Microsoft can't convince people to buy the newer versions of their software and are forced to keep the old ones going, this wouldn't have happened without a serious threat to their customers; ie Linux. Linux still has a tiny percentage of the market right now but the momentum is growing by the week and more and more regular people are seeing there IS a way to use a PC without Windows or a designer Mac.
One of the differences between closed and open source software is obvious here and should be a sales pitch for FOSS in it's own right.
With closed source, only the software developers can update it, fix it, add features etc so if they choose not to (or are not able to due to bankruptcy) the product dies, regardless of how many customers use it. It can also be cut off for commercial reasons, like a new version on sale and the company wanting even more money from their customers, regardless of the customers need for the new version.
By contrast, open sourced applications live on while there are people willing to use it and develop for it. If Windows XP was open source Microsoft would REALLY be struggling as the people hooked on Windows WANT XP. They don't want the newer versions Vista & Win7. They are paying a premium to avoid Vista. They are flooding online forums and blogs telling Microsoft they don't want Vista. They are demanding to be able to buy a new PC with XP installed, not Vista. If XP was open source it would NOT die, regardless of Microsoft's commercial intentions. Then again, if XP was open source it'd be a much better product in the first place.
With closed source applications, they can be bought (slandered or sued into bankruptcy) by competitors and closed down. As several super-corps have done over the years, when you can't compete on merit, crush or buy the competition (and their market share). An open source application can be bought and closed down, but that only affects the brand name / trademark. It will be forked by the developers / users who want it to remain open source. It will live under a different brand name, most of the developers and users will switch and the buyout will only have caused a temporary blip in the market at a huge cost. This is one of the reasons why Microsoft foam at the mouth trying to stop the concept of "open source" (specially GPL which explicitly insists on sharing the improved code) from taking off in people's minds.
It's a sad state of affairs when you have to resort to pulling the old product off the shelves, refusing your customers the product they want to buy, because you need to force them to buy the new product you want to sell them. If that's not bad enough, some people genuinely still respect Microsoft's policy of contempt for their customers. Many Microsoft apologists are paid shills, but many more have genuinely swallowed the pill, in spite of all the evidence.
I would be surprised if pressure / threats behind the scenes is not a HUGE factor in which stores offer Linux on anything, let alone netbooks (which it's ideally suited to) as an option alongside the current Microsoft malware magnet OS.
The ".....recommends Windows" you see everywhere is a joke. In the UK, Tesco (mostly a food supermarket) sells a small range of PC's and accessories. In the guide section for people who know nothing, they mention in the OS part "the most popular is Windows Vista" yet their entire range is ALL Windows Vista. How the hell can it not be the most popular with them? It's like having the canned soup section ONLY have Heinz, then claim that Heinz is their most popular canned soup. WTF???
I used to get dabs.com emails and brochures but got sick of the "dabs recommends Windows Vista" with not a single promo for a Linux PC / netbook. Even when it is an option, they still punt the Windows one; so I canceled the emails and brochures. Fuck them.
As much as I distrust Google, at least they show "sponsored results" and mark it as sponsored, so you KNOW someone has paid for that spot. This does not apply elsewhere though. The only reasons retailers recommend Windows is that Microsoft give them some financial benefit to push it there, buying the endorsement and they have lot's of up-selling with security software to prevent it being hosed as soon as the new PC touches the internet.
Not to mention repairs / re installations / malware cleaning can all be good earners outside of the 1st year warranty. If the customer decides that his 2 year old PC is wasted because it's so infested and he don't know it can be cleaned, he'll just assume he has to buy a new one.....so the cycle begins again.
Since./ users like car analogies, here's one:
If a manufacturer makes a car which is very reliable, needs minor servicing and fuel efficient, not to mention cheap to buy but perhaps takes some time to adjust to little quirks it will benefit the customer, but not the retailers. The customer will buy once, then own it for many years, with little need to spend on repairs and spend longer between refueling.
If on the other hand a manufacturer makes a car which has expensive parts, needs serviced often, gets more unreliable the older it gets, soaks through fuel but has a HUGE marketing campaign behind it and an iron grip on almost every garage to ONLY sell that brand exclusively, it's bad for the customer but good for the retailers as the customer will have to return again and again for repairs, retuning, refueling etc. If it's destroyed in a few years, they will need another new car. All of this revenue stream is opened up if the product is badly made.
It's astonishing how many people don't notice the fact that PC stores tout (the current) Windows as a great OS, very popular, safe etc on one hand, then on the other mention "don't forget to buy security software". If Windows was as good as they claim, it wouldn't need all that 3rd party security stuff.
Did you refuse to accept the EULA and go through the refund process? If not, it counts as Windows, even if it is Linux. Not unlike Vista with a premium downgrade to XP counts as Vista. Microsoft have a habit of counting stuff like 1st grade maths students. Not just sales.....but also corporate taxes due.
The battles of advertising & greed / annoying customers was always gonna go like this. They need to keep hitting targets, which means more eyeballs. They know that only a small percentage of eyeballs who see the advert actually convert to cash, so they need more eyeballs to be a bigger pool.
That means they are more in-your-face, more determined to ignore your option not to see them. This in turn leads to people like Rick taking a stand which leads to all of us AdBlockPlus users having a better surfing experience.
Advertisers have brought it upon themselves by being aggressively greedy. It's a numbers game which is backfiring to some extent as more people decide that enough is enough and they block all adverts. Unfortunately this greed by the super-corps has hindered the little guys who rely on adverts and use them subtly and responsibly as they are blocked too by users. Then.....since when has any CEO been ousted for considering the little guy? It's all "ME! ME! ME!".
Linux will never be ready for the mainstream
on
Linux Needs Critics
·
· Score: 1
I always feel the need to return to Windows; I NEED my viruses to work damnit. When will the Linux guys get their asses off their sofas and make my viruses work? It's no good pleading with them that only a fully malware compatible OS will ever reach the mainstream, they feel that malware is "bad" for the users so they don't want to go there. How am I expected to pull my weight in the botnet if my PC won't send out it's spam? Don't tell me to RTFM, malware writers ignore the Linux market and are too busy infecting more Windows boxes to care. It's not the malware writers fault that their viruses don't work on Linux. It's all Linux's fault.
