Not anymore, but the XBox doesn't really have any RROD problems anymore either since the S refresh yet that doesn't stop people from claiming it has a huge return rate. You're right though, since the Slim refresh it has done pretty well and gained back a lot of lost ground.
How are two billion dollars in the red? Exceeded all expectations?
That chart even gives you the biggest hint as to why MS is in the red with the XBox, they are the relative newbie to the market. MS started only 9 years ago, Sony started 8 years before them and Nintendo close to 2 decades before MS. This experience is reflected in the profit charts, though even then the divisions compared are not equal across the companies and the tie ins for the xbox (foxtel, zune, netflix, etc...) likely change those figures too.
The only difference between Apple and Microsoft is that the latter's O/S is going to have more end users committing suicide instead of Foxconn employees.
As opposed to the former which has people selling organs.
if you want to do something like create spreadsheets
You put away your toys and use a keyboard and a mouse like any sane person would do.
Have you used the iWork applications on the iPad? They work really well. Moreover just because it's a tablet doesn't mean you have to abandon the keyboard, and even if the onscreen keyboard is too hard for you to manage you can use a wireless keyboard.
So the 30% number is really just the most extreme estimate?
Have you ever tried to google their return rate statistics? The results are so wildly varying (from 3-6% up to 54%) it doesn't surprise me that you'd get people who just split the difference and assume that as fact. In any case they've pretty much eliminated the issue with the 'S' refresh in the same way that Sony pretty much eliminated their woeful sales with the PS3 Slim.
That's exactly right, so now we have to wait and see if they can pull it off with this new UI paradigm. They've gone for something that mimics the UI on Windows Phone 7 - which works very well - so now with the ARM builds, the huge kernel changes in Windows 7 and everything running on the.Net CLR they seem to be taking the Apple approach of stripping it to bare bones and putting back what's necessary. What they really need to do for the ARM platform is to let go of some of the backwards compatibility (restrict it to.Net).
Do you have anything to support this? Because it seems as though the iphone is just storing the cell tower and wifi locations it picks up when it connects to them, nothing it would need to retrieve from Apple.
Yeah i read that, but it seems that the data that is actually stored is just the data that your phone acquires through its travels. It doesn't seem any different from the phone just building its own database - albiet persisting untimely data and not flushing it - that 'cache' isn't actually in sync with the main data store.
It most certainly *is* a cache. It's a cached subset of Apple location database.
Apple has a large database of the geographic locations of WiFi access points and cell towers. The database is very large, and ever changing, so it makes no sense (and is probably impossible) to keep on the device in its entirety, so the iPhone downloads a subset of this in order to speed up location lookups (preventing the iPhone from having to query Apple's database directly in order to use it to help Location Services). This also means the iPhone can benefit from the database even without a data connection.
Do you have anything to support this? Because it seems as though the iphone is just storing the cell tower and wifi locations it picks up when it connects to them, nothing it would need to retrieve from Apple.
Your argument has been building in this direction all along. Whatever the merits of your position, I don't have the time or energy for people whose argumentation depends on insult instead of substance. Take care.
Your entire position is based on your assumptions rather than any actual facts (like the details within the actual license) - as demonstrated by your ignorant comments - how can anyone taking that position *not* be an idiot.
More claptrap. Cost might *outweigh* merit, but it doesn't contribute to it.
Rubbish, if you have 2 options and the deciding factor is that one is cheaper than the other then obviously the cheaper will win. Do you not know the definition of 'merit'? cost *does* contribute, cost is a factor when deciding desirable traits!
Increased cost every step of the way, increased restrictions every step of the way, increased exposure to litigation every step of the way, increased likelihood of abuse of IP protection every step of the way.
The ramblings of an ignorant idiot, clearly have no idea what you're talking about and you've just bought into whatever the WebM advocates throw out, if you actually knew anything about the licensing you wouldn't be posting so much obvious rubbish.
Whether or not people are harmed isn't determined by whether they "give a fuck" or "see it as a negative".
It doesn't matter, as we see in the markets the benefit outweighs the 'harm', this 'harm' that you speak of is of no concern to the end users.
The *vast* majority of people are also unaware that they are paying a premium for h.264
That premium is so incredibly low that the people don't care about it.
