I am saying it presented a lot less lock-in. Were it truly an IE6, we wouldn't have seen a mass migration to Firefox in '04 (because too many things would break).
The reason we saw that migration is because they completely changed their strategy and went for standards compliance, had companies written their LOB apps in Netscape instead of IE they'd have the same migration problems they do today.
However, it also made an effort to correctly render pages written to the spec and even succeeded to a degree. If IE made such an effort, it failed miserably.
Really? In what way was Netscape better at doing that than IE?
Of course it did, Netscape ended up with all the same sorts of browser-specific hacks that IE did. Back before IE everyone wrote for Netscape using their extensions and it didn't matter to most developers that this didn't work in other minority browsers, then you had those horrible landing pages that directed you to the Netscape or IE version of the site, neither of which was HTML compliant. Are you trying to tell me you believe Netscape was standards-compliant?
Well that seems dubious, you can't really call 'Android' open source, only specific versions. I suppose you could say Android is open source based on the released versions - well assuming Android was open source until 3.0, then was not open source for a while, then became open source again - but i think it's best to do it version-specific since when a new version is announced it isn't open sourced until the first devices are shipping to protect OHA member exclusivity. I don't think there's anything wrong with their model - it's their product so they can do with it as they wish - but I absolutely agree with you on the 'open' argument, it's pretty disingenuous.
That's hardly relevant. Had IE been shot in the head (as MANY web designers wanted), that would have left a collection of browsers all complying reasonably with the same standards. You could have written one version of the page and had it look more or less the same on any browser still out there.
Netscape owned the market pre-IE, if IE had not been around Netscape would have dominated the same way IE6 did, bringing with it all its own browser-specific CSS hacks and non-standard parameters to standard HTML tags, just as IE did. The fact is *both* dominant browsers were as bad as eachother when it came to standards, don't delude yourself into thinking we would have been any better off with Netscape than IE6, thankfully for the most part the time when we needed to use either browser is behind us.
but i did... "q: why spend $2000 on a laptop when you can get a different laptop with the same specs for $1000?"
Well obviously you wouldn't, but, as i suspected, the laptops you managed to find don't have the same specs, if they were identical and merely the brand name was different you would go for the cheaper one, obviously.
so tell me what about the mac justifies the extra $1200?
Obviously the retina display is a big part of that - even if you don't understand how resolution works - higher resolution isn't just about making things smaller (have you used a smartphone with a high-res screen vs low-res screen?). Even if you do want to do that the options are there in OSX and you could also use Windows or Linux where you can also take direct advantage of the significantly larger amount of screen realestate.
For the HDD/SSD i agree, the speed vs size tradeoff probably makes them about even.
The 640M is a significantly better graphics card and has huge performance benefits in CAD environments.
There is the operating system, the Mac can run OSX (in addition to Windows, Linux, etc) where the Toshiba cannot.
And of course there is the build quality, the unibody chassis is a damn side better than the plastic chassis of the Toshiba.
One of the biggest things is the warranty support - to be able to just take it to an Apple store rather than box it up and ship it off for repair - assuming you have one nearby (this probably doesn't have as much value otherwise).
I can understand if you don't think these things have value, you probably also don't see the point of paying a price premium for a Dell 27" 2560x1440 display over a 1920x1080 display or a higher performance graphics card, or build quality or operating system and if you don't need those things then obviously you would just choose the cheaper system, and if the Toshiba came with those things and was cheaper I can guarantee I'd choose that system too.
Don't forget Opera Amaya, Arena, and many more. Netscape was certainly the biggest, but hardly the only other browser.
Yes of course, but they had virtually no marketshare so they really never mattered, you could list hundreds of desktop operating systems too but in reality there are really only 3 that matter when you're writing desktop apps.
Just because you say that doesn't make it true, the fact is virtually all software is sold, and some is also licensed, to customers. The fact that you own it means that you ARE free to do whatever you wish with it, subject of course to law (which does limit your ability to distribute copies of it).
Well you're wrong about your claim that virtually all software is sold, that is just pure ignorance on your part. What software have you bought rather than licensed? Anyway the prevailing point relevant here is that the XBox software is not sold to you, it is licensed.
