They should do as many of us do and learn a lesson from Google.
It is a violation of Google's terms of use for you to "screen scrape" search results. You can implement their API using a free key and achieve similar results, however.
Not only are these companies approaching the "problem" from the wrong angle in terms of common sense, they are also taking the most difficult approach. It is practically impossible to seek to outlaw software that fetches Web content, because Web browsers and wget (for example) are the same thing, HTTP clients. The HTTP protocol is an open standard that anyone can implement. If you don't want a valid HTTP client accessing your server, don't make your server an HTTP server.
Stated another way, don't try to take an open standard and restrict everyone else's use of it to suit your own needs. You don't see me (an avid soccer player) trying to get the NBA to change the rules of their game to require use of the feet for ball control. If I want to play basketball, I have to play by the rules, else I am not really playing basketball.
Despite all of the negative comments, I thought this bit of satire was refreshing.
I only wish the article went into a bit more detail about all of the challenges Windows faces on the desktop. In order to be funny, some things were exaggerated too much at the risk of discrediting valid points.
After reading the same types of articles with Linux as the subject matter, I am tired of seeing them all have the slanted perspective of, "Is Linux ready for Windows users?"
Point 10 reminded me of a Gateway advertisement I saw recently for a computer that comes with the Internet:
10. Freedom. You can use the inter net with Windows XP. It's built in.
I have heard this so many times, and it represents a big misunderstanding.
SSL (the idea, not just the certificate) provides assurance of the identity of whom you are doing business with (among other things). If you want to buy something from www.amazon.com, SSL verifies that it is really www.amazon.com that you are dealing with and not someone else.
If www.evilcriminal.com buys an SSL certificate, and you do business with www.evilcriminal.com, why is it the fault of SSL that you chose poorly? This is similar to expecting PGP to verify who your friends are. It is not fault of SSL, nor is it a valid reason as to why SSL certificates should be free, if you choose to do business with an untrustworthy company.
Now, to truly have an open CA (there is a group trying - http://www.openca.org/) for signing SSL certificates would require a few things:
1. The CA would need to enforce the same level of identity verification that professional CAs do. 2. The CA would need to convince major browsers that it is credible enough to have its root certificate trusted by default. This usually requires an extensive (and very expensive) Certification and Accreditation (C&A) process to make sure the CA is up to par. The ones I have been involved with usually require an amazing amount of documentation demonstrating superb security, expert personnel, and reliable systems. 3. The CA would need funding for the resources (both human and otherwise) required to maintain it.
However, it still seems like an open CA like this would be possible. First, a highly-respected group of people from the community would need to head it up. They would need to be just as diligent and professional as the existing CAs. Then, though I doubt they would have the funding to undergo a C&A (much less pass one), perhaps Mozilla could add their root certificate to its trusted certificate store. Everyone else (users of IE, etc.) could manually trust this root certificate. Instructions could be provided on the CA's Web site for doing this.
Sure, many people would still receive warnings, but there are a lot of us who would be willing to do business with a site that is protected with an SSL certificate issued by this open CA. Some sites (www.thinkgeek.com) have an open source savvy target audience, so these types of sites would benefit the most.
As a C programmer myself, I think it is pretty evident that you are not. That's not meant to be offensive, but you should not attempt to speak from inexperience as a general rule. Try to be more open minded, or at least only form an opinion after you have educated yourself on a particular topic.
For example, after your attempt to say that PHP only slightly resembles C, you try to point out weaknesses in PHP by mentioning functions that are direct equivalents of C functions (strlen, strchr, sprintf, etc.). Make up your mind.:-)
Also, since it seems you suggest otherwise, there is a good reason why not every string manipulating function begins with str_. Do you think C should have used str_printf() and str_sprintf()? How about PHP's functions crypt(), echo(), explode(), md5(), trim(), soundex(), etc. Should these all be renamed? Bill Gates may agree with you, but I doubt you will find many open source developers who do.
In case it is helpful, strchr() and split() do not do the same thing. It sounds like you're heading for trouble there.:-)
I guess my point is that your inexperience is not a valid complaint against PHP. Yes, it is not the perfect language, but it happens to work well for a lot of people. If you want to bash it, at least use valid reasons (which there are plenty) such as how mod_php is a content generation module and therefore unable to interact with other request phases within Apache (though I think this is being remedied in the apache_hooks API). Or, point to a benchmark showing how Perl parses large text files 20% faster in some cases. Or, show how Python's OO model is more advanced.