There's a massive barrier to entry. Most video content on the web is in h.264 or VP6. 73% of users (see below) can't use it.
Absolute bullshit, 73% of users don't want to use it. It isn't that they can't, it's that they don't want to as they see no benefit in it, there is no advantage for them.
More claptrap. IE (around 55% of web users) does not support it at all, no version of Firefox before 4.0 (about 11%), no version of Safari (7%) and no version of Opera before 10.60 (negligible %). 73% of browsers in use don't support it.
No shit, old browsers don't support HTML5 either but we don't just throw away HTML5 as having 'too big of a barrier to entry'. We have new browsers, freely available to upgrade to that support these new features, welcome to reality.
No, 'the powerful' is a rubbish term you made up, what I said is the 'decision-makers'
Explain how they differ.
You're that thick that you can't figure it out for yourself? Anyone choosing to use a format is the 'decision-maker'.
Google, Microsoft and Yahoo are not people. They're powerful corporations.
Then use 'entity' if you have so much trouble working that out.
That's not who's making the choice.
Oh ok my video magically encodes itself, of course i make the choice!
just because it doesn't affect the decision-makers in a measurable way *does not* mean it affects everyone else in a negative way
It doesn't *mean* that, it just *is the case*.
Rubbish, you've got no facts yet you continue to spread this FUD. If it affected the user in a negative way that anyone actually cared about we would all be grabbing one of the many freely available web browsers or plugins that support WebM and everyone would bail on h.264, yet we aren't.
The *cost* alone is a barrier to entry
There is no cost barrier to entry, but if you weren't just making up this shit as you went along you would actually know this. Stop spreading FUD based on your own ignorance and actually *read the license*.
While WebM doesn't address most of the IP litigation concerns, it does address the cost concerns
1.2c per month per subscriber over 100,000, that's nothing when you have a subscriber-base that big, and that is certainly beyond the point of market entry, thus proving that your comment that cost is a barrier to entry is just a figment of your own ignorance and has no factual basis whatsoever.
Do you realize your whole might-makes-right argument totally undermines the proposition that merit will determine the chosen standard?
Merit is judged by the majority, pretty obvious.
You suggested before that the merit of a better standard would be enough to overcome the choice of the major corporations. Now, by arguing that the "benefit of opposing it just isn't there", you're begging the question—you're saying that if corporations use their leverage to manipulate choice, then the merit is determined by that manipulated outcome. You can't have it both ways.
Cost is always a factor in determining merit, it's pretty simple. One of the merits is that the major corporations support Microdata, so alternatives had better be able to counter that merit.
Yes, of course it does. End users can't (currently) have both an open Internet and HTML5 video. Either trade-off is a negative for end users.
How is that a negative for end users? It might be news to you but the *vast* majority of people don't give a fuck about openness, and they don't see lack of it as a negative. Yes some of the geek minority screams about the virtues of openness but most people don't care, the proof is all around you.
Right... but not because the merits of h.264 outweigh those of WebM, only because there is a massive barrier to entry for WebM
Again with your 'massive barrier to entry' bullshit, there is no barrier to entry for WebM, it's free and the most popular browsers support it.
Yes, you did. You demonstrated that the choice is made by the powerful, based on how the choice affects those making the choice, regardless of how it affects others.
No, 'the powerful' is a rubbish term you made up, what I said is the 'decision-makers', as in the people who make the decision to use the format, which is anyone doing content production/distribution.
You wrote: "downsides over a free alternative don't affect the decision-makers in a measurable way". How does "it just affects everyone else in a negative way" have nothing to do with that? It's a direct response.
Because what i wrote in no way implies that, just because it doesn't affect the decision-makers in a measurable way *does not* mean it affects everyone else in a negative way, your assumption just shows your desperation to support your idea with information that simply is not there.
It's not just a barrier to entry for web browser developers; it's a barrier to entry for web site/application developers as well as content producers (potentially *everyone*).
No, that's bullshit. All you've done is make this claim that it has a huge barrier to entry, it doesn't appear you even know what it is you're claiming it to be.
All of the major search engines have coordinated to support an opposing standard. It's incredibly naïve to suggest that merit alone is enough to challenge collusion of massive corporations, especially when those massive corporations represent almost the entire market. Merit doesn't dictate which standard wins; power does.
