What is illegal is using monopolistic power to undermine competition or to unfairly manipulate the market.
What I am saying is that Apple bundling software like iTunes, iChat, Safari etc etc is an abuse of monopoly (if they have one) on par with MS bundling IE.
BTW, a competitor voluntarily dropping a product because of stiff competition still doesn't establish that.
No, but a pattern of it does - as in the MS trial. And Apple is developing a pattern as I mentioned: IE v. Safari, Roxio v. iTunes, Premiere v. iMovie. It's developing into a pattern such that Apple is nudging out ISV's to a large extennt.
I know exactly what I am talking about, and it is very simple: courts ruled that MS and Apple are not competitors, therefore MS is a monopoly. That means MS and Apple are in different markets. Apple is obviously king of the "Apple hardware" market. That also gives the monopoly power over what software ships with Apple hardware. Therefore, they have monopoly power over the software shippin with their products, which puts ISV's at a risk. If the courts ruled Apple's software business to be a monopoly then they'd have to consider the effects of bundling - ala the MS trial - on the ISV's that wish to sell for the Apple platform.
I am not claiming it is illegal to be a monopoly, but rather, that if Apple is a monopoly then they are showing signs (aka increased bundling [for 'free' no less]) of abuse of that power.
"x86 compatible personal computers" is not the market.
That's what the courts decided though. The courts looked at Apple and decided that MS and Apple where in opposite markets, mostly because one could not easily switch between Apple OS's and Microsoft OS's (ie, without changing hardware).
If MS and Apple ARE in competition, then that means MS ISN'T a monopoly. The two are mutually exclusive. So, it boils down to: either BOTH Apple and MS are monopolies, OR neither MS or Apple are monopolies.
and the perception is that Apple is a competitor to MS
The courts disagree. Perception dictates that Linux is a competitor to MS, but the courts disagreed with that, too.
In the Microsoft anti-trust trial, it was ruled that Apple should not be considered competition to Microsoft.
Therefore, Apple and Microsoft are not competitors, and therefore, they are in seperate market spaces.
Therefore, Apple has it's own market. By definition, the market MS is in (amoung others) is "Desktop Operating Systems for x86 compatible hardware".
The question then becomes, is Apple a *monopoly*. On the face, a ridiculous question. But in depth, it's not. Apple is the exclusive maker now of hardware able to run Mac OS. Therefore, they maintain a hardware monopoly in relation to what can run Mac OS X.
The question is this: in relation to the ISV (independent software vendors) does Apple maintain monopoly control? This isn't the first software package killed by Apple's bundling: Internet Explorer, Roxio stuff, and now Adobe stuff.
At some point its not inconveivable that Apple could be the target of a Sherman related case. They are the exclusive makers of Mac OS X compatible hardware, and they bundle it with software, at the expense of smaller software companies (or in cases larger). It is entirely possible that Apple could face a charge of anti-competitive bundling much like MS did.
Speculation yes, but it is starting to get obvious that Apple is killing ISV's via their use of bundling.
And when it 'commonly' runs on Linux, I'll consider switching my company web work from PHP.
Thanks to MONO thats not far away.
But note, I didnt say or claim it was better. I just claimed they had that ability and it was better than Java's cross-language facilities - which is just about indisputable.
"Out-of-the-box" there are multiple (aka common) languages that use the runtime. Yeah, some work better than others - that's how it is with all languages.
Compared to Java, there is one syntax supported by Sun: Java. There are alternatives, but they are community projects. That's what.NET has that JAVA doesn't.
You missed what I am saying. I am saying, yes, Exchange sucks to admin. But I like its features, and there isn't anything out there that is reasonably priced or competitive or does a nice job like Exchange does in the end.
That's why you should outsource your Exchange users to an ASP. That's what I did, and it costs $9.95/user per month.
That eliminates all of the crappiness and makes it so all you have to do is setup the clients or give them a link to OWA on their desktop/favorites list.