Sorry if this post comes off a bit strong, but I tire of seeing hollow rhetoric.
I think you should use PHP before really forming any opinions. HTML is a markup language, whereas things like PHP and Perl are scripting languages. There is nothing really similar in the least. Perl can output HTML just like PHP can.
I prefer PHP as a scripting language for many tasks, including anything involving database access. People have written complex socket applications in PHP such as HTTP servers and HTTP proxies, simple sysadmin utilities, and everything in between. In fact, many C programmers seem to prefer PHP as a scripting language due to its C-like syntax and clean design.
PHP and Perl are equivalent in my mind in terms of what can be accomplished. If you are comfortable with the syntax of one, there is no pressing need to learn the other. If you need a shell script, PHP and Perl both work. If you are developing for the Web, PHP and mod_perl do the job. PHP is not limited to Apache, however, which is one of the many reasons it has been more widely adopted in the Web development community.
I have found that those who think PHP is only useful for Web application development are the same people who think Perl is only useful for shell scripting. See if the mod_perl community agrees with that.:-)
A Google search on "HTTP" is a pretty decent metric of measuring the most popular Web sites, and Yahoo! is listed first.
So, perhaps Google is indeed the most well-known search engine, but Yahoo! is a more popular Web site overall. I would actually trust Google's assessment over any others.
That book is itself a free software project of sorts.
http://www.faifzilla.org/
Whatever O'Reilly uses to format the content is of little concern to most people I know. I bet someone used Windows during the course of publishing the book as well, but who cares?
> The designers of the program - i.e., usually the > project managers (*ducks*) or system architects > do most of the creative work of conceptualizings > how things will work and how they will meet the > constraints of the particular problem. The > programmers, most of the time, are brick-layers, > carpenters and plumbers.
In an idea environment, I completely agree with you. This type of environment generally requires that the project manager and/or the systems analyst/architect has significant experience in technology. However, even in this idea environment, these "visionaries" will solicit opinions and suggestions from the most experienced programmers (brick-layers).
What I have found in many old businesses is that the management style has not changed at all in recent times. In many cases, the management has absolutely no experience in technology, and those who do are all considered equal, single-tiered so to speak. Thus, the most experienced people are not consulted for design and architecture strategies, and the management feels a need to decide these sort of things as an act of leadership.
The result is that the programmers have to be the creative ones, because the "designs" created by the inexperienced management are incomplete and in many cases useless.
How can you possibly be blaming Slashdot for anything? They simply stated:
weakethics writes "The trial is...."
That's all. Would you rather they misquote weakethics in order to remove any hint of prejudice? Is that objective reporting to you?
I will admit that the editors are not always as objective as they should be, but I don't think you have a case this time. Even "objective" stories on television news stations will quote people who are anything but objective. This is not a new approach. You can blame Slashdot for not offering an opposing opinion, but that's the only argument you have.
*We* submit stories to Slashdot. If you want to blame anyone, blame weakethic for having an opinion.
I doubt anyone will read this now that this story has drifted too far down, but...
I have never understood why these people think advertising on the Web cannot learn anything from television advertising. When you watch an advertisement on television, do they know you did? Furthermore, must you immediately act on that advertisement in order for the station to receive payment?
So far, the only two types of advertising on the Web that have worked for me are:
1. Google's advertising - on-topic and non-obtrusive. 2. Yahoo! Mail's advertising - at least, all of the movie preview ones
With Google, you are in the process of searching for content on the Web, and you can choose an advertiser's link that paid to be listed under search results with at least one of your specific terms.
With Yahoo! Mail, some of their advertising is still annoying, but when > 50% of all ads served one day are for a specific movie, you can bet people hear about it. After all, that's all you need. Do you have to immediately buy a ticket online for Yahoo! to get paid? No. Does a lack of an immediate purchase mean that the advertisement was useless? No.
There is no need to punish consumers just because you lack the intelligence to establish a working business plan. I used Yahoo! Mail for years, and I have recently decided to use it as my primary mail client, paying the $30/year. They provide a useful service, and I don't mind paying for it.
1. Yes, I have played Quake I and II extensively. In fact, much more than Halo, so maybe that is where my prejudice lies. Or, perhaps I am like others and prefer a keyboard for FPS games. I do prefer a console to a computer for video games. That may be due mostly to how my residence is set up, however, because consoles allow me to leave the computer lab and lounge in my living room by the fireplace instead.:-) But yes, I did not find Halo nearly as fun as either of those earlier Quakes, and I expected so much more.
