well. They know full well PCs are goinjg to become a major part of watching TV and they won't let that licence money disappear.
I suspect even now you'd get harassed and made to prove you never watch live broadcasts online if you opted not to pay the licence and got rid of your TV.
Let me get this right. I pay my TV licence which is supposed to give me access to the BBC's content but they now feel I should pay out extra for something I've already paid for?
I've used iPlayer like 3 times in my life. I shouldn't have to pay anything extra for it and certainly not £10 per month for something I rarely use. It'd be more cost effective to buy the content in DVD format.
If the BBC can't afford to do something with the licence fee then don't do it.
I would disagree with that. Win2k is really nice but I wouldn't have said Win2k vs Win XP Pro will result in a long list of differences.
The fact is they are nearly the same OS.
But on the other hand if your monopoly is based upon tying the IT illiterate into your system then they are going to expect their stuff to run.
Sure they could upgrade everything (printers, old software, etc) and it probably will run fine but maybe they should tell users what the real cost of upgrading to Vista will be.
I'm all for making people upgrade (getting rid of IE6 forever would be great) but you do have to make them aware of that and don't be surprised if most of them don't want to spend additional hundreds of dollars to get what they have no in XP but with a different GUI.
What good is that when a lot of people now have rubbish video cards that share system memory?
Star Office came with my EEE and as far as I'm concerned, there is no difference between the two other than the splash screen and some things like that. Perhaps there are other changes that I'm not aware of but I don't think most people would find a difference.
True because, luckily, no one liked it.
MS can compete in a free market if they compete fairly. Locking people's data into your own proprietary formats is not competing fairly in a free market.
When there is a monopoly there is always some alternative. For instance when Nintendo was done for their gaming monopoly in the NES days they weren't the only console.
However they had done things to make it nearly impossible for anyone to compete on a level playing ground and that is what MS is doing.
Where the next biggest alternative exists (Apple) MS has stuck their oar in to try and dominate the browser and office productivity on that system. So even when the average person does leave Windows they're still stuck with MS.
I was unfortunate enough to use it from its launch at my previous job. It was buggy and ugly.
Now it's not as buggy but it still looks like OSX's ugly kid sister.
I'm glad you posted this because I'm outta toilet paper and needed something to wipe with.
The JVM still has to work with the OS to make things work so things are different between the the JVMs and performance can vary depending on how the underlying OS deals with certain things.
My point is that Sun wants to push OpenSolaris into the desktop market to expand its user base.
Sure the server market still important to them and just as they don't want to lose the high-end user either. But I think you will see more of a push for consumer desktop usage from Sun in the future. If you look at the following link you can see what they're working on for OpenSolaris' dekstop and I wouldn't have thought Compiz would be a must have for CAD users.
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/desktop/
Sun wants OpenSolaris to expand into the desktop market and perhaps they paid Toshiba enough and or Toshiba trusts Sun to support the OS more than other companies.