Why not just use Exchange? It's not that bad. In fact, if you aren't up on spending big money and you have a small company, why not outsource your e-mail operations to an ASP like ASPOne or someone else. I personally use ASPOne for my small business e-mail and I like it alot. I get the benefits of using MS software (really nice web-mail through Outlook Web Access, shareable calendars, folders (with attachments), shared contacts, integration with nice client software) without any of the headaches (high-cost upfront, high-mainteance, viruses, trojans, mal-configuration).
In the end it costs me like $9/month per user. For a few users (like 5-6 or less) it's really reasonable, does everything I want it to AND my users don't have to compromise.
Your users are right. OTHER companies can share calendars without using the inflexible, cumbersome, non-drag-and-drop, non-context-sensitive, non-productive web-interfaces from "lightweight" projects like Squirrel Mail. I mean, lets face it. Compare Outlook Web Access on Exchange 2000 or Exchange 2003 Beta's to Squirrel Mail or even the Horde and its embarrassing - even on cross platform browsers. OWA blows them away in terms of productivity, closeness to a traditional application (drag-and-drop, context menus, etc).
Sometimes users are right and sys-admins are wrong!
Why don't I enter a patent for renting or leasing a car for a month?
Because that's not new.
Netflix came up with something genuinely new at the time. Maybe "prior art" exisits - ie - someone out there actually had a service like Netflix where you could rent DVDs without a per disc fee, but if there is, I dont know about it. Anyone with prior art care to provide some backup?
This type of idea isn't obvious. The obvious thing is to rent DVDs per disc per day per rental etc etc. That's how its always been done. Netflix made up something new.
That's the whole point of patents: to allow companies who make up something new a few years to recoup startup costs without a horde of knock-offs undercutting them.
And this isn't an idea per se, its a *method* of rending DVDs. One method is to have a big store and let people pick them off the shelf for a $4 a pop. This is different from that, and therefore, a new method.
But the point is that Apple is supposed to be *better*. That's why Apple people use Apple, and not PCs - because Apple is better.
If Apple just goes and starts to do things like everyone else we have a big problem. Apple loses its shine, you might as well buy a Dell for 50% the cost and be done with it.
I think the greater risk here is that someone might use GPL software instead of an expensive alternative, but they won't if they fear they'll be told to cough up licensing, royalities, or other payments out of budget.
GPL being destroyed is a bad thing, but only if people intend on using GPL'd software.
Linus, FSF, RMS sueing is bad, because in the long run it validates the idea that GPL is problematic legally.
With proprietary systems from Sun or MS, there isn't this whole unpleasant nastiness (though there is loads of other nastiness, that's for sure). That'll be mercilessly pounced on if the other side countersues and it drags out for years or even decades. That was MS's rub for a long time (as well as Novell) - "our stuff isn't embroiled in day-to-day lawsuits".
You of course have to slow down, but you dont have to take off the cruise control. Since you have some distance to work from take your cruise control and click it down three or four notches. It will be smooth and controlled, no braking or sudden movements needed.
That's the point of cruise control. It isnt a guarantee of speed.
Given enough time in an aircraft I have confidence a pilot would make the correct decision quickly enough
I've got to disagree. Strongly. I've flown planes, again smaller planes, but there simply isn't time. Even with thousands of hours there is too much data to sense, recognize, plan and carry out a corrective action in many many cases.
I've flown planes - albeit much smaller planes. There are so many variables, and in a split-second crisis situation I can 100% guarantee that a pilot can not assess enough data to make a rational decision.
A lot of things can happen on an airplane in a very small amount of time. Microseconds can be critical. In many cases it is *impossible* that a human being could see the problem, realize it as a problem, consider options, choose a course of action, and follow through. In some cases - imagine rapid depreasurization or a critical area birdstrike - the time to avoid a fatal catastrophe is virtually instantenous in nature. You have 1.25 seconds to shutdown the left second turbine. The knobby switch for insta kill is 2.5 feet from your nearest hand. Do you feel lucky?
