To win any lawsuit (including copyright) the burden of proof is on the person suing. The last thing America needs is easier ways to make money suing people.
Screw good faith. Places need to start charging to process DMCA notices, and then when they get fake or bad, or just plain wrong notices like this, you then charge them 1000x the price. They don't pay? Then you don't process any more DMCA notices from them.
The DMCA process is the law. ISPs don't get to charge. They have two choices
a) Accept liability b) Get a statement of license from the person distributing the content
If DMCA continues to grow what is going to happen is ISPs will just need license assurance first before publishing like music distributors or book distributors do now.
This is America. This is how the legal system has always worked.
A does action X. B objects and threatens to sue A if the doesn't stop X. A agrees.
GitHub is a distributor. To distribute they need to be properly licensed. They are now asking for assurance of licensing given that Qualcomm is contending they are the copyright holder. That's all that is happening. Qualcomm is factually wrong and under the law they can be sued for being wrong by the licensees (the people about whom they made false complaints).
That is in no way different than what would have happened 100 years ago if someone was distributing a book and someone else complained that the distributor didn't have license to the material.
1) Not designed all the way for unicode 2) Not designed for parallelism effectively 3) Doesn't have internal access to its own grammar 4) Doesn't have access to a powerful type system
Except that we know historically Perl was hugely successful it led to the explosion in dynamic languages. It drove the gateway interface and the move towards webforms away from a static web. It became the dominant system admin language....
Python 3 is much less of an improvement over 2 than Perl 6 is over 5. For better or worse the changes are much larger. A better comparison is Oak to Java, C++ to C# or VB6 to VB.NET
Werl first off Perl6 has a Perl5 mode so it is backwards compatible. But even if that weren't the case Perl may have lost a lot of momentum but I don't see any reason that non backward compatible languages can't thrive. For example neither JavaScript nor ActionScript was backwards compatible with their parent language (ECMAScript) and both languages did rather well. Java was not backwards compatible with Oak. Perl itself was not backwards compatible with awk/sed scripting. Etc... There are a lot of cool ideas in Perl6. If they can get a hearing they might be successful. They just lost a tremendous amount of time.
A lot of the Windows 7 users won't upgrade to Windows 8 nor buy computers that come with 8.
There isn't much evidence of that in the home market / small business market. There is evidence of that in enterprise but that's fine. Microsoft spent the entire previous decade more deeply embedding themselves in enterprise they have plenty of time there. Android / ARM is much less of a threat.
To move forward, Microsoft has to get the Windows 7 users to consider using a newer version of Windows.
They need to get them to buy appropriate hardware. It isn't just an OS upgrade. Time will do that if they change the new computer market. Which is shifting (though more slowly than they would like).
Microsoft might even need to consider an upgrade model similar to what Apple is doing now - all upgrades are free, you only pay once for the initial license of Windows for your computer.
Upgrading to 8 was pretty cheap. It wasn't the cost that held people back.
from the burden of having to support multiple old versions of Windows as they could take the position of "upgrade or get dropped".
They have n-1 or n-2 agreements with enterprise. But if they shorter the time between versions (make sure it is 3 years or less) then absolutely!
GP was asking about large unique advantages. Server side Javascript has some interesting potential and possibly some unique features but it isn't the same thing.
If you are saying that server side and client side are equivalent don't forget about latency.
Javascript executes client side. It is the interpreted language that rendering engines are being built around. You can't have scriptable interactions with low latency without something like it and it is at this point usually the best choice.
But then, why not just simply make Win8 into 2 different GUI based OSes
Because that defeats the key advantage. Think about this on the right hardware (like a Surface or a Yoga). 1) You get a productivity oriented tablet 2) That productivity oriented tablet can run applications whose engines are written in.NET. Which means application designers can share 70-80% of their code between tablet and desktop. 3) When the users need to run legacy applications they have access to the legacy OS. 4) Data can easily move between the legacy and new GUI including cut-paste/OLE...
They weren't going to just release another OS rather they were going to transition their customers through a decade long process of moving to another OS. They always want desktop integration. This was their longterm vision: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
___
I think in terms of maintaining Windows 7 they had to decide on their strategy:
a) Make it unpleasant to stay on non-touch devices and thus encourage their cheapass customers to pay for expensive hinges and touchscreens b) Allow customers to smoothly migrate to Windows 8 on existing hardware
You can't do both. They started out by doing (a). But they kept waffling. More importantly they never indicated this was their direction. If they really do what this article claims they get the worst of all worlds since they don't have a viable transition plan. All the problems with Win 8 will have been for nothing.
