Most governments can tax or subsidize as they will. So they are free to move money from one entity to any other entity. We don't say that doing any business with a society is supporting everything that society does. We weigh the complexities against one another.
Microsoft is mildly advancing lockdown on ARM. They are taking an already moderately locked down platform and further entrenching lockdown. On x86 so far they are providing a slight move towards avoid OS level hacks, a bit more security with little lockdown. Microsoft has a fairly long record of supporting open systems in hardware. Microsoft has a fairly long record of being hostile to open standards for software.
They are a bit of a mixed bag. But obviously supporting Microsoft is not supporting open system. Obviously there are some vendors that are more open, but not many. Sun was more open in terms of file formats but more closed in terms of hardware. I'm not sure who on ARM is really much better. I'd say right now http://jolla.com/ is probably the most open but it is unclear if they even intend to sell in the USA.
Microsoft doesn't expect to be the unique signing authority. They are trying to make sure there is one and acting as one. But they aren't really well setup for it. I don't think there would be any wrath if Microsoft could step away entirely from the signing business.
I'd assume Samsung's prime reason for supporting it would be for Android on x86 and Tizen development.
Browser bundling was engaging in unfair competition. Microsoft has been working aggressively and cooperatively with Linux vendors to provide alternative solutions and helping to make sure they don't engage in unfair competition. Far from a stronger case, there is no case.
What everyone is upset about is stuff Microsoft could potentially do, not stuff they are doing. Well, in America, you don't get convicted for potentially being able to do bad stuff, at the very least you have to start taking steps towards going bad stuff.
Diverse inexpensive hardware in the hands of hostile end users is not trustworthy.
But... additional layers of security do make a difference. iOS has had far fewer problems that Android not because iOS is inherently more secure that Dalvik, probably the opposite, but a few extra layers of security and management. Internet browsers today are vastly more secure than those 15 years ago because of extra layers. Layers matter.
Calm down. First off that's not Microsoft. They didn't write your BIOS. Second, the BIOS loads before the operating system so there is no way to "brick" a system like that. Just call the manufacturer and find out what the correct key is to get in.
ARM hardware often has different financial models. It certainly has different cultures. I don't think we should think of them as a unit. You can support or oppose more open ARM entirely separately from the x86 discussion.
They probably aren't going to be the only signing authority on most machines. For example if you were to buy a Samsung laptop, Samsung might decide to have their own master key. I'd assume China is going to want their own master keys. I'd assume for the EU there is going to be someone other than Microsoft, say Unisys.
BIOS contains a key signing authority which signs keys which allows an OS to load. The Microsoft key exists as an authority. There will probably be some fixed number of signing authorities. In theory distributions could just pay a nominal fee (about $80 from Microsoft for example) per kernel and get signed.
RedHat decided that was a bad idea since they still wanted to support roll your own kernels without end users paying $80 per kernel and so they invented the shim system. BIOS don't boot Linux they just, if enabled, check that a simple math operation. What works for Microsoft kernels as they release service packs and patches should work equally well for Linux. If BIOS manufacturers are blowing the one, they are most likely blowing the other..
If that were true why would: LG, HTC, BlackBerry, Apple, Motorola all have reported similar problems with regard to the complexity of manufacture on this generation of phones?
I think ARM is an interesting situation. I expect the mid-2013 cell phones to be on par with the good but not great laptops that ran Win2k, more or less the kinds of machines that were a bit underpowered for XP but for whom it was still tolerable. There is a real question about how much power people are going to need in their cell phones. On the other hand if you consider what Siri is doing that's a real time AI app doing NLP. You can use infinite power doing NLP. Probably for each doubling or tripling of the CPU usage you'll gain another percentage point of accuracy. Just imagine the CPU required to have the phone be able to do dialogue beyond the few simple scripts!
On computers I strongly approve of Microsoft driving the market towards more demanding applications because I think it is time to take advantage of what modern computers can really do with operating systems that fit those sorts of machines. My laptop is a just short of specs of the VAX used to use to support 3000 users, time to do more than run Word.
As far as Lumia and Nokia. Nokia is dominant in EMs with the Asha line. The Lumia 520 and 620 is already popular among the middle class in the 3rd world. I'd say you are wrong it is already selling and Nokia could probably sell another 100m if they could make them. Nokia through 2014 is going to be able to easily sell every low end Lumia they can make. But... 2014 total Lumia production is only set for 85m, that includes high end and low end.
x86 was always easy to manufacture, it was companies like SGI or IBM in the mainframe space that had complex manufacturing where there were failures. This is a whole new set of problems for Microsoft that they've never had to deal with where state of the art factories are required to even assemble the parts for their stuff. Obviously Intel might have supply problems, which for example why they converted 286 capacity over to 386SX capacity, but Intel is vastly more competent at meeting demand than Nokia and HTC have proven themselves at being. And like I said, Apple wants to keep raising the bar, since this battle of complex manufacturing is a battle they think they can win.