If content producers don't jump on board the search engines have no content, but they will jump on board because benefit of opposing it just isn't there. Why fight it if there's next to nothing to gain?
Right, it just affects everyone else in a negative way.
It doesn't affect end users in a negative way and those who make the decision to use h.264 do so even though solutions like WebM exist.
Thanks for demonstrating my point.
I didn't demonstrate your point at all, you just wrote something that has nothing to do with what i wrote and then followed it with that sentence. I could do the same thing.
There's tremendous reason to do so. h.264 represents a huge barrier to entry for a huge majority of people into a huge segment of the web.
It represents a barrier to entry for web browser developers, that is not a huge segment of the web or a majority of people.
I find it a bit odd that the Android folks are claiming a 'jailbreak' is a major security flaw, while ignoring the fact that rooting an android phone is the same thing.
What are you talking about? No-one in the thread down to your comment even mentioned Android. Are you assuming anyone that sees a jailbreak as a major security flaw must be an Android user?
I've never owned an Android device but I certainly consider jailbreaks - mainly the remote web one - to be major security flaws, I don't care that Android has security issues (partly because I don't use it), and i can certainly see that Android's issues have absolutely no impact whatsoever on iOS.
Just because someone points out an issue with iOS don't go painting them as the 'Android folk' and pointing out Android's flaws to direct attention away from iOS's, it just perpetuates that idiotic stereotype that anyone who uses Apple products is blind to their flaws.
The iPhone stores information about nearby WiFi access points and cellular towers. That information is stored in an on board cache. When you sync with iTunes, that information is transferred to your computer, in order that it can be synced back with other iOS devices you own.
That is absolutely *not* a 'cache', it is just normal storage that is persisted.
However pretty much everything else you said is correct, the 'programming language' thing is a bit contentious but for the vast majority i don't think that's an issue, you use the appropriate language for the platform.
You mean... the entire web community "can" or "will" be the ones to decide whether they will cooperate with the source of most, if not almost all, of their traffic? And what happens when Google, Microsoft and Yahoo agree to index the syntax they agreed to propose?
Then they will only get those sites that have chosen their standard. If RDFa is indeed superior then a search engine utilising it will ultimately win out over those who choose to ignore it. I'm guessing that unless it is significantly better, RDFa will eventually lose out by virtue of it being a mediocre competitor instead of having real tangible advantages.
That's a lot of weight to be pitted against. Even more weight than that (frankly, Apple and Adobe) which undermined the "web community" by choosing h.264 over any free alternative.
And h.264 has been widely adopted simply because it's downsides over a free alternative don't affect the decision-makers in a measurable way, why push back against these companies when there is so little reason to do so?
Updated at 12 midnight. Microsoft has bought Skype for $8.5 billion, in an all-cash deal.
Except that isn't actually correct, the deal has to pass through the FTC, which it has yet to do. You can even see on Skype's about page they still list being owned by Silver Lake? Why is that? It's because the deal is yet to be finalised, because the regulators take time on an aquisition of this size. The deal is done in principle but MS does not yet own the Skype IP.
any song you obtained elsewhere (ripped from CD, bought from amazon, bought from allofmp3, pirated, whatever) that can be matched to a song on iTunes, you get the iTunes copy to download to your device.
Sounds like a great way to launder your pirated music collection, surely the RIAA isn't going to be pleased about this.
They don't have a mobile OS they cleary have stated it is only for phones.
They have announced - and even showed how - their next OS will be focussed towards the tablet form-factor (even showed prototype devices). Yes WP7 is only for phones, but the development effort they are throwing behind it proves they are serious about the market, contrary to your comments about them never acknowledging the decline of desktop/laptop relevance.
Windows 8 is just windows 7 with tiles so far, a desktop OS on a "slate" as they call it.
Well no it isn't, for example Windows 7 never ran on ARM and the entire desktop GUI is different and uses HTML5 for development of many types of applications.
Windows on ARM is atleast a year away and won't be able to run x86 and AM64 except for purely.net and java apps. Tell me how many 100s of million tablets will be sold by competitors by then?