Perhaps I should switch to a more malware compatible distro. Novell have risked their business on having more interoperability with Windows, so maybe SLED would be a good option yes?
What about Microsoft & their army of shills?
on
Linux Needs Critics
·
· Score: 1
They seem to spend a lot of time and money criticizing Linux, even though most have no clue as to what it is. Oh hang on, were we talking genuine criticism, not demonizing via misinformation? Somehow I doubt their intentions are to make Linux better....unless their Microsoft sponsored dictionary has "better" defined as "extinct".
Apple have never went after the mainstream market, they market to the designer end; the end with lots of money to burn and a desire to pay through the nose to get the street cred of being part of the in-crowd. The last thing they want is to offer lots of different configurations to customers, keep it simple. They also intentionally stay away from the entry level market as there is less profit per PC there.
As long as the media machine continues to sell the idea that Mac's are special and therefor worth the premium, they will continue to sell. It does help that the build quality of Apple products tends to be very high. Even an Apple hater couldn't handle an Apple product and call it cheap, with clicky buttons or plasticy feeling case. They feel well built, with responsive OS.
Part of what helps Apple is the fact that Linux is almost invisible in retail outlets. People (non-geeks) think there is only 2 options....Windows with more virus compatibility than program compatibility....or Apple. They don't see anything else. If Linux was available alongside Windows in most retail outlets, sales of Apple PC's (yes Apple Macs ARE PC's too, just designer ones) would not be even close to where they are now. Yes some people would still prefer Apple but a large chunk of Apple users choose Apple because it's not Windows, not because it's Apple. They accept that they need to go higher up the price range to escape Windows but living malware free with a PC that's secure and stable is worth the price. They either don't know about Linux, or don't want the hassle of learning to install and use it. A pre-installed Linux option on every PC would affect that number drastically.
It is a very good point about a PC for your needs. Most normal users would be more than fine with an entry level PC but that's not good for companies who need people to buy more and more stuff. I've yet to see ANY salesperson willingly let a customer go because all their stock is overkill for the customers needs. They'd sell them the most expensive stuff they can get away with and to hell with the customers needs. Would an Apple store employee serving a customer with needs suited to an entry level netbook like an EeePC send them to another store or sell them a much more powerful (and expensive) Mac laptop? Would they keep their jobs if they did right by the customer?
As I've stated in other comments in other stories, Apple are all about exclusivity and belonging to an elite club. That rules out pricing for the mainstream, you gotta be willing to pay for the exclusivity. You're not buying a product, you're buying into a lifestyle with all the perceived brand value it has.
When you're talking of anything with that size of budget, you will get a conservative, mainstream product. People will NOT take risks with that amount of cash at stake, they will demand it be put through every marketing filter they have to maximize the income of the final product.
The product will invariably turn out to be the next installment of a tired franchise with very little innovation other than more detailed graphics and an all new multi-player mode, or online play. This will only attract the fans of that franchise who have not figured out the business plan behind their latest hit of their drug. The marketing will gain them a few new users but not that many. Many users will decide that the version they have works fine for them and there's no need to buy the new one yet....until it's reduced in price. It's the safe route which only leads to mediocrity.
A large part of the franchising games issue is licensing fees paid to organizations to use player likenesses. EA have several sports franchises (all of which seemed pretty lame in the game play stakes to me), but for that they have to pay a fortune to the NFL, NBA, FIFA, NHL etc. How much of those game budgets are paid out to just use those stadiums / names / likenesses? How many players have clauses in their contracts which mean THEY get a kick back too?
If your multi-million dollar project has to spend half it's budget on marketing, and another hefty chunk on permission, you have to produce a product with the rest.....it's a business, not an art. Quality does not matter. Players experiences don't matter. As long as enough addicts dutifully queue at games stores to get their latest fix, everything is fine.
Cost of development is an interesting one. Both Microsoft and Sony continued down the path they'd both been on already.....bigger, better, faster etc which not only means more expensive hardware but much longer development cycles for games. Would you accept PS1 visual quality games on the PS2? Or would you demand your PS2 games be visually PS2 quality? One costs a lot more time and money than the other.
Like any product, all your investment means nothing until your product is on sale and you can start to recoup your costs and hopefully turn a profit. If your development cycle takes twice as long as before because gamers demand more photorealism and features, you have to find a lot more money to pay for that with the possibility of only earning the same as before....therefor making a loss which runs onto funding development of your next product.
Nintendo were the only smart party here in spotting an untapped market (people who would never consider playing games). They knew that the point of playing games is to pass the time and have fun. They went for a technically inferior (in terms of stats) console which would be much cheaper to develop for and have a wider audience. They banked on the fact that hardcore gamers would likely buy both an XBOX 360 and a Wii, or a PS3 and a Wii, either way they appealed to more users. Nintendo guessed right and are reaping the rewards.
For those who say the Wii is for non-gamers. When you play a game of any sort, you ARE by definition "a gamer". Splitting hairs seems to be a past-time of the hardcore gamers who judge each other by how many months of their lives they've spent in front of a screen waggling their joystick. They are all about stats, high scores etc. This also applies to the fanboi flame wars over console specs. Yes I was one of those deluded individuals many years ago....I've long since grown up to the point where it does not matter how fast the cpu is, all that matters is the experience playing the game gives you.
Smaller companies can take risks with more innovation. Sometimes it fails, but other times you have a sleeper hit and make a LOT of profits. Like any creative industry, the smaller, more independent you are, the more freedom you have in producing something special but the harder job it'll be to get it noticed by the public as the big companies have the marketing money to outbid you. On the other hand, you need less sales to break even as you've spent less on bringing the product to market.
Does a private house party class as a performance? It seems to be on the number of people listening, and a party of one is not a very big party. If that's the case, how many people do you know have had a party interrupted by some dickhead with a badge demanding money or the music turned off? If not, why not? Is it because the party is private? What if the party is in the garden where neighbours can hear? Is it still classed as private? Is it because it's non-commercial? If so, why are charities not immune from the PRS bullshit? Is a school classed as non-commercial?