2. That may be true, but like I said in the end of my post, my decision wasn't based entirely on my opinion of the vendor. I was simply defending why it is perfectly acceptable to not want to support Microsoft in this new market. They have a history of sucking the life out of markets, and I would hate to see that happen to video games. As I said, I like them (video games, not Microsoft). The original poster seemed to suggest that it was immature for people to be wary of Microsoft. On the contrary, I think it is acceptable to hate Microsoft, so long as you have a valid reason (the poor quality of Windows, for example, is not a reason to hate them in my opinion). For me to fear Nintendo or Sony would require more knowledge on my part, perhaps, such as specific cases where they have damaged markets as much. For example, if someone could show me how Sony used illegal (or evil, whether legal or not) business practices to eliminate competition in the television market and that TVs now all suck as a result. Or, if someone could show me how Nintendo did the same in the video game market. Perhaps handheld video game systems would be much better if Nintendo didn't dominate? I don't know. I do know quite a bit about Microsoft's history, and so I am not wary of them out of speculation alone. They have earned it.
3. Yes, that may be so. From what little I read through all of the comments, there seem to be far more blindly loyal Microsoft supporters. In fact, some are so ridiculous, I think they must be trolls, idiots, or funded by Microsoft. Of the haters I have seen, most seem to be obvious trolls just joking around, but maybe that is just my perception.
4. Yes, I have heard that the hardware is superior. So what is the problem? Is it too hard to develop for it? Are developers just as wary of Microsoft as consumers are? We should be playing some really cool video games by now that don't just meet our standards (which are based on the "inferior" Gamecube and PS2) but raise our standards. To me, the xbox seems to have an edge in horsepower, but the Gamecube has an edge in elegance of design and being tailored for video games. It reminds me of people comparing a P4 2GHz Pentium with a 1GHz Mac. Graphics professionals still seem to prefer Macs.
I don't think the US has laws exactly like you are talking about, but the recent Microsoft settlement proves that it doesn't matter anyway.
We do have laws protecting against the anti-competitive business practices Microsoft has used over the past 10-15 years, and we let them profit from those practices all of this time anyway. When it finally looked like they would get some punishment (everyone knew it would be much less than what they had gained from their illegal actions), it turned out that nothing happened.
So, we have more problems than just the lack of legal protection, we also lack legal enforcement when it comes to rich corporations.
As for your second question, I don't think Microsoft plans on losing money in their other markets forever. Take MSN as an example. Microsoft sees AOL as a huge opportunity. Imagine if you could try out a new market for several years without having to worry about how much money you spent. It would be nice, right? Well, it also poses a great opportunity to starve out the competition, leaving the market all to yourself in the end. If such illegal business practices work out, you will eventually recover your losses and have a new source of income. I think Microsoft recognizes this opportunity.
[Its is the possessive of it. It's is a contraction for it is.]
I assume you are asserting that Microsoft is not trying to force out competition in any of the markets they are losing so much money in? You see, I think many people will disagree with that notion, and that is probably why you find their overall opinion much different than yours.
You are absolutely correct, given one assumption you are making:
"other parts of your business that they believe are worth investing in and will one day become profitable."
I am reading between the lines here a little and assuming you do not mean "one day [after competition is destroyed] become profitable." You see, that is part of the issue.
In your attempt to defend Microsoft, you have pointed out one of the big issues.
"If MS charges too much, people won't buy the product."
This is absolutely false and is one of the key issues. While it is theoretically true in a free market, the OS market is not so free. Ask an average computer user if they can name an alternative to Windows.
Then, ask those who have heard of an alternative but still use Windows why they use Windows. Divide responses into these two categories:
* I prefer Windows, Windows is better, etc.
* The software I use only works on Windows, it came with the computer, everyone else uses it, etc.
I think you will notice an amazing majority falling into the second category. Do you wonder why that is? Is it because the market has a way of working these things out?
Whether the public thinks the product is worth a certain amount or even willing to pay a particular price is irrelevant.
It is also a fallacy to consider a monopoly necessarily illegal.
Let me make up an example. I think we can all agree that Microsoft is a monopoly. They basically have an enormous and guaranteed flow of cash because of this monopoly.
Now, what if they use the profits gained from this monopoly to open a coffee shop beside every Starbucks in the USA. No problem, right? What if they paid each customer who walked in the door $1.00 as a thanks for visiting? What if they also gave away all of their coffee products for free?
