I don't know. Unless I missed the quietest product launch in Microsoft history, Windows 8 isn't out yet.
Well what's your problem with their strategy then? There doesn't seem to be any issue unless there is something that Windows 7 can do that Windows 8 can not...and there isn't anything to suggest that will be the case.
However, it appears (from the fact that we're having this discussion at all) that Microsoft are indeed restricting the capabilities of their new generation of developer tools that go with Windows 8, so to that extent the answer to your question would be "yes".
No, not really. They just aren't providing a native compiler for free - no reason you can't use any other tools instead - just the same as how the free editions of VS don't support MFC.
Also, I'll mention here that the default presentation Microsoft chooses will probably have a big effect on a lot of users, even if there are technical options you can configure to go back to how things were. If most people see bright colours and big rectangles on their screen when they turn Windows 8 on, then that's what most people are going to think Windows 8 is unless Microsoft make any alternative presentation very obvious. Again, the OS is not released yet, so I'm not going to speculate about how well or otherwise they might do that.
If you've used any of the previews you know that the only real difference there is the start screen, essentially an application launcher.
No, I'm talking about the developer tools, which are the subject of this Slashdot discussion.
Well in that context no, they aren't forcing Metro on anyone.
All of which might be a reasonable strategy, except that the typical uses for a Windows desktop PC are totally different to the typical uses for a tablet or similar mobile device. One is for power and content creation, the other is for easy content consumption.
But is there even a problem there? Is there anything you can do on Windows 7 that you can't do on Windows 8?
If MS sticks to its guns and tries to force Metro on everyone, I think it really will be the end of them, at least in their current monolithic form.
What do you mean by 'force Metro on everyone'? You mean just replacing the start menu with the start screen? I would have preferred it the Apple way (where Launchpad is available but not default) but this certainly doesn't seem to be the big deal people are making it out to be.
Actually they don't, because they explicitly license the content on terms that allow for timeshift recording so you can fast-forward, they didn't have such terms in the content licenses for Dish.
I don't see the legal issue with it, but certainly if everyone starts using such a service then advertisers will see no value in it and abandon free-to-air and it will die leaving only paid services. Personally I don't have a problem with that as i never watch free-to-air anyway but i know a lot of people would be unhappy about losing free-to-air.
I use startpage, NoScript and randomize my user agent on start of Firefox. And, I STILL think Google's probably got a dossier on me. But, we're the nuts I guess.
And what is it you think they have? They've only got the information you've given them, if you're concerned about a company having certain information then you don't give it to them.
You mean your fantasy business world yes? I mean in the real business world no-one is buying chromebooks, you don't even need to talk to anyone in the business world, just have a look at the sales figures!
Have you noticed what happens to these sorts of posts? They are immediately modded down to oblivion and have a barrage of comments complaining of 'shills'. Now I don't see anything pro-Microsoft there, I certainly see anti-Google though. If you really want to believe this something other than trolling (given the barrage of nerdrage from yourself and others that get sucked into it, it looks like if you were the sort of person to troll forums this is a pretty successful way to do it) then ask yourself who exactly would benefit from all anti-Google posts being treated in this way?
I personally think the idea that these posts are somehow paid for by 'enemies of Google' is pretty idiotic given what happens to them here - it looks pretty clear to me that you're just providing comic fodder for trolls - but if you are the sort of person that believes that then why not either let the moderation system do its work, so they are modded down and most people won't see them or post a rational rebuttal (which doesn't seem like it would be particularly hard given the content)? Otherwise you're just filling the comments with more crap and fueling the popularity of these posts.
I don't think anyone considers the approach of BSA-style 'guilty until proven innocent' software audits and threatening lawsuits to be the optimal solution to piracy.
The part of iCloud we were discussing was the developer APIs, which require a paid developer membership to use.
Wrong wrong wrong, even if you pay the $99 for a developer membership you still can't use those APIs if you don't sell your app through the store...nice try retard!