Or are they just like any other bullies.....they select their targets on the basis of whether or not their victim will fight back.
It's stories of this sort which makes me root for Google / YouTube to REALLY shaft them on prices. PRS are complaining that they have a gun to their head during negotiations (figuratively speaking) and that Google / YouTube can dictate terms and price, and has the option of complete removal which they've opted for now. Offer them even less per play than PRS walked out on before....fuck them and all their members.
Anyone who promotes their members via affiliates, switch to different non-PRS member content. While technically they may be within the law, this type of bullshit seems like pure greed to me. More examples of this type of ludicrous bullshit can only help seal their fate in the eyes of the general public.
As much as customers buy into the entire designer / cool package Apple offer, the same applies to developers. This means people will put up with shit they wouldn't normally, just to be part of the in-crowd. Apple do need to be careful however; people do have limits.
The more you charge for designer hardware, the less people will buy them, but the more exclusive it'll be seen; which in turn fosters an opinion that your stuff genuinely IS worth the extra cash. People will pay that extra for the status it represents. It also allows you to make a bigger profit on each sale, specially when you control the retail outlets (either directly with your own stores, or indirectly by setting the rules for third party retailers).
The same logic applies to the apps they deign to allow in their store. If it's so hard as a developer to get accepted into the store, the assumption is that the store has a high mark to aim for and the developer in question has done well enough to produce such a high quality app that it's worth the money.
Also bear in mind the mindset of many Apple customers; they WANT to pay for stuff.....even if a similar product can be obtained for free. It helps differentiate them from users of "inferior" platforms.
The less choice you offer, the more exclusive it appears to be. If that means forcing all Apple device developers to use their own store, they control the rules.....who knows, <sarcasm>maybe in a years time the contract will be changed so you have to give Steve a blowjob to get your application even looked at</sarcasm>.
Everything Apple do is about creating a revenue stream they control. I'd love to see an online app store for jailbroken iPhones where Apple's restrictions don't apply. So iPhone users will have a choice of web browser or media player; you know.....the stuff Apple believe shouldn't be a choice for their users.
Years ago you used to be able to switch O2 and Vodaphone sim cards & phones but that no longer exists. There are small independent stores offering unlocked phones, and unlocking services for your existing phones all over the country but every phone is locked from the major retailers.
It's a bit like region coded DVD players, all the major brands and retailers offer only region 2, where small outlets offer multi-region unbranded players.....often cheaper for similar quality and features.
It's been so long since I had a contract phone, and even then I never looked into early cancellation as I knew the fees were steep, so I don't know but I'd have thought that they would cover the minimum cost by making sure there is no way to see the contract out and not pay for the phone.
I have no problem with an option to subsidize the price of the phone over the length of the contract, as long as it's clearly marked as such at the time of sale and listed on the monthly bill. If people want to do that, it's fine. It should NOT be a requirement if you want that particular phone.
Contract or pre-pay, subsidized or bought up front, these are not the problem. Regardless of what option suits the consumers needs, there is no reason to lock the phone to any carrier.
The lock in only helps the carrier as it forces people to stay with them after the minimum contract has expired regardless of the levels of customer service. If they are forced to keep using that carrier, they will likely run up some other chargeable services during their time. To switch carriers, the consumer either pays to get it unlocked, or buys a new phone.
Retailers and carriers do need to be allowed to offer a variety of options to the customer and compete for their business but lock in is inexcusable. They believe that they will lose customers if they don't lock them in but in reality they would gain some as well as lose some if they allowed people to choose.
Mobile phone providers have form on deceptive advertising (in the UK at least) with cash back offers with crazy strict terms that they know only around 20% will ever get to claim. They're not likely to be upfront about subsidizing and consumer freedom unless they're forced by law to do so, with penalties for non-compliance.
Technically "Digital Rights Management" is correct, as it allows the copyright holder the RIGHT to RESTRICT what can or can't be done with the product. It also shows which side of the copyright holder / customer equation it's designed for.
Yes, the cost is subsidized over the length of the contract but that's an excuse for a locked phone, not a reason.
If you sign a contract to pay $40 per month for 2 years and walk away with a free phone, it don't matter if you use it or not, or switch provider or not.....you STILL have to pay the $40 per month you agreed to, with all the usual debt collection / court hassles for defaulting.
If you switch carriers and set up a separate contract with a separate sim card you need to pay for that in ADDITION to the contract you signed. Not only that, but your $40 per month contract would include free minutes / SMS as part of the deal which you wouldn't use. The propaganda they use would have you believe that if you switched the sim card and started using another carrier the contract you signed would be void and they wouldn't get paid. This is bullshit, and they need to be called on it.
The only reasons I can think that you'd want to pay for both at the same time is if you either object morally to the contract company (in this case AT&T, or Apple's iPhone partner in the UK O2) or if you don't get a strong enough reception from them. You may have a long term deal through your employer, or even a number you've been using for a long time that all your contacts know....why should you be forced to change? Yes you can often bring your old number to the new phone but it's not the point.
Locking you in is inexcusable. An unlocked phone would mean they have to actually compete to keep you. The point here is that a locked phone to enforce at least the cost of the phone on a contract is a red herring. It's even more of an insult to have a pre-pay phone locked to a carrier.
Personally I live in an area where O2 is the only constant strong reception, so my carrier is dictated by signal strength. I refuse to buy any locked phone, even if it is locked to O2.
Mobile phones should ALL be unlocked, sold as phones on their own at full price, or with a contract with the provider of your choice, with a selection of deals / prices / free stuff on offer, with an optional cheaper rate per month by buying the phone at the start or a subsidy at a higher rate per month. This is not rocket science.
Of why software patents should never exist. OS's have developed over the years with features being borrowed from each other. The list of screenshots is a great example of that, even for the non-technical viewers. There are a common core group of features all GUI interfaces have implemented, while specific programs or features are unique to a particular OS. Just because an OS uses boxes (windows) with pictures (icons, folders, files etc) does not mean the code or the implementation is the same as another OS's version. To make a GUI OS without that core group of features would be a waste of time, since nobody apart from the developers would use it; people are freaked out enough by a switch between two OS's when they DO have that common core group of features.