The repercussions of violating privacy are much higher for Google than they are for other companies.
Why? Apple or Microsoft have just as much access to the data that Google does but their privacy policies dictate that they will not access that data, we know Google accesses that data - and of course if you had a problem with that you wouldn't use Google services. I suppose it depends on what you're determining to be a 'violation of privacy'?
I can't say when there was a time when "venerable" would describe Internet Explorer. It's pretty much been despised its whole existence.
It's not any good by today's standards, or even those of 5 years ago, but let's not pretend the alternatives were any better, back then given the choice you wrote for IE6 not Netscape 4. We'd be in the same position of ass-backwards browser-specific hacks for NS4 had it been Netscape that won over IE.
I've done exactly that in a old chevy and a newer honda at over 115 mph just to understand my cars limits. Both times i slid in a completely straight line.
Did you still have your foot on the accelerator whilst doing so?
Do you only buy cars that you can repair everything on yourself?
I can't get in there and fix the ECU!!! It's a corporate conspiracy of planned obsolescence to line the pockets of corporate fatcats!!! You're all sheep marching to tune of your corporate masters!!! Rabble Rabble Rabble!!!
So why didn't you get one with a replaceable battery? Also what's with the assumption that it will fail? And even if it does, just replace the battery - they don't make it easy because virtually nobody replaced their batteries before. You could always run the internal battery terminals to an external battery, sure it wouldn't be as elegant but does that matter?
Yes, the consistent streaming and bandwidth scaling across the various services offered on that network. Of course you may not think that adds value to the XBL subscription, but that's your choice.
Just because Microsoft puts something in writing doesn't make it true.
And just because you say that doesn't make it untrue, the fact is virtually all software is licensed, not sold, to customers. If you owned it you would be free to do whatever you wish with it, which you are not.
If MS told you that they decided you can't use a paid copy of Windows any longer and you never owned it to begin with, chances are a court would tell them to back off.
Obviously, because that isn't a power they are granted in the license agreement.
When a product changes hands, and a one-time payment of money changes hands, it is a sale.
And what you bought is the license, not the software, why are you having so much trouble understanding that very basic concept.
You own your software just like you own your car - you're not allowed to sell replica Camry's either but that doesn't mean that you don't own one if you buy it.
Nope, the ability to sell replicas is based on copyright, trademark and trade dress laws, because when you buy a Camry you don't license it, unlike software.
Incorrect, you buy the software. You need a license to distribute copies of software, not to use it.
Wow this is going to be a big wake-up call for you, it is absolutely correct that you have not bought the software, you only have a license to use the software under the license conditions. If you did indeed buy it you would own it and be free to do whatever you want with it, but you aren't because you do not own it. Here is an example: Any software or content (e.g., text, images, video, graphics, music, sound, or games) (for purposes of this section, we refer to all of these, as applicable, as "Software") that Microsoft provides as part of the Services is licensed and not sold and is licensed according to the terms of this Agreement unless separate license terms are provided or referenced. http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Legal/livetou
Or this example from the Apple app store standard license agreement: The Products transacted through the Service are licensed, not sold, to You for use only under the terms of this license, unless a Product is accompanied by a separate license agreement, in which case the terms of that separate license agreement will govern, subject to Your prior acceptance of that separate license agreement. http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/appstore/dev/stdeula/
Show me software that you bought rather than licensed.
You do as you say, and don't give a shit like you say, then you are violating copyright and the DMCA. You're now a felon. Congrats!
But the fact is in doing so you are not violating the DMCA. There is no law against booting Linux, and Microsoft telling you that you don't have permission doesn't change that, even if you so desperately want to bend yourself to Microsoft's will.
You actually do own software that you buy, just as you own books that you buy. You don't have the right to distribute copies of it without a license, but that doesn't change the fact that when you buy something you own it.
No you don't, you buy a licence to use software, you own the license, not the software.
The only things that OpenGL provides that ES doesn't are the big, ugly, slow things which are useful for certain kinds of graphic design and industrial apps, but are completely useless for high-performance games.
You didn't answer the question. What IS rent-seeking behavior? I didn't ask what it wasn't.