You just need to follow the proper distance. That's all. I routinely drive several hundred miles at a time on cruise control. Passing, changing lanes, etc without ever braking or accelerating.
The key is proper following distance and good use of space. Anticipate those cloggy ramps/exits. Give yourself a car length for every 10 mph. Yes! That's 60-70 feet or more between you and the "asshat" ahead of you.
The idea of MS paying a 10% tax to fund OSS seems neat, but its really not good. Not good in principle, not good in practice, not good in theory.
Some things would happen:
1. MS would design and publish standards that are so nasty and obscure that even skilled coders would have a hard time making any sense of it. That would get them off the hook and still not achieve open standards.
2. The software industry as a whole would suffer. Open standards are nice for interoperability, but not so nice for new development. Most standards are not easily made extensible with any sense. If they are extensible that's a loop for MS to exploit. The bottom line would be that new development by MS or any other software maker would suffer. Additionally the OSS world will also suffer. Good things happen when new software is written to do new things. Using the blunt hammer of government to dictate how software works is not a good solution. As soon as government determines it can make MS conform to its technical "guidelines", how long will it be before individuals and not-for-profits are bound and regulated the same way?
3. MS's customers will simply suffer an additional 10% or more price raise which they are still mostly required to pay. On the other end, myraid of companies will spring up to do OSS work, crowding out a lot of the good community that has sprung up. These organizations will suck up funding. The projects will also essentially be the same as commerical software projects minus closed source, and as a result software will follow commerical software trends - feature bloat, buginess, and using gimmicks to gain market share (and justify their continued funding).
your argument of closed sourcedness is bs... have you read each and every line of source in your linux kernel?
I don't run Linux, so no.
I am not watching too many X-Files. I think MS messed up with their EULA. They *could* put anything they want in their source code. We don't know. I am not claiming they have trojans, just that they could.
Without the source though, there is no way that you can *prove* that no "bad" code is in Windows. You simply can't. Its _not_ possible. With Linux, you can. You can prove that their is not a function that illiclitly sends data to some place it doesn't belong. With MS stuff, you can analyze traffic, you can watch things, you can try and keep your eyes open. But between encryption and the closed source nature of the software, you simply *can* not prove it.
That is surprisingly common. Most software vendors of size do not allow benchmarking. Alot of it stems from purposefully bad benchmarking that is designed to skew results. Big vendors like Oracle and MS have a lot to lose from jury-rigged benchmarks skewed to give one side an advantage.
On the other hand, some software package must be slower, that's just how it works. So they have a lot to lose just on the pure facts of the matter too.
MS can already put anything they want on your machine because the software is closed source. The ability to do it automatically is pretty trivial actually in the bigger picture.
The last EULA was almost certainly poorly choosen. That's all. They wanted the legal right to update your machine assuming you choose to use the feature. IE, they dont want lawsuits if people enable auto-updating and then find that something or some 3rd party app didnt work.
Speculation, but this pretty much confirms that the SP3 service pack was just a bit poorly done.
Who in congress has proposed banning handguns in the past decade?
I never said they proposed it, just that they support it.
You claimed that progressives do not want to take away handguns, but please, do you deny that there is a strong number of progressives who are considered mainstream who wish to ban handguns?
I've been following your sermon here, and I have to comment.
First off, there are many many many in your wing of the political spectrum who would in fact take away all hand guns, rifles, and other firearms. You have to acknowledge that to be taken seriously. Congress and the Senate in fact have members who seek a repeal of the 2nd amendment, or incremental limitations on who can own guns.
Slashdot Mirror
What is illegal is using monopolistic power to undermine competition or to unfairly manipulate the market.
What I am saying is that Apple bundling software like iTunes, iChat, Safari etc etc is an abuse of monopoly (if they have one) on par with MS bundling IE.
BTW, a competitor voluntarily dropping a product because of stiff competition still doesn't establish that. No, but a pattern of it does - as in the MS trial. And Apple is developing a pattern as I mentioned: IE v. Safari, Roxio v. iTunes, Premiere v. iMovie. It's developing into a pattern such that Apple is nudging out ISV's to a large extennt.