I had an Amiga for a couple of years when they were popular. Many of my mates had Amigas then too. None of us used them for anything other than games, so we never seen anything beyond the white screen with the hand holding the floppy disc. I keep hearing about how well regarded the AmigaOS was but have never seen screenshots until this article.
As the recession forces people to tighten their belts and be more cautious about where they spend their money, the effects are not limited to consumers. When revenue streams start to dry up, companies are gonna look at stuff they previously offered free as a place to now charge for the same service. They are gonna look at agreements not to sue as potential shredder food. They are gonna look at how they can exploit the politicians and media they have in their pockets to ensure lock in. They need to find ways to keep their profit levels up, as they are judged by the performances of their predecessors.
Look at how many companies are now turning on the lawsuits since their profit levels are plummeting. They want to force people to pay license fees for stuff they turned a blind eye to for years; whether there's a case or not. At this time, even the threat of a lawsuit can force capitulation as defending it will likely make them bankrupt.
Like anything, some things the public will pay for even if it was previously free of charge, while others they wont. The mobile phone industry has had their heads in the sand over features, with the "build it and they will come" mentality, dreaming of lots of users signing up for subscriptions to all sorts of shit, while the reality is that while some users would use them if free....they won't pay for them. Most people use their phones for calls and SMS messages, even if their phone is stacked with features.
Everyone is fighting for a share of an ever decreasing pot of money. Some have no thoughts beyond their own greed of the lifestyle they've been accustomed to.
They had a long golden age where a LOT of money flowed through the hands (and veins) of a select few. This has set up the expectation that this is the norm, and find a way to blame anything for it no longer being the norm other than the obvious....times have changed. Plenty of people can make a good living from creative arts like music, but the days of earning a lifetime on easy street from a single album are long gone.
In short, expectations have yet to catch up with reality.
Stock, Aitken & Waterman have never been about the music, they have always been a hit making machine. They have one target firmly in their sights, adolescent youths with pocket money to burn who are easily manipulated by crushes and marketing.
It's easy to sell something as "new" if your target age group are unlikely to have the life experience to know it's been done several times before; you only need to look at the amount of covers they do.
They know that age group are always gonna be looking for the next new thing so their "artists" (I use the word VERY loosely in their case) have a shelf life of a few years before they are dropped to fend for themselves or switch careers, with a bit of luck they invested their short term fame and earnings while they had screaming fans mob them.
They know that there's always a new generation of exploitees, as the 10yr olds who spent every penny on one artist have grown older and potentially into better tastes, there are a new group of 10yr olds to be manipulated into falling for the new artist. The same bullshit machine swings into action with every new investment / artist.
It's the proverbial "taking candy from a baby" on an industrial scale. Others do this too, but none quite so blatantly or successfully (in the late 80's anyway).
Aside from that particular example, look at the list of who has signed onto it. All the major names people recognize are those who have made a fortune from their music already. They are either multi-millionaires with several homes / businesses etc and several income streams from their back catalogs being played on TV / radio stations the world over, or they are perceived to be that, where the reality is that they've blown the vast riches they did earn on an excessive lifestyle and have therefor spent their earnings. Either way, the rich gain little sympathy when pleading poverty.
I'd have more sympathy if they really DID fight for the artists, not the top earners, they can look after themselves. If they were a non-profit agency who made sure the little peeps got their fair share, while accepting that things have changed and they need to be realistic. I'd have more sympathy if these asshats didn't try to extort broadcast license payments from workplaces listening to the radio as "more than one person can hear, so it's a broadcast, therefor give us cash".
While this is the only response they offer, I say fuck them.
I understand where these artists are coming from but this is the fallout from a badly balanced system as it was started. Music was well overpriced to begin with, the internet has forced that into a more realistic pricing model and those who benefited from a little-effort-multi-millionaire lifestyle now see their gravy train coming to a crashing stop. It's no wonder they are trying to keep the train moving.
When the record labels, executives, advertisers, promoters etc are making billions from artists and fans it's no wonder the artists want their share of the cash. When both the means to record, release and promote were limited to those with serious money they held all the cards, and so could charge much more than it cost to make and distribute an LP, tape or CD. They also set the rules on what the artists had to give up to get a small slice of the pie. They screwed both ends of the chain and made a fortune off their backs. The internet has bust that gravy train right off the tracks and they just don't see it.
Part of the excuse for high product prices was that it cost so much to make and distribute them. With the internet, people can access the same stuff with little cost.
Part of the excuse for record companies charging for EVERYTHING was that the art of making the music was a skill reserved for specially talented people who needed to spend 6 months in Barbados to "get into the right headspace" to write a 3 minute tune which would gain a high chart position and therefor make them tonnes of cash. This means the artist is treated like some spoiled brat and given whatever they request. Look at the excesses of the large 70's and 80's acts for plenty of examples.
They don't see music as an art, they see spreadsheets with comparisons of chart positions and sales figures.
Part of the excuse is that they play a key role as a gobetween the artist and the fans, in the form of TV appearances, radio appearances, interviews etc.
All of the excuses the recording industry have used over the years to justify their extortionate fees are evaporating as people are bypassing them, legally and illegally. Many artists are choosing to go their own routes, giving them more control and a larger slice of the profits of their work and a direct relationship with their fans.
Costs have come down dramatically and the point of entry is now very low if you want to make music for a living but the days of Elton John or Queen type earnings are long gone, no matter how good you are; the public have changed and the mediums have changed....and won't change back, no matter how much they wish it so.
It's now possible to put a band together with decent quality equipment and record on a simple mixer / PC to get a reasonably professional sound, which coupled with some internet savvy thinking can get you decent earnings.
It's early in the morning and I think I'm starting to ramble so I'll end it there.
This seems to me that it could be a good idea with a few provisos put into the deal.
If for any reason Steam have to pull the plug on the servers permanently, they will supply a patch which removes that feature in the game allowing it to run without access to the servers as they've presumably wound up their business and the customer has already paid them. Somehow I doubt that will be a part of the deal though.