So in short:
a) I agree ARM may be a bubble in terms of expectations of the $700 phones selling every 2 years to a few hundred million people. They are going to have to keep getting better very quickly to keep up that demand and that means that any fall off in the demands of the apps and game over. I don't know when they fail, because I can see things they could do to keep driving demand.
b) I think Lumia will sell to EMs fine. But Microsoft's ability to sell lots of mobile units is limited over the next several years by supply issues. That is unless they can get Samsung or Apple onboard their platform and that's doubtful.
c) I love the Windows 8 strategy of driving up hardware for x86. x86 can crush ARM its time there were apps that made use of the power that Intel can put out.
The companies aren't being clear about what is complex about this generation of phones to manufacture, but: Apple, BlackBerry, Motorola, Nokia, LG, HTC have all made comments about having complexity issues. All the major players except Samsung. I suspect it is a variety of things. Examples:
Foxconn complained about laying in this generation in ways that make it scratch resistant. Whatever they are doing was driving yields pitifully low during mid 2012.
Other people involved in assemblies have complained that parts are so close together, the positioning has to be within a few hundred nanometers or stuff doesn't fit right. They just aren't used to working on assemblies with that precision.
While the parts are standard, part yields have been bad. Many of the part manufacturers have missed shipping dates on parts, and created shortages. Of course these systems aren't generic the way x86 systems are, there is no easy to just pick a different part.
___
And of course the iPhone 5 is the hardest. Apple is raising the bar and clearly has the most complex to manufacture (110 grams). They are forcing everyone else to go even further in this direction.
Losing customers implies the problem was demand. Apple in 1Q2013 (fiscal) = 4Q2012 had supply problems not demand problems. They couldn't get the iMac out in time (21" shipped mid Nov and 27" early Dec).
Cook was pretty clear supply problems trimmed 700k off the quarter sales. Add the 700k and then adjust for 13 vs. 14 week quarter and they are down a small fraction, a few percent, not 22% nor 25%. If you are going to use Apple figures then use Apple figures.
Saying they had demand problems is your theory they've never said anything of the kind.
Well in all fairness on the Ashas which are of comparable difficulty they can churn those out in unlimited quantities. The Lumia are a lot harder to make.
Nokia on Lumia is supply constrained. Given the numbers they are very likely to remain supply constrained until at least 2015. HTC is currently supply constrained on the 8X. I don't know their future numbers.
Supply constrained is a good thing for a handset manufacturer.
You've tried this before. There is no 25% drop in sales. Apple's revenues have been way way up. Apple's computer revenues have fallen far less than the average x86 and have gained marketshare.
Yes they are. Ada's argument if accepted are remarkably broad. They are not structured not phrased in anyway that could narrowly construed.
People aren't idiots. If you talk about banning smoking at gas stations due to the risk of explosions and fire, that's an argument for a narrow ban. If you talk about banning smoking at gas stations due to the risk of lung cancer for the smoker or second hand smoke that's an argument for a broad ban.
And if you talk about banning smoking and never mention the gas station specifically, but it just happens to be the context and do so using arguments for a broad ban. Yes they are arguing for a broad ban.
What percentage of people at a hacking conference are represented by the population at a women's shelter? You just throwing out a silly guilt trip, there are lots of bad things in the world. People who were injured in fires are expected to deal with any fire phobia. People who were injured in car accidents are still expected to deal with cars. People who were injured in sexual relationships are still expected to deal with the existence of sexual relationships.
Well OK. First off Violet Blue is a very well known and well respected, especially in San Francisco, speaker on sex topics,. So we should first cut out any "they didn't know what she was going to talk about" or "they didn't know who she was".... Second, Violet Blue clearly is not an expert on network security and computers. Violet Blue is giving a talk about sex on drugs aimed for the age group of the hacker community. Harm reduction which is a concept from medicine could potential apply to IT security so it might be on topic, but they probably just skirting the line to create a tie in. Given we know who she is the talk is going to be: a well done sexually explicit sex-ed talk with age approp is going to be informative. The conference was going to have a spicy but informative talk to help make something memorable.