Apple only provides iCloud API access to paying developers
Rubbish again, you're so full of shit you don't even understand the issue. It's nothing to do with whether you are a paying apple developer, it's about whether you sell it in the app store, even if you are a paid developer you still can't necessarily use those APIs!
Next.
What's the bet you're back here posting more bullshit in 5 minutes?
The expanded disk space is irrelevant to the argument and is a separate product from the sync APIs.
You're only saying that because you can't refute it, it's all part of iCloud, you're trying to separate them and say that use of the APIs is charged to and paid for by the developer through the developer fees (even though the fees haven't changed) while the storage part of iCloud is paid for by the user. So where's the proof? Given that the developer fees haven't changed it certainly looks like you're wrong.
iCloud. Just like you sync your music collection to iCloud with iTunes match. It's a backup/restore mechanism.
There is zero reason for wanting to use icloud if you don't own an iOS device or a mac. There are so many other services for windows that do a much better job at a cheaper price.
Nothing else offers a service like iTunes match so already if you want that you have to go iCloud so unless there is some reason to have your contacts on a different service then you might as well use it for that too. Likewise the Safari bookmark syncing is just like the Google Chrome bookmark syncing, so if you use Safari then iCloud is obviously the way to go.
No it isn't, the hosting needs to be paid for whether you use it through apps or not, and when the initial free storage is full any more isn't funded by apps it's funded by the user.
You originally said that Apple pays hosting expenses for apps from which they derive no income, but that's not true because only paid developers can integrate with iCloud.
Which is irrelevant because the user pays for the data anyway, otherwise they wouldn't charge for storage because - as you posit - that comes out of the developer fee.
WOW. Just... WOW is all I can say. You literally just said "if you think Ferrari is gouging, than buy a Yugo instead."
No i literally said: If you believe they are gouging then don't use their products, use a free alternative, like GIMP instead. And followed it up with a justification for the suggestion, which you clearly didn't read otherwise you wouldn't have post such a nonsensical rant.
How about, since you think Adobe if gouging you with Photoshop prices, and considering the cost of digital replication is near zero, steal it instead?
Steal? What's stealing got to do with it? The idea of 'stealing' doesn't even make sense in this context. But if no-one was paying for it then all you'd have are the free alternatives and judging from your response you're not too keen on them.
I believe you have to be a shill, because I refuse to believe anyone is mentally retarded enough to offer advice like that AND follow it themselves.
I can see you don't have the mental capacity to comprehend the post because you rebutted the first sentence rather than rebutting the justification, there was even a hint given the next few words are: Now the reason I say that is... A 'shill'? You mean someone who gets paid to advocate for a company? You do realize i advocated for a 'Free for non-Commercial Use'? So no, obviously not a 'shill'.
Finally, it's not stealing because the "owners" of the "intellectual property" have not been deprived of anything tangible, not even compensation.
HAHAHAHA Then why did you call it stealing? I know i never called it stealing, you're so confused you're arguing with yourself: How about, since you think Adobe if gouging you with Photoshop prices, and considering the cost of digital replication is near zero, steal it instead?
The people doing the "unlicensed replication" of Photoshop are not pirates, they are, most likely, impoverished serfs or indentured studen-loan servants.
Hence the reason i advocated for a 'Free for non-Commercial Use'...duh!
Their STATED goal is stamping out piracy. Their ACTUAL goal is make millions performing services of "stamping out piracy". So if piracy is up, the demand for their services and their profit obviously goes up as well- who else will defend poor huge software companies and their profits from the scary pirates?
Pfft, I've been using Photoshop since v 1.0 and they've never gotten a penny out of me. Nor have I ever met anyone who's paid for it, though there must be some suckers out there.