I know exactly what I am talking about, and it is very simple: courts ruled that MS and Apple are not competitors, therefore MS is a monopoly. That means MS and Apple are in different markets. Apple is obviously king of the "Apple hardware" market. That also gives the monopoly power over what software ships with Apple hardware. Therefore, they have monopoly power over the software shippin with their products, which puts ISV's at a risk. If the courts ruled Apple's software business to be a monopoly then they'd have to consider the effects of bundling - ala the MS trial - on the ISV's that wish to sell for the Apple platform.
I am not claiming it is illegal to be a monopoly, but rather, that if Apple is a monopoly then they are showing signs (aka increased bundling [for 'free' no less]) of abuse of that power.
"x86 compatible personal computers" is not the market. That's what the courts decided though. The courts looked at Apple and decided that MS and Apple where in opposite markets, mostly because one could not easily switch between Apple OS's and Microsoft OS's (ie, without changing hardware).
If MS and Apple ARE in competition, then that means MS ISN'T a monopoly. The two are mutually exclusive. So, it boils down to: either BOTH Apple and MS are monopolies, OR neither MS or Apple are monopolies.
Which is it in your opinion?
and the perception is that Apple is a competitor to MS
The courts disagree. Perception dictates that Linux is a competitor to MS, but the courts disagreed with that, too.
In the Microsoft anti-trust trial, it was ruled that Apple should not be considered competition to Microsoft.
Therefore, Apple and Microsoft are not competitors, and therefore, they are in seperate market spaces.
Therefore, Apple has it's own market. By definition, the market MS is in (amoung others) is "Desktop Operating Systems for x86 compatible hardware".
The question then becomes, is Apple a *monopoly*. On the face, a ridiculous question. But in depth, it's not. Apple is the exclusive maker now of hardware able to run Mac OS. Therefore, they maintain a hardware monopoly in relation to what can run Mac OS X.
The question is this: in relation to the ISV (independent software vendors) does Apple maintain monopoly control? This isn't the first software package killed by Apple's bundling: Internet Explorer, Roxio stuff, and now Adobe stuff.
At some point its not inconveivable that Apple could be the target of a Sherman related case. They are the exclusive makers of Mac OS X compatible hardware, and they bundle it with software, at the expense of smaller software companies (or in cases larger). It is entirely possible that Apple could face a charge of anti-competitive bundling much like MS did.
Speculation yes, but it is starting to get obvious that Apple is killing ISV's via their use of bundling.
Seriously. I mean, I'd think that covering up a thermonuclear detonation would be a bit hard in this day and age.
And when it 'commonly' runs on Linux, I'll consider switching my company web work from PHP.
Thanks to MONO thats not far away.
But note, I didnt say or claim it was better. I just claimed they had that ability and it was better than Java's cross-language facilities - which is just about indisputable.
My assertion is true.
.NET has that JAVA doesn't.
"Out-of-the-box" there are multiple (aka common) languages that use the runtime. Yeah, some work better than others - that's how it is with all languages.
Compared to Java, there is one syntax supported by Sun: Java. There are alternatives, but they are community projects. That's what
Mono is coming along nicely. Console apps will run depending on what they do. But you have a good point.
.NET was better than JAVA, but the fact that its not targeted for a single language is something that JAVA does not have.
I didn't say
That's all I am saying.
Really? So what does .NET do that Java doesn't? What's so innovative?
.NET does that Java doesn't. Java = Syntax, Runtime, Library. .NET = runtime.
Its a common language runtime instead of Java lanaguage runtime.
(Yes, I know anything can compile to Java byte-code, but that doesn't mean it was intended or is best suited for it).
That's A Big Deal. It's a well rounded runtime that is well designed and effective and its language neutral-ish (not perfect, but pretty good).
That's what
You missed what I am saying. I am saying, yes, Exchange sucks to admin. But I like its features, and there isn't anything out there that is reasonably priced or competitive or does a nice job like Exchange does in the end.