Of course the preferred option would be no DRM at all, but it seems like a compromise that comes closer to being on the consumers side than most I've seen used.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft can't convince people to buy the newer versions of their software and are forced to keep the old ones going, this wouldn't have happened without a serious threat to their customers; ie Linux. Linux still has a tiny percentage of the market right now but the momentum is growing by the week and more and more regular people are seeing there IS a way to use a PC without Windows or a designer Mac.
One of the differences between closed and open source software is obvious here and should be a sales pitch for FOSS in it's own right.
With closed source, only the software developers can update it, fix it, add features etc so if they choose not to (or are not able to due to bankruptcy) the product dies, regardless of how many customers use it. It can also be cut off for commercial reasons, like a new version on sale and the company wanting even more money from their customers, regardless of the customers need for the new version.
By contrast, open sourced applications live on while there are people willing to use it and develop for it. If Windows XP was open source Microsoft would REALLY be struggling as the people hooked on Windows WANT XP. They don't want the newer versions Vista & Win7. They are paying a premium to avoid Vista. They are flooding online forums and blogs telling Microsoft they don't want Vista. They are demanding to be able to buy a new PC with XP installed, not Vista. If XP was open source it would NOT die, regardless of Microsoft's commercial intentions. Then again, if XP was open source it'd be a much better product in the first place.
With closed source applications, they can be bought (slandered or sued into bankruptcy) by competitors and closed down. As several super-corps have done over the years, when you can't compete on merit, crush or buy the competition (and their market share). An open source application can be bought and closed down, but that only affects the brand name / trademark. It will be forked by the developers / users who want it to remain open source. It will live under a different brand name, most of the developers and users will switch and the buyout will only have caused a temporary blip in the market at a huge cost. This is one of the reasons why Microsoft foam at the mouth trying to stop the concept of "open source" (specially GPL which explicitly insists on sharing the improved code) from taking off in people's minds.
It's a sad state of affairs when you have to resort to pulling the old product off the shelves, refusing your customers the product they want to buy, because you need to force them to buy the new product you want to sell them. If that's not bad enough, some people genuinely still respect Microsoft's policy of contempt for their customers. Many Microsoft apologists are paid shills, but many more have genuinely swallowed the pill, in spite of all the evidence.
Well, it was posted on w Windows blog and we all know Microsoft have a special relationship with the truth.
I would be surprised if pressure / threats behind the scenes is not a HUGE factor in which stores offer Linux on anything, let alone netbooks (which it's ideally suited to) as an option alongside the current Microsoft malware magnet OS.
./ users like car analogies, here's one:
The ".....recommends Windows" you see everywhere is a joke. In the UK, Tesco (mostly a food supermarket) sells a small range of PC's and accessories. In the guide section for people who know nothing, they mention in the OS part "the most popular is Windows Vista" yet their entire range is ALL Windows Vista. How the hell can it not be the most popular with them? It's like having the canned soup section ONLY have Heinz, then claim that Heinz is their most popular canned soup. WTF???
I used to get dabs.com emails and brochures but got sick of the "dabs recommends Windows Vista" with not a single promo for a Linux PC / netbook. Even when it is an option, they still punt the Windows one; so I canceled the emails and brochures. Fuck them.
As much as I distrust Google, at least they show "sponsored results" and mark it as sponsored, so you KNOW someone has paid for that spot. This does not apply elsewhere though. The only reasons retailers recommend Windows is that Microsoft give them some financial benefit to push it there, buying the endorsement and they have lot's of up-selling with security software to prevent it being hosed as soon as the new PC touches the internet.
Not to mention repairs / re installations / malware cleaning can all be good earners outside of the 1st year warranty. If the customer decides that his 2 year old PC is wasted because it's so infested and he don't know it can be cleaned, he'll just assume he has to buy a new one.....so the cycle begins again.
Since
If a manufacturer makes a car which is very reliable, needs minor servicing and fuel efficient, not to mention cheap to buy but perhaps takes some time to adjust to little quirks it will benefit the customer, but not the retailers. The customer will buy once, then own it for many years, with little need to spend on repairs and spend longer between refueling.
If on the other hand a manufacturer makes a car which has expensive parts, needs serviced often, gets more unreliable the older it gets, soaks through fuel but has a HUGE marketing campaign behind it and an iron grip on almost every garage to ONLY sell that brand exclusively, it's bad for the customer but good for the retailers as the customer will have to return again and again for repairs, retuning, refueling etc. If it's destroyed in a few years, they will need another new car. All of this revenue stream is opened up if the product is badly made.
It's astonishing how many people don't notice the fact that PC stores tout (the current) Windows as a great OS, very popular, safe etc on one hand, then on the other mention "don't forget to buy security software". If Windows was as good as they claim, it wouldn't need all that 3rd party security stuff.
Did you refuse to accept the EULA and go through the refund process? If not, it counts as Windows, even if it is Linux. Not unlike Vista with a premium downgrade to XP counts as Vista. Microsoft have a habit of counting stuff like 1st grade maths students. Not just sales.....but also corporate taxes due.
The battles of advertising & greed / annoying customers was always gonna go like this. They need to keep hitting targets, which means more eyeballs. They know that only a small percentage of eyeballs who see the advert actually convert to cash, so they need more eyeballs to be a bigger pool.
That means they are more in-your-face, more determined to ignore your option not to see them. This in turn leads to people like Rick taking a stand which leads to all of us AdBlockPlus users having a better surfing experience.
Advertisers have brought it upon themselves by being aggressively greedy. It's a numbers game which is backfiring to some extent as more people decide that enough is enough and they block all adverts. Unfortunately this greed by the super-corps has hindered the little guys who rely on adverts and use them subtly and responsibly as they are blocked too by users. Then.....since when has any CEO been ousted for considering the little guy? It's all "ME! ME! ME!".
I always feel the need to return to Windows; I NEED my viruses to work damnit. When will the Linux guys get their asses off their sofas and make my viruses work? It's no good pleading with them that only a fully malware compatible OS will ever reach the mainstream, they feel that malware is "bad" for the users so they don't want to go there. How am I expected to pull my weight in the botnet if my PC won't send out it's spam? Don't tell me to RTFM, malware writers ignore the Linux market and are too busy infecting more Windows boxes to care. It's not the malware writers fault that their viruses don't work on Linux. It's all Linux's fault.