Apparently many readers (or MS astroturfers in disguise) believe that it is perfectly fine to sustain serious losses in a new market in this way. Some even go so far as to claim "this is Economics 101" or some other such rhetoric.
The fact is, Microsoft could afford to starve out Starbucks, using the profits from their monopoly to balance out the severe losses brought about in their attack on Starbucks. They could basically eliminate Starbucks. This is illegal, regardless of what they do with their new monopoly on coffee shops or what they charge for their OS. This seems to be where your confusion lies.
I can tell you a few reasons why I dislike it, though I think hate is too strong a word, because that requires more care than I wish to invest.
1. I have played it extensively. In short, the games are awful compared to what they should be and compared to other current systems. Soul Calibur for the Dreamcast is a much better game than DOA3, which (at least when I played it) was supposed to be the best fighting game released. When better games were released 2-3 years prior, it is hard to be impressed. The same goes for Halo, supposedly the flagship game, which has slightly better graphics than Quake I and II but lacks the gameplay, creativity, or fun of either. And again, those versions of Quake are quite old and run very well on hardware that pales in comparison. Simply put, I would expect more from a gaming console trying to compete with the Gamecube and PS2.
2. It is made by Microsoft. Why in the world should we be expected to forgive and forget with regard to Microsoft's evil business practices? Your comments are ridiculous and suggest that we should just be mindless sheep. You seem to infer that it is closed-minded to not be naive. I'm sorry, but you have visited the wrong forum for that. Most people here tie their shoes by themselves. Look at what Microsoft did to browsers. If you haven't noticed, all browsers have sucked for quite some time. Yes, even Netscape. Not until recently has the market began to heal from the damage done by Microsoft, and it has taken open source to do it (Mozilla, Galeon, etc.). By illegally leveraging their monopoly, they eliminated choice for consumers and eliminated competition for themselves. Without competition, there is less incentive to innovate and strive for perfection. The result was that IE was an awful browser that Web developers have been forced to support. Not only has it lessened the quality of all Web browsers, but it has also mangled standards such as HTML and (to a smaller extent) HTTP. Yes, I will gladly admit that I don't want Microsoft screwing up the gaming industry. I like video games.
3. Mindless Microsoft supporters are annoying. Yes, this means you. With a quick glance through all of the previous posts, it is clear that you are defending Microsoft from comments that were not even made. Everyone seems to either be saying that they enjoy the new offering or are saying it is much cheaper to have a better gaming experience with a PC. I always hear the rhetoric that negative comments are made about Microsoft just because this is Slashdot and everyone hates them without reason. On the contrary, the reason Microsoft gets a negative opinion here is that most readers of Slashdot are independent thinkers. The few that are not seem to be the annoying "if only people were fair and mature" type. Either that, or Microsoft pays to have astroturfing campaigns littering this Web site.
4. There are other lesser reasons. The controllers are awful compared to others (PS2's are much better; Gamecube's are the best), it seems dangerous to spend money on a gaming console that doesn't have the true support of its parent company, and did I mention the games suck?
Also, while I think a Linux-powered equivalent gaming system would be a neat thing, if the gaming experience was identical to what I have experienced with the xbox, I would still not buy it. I personally play a Gamecube, and it is not because I want to support Nintendo. For all I know, Nintendo is probably as evil as Microsoft with less power. Sony may be the same. My choice was based on the fun I could have for $200, and because I prefer to get away from the computer and play on something made specifically for video games.
You know, I always hear the argument that, although Microsoft's products are arguably poor, their superior business practices (whether legal or otherwise) keep them financially on top.
One interesting thing in the article is that several of their divisions (mobile divices, xbox, msn) are consistently losing money.
So, is Microsoft as a company really good at business strategies? It seems to me that the "$3.5 billion profits from its operating system and software divisions in the quarter" are what keeps it afloat. I doubt any other business could fail quite as much as Microsoft and still survive.
Slashdot Mirror
Because goatse.com just doesn't have the same ring to it.
They should do as many of us do and learn a lesson from Google.
It is a violation of Google's terms of use for you to "screen scrape" search results. You can implement their API using a free key and achieve similar results, however.
Not only are these companies approaching the "problem" from the wrong angle in terms of common sense, they are also taking the most difficult approach. It is practically impossible to seek to outlaw software that fetches Web content, because Web browsers and wget (for example) are the same thing, HTTP clients. The HTTP protocol is an open standard that anyone can implement. If you don't want a valid HTTP client accessing your server, don't make your server an HTTP server.