Given the value it provides to my business I'm happy to pay for it because its quality makes me a lot of money. If I could find someone equally adept with GIMP then fine, no reason not to switch, but when we were looking for designers they were all experts in Photoshop. However as i mentioned in another post, perhaps the better model is a 'Free for non-Commercial Use', that way hobbyists and home users get it for free and if it's any good then if they start working in the industry that will be their product of choice and the software vendor will get paid.
They argue that it costs a lot of money to write the code. That's true, and that is why it's worth paying something. But it costs a lot more money for, say, the Rolling Stones to record an album than your friend's band would cost. But no one would pay $700 for a Stones album.
Because their market is enormous in comparison, larger bands have more reach and a larger market than smaller bands so obviously even if they sell it for the same they will sell more copies so they can spend more money on the recording, pretty basic economics at work there.
then you can't say definitively that their tactics are sub-optimal.
No, just that the theory that they are sub-optimal is more plausible given the evidence. If you can make a case that their tactics are indeed optimal and that piracy is going to increase due to some other factor that you have evidence for i'd like to hear it.
The statement about storage allotment doesn't make sense, because if a developer doesn't use iCloud in their app because they didn't pay for the developer program, then obviously the storage will instead be used by some other app that did pay.
errr...no, you get the 5GB storage whether you use it through an app or not - say through backing up your device.
Fair enough, I'm not suggesting GIMP is necessarily the solution, or that FOSS or cheaper solutions exist. But your case highlights the potential advantage of the Free for non-Commercial Use suggestion.
That's my whole point. I can't "prove" that the BSA's current tactics are optimal just as you can't "prove" they're suboptimal.
But there is evidence to support the theory that they are sub-optimal, which is that during their tenure the rate at which piracy has spread has increased. There is no evidence to suggest that they have been optimal, the only evidence suggests that they are sub-optimal.
What you've asserted, though, is that the increasing rate of piracy is prima facie evidence that the BSA's tactics are suboptimal. That doesn't follow.
That's because it is prima facie evidence that the BSA's tactics are sub-optimal, and assuming you actually understand the concept of prima facie evidence you know that you do indeed need to rebut it, something you are unable to do, hence it follows perfectly.
That scenario would lead me to believe in the likelihood that the BSA's tactics are suboptimal. Because there would exist a point of reference against which to compare them..
Well since we don't have that scenario what would lead you to believe the BSA's tactics are sub-optimal? Are you suggesting it - and by extension pretty much everything else - is un-provable because there could always exist some other unknown force?
You can't prove dinosaurs existed, there could potentially be some magic force that created all the evidence of their existence, but until you come up with some plausible explanation for what that force is your opinion holds no weight.
Because Apple are usually smart enough to realise that serial numbers and drm schemes only cause inconvenience to paying customers...
So how does that explain the DRM in Final Cut Pro X which uses the iTunes receipt in the app folder to validate the install? The definitely have DRM in there.
The weather is 100F outside and my air conditioner goes out. My current indoor temperature is 75F. Wanting to stay cool, I rig up some fans to create an air flow throughout the house. The temperature gradually rises to about 90F, which is lower than what it would have been sans fans. Is the temperature increase clear evidence that my solution was the wrong one and I should try something different? No it's not.
Well actually yes it is, it's obviously the indication that fixing the air conditioner is thing you should do...duh.
But what's the 100F outside temperature in this case? You don't know, you're just speculating that such a thing could conceivably exist, if you apply that idiotic theory to everything then you can never prove anything.
So the way it works is that if you think i'm wrong you're welcome to try and disprove it with some facts, but of course you can't, not only that but my conclusion is based on the fact that even the BSA - the 'experts' in the field - aren't specifying what this 'outside factor' could be but more to the point they aren't even suggesting that such a thing exists!
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know. Unless I missed the quietest product launch in Microsoft history, Windows 8 isn't out yet.
Well what's your problem with their strategy then? There doesn't seem to be any issue unless there is something that Windows 7 can do that Windows 8 can not...and there isn't anything to suggest that will be the case.