Third, I think the rape stuff is frankly nonsense. You can't function in American society being too sensitive to even tolerate the mention of sex. American society is loaded with sexual references. The idea that Violet Blue, who probably is outright experienced in rape counseling, can't handle a negative reaction is silly. OK so the real question is there are people who are uncomfortable hearing discussion about sex for much the same reason conservative Christians are.
So the real issue is, what should be our attitude about sex in business. People are all over the map on this one. Ada shouldn't have made this about rape.
It isn't. This is a Linux initiative. Many of the players like IBM are much less friendly towards BSDs. On the other hand Microsoft and Apple two of the people that are active in suing right now are friendly towards the BSDs. Different enemies, different friends ergo different alliances are needed.
I think given IBM's beating SCO to the ground given IBM's aggressive push and advertising for Linux everywhere given IBM's making Linux servers a core consulting practice given IBM early push to make Linux a development environment on mainframe given IBM moving their own AIX customers towards Linux
Nikon's problem isn't that they can afford a lawyer. Android probably does violate Microsoft patents, but those patents are likely quite weak. No one knows for sure because people haven't gone public with the claims, only Barnes and Noble threatened to go public with Microsoft's claims and Microsoft dropped the claim as part of a "partnership" once they did threaten to go public.
Microsoft's goal with the lawsuit is to make Google OEMs pay to Microsoft more or less what they would have to pay for WinRT so that their isn't a cost advantage to Android. Effectively, from Microsoft's standpoint, leveling the playing field. They are suing companies that don't want to get into complex litigation. So for example they stayed away from Google and once they realized B&N was perfectly willing to go war, they backed off. Most likely Nikon doesn't want complex litigation either and will either pay Microsoft or also form a partnership where they release the same camera with WinRT or....
Linux defenders helps small groups. IBM would love to be able to attack Microsoft's patents without being liable if they lose. From Microsoft's perspective heads they win $200k or whatever the developer is worth, tails they lose tens of millions to billions in patents. Which creates a terrific counterbalance that prevents Microsoft from going after small guys and racking up cheap wins. Good all around but doesn't do Nikon any good.
Slashdot Mirror
Most governments can tax or subsidize as they will. So they are free to move money from one entity to any other entity. We don't say that doing any business with a society is supporting everything that society does. We weigh the complexities against one another.
Microsoft is mildly advancing lockdown on ARM. They are taking an already moderately locked down platform and further entrenching lockdown. On x86 so far they are providing a slight move towards avoid OS level hacks, a bit more security with little lockdown. Microsoft has a fairly long record of supporting open systems in hardware. Microsoft has a fairly long record of being hostile to open standards for software.
They are a bit of a mixed bag. But obviously supporting Microsoft is not supporting open system. Obviously there are some vendors that are more open, but not many. Sun was more open in terms of file formats but more closed in terms of hardware. I'm not sure who on ARM is really much better. I'd say right now http://jolla.com/ is probably the most open but it is unclear if they even intend to sell in the USA.
Microsoft doesn't expect to be the unique signing authority. They are trying to make sure there is one and acting as one. But they aren't really well setup for it. I don't think there would be any wrath if Microsoft could step away entirely from the signing business.
I'd assume Samsung's prime reason for supporting it would be for Android on x86 and Tizen development.
Browser bundling was engaging in unfair competition. Microsoft has been working aggressively and cooperatively with Linux vendors to provide alternative solutions and helping to make sure they don't engage in unfair competition. Far from a stronger case, there is no case.
What everyone is upset about is stuff Microsoft could potentially do, not stuff they are doing. Well, in America, you don't get convicted for potentially being able to do bad stuff, at the very least you have to start taking steps towards going bad stuff.
Diverse inexpensive hardware in the hands of hostile end users is not trustworthy.
But... additional layers of security do make a difference. iOS has had far fewer problems that Android not because iOS is inherently more secure that Dalvik, probably the opposite, but a few extra layers of security and management. Internet browsers today are vastly more secure than those 15 years ago because of extra layers. Layers matter.
Calm down. First off that's not Microsoft. They didn't write your BIOS. Second, the BIOS loads before the operating system so there is no way to "brick" a system like that. Just call the manufacturer and find out what the correct key is to get in.
Pick up the phone and ask the manufacturer. That's rather classic, what support is for.
ARM hardware often has different financial models. It certainly has different cultures. I don't think we should think of them as a unit. You can support or oppose more open ARM entirely separately from the x86 discussion.