Stated another way, don't try to take an open standard and restrict everyone else's use of it to suit your own needs. You don't see me (an avid soccer player) trying to get the NBA to change the rules of their game to require use of the feet for ball control. If I want to play basketball, I have to play by the rules, else I am not really playing basketball.
Despite all of the negative comments, I thought this bit of satire was refreshing.
I only wish the article went into a bit more detail about all of the challenges Windows faces on the desktop. In order to be funny, some things were exaggerated too much at the risk of discrediting valid points.
After reading the same types of articles with Linux as the subject matter, I am tired of seeing them all have the slanted perspective of, "Is Linux ready for Windows users?"
Point 10 reminded me of a Gateway advertisement I saw recently for a computer that comes with the Internet:
10. Freedom. You can use the inter net with Windows XP. It's built in.
"Nancy Robbins of Macromedia said..."
Where was she from, Macromedia or Macrovision? The question was directed at Macrovision.
A new edition comes out next month that will probably address all of your concerns:
c us trec_gl_acc/002-0167781-3203215
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/067232525X/ref=cm_
I have heard this so many times, and it represents a big misunderstanding.
SSL (the idea, not just the certificate) provides assurance of the identity of whom you are doing business with (among other things). If you want to buy something from www.amazon.com, SSL verifies that it is really www.amazon.com that you are dealing with and not someone else.
If www.evilcriminal.com buys an SSL certificate, and you do business with www.evilcriminal.com, why is it the fault of SSL that you chose poorly? This is similar to expecting PGP to verify who your friends are. It is not fault of SSL, nor is it a valid reason as to why SSL certificates should be free, if you choose to do business with an untrustworthy company.
Now, to truly have an open CA (there is a group trying - http://www.openca.org/) for signing SSL certificates would require a few things:
1. The CA would need to enforce the same level of identity verification that professional CAs do.
2. The CA would need to convince major browsers that it is credible enough to have its root certificate trusted by default. This usually requires an extensive (and very expensive) Certification and Accreditation (C&A) process to make sure the CA is up to par. The ones I have been involved with usually require an amazing amount of documentation demonstrating superb security, expert personnel, and reliable systems.
3. The CA would need funding for the resources (both human and otherwise) required to maintain it.
However, it still seems like an open CA like this would be possible. First, a highly-respected group of people from the community would need to head it up. They would need to be just as diligent and professional as the existing CAs. Then, though I doubt they would have the funding to undergo a C&A (much less pass one), perhaps Mozilla could add their root certificate to its trusted certificate store. Everyone else (users of IE, etc.) could manually trust this root certificate. Instructions could be provided on the CA's Web site for doing this.
Sure, many people would still receive warnings, but there are a lot of us who would be willing to do business with a site that is protected with an SSL certificate issued by this open CA. Some sites (www.thinkgeek.com) have an open source savvy target audience, so these types of sites would benefit the most.
As a C programmer myself, I think it is pretty evident that you are not. That's not meant to be offensive, but you should not attempt to speak from inexperience as a general rule. Try to be more open minded, or at least only form an opinion after you have educated yourself on a particular topic.
:-)
:-)
For example, after your attempt to say that PHP only slightly resembles C, you try to point out weaknesses in PHP by mentioning functions that are direct equivalents of C functions (strlen, strchr, sprintf, etc.). Make up your mind.
Also, since it seems you suggest otherwise, there is a good reason why not every string manipulating function begins with str_. Do you think C should have used str_printf() and str_sprintf()? How about PHP's functions crypt(), echo(), explode(), md5(), trim(), soundex(), etc. Should these all be renamed? Bill Gates may agree with you, but I doubt you will find many open source developers who do.
In case it is helpful, strchr() and split() do not do the same thing. It sounds like you're heading for trouble there.
I guess my point is that your inexperience is not a valid complaint against PHP. Yes, it is not the perfect language, but it happens to work well for a lot of people. If you want to bash it, at least use valid reasons (which there are plenty) such as how mod_php is a content generation module and therefore unable to interact with other request phases within Apache (though I think this is being remedied in the apache_hooks API). Or, point to a benchmark showing how Perl parses large text files 20% faster in some cases. Or, show how Python's OO model is more advanced.
Sorry if this post comes off a bit strong, but I tire of seeing hollow rhetoric.
> PHP isn't really a scripting language in the same
/usr/local/bin/php
> sense that those others are.