Their cheap-ass customers right now are a serious danger to the long term viability of the platform. For a while they were useful in creating the "everybody uses Windows" ubiquity. But overtime their not spending has driven down margins on hardware to the point that quality has continued to drop, and hardware stagnation on the entire x86 platform has become the norm. It is not just a Microsoft problem it is an x86 ecosystem problem. A stagnant unspending base of users damages the entire tech ecosystem. They hold back technological progress creating a tragedy of the commons when it comes to software and web services features.
Everyone's customers want to spend as little as possible, but that's in the business' interests to let them. I'd love to be able to take airline flights for $5. Microsoft's job as a leader isn't to let customers spend as little as possible but to balance out the competing interests of the entire ecosystem. And that means working against those customer's desire to starve the ecosystem.
No Microsoft doesn't force people to upgrade. Apple for example shows how much stronger an arm can be. Microsoft used to do that in the Windows 3.0 - release of Windows XP years but since XP they allowed that culture of rapid upgrades to change. They may never be able to move their base as quickly as Apple's base but they need to move their base much more quickly. Losing the lowest spending 1/3rd of their customers isn't nearly as much of a strategic threat to the ecosystem as allowing Apple to pull off the top 10%, and allowing ARM/Android to catch up and pull out the bottom 90%.
Statcounter (which is global since the numbers are higher), wikimedia... all have pretty similar numbers and show the huge drop..
Netmarketshare shows a more gradual drop and they use weighted data. Gets into the whole do we want to count countries with light usage but lots of people issue. For example I have a Toshiba XP laptop I use a few times a year for 2 hours or so. Should that count or not?
I understand it isn't broken. That's not the question. What is a problem for Microsoft is the idea that if it isn't broken you shouldn't be spending to get better. That's something they need to change in their customer base.
They did it with Vista only partially. Originally Vista (Longhorn) was going to be much more demanding on hardware than XP had been. The idea was the XP would be for older systems while Longhorn would have more aggressive requirements (like 2g RAM min).
That would have allowed: a) a 3D graphics card mandatory interface (Aero but without the low hardware mode supported) b) A database filesystem (i.e. a small version of SQL server included with every version of Windows available to applications) c) hardware support for video and audio extensions (like you have an Apple).
They chickened out and Vista wasn't popular. Windows8 should have been touchscreen mandatory.
Because we don't report Microsoft's success. Over Jan 2013 - April 2014 they got it from 35% of the market down to 8% of the market. A huge win that showed when they do want to push, and hold their guns they can move the market. Goes against the wisdom that Microsoft is helpless.
No they don't. They just don't support old hardware and start breaking this culture of backwards compatibility they've built up. They've encouraged their customers for far too long to buy bad hardware and then run it forever. They don't have to do that.
I think we agree on the strategy while disagreeing on the terminology. Using Word for example I'd consider it light to moderate. While typesetting programs (In Design), document management (Storage IQ)... are the professional versions of Word.
As for your numbers DSLR sales in the USA are about 1.2m / year. There is less than you think.
I'm disagreeing that a noob can work a complex piece of software successful or would often want to. The people who buy DSLRs today are probably the 5% of people most interested in photography. That's already a pretty motivated group. Maybe not motivated enough to crack a book (though I don't understand why people selling a $500 camera can't have a website that teaches the basics well) but motivated. Most of Apple's customers are going to be substantially less motivated than the people who buy a DSLR and never take it of program.
I think they can go noob to moderately interested amateur. But I think you are still overestimating the market.
You are right though that good defaults allow for programs to work well with lots of features. Word (a rather complex program, that everyone knows how to use) being a great example.
I don't think there is anyway to have today's level of complexity in a general usage application. There is too much background required. But if Apple can offer the 15% of features that do 70% of the important work....
Some telescopes are around that resolution or higher. Darpa started working on cameras that are mobile (can be mounted on a satellite) or airplane that are higher resolution (50 gigapixel) years ago and there certainly are working prototypes. Though I suspect he meant 18mb.
What would really stop Apple from stripping the best features from Aperture and putting them into iPhoto?
