Since I don't own a TV, that's one pair of eyeballs that won't be seeing ads. I know quite a few university students ran iCraveTV on their computer while they studied; here in residence, very few watch TV otherwise. So add a few hundred more eyeballs to the list of those that won't be seeing commercials.
Is it very common for people to throw away their high-quality television in favour of an internet stream? I would imagine that people mainly watched iCraveTV at times when they would have been unable to watch TV otherwise. So it's almost a sure bet that the number of hours people spent in front of advertising only increased because of iCraveTV. I'd even wager that this increase was not at the expense of time spent watching regular TV. As for the Superbowl, would you watch it over iCraveTV unless there was no possibility of getting to a regular TV?
If there is any question over the number of people watching the stations, iCraveTV would easily be able to come up with viewership statistics that are more accurate than what normal stations have. Would an ordinary TV station or cable company be willing to stream their content over the internet?
"protection of intellectual property rights in innovations will foster greater competition and innovation." To that end, Amazon.com will certainly continue innovating on behalf of its customers.
It's hard to say they're trying to increase competition. They want competition? If they were really trying to encourage competition, why are they suing their competitors? Or preventing them from adding useful features? (I personally do not find this "1-click" thing to be a big deal, but obviously the number of clicks is not what we are really concerned about.)
What do they mean by "innovating on behalf of [our] customers"? Does the fact that they are suing anyone who uses 1-click purchasing benefit me, the customer? No; it means that every other shopping site will have a more complex ordering processes. If Amazon licences these "technologies" to other companies, it means that prices will go up on every other shopping site.
I suppose the next cheques from AllAdvantage will include a deduction for the "Amazon.com affiliate program licencing tax"
They did it so that all of the Office applications would have the same version number. At the time, they were shipping Office 4.21b, which contained Excel 5.0, Word 6.0a, Access 2.0, and PowerPoint 4.0, or something along those lines. Since they were all supposed to be part of one package, it made much more sense to give them all the same version number, 7.0. And since they were also starting to use the year as the version number (with Windows 95), they decided to call them all 95.
I find it a bit strange that it can be considered anti-competitive to include server features in the operating system. Since Linux includes server software already, it would be stupid of Microsoft not to add these features. Or do they expect Microsoft to bundle Win2K with Netscape's server, and sell their own separately? Also, including servers seems a bit different from including a web browser. One argument against including Internet Explorer in Win95 was that users would be too lazy to download a competing browser. Server administrators likely wouldn't have that problem.
It also seems that Windows 2000 is being marketed as a sort of e-commerce solution for small businesses, so it would be hard to complain that they're sneakily trying to get into that market.
Unfortunately, the article wasn't very clear about what they think Microsoft is doing wrong. (But all I can see are smart business moves.)
The point is not whether it will work, but whether they sell it to you under the assumption that it will work. You may be able to get Microsoft Office to run on Linux, but since Linux support is not guaranteed by Microsoft, you have no right to complain if it doesn't run. Similarly, if your DVD player said "supports Windows 98", you can't accuse the company of lying to you when it won't work under Linux. You can certainly complain, but it's not fraud.
I don't know about you, but my DVD player said it was compatible with Windows 95 right in the sytem requirements box. No mention of Linux there. That's like buying Microsoft Office and complaining when it won't run on Linux.
Negotiating single-source beverage deals is quite common for universities, and even high schools. In Canada, UBC got $10 million from Coke for signing a 10-year deal. A few years ago, my university was negotiating a similar contract, and was expecting figures in the $10 million dollar range. Students often complain that their freedom of choice is being limited... but with so much money involved, universities are eager to sign away freedom of choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Since I don't own a TV, that's one pair of eyeballs that won't be seeing ads. I know quite a few university students ran iCraveTV on their computer while they studied; here in residence, very few watch TV otherwise. So add a few hundred more eyeballs to the list of those that won't be seeing commercials.
Is it very common for people to throw away their high-quality television in favour of an internet stream? I would imagine that people mainly watched iCraveTV at times when they would have been unable to watch TV otherwise. So it's almost a sure bet that the number of hours people spent in front of advertising only increased because of iCraveTV. I'd even wager that this increase was not at the expense of time spent watching regular TV. As for the Superbowl, would you watch it over iCraveTV unless there was no possibility of getting to a regular TV?
If there is any question over the number of people watching the stations, iCraveTV would easily be able to come up with viewership statistics that are more accurate than what normal stations have. Would an ordinary TV station or cable company be willing to stream their content over the internet?
What do they mean by "innovating on behalf of [our] customers"? Does the fact that they are suing anyone who uses 1-click purchasing benefit me, the customer? No; it means that every other shopping site will have a more complex ordering processes. If Amazon licences these "technologies" to other companies, it means that prices will go up on every other shopping site.
I suppose the next cheques from AllAdvantage will include a deduction for the "Amazon.com affiliate program licencing tax"
They did it so that all of the Office applications would have the same version number. At the time, they were shipping Office 4.21b, which contained Excel 5.0, Word 6.0a, Access 2.0, and PowerPoint 4.0, or something along those lines. Since they were all supposed to be part of one package, it made much more sense to give them all the same version number, 7.0. And since they were also starting to use the year as the version number (with Windows 95), they decided to call them all 95.
I find it a bit strange that it can be considered anti-competitive to include server features in the operating system. Since Linux includes server software already, it would be stupid of Microsoft not to add these features. Or do they expect Microsoft to bundle Win2K with Netscape's server, and sell their own separately? Also, including servers seems a bit different from including a web browser. One argument against including Internet Explorer in Win95 was that users would be too lazy to download a competing browser. Server administrators likely wouldn't have that problem.
It also seems that Windows 2000 is being marketed as a sort of e-commerce solution for small businesses, so it would be hard to complain that they're sneakily trying to get into that market.
Unfortunately, the article wasn't very clear about what they think Microsoft is doing wrong. (But all I can see are smart business moves.)
The point is not whether it will work, but whether they sell it to you under the assumption that it will work. You may be able to get Microsoft Office to run on Linux, but since Linux support is not guaranteed by Microsoft, you have no right to complain if it doesn't run. Similarly, if your DVD player said "supports Windows 98", you can't accuse the company of lying to you when it won't work under Linux. You can certainly complain, but it's not fraud.
Negotiating single-source beverage deals is quite common for universities, and even high schools. In Canada, UBC got $10 million from Coke for signing a 10-year deal. A few years ago, my university was negotiating a similar contract, and was expecting figures in the $10 million dollar range. Students often complain that their freedom of choice is being limited... but with so much money involved, universities are eager to sign away freedom of choice.