It is imposing those restrictions on something the consumer owns, which is why your interpretation is incorrect, software is licensed by consumers, not owned, the xbox hardware you are free to do whatever you like with, just like all those people turned the original xbox into media centers.
I don't dispute that the X-Box network is Microsoft's property. However, all instances of rent-seeking behavior involve somebody's property. Rent-seeking behavior usually isn't illegal. That's why everybody does it. It is still anti-consumer and should be illegal.
So where do you draw the line on what you can do with somebody elses property?
By rewriting it for the correct architecture. Of course, it won't actually run on a PS3 in that case because simply writing it for the correct architecture is not sufficient - you need to have the code signed by Sony in that particular case. That is another case of rent-seeking behavior.
You seem to miss the fundamental concept that it is not your platform - you license the software, you don't own it, you own the hardware and are free to do whatever you want with it.
The issue isn't with Microsoft's network, but with MY X-Box (well, if I owned one) refusing to use any network BUT Microsoft's network.
Wrong! Again, you fail to comprehend the concept of software licensing, the hardware will use any network, you'll need to replace the software though because the software isn't yours, you merely license it. Replace the software and you're all good.
Do you simply dispute that the phenomenon exists? Most economists recognize it.
No, but it doesn't exist where that property - in this case the software - doesn't belong to you, you are misinterpreting it. Can i do anything i want with your property? Can I do anything i like with public property? No, because it doesn't belong to me. You can do anything you like with your xbox, because it belongs to you.
Your argument seems to me like walking into a debate about whether professional soldiers killing other professional soldiers in the course of their duty is murder, and arguing that soldiers don't kill anybody.
Slashdot Mirror
I could be wrong but given the context I'd say he was probably referring to Unity.
I am saying it presented a lot less lock-in. Were it truly an IE6, we wouldn't have seen a mass migration to Firefox in '04 (because too many things would break).
The reason we saw that migration is because they completely changed their strategy and went for standards compliance, had companies written their LOB apps in Netscape instead of IE they'd have the same migration problems they do today.
However, it also made an effort to correctly render pages written to the spec and even succeeded to a degree. If IE made such an effort, it failed miserably.
Really? In what way was Netscape better at doing that than IE?
Of course it did, Netscape ended up with all the same sorts of browser-specific hacks that IE did. Back before IE everyone wrote for Netscape using their extensions and it didn't matter to most developers that this didn't work in other minority browsers, then you had those horrible landing pages that directed you to the Netscape or IE version of the site, neither of which was HTML compliant. Are you trying to tell me you believe Netscape was standards-compliant?
If they call Android "Open Source" I cheer.
Well that seems dubious, you can't really call 'Android' open source, only specific versions. I suppose you could say Android is open source based on the released versions - well assuming Android was open source until 3.0, then was not open source for a while, then became open source again - but i think it's best to do it version-specific since when a new version is announced it isn't open sourced until the first devices are shipping to protect OHA member exclusivity. I don't think there's anything wrong with their model - it's their product so they can do with it as they wish - but I absolutely agree with you on the 'open' argument, it's pretty disingenuous.
That's hardly relevant. Had IE been shot in the head (as MANY web designers wanted), that would have left a collection of browsers all complying reasonably with the same standards. You could have written one version of the page and had it look more or less the same on any browser still out there.
Netscape owned the market pre-IE, if IE had not been around Netscape would have dominated the same way IE6 did, bringing with it all its own browser-specific CSS hacks and non-standard parameters to standard HTML tags, just as IE did. The fact is *both* dominant browsers were as bad as eachother when it came to standards, don't delude yourself into thinking we would have been any better off with Netscape than IE6, thankfully for the most part the time when we needed to use either browser is behind us.
but i did... "q: why spend $2000 on a laptop when you can get a different laptop with the same specs for $1000?"
Well obviously you wouldn't, but, as i suspected, the laptops you managed to find don't have the same specs, if they were identical and merely the brand name was different you would go for the cheaper one, obviously.
so tell me what about the mac justifies the extra $1200?
Obviously the retina display is a big part of that - even if you don't understand how resolution works - higher resolution isn't just about making things smaller (have you used a smartphone with a high-res screen vs low-res screen?). Even if you do want to do that the options are there in OSX and you could also use Windows or Linux where you can also take direct advantage of the significantly larger amount of screen realestate.