Perhaps I should switch to a more malware compatible distro. Novell have risked their business on having more interoperability with Windows, so maybe SLED would be a good option yes?
They seem to spend a lot of time and money criticizing Linux, even though most have no clue as to what it is. Oh hang on, were we talking genuine criticism, not demonizing via misinformation? Somehow I doubt their intentions are to make Linux better....unless their Microsoft sponsored dictionary has "better" defined as "extinct".
Apple have never went after the mainstream market, they market to the designer end; the end with lots of money to burn and a desire to pay through the nose to get the street cred of being part of the in-crowd. The last thing they want is to offer lots of different configurations to customers, keep it simple. They also intentionally stay away from the entry level market as there is less profit per PC there.
As long as the media machine continues to sell the idea that Mac's are special and therefor worth the premium, they will continue to sell. It does help that the build quality of Apple products tends to be very high. Even an Apple hater couldn't handle an Apple product and call it cheap, with clicky buttons or plasticy feeling case. They feel well built, with responsive OS.
Part of what helps Apple is the fact that Linux is almost invisible in retail outlets. People (non-geeks) think there is only 2 options....Windows with more virus compatibility than program compatibility....or Apple. They don't see anything else. If Linux was available alongside Windows in most retail outlets, sales of Apple PC's (yes Apple Macs ARE PC's too, just designer ones) would not be even close to where they are now. Yes some people would still prefer Apple but a large chunk of Apple users choose Apple because it's not Windows, not because it's Apple. They accept that they need to go higher up the price range to escape Windows but living malware free with a PC that's secure and stable is worth the price. They either don't know about Linux, or don't want the hassle of learning to install and use it. A pre-installed Linux option on every PC would affect that number drastically.
It is a very good point about a PC for your needs. Most normal users would be more than fine with an entry level PC but that's not good for companies who need people to buy more and more stuff. I've yet to see ANY salesperson willingly let a customer go because all their stock is overkill for the customers needs. They'd sell them the most expensive stuff they can get away with and to hell with the customers needs. Would an Apple store employee serving a customer with needs suited to an entry level netbook like an EeePC send them to another store or sell them a much more powerful (and expensive) Mac laptop? Would they keep their jobs if they did right by the customer?
As I've stated in other comments in other stories, Apple are all about exclusivity and belonging to an elite club. That rules out pricing for the mainstream, you gotta be willing to pay for the exclusivity. You're not buying a product, you're buying into a lifestyle with all the perceived brand value it has.
When you're talking of anything with that size of budget, you will get a conservative, mainstream product. People will NOT take risks with that amount of cash at stake, they will demand it be put through every marketing filter they have to maximize the income of the final product.
The product will invariably turn out to be the next installment of a tired franchise with very little innovation other than more detailed graphics and an all new multi-player mode, or online play. This will only attract the fans of that franchise who have not figured out the business plan behind their latest hit of their drug. The marketing will gain them a few new users but not that many. Many users will decide that the version they have works fine for them and there's no need to buy the new one yet....until it's reduced in price. It's the safe route which only leads to mediocrity.
A large part of the franchising games issue is licensing fees paid to organizations to use player likenesses. EA have several sports franchises (all of which seemed pretty lame in the game play stakes to me), but for that they have to pay a fortune to the NFL, NBA, FIFA, NHL etc. How much of those game budgets are paid out to just use those stadiums / names / likenesses? How many players have clauses in their contracts which mean THEY get a kick back too?
If your multi-million dollar project has to spend half it's budget on marketing, and another hefty chunk on permission, you have to produce a product with the rest.....it's a business, not an art. Quality does not matter. Players experiences don't matter. As long as enough addicts dutifully queue at games stores to get their latest fix, everything is fine.
Cost of development is an interesting one. Both Microsoft and Sony continued down the path they'd both been on already.....bigger, better, faster etc which not only means more expensive hardware but much longer development cycles for games. Would you accept PS1 visual quality games on the PS2? Or would you demand your PS2 games be visually PS2 quality? One costs a lot more time and money than the other.
Like any product, all your investment means nothing until your product is on sale and you can start to recoup your costs and hopefully turn a profit. If your development cycle takes twice as long as before because gamers demand more photorealism and features, you have to find a lot more money to pay for that with the possibility of only earning the same as before....therefor making a loss which runs onto funding development of your next product.
Nintendo were the only smart party here in spotting an untapped market (people who would never consider playing games). They knew that the point of playing games is to pass the time and have fun. They went for a technically inferior (in terms of stats) console which would be much cheaper to develop for and have a wider audience. They banked on the fact that hardcore gamers would likely buy both an XBOX 360 and a Wii, or a PS3 and a Wii, either way they appealed to more users. Nintendo guessed right and are reaping the rewards.
For those who say the Wii is for non-gamers. When you play a game of any sort, you ARE by definition "a gamer". Splitting hairs seems to be a past-time of the hardcore gamers who judge each other by how many months of their lives they've spent in front of a screen waggling their joystick. They are all about stats, high scores etc. This also applies to the fanboi flame wars over console specs. Yes I was one of those deluded individuals many years ago....I've long since grown up to the point where it does not matter how fast the cpu is, all that matters is the experience playing the game gives you.
Smaller companies can take risks with more innovation. Sometimes it fails, but other times you have a sleeper hit and make a LOT of profits. Like any creative industry, the smaller, more independent you are, the more freedom you have in producing something special but the harder job it'll be to get it noticed by the public as the big companies have the marketing money to outbid you. On the other hand, you need less sales to break even as you've spent less on bringing the product to market.
Does a private house party class as a performance? It seems to be on the number of people listening, and a party of one is not a very big party. If that's the case, how many people do you know have had a party interrupted by some dickhead with a badge demanding money or the music turned off? If not, why not? Is it because the party is private? What if the party is in the garden where neighbours can hear? Is it still classed as private? Is it because it's non-commercial? If so, why are charities not immune from the PRS bullshit? Is a school classed as non-commercial?
Or are they just like any other bullies.....they select their targets on the basis of whether or not their victim will fight back.