However, it appears (from the fact that we're having this discussion at all) that Microsoft are indeed restricting the capabilities of their new generation of developer tools that go with Windows 8, so to that extent the answer to your question would be "yes".
No, not really. They just aren't providing a native compiler for free - no reason you can't use any other tools instead - just the same as how the free editions of VS don't support MFC.
Also, I'll mention here that the default presentation Microsoft chooses will probably have a big effect on a lot of users, even if there are technical options you can configure to go back to how things were. If most people see bright colours and big rectangles on their screen when they turn Windows 8 on, then that's what most people are going to think Windows 8 is unless Microsoft make any alternative presentation very obvious. Again, the OS is not released yet, so I'm not going to speculate about how well or otherwise they might do that.
If you've used any of the previews you know that the only real difference there is the start screen, essentially an application launcher.
No, I'm talking about the developer tools, which are the subject of this Slashdot discussion.
Well in that context no, they aren't forcing Metro on anyone.
Microsoft is end of life-ing .Net
I won't be surprised when you aren't able to provide any kind of citation for that one.
All of which might be a reasonable strategy, except that the typical uses for a Windows desktop PC are totally different to the typical uses for a tablet or similar mobile device. One is for power and content creation, the other is for easy content consumption.
But is there even a problem there? Is there anything you can do on Windows 7 that you can't do on Windows 8?
If MS sticks to its guns and tries to force Metro on everyone, I think it really will be the end of them, at least in their current monolithic form.
What do you mean by 'force Metro on everyone'? You mean just replacing the start menu with the start screen? I would have preferred it the Apple way (where Launchpad is available but not default) but this certainly doesn't seem to be the big deal people are making it out to be.
Depends on which government you're talking about, not all free to air is government mandated.
Actually they don't, because they explicitly license the content on terms that allow for timeshift recording so you can fast-forward, they didn't have such terms in the content licenses for Dish.
Meh, they give me the ability to record programs and skip through the ads anyway, they obviously don't see that as a problem.
I don't see the legal issue with it, but certainly if everyone starts using such a service then advertisers will see no value in it and abandon free-to-air and it will die leaving only paid services. Personally I don't have a problem with that as i never watch free-to-air anyway but i know a lot of people would be unhappy about losing free-to-air.
I use startpage, NoScript and randomize my user agent on start of Firefox. And, I STILL think Google's probably got a dossier on me. But, we're the nuts I guess.
And what is it you think they have? They've only got the information you've given them, if you're concerned about a company having certain information then you don't give it to them.
Funny how the business world disagrees with you.
You mean your fantasy business world yes? I mean in the real business world no-one is buying chromebooks, you don't even need to talk to anyone in the business world, just have a look at the sales figures!
Have you noticed what happens to these sorts of posts? They are immediately modded down to oblivion and have a barrage of comments complaining of 'shills'. Now I don't see anything pro-Microsoft there, I certainly see anti-Google though.
If you really want to believe this something other than trolling (given the barrage of nerdrage from yourself and others that get sucked into it, it looks like if you were the sort of person to troll forums this is a pretty successful way to do it) then ask yourself who exactly would benefit from all anti-Google posts being treated in this way?
I personally think the idea that these posts are somehow paid for by 'enemies of Google' is pretty idiotic given what happens to them here - it looks pretty clear to me that you're just providing comic fodder for trolls - but if you are the sort of person that believes that then why not either let the moderation system do its work, so they are modded down and most people won't see them or post a rational rebuttal (which doesn't seem like it would be particularly hard given the content)? Otherwise you're just filling the comments with more crap and fueling the popularity of these posts.
I don't think anyone considers the approach of BSA-style 'guilty until proven innocent' software audits and threatening lawsuits to be the optimal solution to piracy.
The part of iCloud we were discussing was the developer APIs, which require a paid developer membership to use.