That's why you should outsource your Exchange users to an ASP. That's what I did, and it costs $9.95/user per month.
That eliminates all of the crappiness and makes it so all you have to do is setup the clients or give them a link to OWA on their desktop/favorites list.
But if you do that, why have a sysadmin.
Why not just use Exchange? It's not that bad. In fact, if you aren't up on spending big money and you have a small company, why not outsource your e-mail operations to an ASP like ASPOne or someone else. I personally use ASPOne for my small business e-mail and I like it alot. I get the benefits of using MS software (really nice web-mail through Outlook Web Access, shareable calendars, folders (with attachments), shared contacts, integration with nice client software) without any of the headaches (high-cost upfront, high-mainteance, viruses, trojans, mal-configuration).
In the end it costs me like $9/month per user. For a few users (like 5-6 or less) it's really reasonable, does everything I want it to AND my users don't have to compromise.
Your users are right. OTHER companies can share calendars without using the inflexible, cumbersome, non-drag-and-drop, non-context-sensitive, non-productive web-interfaces from "lightweight" projects like Squirrel Mail. I mean, lets face it. Compare Outlook Web Access on Exchange 2000 or Exchange 2003 Beta's to Squirrel Mail or even the Horde and its embarrassing - even on cross platform browsers. OWA blows them away in terms of productivity, closeness to a traditional application (drag-and-drop, context menus, etc).
Sometimes users are right and sys-admins are wrong!
Why don't I enter a patent for renting or leasing a car for a month?
Because that's not new.
Netflix came up with something genuinely new at the time. Maybe "prior art" exisits - ie - someone out there actually had a service like Netflix where you could rent DVDs without a per disc fee, but if there is, I dont know about it. Anyone with prior art care to provide some backup?
This type of idea isn't obvious. The obvious thing is to rent DVDs per disc per day per rental etc etc. That's how its always been done. Netflix made up something new.
That's the whole point of patents: to allow companies who make up something new a few years to recoup startup costs without a horde of knock-offs undercutting them.
And this isn't an idea per se, its a *method* of rending DVDs. One method is to have a big store and let people pick them off the shelf for a $4 a pop. This is different from that, and therefore, a new method.
But the point is that Apple is supposed to be *better*. That's why Apple people use Apple, and not PCs - because Apple is better.
If Apple just goes and starts to do things like everyone else we have a big problem. Apple loses its shine, you might as well buy a Dell for 50% the cost and be done with it.
I think the greater risk here is that someone might use GPL software instead of an expensive alternative, but they won't if they fear they'll be told to cough up licensing, royalities, or other payments out of budget.
GPL being destroyed is a bad thing, but only if people intend on using GPL'd software.
Linus, FSF, RMS sueing is bad, because in the long run it validates the idea that GPL is problematic legally.
With proprietary systems from Sun or MS, there isn't this whole unpleasant nastiness (though there is loads of other nastiness, that's for sure). That'll be mercilessly pounced on if the other side countersues and it drags out for years or even decades. That was MS's rub for a long time (as well as Novell) - "our stuff isn't embroiled in day-to-day lawsuits".
You of course have to slow down, but you dont have to take off the cruise control. Since you have some distance to work from take your cruise control and click it down three or four notches. It will be smooth and controlled, no braking or sudden movements needed.
That's the point of cruise control. It isnt a guarantee of speed.
Given enough time in an aircraft I have confidence a pilot would make the correct decision quickly enough
I've got to disagree. Strongly. I've flown planes, again smaller planes, but there simply isn't time. Even with thousands of hours there is too much data to sense, recognize, plan and carry out a corrective action in many many cases.
override the pilot in crisis situations
This is a real good thing, in my opinion.
I've flown planes - albeit much smaller planes. There are so many variables, and in a split-second crisis situation I can 100% guarantee that a pilot can not assess enough data to make a rational decision.