It's stories of this sort which makes me root for Google / YouTube to REALLY shaft them on prices. PRS are complaining that they have a gun to their head during negotiations (figuratively speaking) and that Google / YouTube can dictate terms and price, and has the option of complete removal which they've opted for now. Offer them even less per play than PRS walked out on before....fuck them and all their members.
Anyone who promotes their members via affiliates, switch to different non-PRS member content. While technically they may be within the law, this type of bullshit seems like pure greed to me. More examples of this type of ludicrous bullshit can only help seal their fate in the eyes of the general public.
Another thought on the exclusivity angle....
As much as customers buy into the entire designer / cool package Apple offer, the same applies to developers. This means people will put up with shit they wouldn't normally, just to be part of the in-crowd. Apple do need to be careful however; people do have limits.
Exclusivity creates profit.
The more you charge for designer hardware, the less people will buy them, but the more exclusive it'll be seen; which in turn fosters an opinion that your stuff genuinely IS worth the extra cash. People will pay that extra for the status it represents. It also allows you to make a bigger profit on each sale, specially when you control the retail outlets (either directly with your own stores, or indirectly by setting the rules for third party retailers).
The same logic applies to the apps they deign to allow in their store. If it's so hard as a developer to get accepted into the store, the assumption is that the store has a high mark to aim for and the developer in question has done well enough to produce such a high quality app that it's worth the money.
Also bear in mind the mindset of many Apple customers; they WANT to pay for stuff.....even if a similar product can be obtained for free. It helps differentiate them from users of "inferior" platforms.
The less choice you offer, the more exclusive it appears to be. If that means forcing all Apple device developers to use their own store, they control the rules.....who knows, <sarcasm>maybe in a years time the contract will be changed so you have to give Steve a blowjob to get your application even looked at</sarcasm>.
Everything Apple do is about creating a revenue stream they control. I'd love to see an online app store for jailbroken iPhones where Apple's restrictions don't apply. So iPhone users will have a choice of web browser or media player; you know.....the stuff Apple believe shouldn't be a choice for their users.
Years ago you used to be able to switch O2 and Vodaphone sim cards & phones but that no longer exists. There are small independent stores offering unlocked phones, and unlocking services for your existing phones all over the country but every phone is locked from the major retailers.
It's a bit like region coded DVD players, all the major brands and retailers offer only region 2, where small outlets offer multi-region unbranded players.....often cheaper for similar quality and features.
It's been so long since I had a contract phone, and even then I never looked into early cancellation as I knew the fees were steep, so I don't know but I'd have thought that they would cover the minimum cost by making sure there is no way to see the contract out and not pay for the phone.
I have no problem with an option to subsidize the price of the phone over the length of the contract, as long as it's clearly marked as such at the time of sale and listed on the monthly bill. If people want to do that, it's fine. It should NOT be a requirement if you want that particular phone.
Contract or pre-pay, subsidized or bought up front, these are not the problem. Regardless of what option suits the consumers needs, there is no reason to lock the phone to any carrier.
The lock in only helps the carrier as it forces people to stay with them after the minimum contract has expired regardless of the levels of customer service. If they are forced to keep using that carrier, they will likely run up some other chargeable services during their time. To switch carriers, the consumer either pays to get it unlocked, or buys a new phone.
Retailers and carriers do need to be allowed to offer a variety of options to the customer and compete for their business but lock in is inexcusable. They believe that they will lose customers if they don't lock them in but in reality they would gain some as well as lose some if they allowed people to choose.
Mobile phone providers have form on deceptive advertising (in the UK at least) with cash back offers with crazy strict terms that they know only around 20% will ever get to claim. They're not likely to be upfront about subsidizing and consumer freedom unless they're forced by law to do so, with penalties for non-compliance.
Technically "Digital Rights Management" is correct, as it allows the copyright holder the RIGHT to RESTRICT what can or can't be done with the product. It also shows which side of the copyright holder / customer equation it's designed for.
Yes, the cost is subsidized over the length of the contract but that's an excuse for a locked phone, not a reason.
If you sign a contract to pay $40 per month for 2 years and walk away with a free phone, it don't matter if you use it or not, or switch provider or not.....you STILL have to pay the $40 per month you agreed to, with all the usual debt collection / court hassles for defaulting.
If you switch carriers and set up a separate contract with a separate sim card you need to pay for that in ADDITION to the contract you signed. Not only that, but your $40 per month contract would include free minutes / SMS as part of the deal which you wouldn't use. The propaganda they use would have you believe that if you switched the sim card and started using another carrier the contract you signed would be void and they wouldn't get paid. This is bullshit, and they need to be called on it.
The only reasons I can think that you'd want to pay for both at the same time is if you either object morally to the contract company (in this case AT&T, or Apple's iPhone partner in the UK O2) or if you don't get a strong enough reception from them. You may have a long term deal through your employer, or even a number you've been using for a long time that all your contacts know....why should you be forced to change? Yes you can often bring your old number to the new phone but it's not the point.
Locking you in is inexcusable. An unlocked phone would mean they have to actually compete to keep you. The point here is that a locked phone to enforce at least the cost of the phone on a contract is a red herring. It's even more of an insult to have a pre-pay phone locked to a carrier.
Personally I live in an area where O2 is the only constant strong reception, so my carrier is dictated by signal strength. I refuse to buy any locked phone, even if it is locked to O2.
Mobile phones should ALL be unlocked, sold as phones on their own at full price, or with a contract with the provider of your choice, with a selection of deals / prices / free stuff on offer, with an optional cheaper rate per month by buying the phone at the start or a subsidy at a higher rate per month. This is not rocket science.
Of why software patents should never exist. OS's have developed over the years with features being borrowed from each other. The list of screenshots is a great example of that, even for the non-technical viewers. There are a common core group of features all GUI interfaces have implemented, while specific programs or features are unique to a particular OS. Just because an OS uses boxes (windows) with pictures (icons, folders, files etc) does not mean the code or the implementation is the same as another OS's version. To make a GUI OS without that core group of features would be a waste of time, since nobody apart from the developers would use it; people are freaked out enough by a switch between two OS's when they DO have that common core group of features.