Wrong wrong wrong, even if you pay the $99 for a developer membership you still can't use those APIs if you don't sell your app through the store...nice try retard!
Apple only provides iCloud API access to paying developers
Rubbish again, you're so full of shit you don't even understand the issue. It's nothing to do with whether you are a paying apple developer, it's about whether you sell it in the app store, even if you are a paid developer you still can't necessarily use those APIs!
Next.
What's the bet you're back here posting more bullshit in 5 minutes?
The expanded disk space is irrelevant to the argument and is a separate product from the sync APIs.
You're only saying that because you can't refute it, it's all part of iCloud, you're trying to separate them and say that use of the APIs is charged to and paid for by the developer through the developer fees (even though the fees haven't changed) while the storage part of iCloud is paid for by the user. So where's the proof? Given that the developer fees haven't changed it certainly looks like you're wrong.
What are you syncing the contacts to?
iCloud. Just like you sync your music collection to iCloud with iTunes match. It's a backup/restore mechanism.
There is zero reason for wanting to use icloud if you don't own an iOS device or a mac. There are so many other services for windows that do a much better job at a cheaper price.
Nothing else offers a service like iTunes match so already if you want that you have to go iCloud so unless there is some reason to have your contacts on a different service then you might as well use it for that too. Likewise the Safari bookmark syncing is just like the Google Chrome bookmark syncing, so if you use Safari then iCloud is obviously the way to go.
This tangent about user backups is irrelevant.
No it isn't, the hosting needs to be paid for whether you use it through apps or not, and when the initial free storage is full any more isn't funded by apps it's funded by the user.
You originally said that Apple pays hosting expenses for apps from which they derive no income, but that's not true because only paid developers can integrate with iCloud.
Which is irrelevant because the user pays for the data anyway, otherwise they wouldn't charge for storage because - as you posit - that comes out of the developer fee.
WOW. Just... WOW is all I can say. You literally just said "if you think Ferrari is gouging, than buy a Yugo instead."
No i literally said: If you believe they are gouging then don't use their products, use a free alternative, like GIMP instead. And followed it up with a justification for the suggestion, which you clearly didn't read otherwise you wouldn't have post such a nonsensical rant.
How about, since you think Adobe if gouging you with Photoshop prices, and considering the cost of digital replication is near zero, steal it instead?
Steal? What's stealing got to do with it? The idea of 'stealing' doesn't even make sense in this context. But if no-one was paying for it then all you'd have are the free alternatives and judging from your response you're not too keen on them.
I believe you have to be a shill, because I refuse to believe anyone is mentally retarded enough to offer advice like that AND follow it themselves.
I can see you don't have the mental capacity to comprehend the post because you rebutted the first sentence rather than rebutting the justification, there was even a hint given the next few words are: Now the reason I say that is...
A 'shill'? You mean someone who gets paid to advocate for a company? You do realize i advocated for a 'Free for non-Commercial Use'? So no, obviously not a 'shill'.
Finally, it's not stealing because the "owners" of the "intellectual property" have not been deprived of anything tangible, not even compensation.
HAHAHAHA Then why did you call it stealing? I know i never called it stealing, you're so confused you're arguing with yourself:
How about, since you think Adobe if gouging you with Photoshop prices, and considering the cost of digital replication is near zero, steal it instead?
The people doing the "unlicensed replication" of Photoshop are not pirates, they are, most likely, impoverished serfs or indentured studen-loan servants.
Hence the reason i advocated for a 'Free for non-Commercial Use'...duh!
or it will just be used for backups, and if that fills up no apps can use it until...guess what...the user pays for more storage!
Their STATED goal is stamping out piracy. Their ACTUAL goal is make millions performing services of "stamping out piracy". So if piracy is up, the demand for their services and their profit obviously goes up as well- who else will defend poor huge software companies and their profits from the scary pirates?
They are a non-profit organization.