How is that relevant? This is a response to your comment that MS will never acknowledge the declining relevance of desktops and laptops, which - as has clearly been demonstrated with the latest announcements, demos and actions by microsoft - is rubbish.
There chief architect said something to the effect of he is t convinced tablets will be around in a few years because there is no use case between smart phones and laptops.
I also meet with various Microsoft reps in different product lines and the company talking points cleary ae desktop OS oriented.
Finally their primary revenue stream comes from Desktop OS, desktop support server software, and Office. These products are heavy under assault by tablets. There smart phone offering is performing poorly in the market and they have a virtually non-existent tablet strategy.
Call it more conjecture than fact if you will
Have you had your head in the sand? They're pushing their mobile OS pretty damn hard at the moment (given their latest update announcement) and their revelation of the GUI of the new version of their flagship OS shows that they are targeting tablet computers even more than traditional desktops and laptops! They are even trumpeting their move to the ARM architecture, predominantly used in tablet/smartphone computers. Pretty much every announcement out of MS lately has shown a strong move in the direction of tablets, smartphones and the xbox - not so much happening on the desktop/laptop front.
ah right, yeah that's what i was thinking, so if you want your higher bitrate tracks they will count towards your 5GB and you probably need to do the iCloud thing and pay the $24 per month.
WAAAHHH!!!! The W3C didn't make up this standard!!! We're still debating what the dickens to define as HTML5!
No fair that the other children are running off with their ball to do their own thing...
Not only that but he seems to ignore the fact that it's a proposed vocabulary and the entire web community can and will be the ones to decide if it is to be used or not.
You can always just upload your content if you like. The 'matching' feature is pay to play. The iCloud basic services are free.
But isn't that only for 5GB? I thought music was included in that 5GB unless you matched it to the iTunes store, at least that's what i understood from what i saw (admittedly haven't seen all of it yet). If you've ripped >256kbps tracks then you're likely going to need more than 5GB.
Slashdot Mirror
you get a 600bhp *whoosh*
The PS3 isn't doing that badly.
Not anymore, but the XBox doesn't really have any RROD problems anymore either since the S refresh yet that doesn't stop people from claiming it has a huge return rate. You're right though, since the Slim refresh it has done pretty well and gained back a lot of lost ground.
XBox 360 exceeded all expectations? Yeah, right...
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19625436&postcount=90
How are two billion dollars in the red? Exceeded all expectations?
That chart even gives you the biggest hint as to why MS is in the red with the XBox, they are the relative newbie to the market. MS started only 9 years ago, Sony started 8 years before them and Nintendo close to 2 decades before MS. This experience is reflected in the profit charts, though even then the divisions compared are not equal across the companies and the tie ins for the xbox (foxtel, zune, netflix, etc...) likely change those figures too.
The only difference between Apple and Microsoft is that the latter's O/S is going to have more end users committing suicide instead of Foxconn employees.
As opposed to the former which has people selling organs.
if you want to do something like create spreadsheets
You put away your toys and use a keyboard and a mouse like any sane person would do.
Have you used the iWork applications on the iPad? They work really well. Moreover just because it's a tablet doesn't mean you have to abandon the keyboard, and even if the onscreen keyboard is too hard for you to manage you can use a wireless keyboard.
So the 30% number is really just the most extreme estimate?
Have you ever tried to google their return rate statistics? The results are so wildly varying (from 3-6% up to 54%) it doesn't surprise me that you'd get people who just split the difference and assume that as fact. In any case they've pretty much eliminated the issue with the 'S' refresh in the same way that Sony pretty much eliminated their woeful sales with the PS3 Slim.
The trick is in doing it right.
That's exactly right, so now we have to wait and see if they can pull it off with this new UI paradigm. They've gone for something that mimics the UI on Windows Phone 7 - which works very well - so now with the ARM builds, the huge kernel changes in Windows 7 and everything running on the .Net CLR they seem to be taking the Apple approach of stripping it to bare bones and putting back what's necessary. What they really need to do for the ARM platform is to let go of some of the backwards compatibility (restrict it to .Net).