For the HDD/SSD i agree, the speed vs size tradeoff probably makes them about even.
The 640M is a significantly better graphics card and has huge performance benefits in CAD environments.
There is the operating system, the Mac can run OSX (in addition to Windows, Linux, etc) where the Toshiba cannot.
And of course there is the build quality, the unibody chassis is a damn side better than the plastic chassis of the Toshiba.
One of the biggest things is the warranty support - to be able to just take it to an Apple store rather than box it up and ship it off for repair - assuming you have one nearby (this probably doesn't have as much value otherwise).
I can understand if you don't think these things have value, you probably also don't see the point of paying a price premium for a Dell 27" 2560x1440 display over a 1920x1080 display or a higher performance graphics card, or build quality or operating system and if you don't need those things then obviously you would just choose the cheaper system, and if the Toshiba came with those things and was cheaper I can guarantee I'd choose that system too.
Don't forget Opera Amaya, Arena, and many more. Netscape was certainly the biggest, but hardly the only other browser.
Yes of course, but they had virtually no marketshare so they really never mattered, you could list hundreds of desktop operating systems too but in reality there are really only 3 that matter when you're writing desktop apps.
No you can't, that's just issuing it pre-configured commands. If it's broken it's no easier to fix than an ipad with broken internals.
Just because you say that doesn't make it true, the fact is virtually all software is sold, and some is also licensed, to customers. The fact that you own it means that you ARE free to do whatever you wish with it, subject of course to law (which does limit your ability to distribute copies of it).
Well you're wrong about your claim that virtually all software is sold, that is just pure ignorance on your part. What software have you bought rather than licensed? Anyway the prevailing point relevant here is that the XBox software is not sold to you, it is licensed.
So it was always one page for IE and one page that everything else could use.
And 'everything else' was Netscape, which was just as bad for standards compliance.
Stupid as it may seem, Google has set up the Play store so that they are merely the "card processor".
Aren't they the distributor as well? I assume they host the app or does the developer have to do that?
The repercussions of violating privacy are much higher for Google than they are for other companies.
Why? Apple or Microsoft have just as much access to the data that Google does but their privacy policies dictate that they will not access that data, we know Google accesses that data - and of course if you had a problem with that you wouldn't use Google services. I suppose it depends on what you're determining to be a 'violation of privacy'?
I can't say when there was a time when "venerable" would describe Internet Explorer. It's pretty much been despised its whole existence.
It's not any good by today's standards, or even those of 5 years ago, but let's not pretend the alternatives were any better, back then given the choice you wrote for IE6 not Netscape 4. We'd be in the same position of ass-backwards browser-specific hacks for NS4 had it been Netscape that won over IE.
I've done exactly that in a old chevy and a newer honda at over 115 mph just to understand my cars limits. Both times i slid in a completely straight line.
Did you still have your foot on the accelerator whilst doing so?
Do you only buy cars that you can repair everything on yourself?
I can't get in there and fix the ECU!!! It's a corporate conspiracy of planned obsolescence to line the pockets of corporate fatcats!!! You're all sheep marching to tune of your corporate masters!!! Rabble Rabble Rabble!!!
So why didn't you get one with a replaceable battery? Also what's with the assumption that it will fail? And even if it does, just replace the battery - they don't make it easy because virtually nobody replaced their batteries before. You could always run the internal battery terminals to an external battery, sure it wouldn't be as elegant but does that matter?
Yes, the consistent streaming and bandwidth scaling across the various services offered on that network. Of course you may not think that adds value to the XBL subscription, but that's your choice.
Just because Microsoft puts something in writing doesn't make it true.
And just because you say that doesn't make it untrue, the fact is virtually all software is licensed, not sold, to customers. If you owned it you would be free to do whatever you wish with it, which you are not.
If MS told you that they decided you can't use a paid copy of Windows any longer and you never owned it to begin with, chances are a court would tell them to back off.
Obviously, because that isn't a power they are granted in the license agreement.
When a product changes hands, and a one-time payment of money changes hands, it is a sale.