Actually, it is.
#!
I think you should use PHP before really forming any opinions. HTML is a markup language, whereas things like PHP and Perl are scripting languages. There is nothing really similar in the least. Perl can output HTML just like PHP can.
:-)
I prefer PHP as a scripting language for many tasks, including anything involving database access. People have written complex socket applications in PHP such as HTTP servers and HTTP proxies, simple sysadmin utilities, and everything in between. In fact, many C programmers seem to prefer PHP as a scripting language due to its C-like syntax and clean design.
PHP and Perl are equivalent in my mind in terms of what can be accomplished. If you are comfortable with the syntax of one, there is no pressing need to learn the other. If you need a shell script, PHP and Perl both work. If you are developing for the Web, PHP and mod_perl do the job. PHP is not limited to Apache, however, which is one of the many reasons it has been more widely adopted in the Web development community.
I have found that those who think PHP is only useful for Web application development are the same people who think Perl is only useful for shell scripting. See if the mod_perl community agrees with that.
A Google search on "HTTP" is a pretty decent metric of measuring the most popular Web sites, and Yahoo! is listed first.
So, perhaps Google is indeed the most well-known search engine, but Yahoo! is a more popular Web site overall. I would actually trust Google's assessment over any others.
"the people who [...] recognize MSFT as evil are probably not gonna be the ones who'll buy the book"
:-)
Good, then the ones who do not recognize Microsoft as evil might buy it, correct?
"My ideal world is one where there is a wide mix of software and sofware licenses in use."
Welcome to your ideal world.
That book is itself a free software project of sorts.
http://www.faifzilla.org/
Whatever O'Reilly uses to format the content is of little concern to most people I know. I bet someone used Windows during the course of publishing the book as well, but who cares?
> The designers of the program - i.e., usually the
> project managers (*ducks*) or system architects
> do most of the creative work of conceptualizings
> how things will work and how they will meet the
> constraints of the particular problem. The
> programmers, most of the time, are brick-layers,
> carpenters and plumbers.
In an idea environment, I completely agree with you. This type of environment generally requires that the project manager and/or the systems analyst/architect has significant experience in technology. However, even in this idea environment, these "visionaries" will solicit opinions and suggestions from the most experienced programmers (brick-layers).
What I have found in many old businesses is that the management style has not changed at all in recent times. In many cases, the management has absolutely no experience in technology, and those who do are all considered equal, single-tiered so to speak. Thus, the most experienced people are not consulted for design and architecture strategies, and the management feels a need to decide these sort of things as an act of leadership.
The result is that the programmers have to be the creative ones, because the "designs" created by the inexperienced management are incomplete and in many cases useless.
How can you possibly be blaming Slashdot for anything? They simply stated:
weakethics writes "The trial is...."
That's all. Would you rather they misquote weakethics in order to remove any hint of prejudice? Is that objective reporting to you?
I will admit that the editors are not always as objective as they should be, but I don't think you have a case this time. Even "objective" stories on television news stations will quote people who are anything but objective. This is not a new approach. You can blame Slashdot for not offering an opposing opinion, but that's the only argument you have.
*We* submit stories to Slashdot. If you want to blame anyone, blame weakethic for having an opinion.
I doubt anyone will read this now that this story has drifted too far down, but ...
I have never understood why these people think advertising on the Web cannot learn anything from television advertising. When you watch an advertisement on television, do they know you did? Furthermore, must you immediately act on that advertisement in order for the station to receive payment?
So far, the only two types of advertising on the Web that have worked for me are:
1. Google's advertising - on-topic and non-obtrusive.
2. Yahoo! Mail's advertising - at least, all of the movie preview ones
With Google, you are in the process of searching for content on the Web, and you can choose an advertiser's link that paid to be listed under search results with at least one of your specific terms.
With Yahoo! Mail, some of their advertising is still annoying, but when > 50% of all ads served one day are for a specific movie, you can bet people hear about it. After all, that's all you need. Do you have to immediately buy a ticket online for Yahoo! to get paid? No. Does a lack of an immediate purchase mean that the advertisement was useless? No.
There is no need to punish consumers just because you lack the intelligence to establish a working business plan. I used Yahoo! Mail for years, and I have recently decided to use it as my primary mail client, paying the $30/year. They provide a useful service, and I don't mind paying for it.
Is that so hard?