Do you have anything to support this? Because it seems as though the iphone is just storing the cell tower and wifi locations it picks up when it connects to them, nothing it would need to retrieve from Apple.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/27location_qa.html
Yeah i read that, but it seems that the data that is actually stored is just the data that your phone acquires through its travels. It doesn't seem any different from the phone just building its own database - albiet persisting untimely data and not flushing it - that 'cache' isn't actually in sync with the main data store.
It most certainly *is* a cache. It's a cached subset of Apple location database.
Apple has a large database of the geographic locations of WiFi access points and cell towers. The database is very large, and ever changing, so it makes no sense (and is probably impossible) to keep on the device in its entirety, so the iPhone downloads a subset of this in order to speed up location lookups (preventing the iPhone from having to query Apple's database directly in order to use it to help Location Services). This also means the iPhone can benefit from the database even without a data connection.
Do you have anything to support this? Because it seems as though the iphone is just storing the cell tower and wifi locations it picks up when it connects to them, nothing it would need to retrieve from Apple.
Your argument has been building in this direction all along. Whatever the merits of your position, I don't have the time or energy for people whose argumentation depends on insult instead of substance. Take care.
Your entire position is based on your assumptions rather than any actual facts (like the details within the actual license) - as demonstrated by your ignorant comments - how can anyone taking that position *not* be an idiot.
More claptrap. Cost might *outweigh* merit, but it doesn't contribute to it.
Rubbish, if you have 2 options and the deciding factor is that one is cheaper than the other then obviously the cheaper will win. Do you not know the definition of 'merit'? cost *does* contribute, cost is a factor when deciding desirable traits!
Increased cost every step of the way, increased restrictions every step of the way, increased exposure to litigation every step of the way, increased likelihood of abuse of IP protection every step of the way.
The ramblings of an ignorant idiot, clearly have no idea what you're talking about and you've just bought into whatever the WebM advocates throw out, if you actually knew anything about the licensing you wouldn't be posting so much obvious rubbish.
Whether or not people are harmed isn't determined by whether they "give a fuck" or "see it as a negative".
It doesn't matter, as we see in the markets the benefit outweighs the 'harm', this 'harm' that you speak of is of no concern to the end users.
The *vast* majority of people are also unaware that they are paying a premium for h.264
That premium is so incredibly low that the people don't care about it.
There's a massive barrier to entry. Most video content on the web is in h.264 or VP6. 73% of users (see below) can't use it.
Absolute bullshit, 73% of users don't want to use it. It isn't that they can't, it's that they don't want to as they see no benefit in it, there is no advantage for them.
More claptrap. IE (around 55% of web users) does not support it at all, no version of Firefox before 4.0 (about 11%), no version of Safari (7%) and no version of Opera before 10.60 (negligible %). 73% of browsers in use don't support it.
No shit, old browsers don't support HTML5 either but we don't just throw away HTML5 as having 'too big of a barrier to entry'. We have new browsers, freely available to upgrade to that support these new features, welcome to reality.
No, 'the powerful' is a rubbish term you made up, what I said is the 'decision-makers'
Explain how they differ.
You're that thick that you can't figure it out for yourself? Anyone choosing to use a format is the 'decision-maker'.
Google, Microsoft and Yahoo are not people. They're powerful corporations.
Then use 'entity' if you have so much trouble working that out.
That's not who's making the choice.
Oh ok my video magically encodes itself, of course i make the choice!
just because it doesn't affect the decision-makers in a measurable way *does not* mean it affects everyone else in a negative way
It doesn't *mean* that, it just *is the case*.
Rubbish, you've got no facts yet you continue to spread this FUD. If it affected the user in a negative way that anyone actually cared about we would all be grabbing one of the many freely available web browsers or plugins that support WebM and everyone would bail on h.264, yet we aren't.
The *cost* alone is a barrier to entry
There is no cost barrier to entry, but if you weren't just making up this shit as you went along you would actually know this. Stop spreading FUD based on your own ignorance and actually *read the license*.
While WebM doesn't address most of the IP litigation concerns, it does address the cost concerns
1.2c per month per subscriber over 100,000, that's nothing when you have a subscriber-base that big, and that is certainly beyond the point of market entry, thus proving that your comment that cost is a barrier to entry is just a figment of your own ignorance and has no factual basis whatsoever.
Do you realize your whole might-makes-right argument totally undermines the proposition that merit will determine the chosen standard?