A lot of things can happen on an airplane in a very small amount of time. Microseconds can be critical. In many cases it is *impossible* that a human being could see the problem, realize it as a problem, consider options, choose a course of action, and follow through. In some cases - imagine rapid depreasurization or a critical area birdstrike - the time to avoid a fatal catastrophe is virtually instantenous in nature. You have 1.25 seconds to shutdown the left second turbine. The knobby switch for insta kill is 2.5 feet from your nearest hand. Do you feel lucky?
You just need to follow the proper distance. That's all. I routinely drive several hundred miles at a time on cruise control. Passing, changing lanes, etc without ever braking or accelerating.
The key is proper following distance and good use of space. Anticipate those cloggy ramps/exits. Give yourself a car length for every 10 mph. Yes! That's 60-70 feet or more between you and the "asshat" ahead of you.
Chances are you are following too close.
The idea of MS paying a 10% tax to fund OSS seems neat, but its really not good. Not good in principle, not good in practice, not good in theory.
Some things would happen:
1. MS would design and publish standards that are so nasty and obscure that even skilled coders would have a hard time making any sense of it. That would get them off the hook and still not achieve open standards.
2. The software industry as a whole would suffer. Open standards are nice for interoperability, but not so nice for new development. Most standards are not easily made extensible with any sense. If they are extensible that's a loop for MS to exploit. The bottom line would be that new development by MS or any other software maker would suffer. Additionally the OSS world will also suffer. Good things happen when new software is written to do new things. Using the blunt hammer of government to dictate how software works is not a good solution. As soon as government determines it can make MS conform to its technical "guidelines", how long will it be before individuals and not-for-profits are bound and regulated the same way?
3. MS's customers will simply suffer an additional 10% or more price raise which they are still mostly required to pay. On the other end, myraid of companies will spring up to do OSS work, crowding out a lot of the good community that has sprung up. These organizations will suck up funding. The projects will also essentially be the same as commerical software projects minus closed source, and as a result software will follow commerical software trends - feature bloat, buginess, and using gimmicks to gain market share (and justify their continued funding).
your argument of closed sourcedness is bs... have you read each and every line of source in your linux kernel?
I don't run Linux, so no.
I am not watching too many X-Files. I think MS messed up with their EULA. They *could* put anything they want in their source code. We don't know. I am not claiming they have trojans, just that they could.
Without the source though, there is no way that you can *prove* that no "bad" code is in Windows. You simply can't. Its _not_ possible. With Linux, you can. You can prove that their is not a function that illiclitly sends data to some place it doesn't belong. With MS stuff, you can analyze traffic, you can watch things, you can try and keep your eyes open. But between encryption and the closed source nature of the software, you simply *can* not prove it.
That is surprisingly common. Most software vendors of size do not allow benchmarking. Alot of it stems from purposefully bad benchmarking that is designed to skew results. Big vendors like Oracle and MS have a lot to lose from jury-rigged benchmarks skewed to give one side an advantage.
On the other hand, some software package must be slower, that's just how it works. So they have a lot to lose just on the pure facts of the matter too.
That seems exactly plausible.
MS can already put anything they want on your machine because the software is closed source. The ability to do it automatically is pretty trivial actually in the bigger picture.
The last EULA was almost certainly poorly choosen. That's all. They wanted the legal right to update your machine assuming you choose to use the feature. IE, they dont want lawsuits if people enable auto-updating and then find that something or some 3rd party app didnt work.
Speculation, but this pretty much confirms that the SP3 service pack was just a bit poorly done.
Who in congress has proposed banning handguns in the past decade?
I never said they proposed it, just that they support it.
You claimed that progressives do not want to take away handguns, but please, do you deny that there is a strong number of progressives who are considered mainstream who wish to ban handguns?
I've been following your sermon here, and I have to comment.
First off, there are many many many in your wing of the political spectrum who would in fact take away all hand guns, rifles, and other firearms. You have to acknowledge that to be taken seriously. Congress and the Senate in fact have members who seek a repeal of the 2nd amendment, or incremental limitations on who can own guns.