1. Yes, I have played Quake I and II extensively. In fact, much more than Halo, so maybe that is where my prejudice lies. Or, perhaps I am like others and prefer a keyboard for FPS games. I do prefer a console to a computer for video games. That may be due mostly to how my residence is set up, however, because consoles allow me to leave the computer lab and lounge in my living room by the fireplace instead. :-) But yes, I did not find Halo nearly as fun as either of those earlier Quakes, and I expected so much more.
2. That may be true, but like I said in the end of my post, my decision wasn't based entirely on my opinion of the vendor. I was simply defending why it is perfectly acceptable to not want to support Microsoft in this new market. They have a history of sucking the life out of markets, and I would hate to see that happen to video games. As I said, I like them (video games, not Microsoft). The original poster seemed to suggest that it was immature for people to be wary of Microsoft. On the contrary, I think it is acceptable to hate Microsoft, so long as you have a valid reason (the poor quality of Windows, for example, is not a reason to hate them in my opinion). For me to fear Nintendo or Sony would require more knowledge on my part, perhaps, such as specific cases where they have damaged markets as much. For example, if someone could show me how Sony used illegal (or evil, whether legal or not) business practices to eliminate competition in the television market and that TVs now all suck as a result. Or, if someone could show me how Nintendo did the same in the video game market. Perhaps handheld video game systems would be much better if Nintendo didn't dominate? I don't know. I do know quite a bit about Microsoft's history, and so I am not wary of them out of speculation alone. They have earned it.
3. Yes, that may be so. From what little I read through all of the comments, there seem to be far more blindly loyal Microsoft supporters. In fact, some are so ridiculous, I think they must be trolls, idiots, or funded by Microsoft. Of the haters I have seen, most seem to be obvious trolls just joking around, but maybe that is just my perception.
4. Yes, I have heard that the hardware is superior. So what is the problem? Is it too hard to develop for it? Are developers just as wary of Microsoft as consumers are? We should be playing some really cool video games by now that don't just meet our standards (which are based on the "inferior" Gamecube and PS2) but raise our standards. To me, the xbox seems to have an edge in horsepower, but the Gamecube has an edge in elegance of design and being tailored for video games. It reminds me of people comparing a P4 2GHz Pentium with a 1GHz Mac. Graphics professionals still seem to prefer Macs.
I don't think the US has laws exactly like you are talking about, but the recent Microsoft settlement proves that it doesn't matter anyway.
We do have laws protecting against the anti-competitive business practices Microsoft has used over the past 10-15 years, and we let them profit from those practices all of this time anyway. When it finally looked like they would get some punishment (everyone knew it would be much less than what they had gained from their illegal actions), it turned out that nothing happened.
So, we have more problems than just the lack of legal protection, we also lack legal enforcement when it comes to rich corporations.
As for your second question, I don't think Microsoft plans on losing money in their other markets forever. Take MSN as an example. Microsoft sees AOL as a huge opportunity. Imagine if you could try out a new market for several years without having to worry about how much money you spent. It would be nice, right? Well, it also poses a great opportunity to starve out the competition, leaving the market all to yourself in the end. If such illegal business practices work out, you will eventually recover your losses and have a new source of income. I think Microsoft recognizes this opportunity.
"Its only abuse if it forces out competition."
[Its is the possessive of it. It's is a contraction for it is.]
I assume you are asserting that Microsoft is not trying to force out competition in any of the markets they are losing so much money in? You see, I think many people will disagree with that notion, and that is probably why you find their overall opinion much different than yours.
You are absolutely correct, given one assumption you are making:
"other parts of your business that they believe are worth investing in and will one day become profitable."
I am reading between the lines here a little and assuming you do not mean "one day [after competition is destroyed] become profitable." You see, that is part of the issue.
You should read up a little on monopolies.
Unnecessarily marking up profits to take advantage of a monopolistic position in the market is abusive. This is not a difficult concept, actually.
In your attempt to defend Microsoft, you have pointed out one of the big issues.
"If MS charges too much, people won't buy the product."
This is absolutely false and is one of the key issues. While it is theoretically true in a free market, the OS market is not so free. Ask an average computer user if they can name an alternative to Windows.
Then, ask those who have heard of an alternative but still use Windows why they use Windows. Divide responses into these two categories:
* I prefer Windows, Windows is better, etc.
* The software I use only works on Windows, it came with the computer, everyone else uses it, etc.
I think you will notice an amazing majority falling into the second category. Do you wonder why that is? Is it because the market has a way of working these things out?