Merit is judged by the majority, pretty obvious.
You suggested before that the merit of a better standard would be enough to overcome the choice of the major corporations. Now, by arguing that the "benefit of opposing it just isn't there", you're begging the question—you're saying that if corporations use their leverage to manipulate choice, then the merit is determined by that manipulated outcome. You can't have it both ways.
Cost is always a factor in determining merit, it's pretty simple. One of the merits is that the major corporations support Microdata, so alternatives had better be able to counter that merit.
Yes, of course it does. End users can't (currently) have both an open Internet and HTML5 video. Either trade-off is a negative for end users.
How is that a negative for end users? It might be news to you but the *vast* majority of people don't give a fuck about openness, and they don't see lack of it as a negative. Yes some of the geek minority screams about the virtues of openness but most people don't care, the proof is all around you.
Right... but not because the merits of h.264 outweigh those of WebM, only because there is a massive barrier to entry for WebM
Again with your 'massive barrier to entry' bullshit, there is no barrier to entry for WebM, it's free and the most popular browsers support it.
Yes, you did. You demonstrated that the choice is made by the powerful, based on how the choice affects those making the choice, regardless of how it affects others.
No, 'the powerful' is a rubbish term you made up, what I said is the 'decision-makers', as in the people who make the decision to use the format, which is anyone doing content production/distribution.
You wrote: "downsides over a free alternative don't affect the decision-makers in a measurable way". How does "it just affects everyone else in a negative way" have nothing to do with that? It's a direct response.
Because what i wrote in no way implies that, just because it doesn't affect the decision-makers in a measurable way *does not* mean it affects everyone else in a negative way, your assumption just shows your desperation to support your idea with information that simply is not there.
It's not just a barrier to entry for web browser developers; it's a barrier to entry for web site/application developers as well as content producers (potentially *everyone*).
No, that's bullshit. All you've done is make this claim that it has a huge barrier to entry, it doesn't appear you even know what it is you're claiming it to be.
The newest article was written by guest writer, Pamela Jones.
As in PJ, the founder of groklaw.
All of the major search engines have coordinated to support an opposing standard. It's incredibly naïve to suggest that merit alone is enough to challenge collusion of massive corporations, especially when those massive corporations represent almost the entire market. Merit doesn't dictate which standard wins; power does.
If content producers don't jump on board the search engines have no content, but they will jump on board because benefit of opposing it just isn't there. Why fight it if there's next to nothing to gain?
Right, it just affects everyone else in a negative way.
It doesn't affect end users in a negative way and those who make the decision to use h.264 do so even though solutions like WebM exist.
Thanks for demonstrating my point.
I didn't demonstrate your point at all, you just wrote something that has nothing to do with what i wrote and then followed it with that sentence. I could do the same thing.
There's tremendous reason to do so. h.264 represents a huge barrier to entry for a huge majority of people into a huge segment of the web.
It represents a barrier to entry for web browser developers, that is not a huge segment of the web or a majority of people.
I find it a bit odd that the Android folks are claiming a 'jailbreak' is a major security flaw, while ignoring the fact that rooting an android phone is the same thing.
What are you talking about? No-one in the thread down to your comment even mentioned Android. Are you assuming anyone that sees a jailbreak as a major security flaw must be an Android user?
I've never owned an Android device but I certainly consider jailbreaks - mainly the remote web one - to be major security flaws, I don't care that Android has security issues (partly because I don't use it), and i can certainly see that Android's issues have absolutely no impact whatsoever on iOS.
Just because someone points out an issue with iOS don't go painting them as the 'Android folk' and pointing out Android's flaws to direct attention away from iOS's, it just perpetuates that idiotic stereotype that anyone who uses Apple products is blind to their flaws.
The iPhone stores information about nearby WiFi access points and cellular towers. That information is stored in an on board cache. When you sync with iTunes, that information is transferred to your computer, in order that it can be synced back with other iOS devices you own.
That is absolutely *not* a 'cache', it is just normal storage that is persisted.
However pretty much everything else you said is correct, the 'programming language' thing is a bit contentious but for the vast majority i don't think that's an issue, you use the appropriate language for the platform.