And what you bought is the license, not the software, why are you having so much trouble understanding that very basic concept.
You own your software just like you own your car - you're not allowed to sell replica Camry's either but that doesn't mean that you don't own one if you buy it.
Nope, the ability to sell replicas is based on copyright, trademark and trade dress laws, because when you buy a Camry you don't license it, unlike software.
Incorrect, you buy the software. You need a license to distribute copies of software, not to use it.
Wow this is going to be a big wake-up call for you, it is absolutely correct that you have not bought the software, you only have a license to use the software under the license conditions. If you did indeed buy it you would own it and be free to do whatever you want with it, but you aren't because you do not own it.
Here is an example:
Any software or content (e.g., text, images, video, graphics, music, sound, or games) (for purposes of this section, we refer to all of these, as applicable, as "Software") that Microsoft provides as part of the Services is licensed and not sold and is licensed according to the terms of this Agreement unless separate license terms are provided or referenced.
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Legal/livetou
Or this example from the Apple app store standard license agreement:
The Products transacted through the Service are licensed, not sold, to You for use only under the terms of this license, unless a Product is accompanied by a separate license agreement, in which case the terms of that separate license agreement will govern, subject to Your prior acceptance of that separate license agreement.
http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/appstore/dev/stdeula/
Show me software that you bought rather than licensed.
You do as you say, and don't give a shit like you say, then you are violating copyright and the DMCA. You're now a felon. Congrats!
But the fact is in doing so you are not violating the DMCA. There is no law against booting Linux, and Microsoft telling you that you don't have permission doesn't change that, even if you so desperately want to bend yourself to Microsoft's will.
You actually do own software that you buy, just as you own books that you buy. You don't have the right to distribute copies of it without a license, but that doesn't change the fact that when you buy something you own it.
No you don't, you buy a licence to use software, you own the license, not the software.
The only things that OpenGL provides that ES doesn't are the big, ugly, slow things which are useful for certain kinds of graphic design and industrial apps, but are completely useless for high-performance games.
Like geometry shaders?
no you draw 6 vertices.
You don't draw vertices at all, and if you're using triangle strips you only need 4 vertices to create a quad out of 2 triangles.
Doesn't Netflix provide the application, network and bandwidth for all those?
No, not on XBL, that's why the additional cost is there in the first place.
It does for my browser, my phone, my tablet, my ps3.
Right, but they aren't using microsoft's network.
You didn't answer the question. What IS rent-seeking behavior? I didn't ask what it wasn't.
It is imposing those restrictions on something the consumer owns, which is why your interpretation is incorrect, software is licensed by consumers, not owned, the xbox hardware you are free to do whatever you like with, just like all those people turned the original xbox into media centers.
I don't dispute that the X-Box network is Microsoft's property. However, all instances of rent-seeking behavior involve somebody's property. Rent-seeking behavior usually isn't illegal. That's why everybody does it. It is still anti-consumer and should be illegal.
So where do you draw the line on what you can do with somebody elses property?
By rewriting it for the correct architecture. Of course, it won't actually run on a PS3 in that case because simply writing it for the correct architecture is not sufficient - you need to have the code signed by Sony in that particular case. That is another case of rent-seeking behavior.
You seem to miss the fundamental concept that it is not your platform - you license the software, you don't own it, you own the hardware and are free to do whatever you want with it.
The issue isn't with Microsoft's network, but with MY X-Box (well, if I owned one) refusing to use any network BUT Microsoft's network.
Wrong! Again, you fail to comprehend the concept of software licensing, the hardware will use any network, you'll need to replace the software though because the software isn't yours, you merely license it. Replace the software and you're all good.
Do you simply dispute that the phenomenon exists? Most economists recognize it.
No, but it doesn't exist where that property - in this case the software - doesn't belong to you, you are misinterpreting it. Can i do anything i want with your property? Can I do anything i like with public property? No, because it doesn't belong to me. You can do anything you like with your xbox, because it belongs to you.
Your argument seems to me like walking into a debate about whether professional soldiers killing other professional soldiers in the course of their duty is murder, and arguing that soldiers don't kill anybody.
No, nothing of the sort.