Actually, this is incorrect.
Whether the public thinks the product is worth a certain amount or even willing to pay a particular price is irrelevant.
It is also a fallacy to consider a monopoly necessarily illegal.
Let me make up an example. I think we can all agree that Microsoft is a monopoly. They basically have an enormous and guaranteed flow of cash because of this monopoly.
Now, what if they use the profits gained from this monopoly to open a coffee shop beside every Starbucks in the USA. No problem, right? What if they paid each customer who walked in the door $1.00 as a thanks for visiting? What if they also gave away all of their coffee products for free?
Apparently many readers (or MS astroturfers in disguise) believe that it is perfectly fine to sustain serious losses in a new market in this way. Some even go so far as to claim "this is Economics 101" or some other such rhetoric.
The fact is, Microsoft could afford to starve out Starbucks, using the profits from their monopoly to balance out the severe losses brought about in their attack on Starbucks. They could basically eliminate Starbucks. This is illegal, regardless of what they do with their new monopoly on coffee shops or what they charge for their OS. This seems to be where your confusion lies.
I can tell you a few reasons why I dislike it, though I think hate is too strong a word, because that requires more care than I wish to invest.
1. I have played it extensively.
In short, the games are awful compared to what they should be and compared to other current systems. Soul Calibur for the Dreamcast is a much better game than DOA3, which (at least when I played it) was supposed to be the best fighting game released. When better games were released 2-3 years prior, it is hard to be impressed. The same goes for Halo, supposedly the flagship game, which has slightly better graphics than Quake I and II but lacks the gameplay, creativity, or fun of either. And again, those versions of Quake are quite old and run very well on hardware that pales in comparison. Simply put, I would expect more from a gaming console trying to compete with the Gamecube and PS2.
2. It is made by Microsoft.
Why in the world should we be expected to forgive and forget with regard to Microsoft's evil business practices? Your comments are ridiculous and suggest that we should just be mindless sheep. You seem to infer that it is closed-minded to not be naive. I'm sorry, but you have visited the wrong forum for that. Most people here tie their shoes by themselves. Look at what Microsoft did to browsers. If you haven't noticed, all browsers have sucked for quite some time. Yes, even Netscape. Not until recently has the market began to heal from the damage done by Microsoft, and it has taken open source to do it (Mozilla, Galeon, etc.). By illegally leveraging their monopoly, they eliminated choice for consumers and eliminated competition for themselves. Without competition, there is less incentive to innovate and strive for perfection. The result was that IE was an awful browser that Web developers have been forced to support. Not only has it lessened the quality of all Web browsers, but it has also mangled standards such as HTML and (to a smaller extent) HTTP. Yes, I will gladly admit that I don't want Microsoft screwing up the gaming industry. I like video games.
3. Mindless Microsoft supporters are annoying.
Yes, this means you. With a quick glance through all of the previous posts, it is clear that you are defending Microsoft from comments that were not even made. Everyone seems to either be saying that they enjoy the new offering or are saying it is much cheaper to have a better gaming experience with a PC. I always hear the rhetoric that negative comments are made about Microsoft just because this is Slashdot and everyone hates them without reason. On the contrary, the reason Microsoft gets a negative opinion here is that most readers of Slashdot are independent thinkers. The few that are not seem to be the annoying "if only people were fair and mature" type. Either that, or Microsoft pays to have astroturfing campaigns littering this Web site.
4. There are other lesser reasons.
The controllers are awful compared to others (PS2's are much better; Gamecube's are the best), it seems dangerous to spend money on a gaming console that doesn't have the true support of its parent company, and did I mention the games suck?
Also, while I think a Linux-powered equivalent gaming system would be a neat thing, if the gaming experience was identical to what I have experienced with the xbox, I would still not buy it. I personally play a Gamecube, and it is not because I want to support Nintendo. For all I know, Nintendo is probably as evil as Microsoft with less power. Sony may be the same. My choice was based on the fun I could have for $200, and because I prefer to get away from the computer and play on something made specifically for video games.
You know, I always hear the argument that, although Microsoft's products are arguably poor, their superior business practices (whether legal or otherwise) keep them financially on top.
One interesting thing in the article is that several of their divisions (mobile divices, xbox, msn) are consistently losing money.
So, is Microsoft as a company really good at business strategies? It seems to me that the "$3.5 billion profits from its operating system and software divisions in the quarter" are what keeps it afloat. I doubt any other business could fail quite as much as Microsoft and still survive.