You mean... the entire web community "can" or "will" be the ones to decide whether they will cooperate with the source of most, if not almost all, of their traffic? And what happens when Google, Microsoft and Yahoo agree to index the syntax they agreed to propose?
Then they will only get those sites that have chosen their standard. If RDFa is indeed superior then a search engine utilising it will ultimately win out over those who choose to ignore it. I'm guessing that unless it is significantly better, RDFa will eventually lose out by virtue of it being a mediocre competitor instead of having real tangible advantages.
That's a lot of weight to be pitted against. Even more weight than that (frankly, Apple and Adobe) which undermined the "web community" by choosing h.264 over any free alternative.
And h.264 has been widely adopted simply because it's downsides over a free alternative don't affect the decision-makers in a measurable way, why push back against these companies when there is so little reason to do so?
Yes, I did.
Updated at 12 midnight. Microsoft has bought Skype for $8.5 billion, in an all-cash deal.
Except that isn't actually correct, the deal has to pass through the FTC, which it has yet to do. You can even see on Skype's about page they still list being owned by Silver Lake? Why is that? It's because the deal is yet to be finalised, because the regulators take time on an aquisition of this size. The deal is done in principle but MS does not yet own the Skype IP.
any song you obtained elsewhere (ripped from CD, bought from amazon, bought from allofmp3, pirated, whatever) that can be matched to a song on iTunes, you get the iTunes copy to download to your device.
Sounds like a great way to launder your pirated music collection, surely the RIAA isn't going to be pleased about this.
They don't have a mobile OS they cleary have stated it is only for phones.
They have announced - and even showed how - their next OS will be focussed towards the tablet form-factor (even showed prototype devices). Yes WP7 is only for phones, but the development effort they are throwing behind it proves they are serious about the market, contrary to your comments about them never acknowledging the decline of desktop/laptop relevance.
Windows 8 is just windows 7 with tiles so far, a desktop OS on a "slate" as they call it.
Well no it isn't, for example Windows 7 never ran on ARM and the entire desktop GUI is different and uses HTML5 for development of many types of applications.
Windows on ARM is atleast a year away and won't be able to run x86 and AM64 except for purely .net and java apps. Tell me how many 100s of million tablets will be sold by competitors by then?
How is that relevant? This is a response to your comment that MS will never acknowledge the declining relevance of desktops and laptops, which - as has clearly been demonstrated with the latest announcements, demos and actions by microsoft - is rubbish.
There chief architect said something to the effect of he is t convinced tablets will be around in a few years because there is no use case between smart phones and laptops.
I also meet with various Microsoft reps in different product lines and the company talking points cleary ae desktop OS oriented.
Finally their primary revenue stream comes from Desktop OS, desktop support server software, and Office. These products are heavy under assault by tablets. There smart phone offering is performing poorly in the market and they have a virtually non-existent tablet strategy.
Call it more conjecture than fact if you will
Have you had your head in the sand? They're pushing their mobile OS pretty damn hard at the moment (given their latest update announcement) and their revelation of the GUI of the new version of their flagship OS shows that they are targeting tablet computers even more than traditional desktops and laptops! They are even trumpeting their move to the ARM architecture, predominantly used in tablet/smartphone computers. Pretty much every announcement out of MS lately has shown a strong move in the direction of tablets, smartphones and the xbox - not so much happening on the desktop/laptop front.
ah right, yeah that's what i was thinking, so if you want your higher bitrate tracks they will count towards your 5GB and you probably need to do the iCloud thing and pay the $24 per month.
WAAAHHH!!!! The W3C didn't make up this standard!!! We're still debating what the dickens to define as HTML5! No fair that the other children are running off with their ball to do their own thing...
Not only that but he seems to ignore the fact that it's a proposed vocabulary and the entire web community can and will be the ones to decide if it is to be used or not.
this means Apple is acknowledging at least tacitly what Microsoft never will
how do you come to the conclusion that MS will not acknowledge that?
You can always just upload your content if you like. The 'matching' feature is pay to play. The iCloud basic services are free.
But isn't that only for 5GB? I thought music was included in that 5GB unless you matched it to the iTunes store, at least that's what i understood from what i saw (admittedly haven't seen all of it yet). If you've ripped >256kbps tracks then you're likely going to need more than 5GB.