Complexity. Aperture assume at least a highly interested amateur. iPhoto assumes a general users knowledge of photography. What's good for one type of user is often a negative for the other.
Slashdot Mirror
To win any lawsuit (including copyright) the burden of proof is on the person suing. The last thing America needs is easier ways to make money suing people.
The DMCA process is the law. ISPs don't get to charge. They have two choices
a) Accept liability
b) Get a statement of license from the person distributing the content
If DMCA continues to grow what is going to happen is ISPs will just need license assurance first before publishing like music distributors or book distributors do now.
This is America. This is how the legal system has always worked.
A does action X.
B objects and threatens to sue A if the doesn't stop X.
A agrees.
GitHub is a distributor. To distribute they need to be properly licensed. They are now asking for assurance of licensing given that Qualcomm is contending they are the copyright holder. That's all that is happening. Qualcomm is factually wrong and under the law they can be sued for being wrong by the licensees (the people about whom they made false complaints).
That is in no way different than what would have happened 100 years ago if someone was distributing a book and someone else complained that the distributor didn't have license to the material.
They were.
1) Not designed all the way for unicode
2) Not designed for parallelism effectively
3) Doesn't have internal access to its own grammar
4) Doesn't have access to a powerful type system
etc... Perl 6 is a huge step up.
Except that we know historically Perl was hugely successful it led to the explosion in dynamic languages. It drove the gateway interface and the move towards webforms away from a static web. It became the dominant system admin language....
Python 3 is much less of an improvement over 2 than Perl 6 is over 5. For better or worse the changes are much larger. A better comparison is Oak to Java, C++ to C# or VB6 to VB.NET
Werl first off Perl6 has a Perl5 mode so it is backwards compatible. But even if that weren't the case Perl may have lost a lot of momentum but I don't see any reason that non backward compatible languages can't thrive. For example neither JavaScript nor ActionScript was backwards compatible with their parent language (ECMAScript) and both languages did rather well. Java was not backwards compatible with Oak. Perl itself was not backwards compatible with awk/sed scripting. Etc... There are a lot of cool ideas in Perl6. If they can get a hearing they might be successful. They just lost a tremendous amount of time.
That's a one time cost. You pay the latency with every interaction if you implement the functionality server side.
Think about something like Googledocs without Javascript.
You aren't thinking about the network latency. Your analysis above is wrong.
No it isn't. Assume the communication, processing and return from a server take 70 ms. Assume the processing takes only 2ms.
client side: User does X system responds with Y in 2ms
server side User does X system responds with Y in 70ms
That's why google docs for example is usable because it loads the information client side.
There isn't much evidence of that in the home market / small business market. There is evidence of that in enterprise but that's fine. Microsoft spent the entire previous decade more deeply embedding themselves in enterprise they have plenty of time there. Android / ARM is much less of a threat.
They need to get them to buy appropriate hardware. It isn't just an OS upgrade. Time will do that if they change the new computer market. Which is shifting (though more slowly than they would like).
Upgrading to 8 was pretty cheap. It wasn't the cost that held people back.
They have n-1 or n-2 agreements with enterprise. But if they shorter the time between versions (make sure it is 3 years or less) then absolutely!
GP was asking about large unique advantages. Server side Javascript has some interesting potential and possibly some unique features but it isn't the same thing.
If you are saying that server side and client side are equivalent don't forget about latency.
Javascript executes client side. It is the interpreted language that rendering engines are being built around. You can't have scriptable interactions with low latency without something like it and it is at this point usually the best choice.
Because that defeats the key advantage. Think about this on the right hardware (like a Surface or a Yoga). .NET. Which means application designers can share 70-80% of their code between tablet and desktop.
1) You get a productivity oriented tablet
2) That productivity oriented tablet can run applications whose engines are written in
3) When the users need to run legacy applications they have access to the legacy OS.
4) Data can easily move between the legacy and new GUI including cut-paste/OLE...
They weren't going to just release another OS rather they were going to transition their customers through a decade long process of moving to another OS. They always want desktop integration. This was their longterm vision:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
___
I think in terms of maintaining Windows 7 they had to decide on their strategy:
a) Make it unpleasant to stay on non-touch devices and thus encourage their cheapass customers to pay for expensive hinges and touchscreens
b) Allow customers to smoothly migrate to Windows 8 on existing hardware
You can't do both. They started out by doing (a). But they kept waffling. More importantly they never indicated this was their direction. If they really do what this article claims they get the worst of all worlds since they don't have a viable transition plan. All the problems with Win 8 will have been for nothing.