Pfft, I've been using Photoshop since v 1.0 and they've never gotten a penny out of me. Nor have I ever met anyone who's paid for it, though there must be some suckers out there.
Given the value it provides to my business I'm happy to pay for it because its quality makes me a lot of money. If I could find someone equally adept with GIMP then fine, no reason not to switch, but when we were looking for designers they were all experts in Photoshop.
However as i mentioned in another post, perhaps the better model is a 'Free for non-Commercial Use', that way hobbyists and home users get it for free and if it's any good then if they start working in the industry that will be their product of choice and the software vendor will get paid.
They argue that it costs a lot of money to write the code. That's true, and that is why it's worth paying something. But it costs a lot more money for, say, the Rolling Stones to record an album than your friend's band would cost. But no one would pay $700 for a Stones album.
Because their market is enormous in comparison, larger bands have more reach and a larger market than smaller bands so obviously even if they sell it for the same they will sell more copies so they can spend more money on the recording, pretty basic economics at work there.
then you can't say definitively that their tactics are sub-optimal.
No, just that the theory that they are sub-optimal is more plausible given the evidence. If you can make a case that their tactics are indeed optimal and that piracy is going to increase due to some other factor that you have evidence for i'd like to hear it.
The statement about storage allotment doesn't make sense, because if a developer doesn't use iCloud in their app because they didn't pay for the developer program, then obviously the storage will instead be used by some other app that did pay.
errr...no, you get the 5GB storage whether you use it through an app or not - say through backing up your device.
Fair enough, I'm not suggesting GIMP is necessarily the solution, or that FOSS or cheaper solutions exist. But your case highlights the potential advantage of the Free for non-Commercial Use suggestion.
That's my whole point. I can't "prove" that the BSA's current tactics are optimal just as you can't "prove" they're suboptimal.
But there is evidence to support the theory that they are sub-optimal, which is that during their tenure the rate at which piracy has spread has increased. There is no evidence to suggest that they have been optimal, the only evidence suggests that they are sub-optimal.
What you've asserted, though, is that the increasing rate of piracy is prima facie evidence that the BSA's tactics are suboptimal. That doesn't follow.
That's because it is prima facie evidence that the BSA's tactics are sub-optimal, and assuming you actually understand the concept of prima facie evidence you know that you do indeed need to rebut it, something you are unable to do, hence it follows perfectly.
That scenario would lead me to believe in the likelihood that the BSA's tactics are suboptimal. Because there would exist a point of reference against which to compare them..
Well since we don't have that scenario what would lead you to believe the BSA's tactics are sub-optimal? Are you suggesting it - and by extension pretty much everything else - is un-provable because there could always exist some other unknown force?
You can't prove dinosaurs existed, there could potentially be some magic force that created all the evidence of their existence, but until you come up with some plausible explanation for what that force is your opinion holds no weight.
Because Apple are usually smart enough to realise that serial numbers and drm schemes only cause inconvenience to paying customers...
So how does that explain the DRM in Final Cut Pro X which uses the iTunes receipt in the app folder to validate the install? The definitely have DRM in there.
The weather is 100F outside and my air conditioner goes out. My current indoor temperature is 75F. Wanting to stay cool, I rig up some fans to create an air flow throughout the house. The temperature gradually rises to about 90F, which is lower than what it would have been sans fans. Is the temperature increase clear evidence that my solution was the wrong one and I should try something different? No it's not.
Well actually yes it is, it's obviously the indication that fixing the air conditioner is thing you should do...duh.
But what's the 100F outside temperature in this case? You don't know, you're just speculating that such a thing could conceivably exist, if you apply that idiotic theory to everything then you can never prove anything.
So the way it works is that if you think i'm wrong you're welcome to try and disprove it with some facts, but of course you can't, not only that but my conclusion is based on the fact that even the BSA - the 'experts' in the field - aren't specifying what this 'outside factor' could be but more to the point they aren't even suggesting that such a thing exists!