I had an Amiga for a couple of years when they were popular. Many of my mates had Amigas then too. None of us used them for anything other than games, so we never seen anything beyond the white screen with the hand holding the floppy disc. I keep hearing about how well regarded the AmigaOS was but have never seen screenshots until this article.
As the recession forces people to tighten their belts and be more cautious about where they spend their money, the effects are not limited to consumers. When revenue streams start to dry up, companies are gonna look at stuff they previously offered free as a place to now charge for the same service. They are gonna look at agreements not to sue as potential shredder food. They are gonna look at how they can exploit the politicians and media they have in their pockets to ensure lock in. They need to find ways to keep their profit levels up, as they are judged by the performances of their predecessors.
Look at how many companies are now turning on the lawsuits since their profit levels are plummeting. They want to force people to pay license fees for stuff they turned a blind eye to for years; whether there's a case or not. At this time, even the threat of a lawsuit can force capitulation as defending it will likely make them bankrupt.
Like anything, some things the public will pay for even if it was previously free of charge, while others they wont. The mobile phone industry has had their heads in the sand over features, with the "build it and they will come" mentality, dreaming of lots of users signing up for subscriptions to all sorts of shit, while the reality is that while some users would use them if free....they won't pay for them. Most people use their phones for calls and SMS messages, even if their phone is stacked with features.
Everyone is fighting for a share of an ever decreasing pot of money. Some have no thoughts beyond their own greed of the lifestyle they've been accustomed to.
They had a long golden age where a LOT of money flowed through the hands (and veins) of a select few. This has set up the expectation that this is the norm, and find a way to blame anything for it no longer being the norm other than the obvious....times have changed. Plenty of people can make a good living from creative arts like music, but the days of earning a lifetime on easy street from a single album are long gone.
In short, expectations have yet to catch up with reality.
Stock, Aitken & Waterman have never been about the music, they have always been a hit making machine. They have one target firmly in their sights, adolescent youths with pocket money to burn who are easily manipulated by crushes and marketing.
It's easy to sell something as "new" if your target age group are unlikely to have the life experience to know it's been done several times before; you only need to look at the amount of covers they do.
They know that age group are always gonna be looking for the next new thing so their "artists" (I use the word VERY loosely in their case) have a shelf life of a few years before they are dropped to fend for themselves or switch careers, with a bit of luck they invested their short term fame and earnings while they had screaming fans mob them.
They know that there's always a new generation of exploitees, as the 10yr olds who spent every penny on one artist have grown older and potentially into better tastes, there are a new group of 10yr olds to be manipulated into falling for the new artist. The same bullshit machine swings into action with every new investment / artist.
It's the proverbial "taking candy from a baby" on an industrial scale. Others do this too, but none quite so blatantly or successfully (in the late 80's anyway).
Aside from that particular example, look at the list of who has signed onto it. All the major names people recognize are those who have made a fortune from their music already. They are either multi-millionaires with several homes / businesses etc and several income streams from their back catalogs being played on TV / radio stations the world over, or they are perceived to be that, where the reality is that they've blown the vast riches they did earn on an excessive lifestyle and have therefor spent their earnings. Either way, the rich gain little sympathy when pleading poverty.
I'd have more sympathy if they really DID fight for the artists, not the top earners, they can look after themselves. If they were a non-profit agency who made sure the little peeps got their fair share, while accepting that things have changed and they need to be realistic. I'd have more sympathy if these asshats didn't try to extort broadcast license payments from workplaces listening to the radio as "more than one person can hear, so it's a broadcast, therefor give us cash".
While this is the only response they offer, I say fuck them.
I understand where these artists are coming from but this is the fallout from a badly balanced system as it was started. Music was well overpriced to begin with, the internet has forced that into a more realistic pricing model and those who benefited from a little-effort-multi-millionaire lifestyle now see their gravy train coming to a crashing stop. It's no wonder they are trying to keep the train moving.
When the record labels, executives, advertisers, promoters etc are making billions from artists and fans it's no wonder the artists want their share of the cash. When both the means to record, release and promote were limited to those with serious money they held all the cards, and so could charge much more than it cost to make and distribute an LP, tape or CD. They also set the rules on what the artists had to give up to get a small slice of the pie. They screwed both ends of the chain and made a fortune off their backs. The internet has bust that gravy train right off the tracks and they just don't see it.
Part of the excuse for high product prices was that it cost so much to make and distribute them. With the internet, people can access the same stuff with little cost.
Part of the excuse for record companies charging for EVERYTHING was that the art of making the music was a skill reserved for specially talented people who needed to spend 6 months in Barbados to "get into the right headspace" to write a 3 minute tune which would gain a high chart position and therefor make them tonnes of cash. This means the artist is treated like some spoiled brat and given whatever they request. Look at the excesses of the large 70's and 80's acts for plenty of examples.
They don't see music as an art, they see spreadsheets with comparisons of chart positions and sales figures.
Part of the excuse is that they play a key role as a gobetween the artist and the fans, in the form of TV appearances, radio appearances, interviews etc.
All of the excuses the recording industry have used over the years to justify their extortionate fees are evaporating as people are bypassing them, legally and illegally. Many artists are choosing to go their own routes, giving them more control and a larger slice of the profits of their work and a direct relationship with their fans.
Costs have come down dramatically and the point of entry is now very low if you want to make music for a living but the days of Elton John or Queen type earnings are long gone, no matter how good you are; the public have changed and the mediums have changed....and won't change back, no matter how much they wish it so.
It's now possible to put a band together with decent quality equipment and record on a simple mixer / PC to get a reasonably professional sound, which coupled with some internet savvy thinking can get you decent earnings.
It's early in the morning and I think I'm starting to ramble so I'll end it there.
This seems to me that it could be a good idea with a few provisos put into the deal.
If for any reason Steam have to pull the plug on the servers permanently, they will supply a patch which removes that feature in the game allowing it to run without access to the servers as they've presumably wound up their business and the customer has already paid them. Somehow I doubt that will be a part of the deal though.
Of course the preferred option would be no DRM at all, but it seems like a compromise that comes closer to being on the consumers side than most I've seen used.