Their cheap-ass customers right now are a serious danger to the long term viability of the platform. For a while they were useful in creating the "everybody uses Windows" ubiquity. But overtime their not spending has driven down margins on hardware to the point that quality has continued to drop, and hardware stagnation on the entire x86 platform has become the norm. It is not just a Microsoft problem it is an x86 ecosystem problem. A stagnant unspending base of users damages the entire tech ecosystem. They hold back technological progress creating a tragedy of the commons when it comes to software and web services features.
Everyone's customers want to spend as little as possible, but that's in the business' interests to let them. I'd love to be able to take airline flights for $5. Microsoft's job as a leader isn't to let customers spend as little as possible but to balance out the competing interests of the entire ecosystem. And that means working against those customer's desire to starve the ecosystem.
No Microsoft doesn't force people to upgrade. Apple for example shows how much stronger an arm can be. Microsoft used to do that in the Windows 3.0 - release of Windows XP years but since XP they allowed that culture of rapid upgrades to change. They may never be able to move their base as quickly as Apple's base but they need to move their base much more quickly. Losing the lowest spending 1/3rd of their customers isn't nearly as much of a strategic threat to the ecosystem as allowing Apple to pull off the top 10%, and allowing ARM/Android to catch up and pull out the bottom 90%.
Statcounter (which is global since the numbers are higher), wikimedia... all have pretty similar numbers and show the huge drop..
Netmarketshare shows a more gradual drop and they use weighted data. Gets into the whole do we want to count countries with light usage but lots of people issue. For example I have a Toshiba XP laptop I use a few times a year for 2 hours or so. Should that count or not?
I understand it isn't broken. That's not the question. What is a problem for Microsoft is the idea that if it isn't broken you shouldn't be spending to get better. That's something they need to change in their customer base.
They did it with Vista only partially. Originally Vista (Longhorn) was going to be much more demanding on hardware than XP had been. The idea was the XP would be for older systems while Longhorn would have more aggressive requirements (like 2g RAM min).
That would have allowed:
a) a 3D graphics card mandatory interface (Aero but without the low hardware mode supported)
b) A database filesystem (i.e. a small version of SQL server included with every version of Windows available to applications)
c) hardware support for video and audio extensions (like you have an Apple).
They chickened out and Vista wasn't popular. Windows8 should have been touchscreen mandatory.
Because we don't report Microsoft's success. Over Jan 2013 - April 2014 they got it from 35% of the market down to 8% of the market. A huge win that showed when they do want to push, and hold their guns they can move the market. Goes against the wisdom that Microsoft is helpless.
No they don't. They just don't support old hardware and start breaking this culture of backwards compatibility they've built up. They've encouraged their customers for far too long to buy bad hardware and then run it forever. They don't have to do that.
I think we agree on the strategy while disagreeing on the terminology. Using Word for example I'd consider it light to moderate. While typesetting programs (In Design), document management (Storage IQ)... are the professional versions of Word.
As for your numbers DSLR sales in the USA are about 1.2m / year. There is less than you think.
I'm disagreeing that a noob can work a complex piece of software successful or would often want to. The people who buy DSLRs today are probably the 5% of people most interested in photography. That's already a pretty motivated group. Maybe not motivated enough to crack a book (though I don't understand why people selling a $500 camera can't have a website that teaches the basics well) but motivated. Most of Apple's customers are going to be substantially less motivated than the people who buy a DSLR and never take it of program.
I think they can go noob to moderately interested amateur. But I think you are still overestimating the market.
You are right though that good defaults allow for programs to work well with lots of features. Word (a rather complex program, that everyone knows how to use) being a great example.
I don't think there is anyway to have today's level of complexity in a general usage application. There is too much background required. But if Apple can offer the 15% of features that do 70% of the important work....
Some telescopes are around that resolution or higher. Darpa started working on cameras that are mobile (can be mounted on a satellite) or airplane that are higher resolution (50 gigapixel) years ago and there certainly are working prototypes. Though I suspect he meant 18mb.
Complexity. Aperture assume at least a highly interested amateur. iPhoto assumes a general users knowledge of photography. What's good for one type of user is often a negative for the other.