They probably aren't going to be the only signing authority on most machines. For example if you were to buy a Samsung laptop, Samsung might decide to have their own master key. I'd assume China is going to want their own master keys. I'd assume for the EU there is going to be someone other than Microsoft, say Unisys.
I think you are missing a layer here.
BIOS contains a key signing authority which signs keys which allows an OS to load.
The Microsoft key exists as an authority. There will probably be some fixed number of signing authorities.
In theory distributions could just pay a nominal fee (about $80 from Microsoft for example) per kernel and get signed.
RedHat decided that was a bad idea since they still wanted to support roll your own kernels without end users paying $80 per kernel and so they invented the shim system. BIOS don't boot Linux they just, if enabled, check that a simple math operation. What works for Microsoft kernels as they release service packs and patches should work equally well for Linux. If BIOS manufacturers are blowing the one, they are most likely blowing the other..
I'd say end users who are at a minimum configuring and compiling their own kernel modules are rather educated.
If that were true why would: LG, HTC, BlackBerry, Apple, Motorola all have reported similar problems with regard to the complexity of manufacture on this generation of phones?
I think ARM is an interesting situation. I expect the mid-2013 cell phones to be on par with the good but not great laptops that ran Win2k, more or less the kinds of machines that were a bit underpowered for XP but for whom it was still tolerable. There is a real question about how much power people are going to need in their cell phones. On the other hand if you consider what Siri is doing that's a real time AI app doing NLP. You can use infinite power doing NLP. Probably for each doubling or tripling of the CPU usage you'll gain another percentage point of accuracy. Just imagine the CPU required to have the phone be able to do dialogue beyond the few simple scripts!
On computers I strongly approve of Microsoft driving the market towards more demanding applications because I think it is time to take advantage of what modern computers can really do with operating systems that fit those sorts of machines. My laptop is a just short of specs of the VAX used to use to support 3000 users, time to do more than run Word.
As far as Lumia and Nokia. Nokia is dominant in EMs with the Asha line. The Lumia 520 and 620 is already popular among the middle class in the 3rd world. I'd say you are wrong it is already selling and Nokia could probably sell another 100m if they could make them. Nokia through 2014 is going to be able to easily sell every low end Lumia they can make. But... 2014 total Lumia production is only set for 85m, that includes high end and low end.
x86 was always easy to manufacture, it was companies like SGI or IBM in the mainframe space that had complex manufacturing where there were failures. This is a whole new set of problems for Microsoft that they've never had to deal with where state of the art factories are required to even assemble the parts for their stuff. Obviously Intel might have supply problems, which for example why they converted 286 capacity over to 386SX capacity, but Intel is vastly more competent at meeting demand than Nokia and HTC have proven themselves at being. And like I said, Apple wants to keep raising the bar, since this battle of complex manufacturing is a battle they think they can win.
So in short:
a) I agree ARM may be a bubble in terms of expectations of the $700 phones selling every 2 years to a few hundred million people. They are going to have to keep getting better very quickly to keep up that demand and that means that any fall off in the demands of the apps and game over. I don't know when they fail, because I can see things they could do to keep driving demand.
b) I think Lumia will sell to EMs fine. But Microsoft's ability to sell lots of mobile units is limited over the next several years by supply issues. That is unless they can get Samsung or Apple onboard their platform and that's doubtful.
c) I love the Windows 8 strategy of driving up hardware for x86. x86 can crush ARM its time there were apps that made use of the power that Intel can put out.
The companies aren't being clear about what is complex about this generation of phones to manufacture, but: Apple, BlackBerry, Motorola, Nokia, LG, HTC have all made comments about having complexity issues. All the major players except Samsung. I suspect it is a variety of things. Examples:
Foxconn complained about laying in this generation in ways that make it scratch resistant. Whatever they are doing was driving yields pitifully low during mid 2012.
Other people involved in assemblies have complained that parts are so close together, the positioning has to be within a few hundred nanometers or stuff doesn't fit right. They just aren't used to working on assemblies with that precision.
While the parts are standard, part yields have been bad. Many of the part manufacturers have missed shipping dates on parts, and created shortages. Of course these systems aren't generic the way x86 systems are, there is no easy to just pick a different part.
___
And of course the iPhone 5 is the hardest. Apple is raising the bar and clearly has the most complex to manufacture (110 grams). They are forcing everyone else to go even further in this direction.
Losing customers implies the problem was demand. Apple in 1Q2013 (fiscal) = 4Q2012 had supply problems not demand problems. They couldn't get the iMac out in time (21" shipped mid Nov and 27" early Dec).
Cook was pretty clear supply problems trimmed 700k off the quarter sales. Add the 700k and then adjust for 13 vs. 14 week quarter and they are down a small fraction, a few percent, not 22% nor 25%. If you are going to use Apple figures then use Apple figures.
Saying they had demand problems is your theory they've never said anything of the kind.
Well in all fairness on the Ashas which are of comparable difficulty they can churn those out in unlimited quantities. The Lumia are a lot harder to make.
Nokia on Lumia is supply constrained. Given the numbers they are very likely to remain supply constrained until at least 2015.
HTC is currently supply constrained on the 8X. I don't know their future numbers.
Supply constrained is a good thing for a handset manufacturer.
You've tried this before. There is no 25% drop in sales. Apple's revenues have been way way up. Apple's computer revenues have fallen far less than the average x86 and have gained marketshare.
If I hadn't already posted, +1 funny,
Very good point.
Yes they are. Ada's argument if accepted are remarkably broad. They are not structured not phrased in anyway that could narrowly construed.
People aren't idiots.
If you talk about banning smoking at gas stations due to the risk of explosions and fire, that's an argument for a narrow ban.
If you talk about banning smoking at gas stations due to the risk of lung cancer for the smoker or second hand smoke that's an argument for a broad ban.
And if you talk about banning smoking and never mention the gas station specifically, but it just happens to be the context and do so using arguments for a broad ban. Yes they are arguing for a broad ban.
What percentage of people at a hacking conference are represented by the population at a women's shelter? You just throwing out a silly guilt trip, there are lots of bad things in the world. People who were injured in fires are expected to deal with any fire phobia. People who were injured in car accidents are still expected to deal with cars. People who were injured in sexual relationships are still expected to deal with the existence of sexual relationships.
Well OK. First off Violet Blue is a very well known and well respected, especially in San Francisco, speaker on sex topics,. So we should first cut out any "they didn't know what she was going to talk about" or "they didn't know who she was".... Second, Violet Blue clearly is not an expert on network security and computers. Violet Blue is giving a talk about sex on drugs aimed for the age group of the hacker community. Harm reduction which is a concept from medicine could potential apply to IT security so it might be on topic, but they probably just skirting the line to create a tie in. Given we know who she is the talk is going to be: a well done sexually explicit sex-ed talk with age approp is going to be informative. The conference was going to have a spicy but informative talk to help make something memorable.
Third, I think the rape stuff is frankly nonsense. You can't function in American society being too sensitive to even tolerate the mention of sex. American society is loaded with sexual references. The idea that Violet Blue, who probably is outright experienced in rape counseling, can't handle a negative reaction is silly. OK so the real question is there are people who are uncomfortable hearing discussion about sex for much the same reason conservative Christians are.
So the real issue is, what should be our attitude about sex in business. People are all over the map on this one. Ada shouldn't have made this about rape.
It isn't. This is a Linux initiative. Many of the players like IBM are much less friendly towards BSDs. On the other hand Microsoft and Apple two of the people that are active in suing right now are friendly towards the BSDs. Different enemies, different friends ergo different alliances are needed.
I think given IBM's beating SCO to the ground
given IBM's aggressive push and advertising for Linux everywhere
given IBM's making Linux servers a core consulting practice
given IBM early push to make Linux a development environment on mainframe
given IBM moving their own AIX customers towards Linux
etc...
IBM deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Nikon's problem isn't that they can afford a lawyer. Android probably does violate Microsoft patents, but those patents are likely quite weak. No one knows for sure because people haven't gone public with the claims, only Barnes and Noble threatened to go public with Microsoft's claims and Microsoft dropped the claim as part of a "partnership" once they did threaten to go public.
Microsoft's goal with the lawsuit is to make Google OEMs pay to Microsoft more or less what they would have to pay for WinRT so that their isn't a cost advantage to Android. Effectively, from Microsoft's standpoint, leveling the playing field. They are suing companies that don't want to get into complex litigation. So for example they stayed away from Google and once they realized B&N was perfectly willing to go war, they backed off. Most likely Nikon doesn't want complex litigation either and will either pay Microsoft or also form a partnership where they release the same camera with WinRT or ....
Linux defenders helps small groups. IBM would love to be able to attack Microsoft's patents without being liable if they lose. From Microsoft's perspective heads they win $200k or whatever the developer is worth, tails they lose tens of millions to billions in patents. Which creates a terrific counterbalance that prevents Microsoft from going after small guys and racking up cheap wins. Good all around but doesn't do Nikon any good.