Dude, read that closely! That was ALL about browsers. "Microsoft Middleware" is a codename for a browser, and "competes with Microsoft Platform Software" is a direct reference to the browser.
Sure, it's "nice" that Microsoft has to disclose their APIs, and that is more broadly applicable than just the browser. But that's the context of this. Again I say, "who the f*** cares" that Microsoft has disclose all their APIs. That was always a minor thing in the great scheme of more competition for Microsoft, which is what all this should have been about.
But only when the separate categories of conduct are viewed, as they should be, as a single, well-coordinated course of action does the full extent of the violence that Microsoft has done to the competitive process reveal itself.
Yes. But all of this is in the context of THE BROWSER. The judge was making the argument that the BROWSER was an alternative development platform, which of course it wasn't, to any significant degree. The government was completely idiotic in pinning their whole case on the fact that Microsoft was anticompetitive in the area of browsers. Who the f*** cares if Microsoft is crushing Netscape's crappy browser?
You'll note that for all the huffing and puffing by the government, we still don't have much in the way of OPERATING SYSTEM competition, which is what the REAL case should have been about. (of course, part of the reason we don't have OS competition is because of the incompetence of the Microsoft's competitors, but that's a different story).
Well, I for one would much rather buy Apple hardware than commodity PC.
You say that now, but when faced with the Dell that costs $1,200, and the same Mac that costs $2,000, you (or people like you) will sing a different tune.
they would be flooded with calls that want them to support this such and the other piece of hardware
What, like Microsoft is flooded now? No, they'll call the hardware manufacturer, just like they do now when they buy a Brand X hardware for a Mac.
And the price of OSX would need to be raised from around $125 per copy, to around $200 per copy.
No, they'll have similar pricing to Microsoft (except Apple forces you to buy WAY more upgrades than Microsoft). Except they'd sell a hell of a lot more copies, with the overhead being the cost of the media.
I *like* the way Apple does its business right now, and I don't need some God-granted-right to run OSX on commodity hardware,
No one would stop you from buying from Apple if they allowed people to choose whether they want to pay the Apple hardware tax or not.
Check your history again. Inventing some base technologies isn't the same as inventing the whole.
What, you mean like when Microsoft used the techniques in Outlook Web Access in 2000? But I guess web-based email isn't a really good example of Asynchronous Javascript and XML.
My favorite part of this is still when you said, "Technologies like AJAX should have existed in the late '90s, but were killed so that microsoft could maintain the platform dependence they worked so hard for." Yeah, Microsoft invented the technology, then killed it so they could maintain the platform dependence.
Microsoft was convicted for illegal busines practices, including illegal OEM coersion.
Jesus, I can't believe I have to keep saying this. Yes, the findings of fact are the findings of fact. But the CASE was ABOUT THE BROWSER. Period. If you want to talk about what the case SHOULD have been about, that's a different subject. Findings of fact are not "convicting a monopolist".
Um... yeah, because no one like Linus would buy a Mac and then run Linux on it. That would just be wrong.
A lot of people will buy anything. The point is that most people would not buy Apple hardware if they were not forced to. If Apple was just another hardware manufacturer, but with the same pricing, they would still sell a few units, but not very many.
Apple gets the majority of its income from hardware, that makes it a hardware company.
Apple gets most of its Macintosh money from selling OSX which happens to have hardware forced to be bought along with it. If Apple allowed OSX to be run on commodity hardware, they're sales of OSX would rocket up and their hardware sales would drop into the toilet (though, some would still buy it). Of course, they would make enormously more money that way, too.
Those are findings of fact in support of the case, which was about Microsoft "illegally" bundling a browser. As I said, there's no doubt that Microsoft did some shady things, but it was all in the context of including the browser.
Technologies like AJAX should have existed in the late '90s, but were killed so that microsoft could maintain the platform dependence they worked so hard for.
Interesting... so now Apple sells THE most compatible PC you can buy. If you're right then eventual migration is inevitable.
No, because veryh few care about running Mac applications, and they especially aren't going to pay 50% more for the hardware AND a copy of Windows just for the privilege.
Microsoft was convicted of including a BROWSER in their operating system. Roll that around in your head for a second -- doesn't that seem utterly ridiculous from the vantage point of 2006? Can you imagine an operation system that doesn't include a browser as a fundamental tool? (I personally thought the whole thing was ridiculous at the time).
Because of Microsoft's illegal coercion tactics toward OEMs in the 90s, superior products weren't allowed to compete, and Microsoft cheated to achieve 95+% market share.
No doubt Microsoft did some coercion (though it wasn't illegal), but that's not why Microsoft won. Microsoft won because they were COMPATIBLE. Pure and simple. Windows 3.1 killed all the competition at the time because it was the most compatible with DOS. Windows 95 killed everything because it was STILL the most compatible with DOS and Windows 3.1.
Look at OS/2. IBM, with every computer they sold, included OS/2 as the default operating system and also Windows 3.1. People had to go out of their way to delete OS/2 and use Windows 3.1 instead. And they did it! They deleted something that was clearly superior in every way. You know why? Because OS/2 was INCOMPATIBLE with a hell of a lot of software and drivers.
People don't want to throw away their whole software investment. No one cares about operating systems -- they care about applications, which is what they use for *work*. All people see of operating systems is that it's a program launcher.
Microsoft won because they were smart enough to give people an upgrade path, and secondarily they treat the development community very well (Apple was notorious on crapping on developers and treating them like second class citizens who should be honored for being "allowed" to develop for the Mac).
Yeah, and from a Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT! How dare they publish such a hack from a lousy institution like that! I'm sure they're due to lose their accreditation any day now.
I think it would be far cheaper to launch the source and remove the entire relay system (but I guess this thing is exactly what has been under study for all these years).
Agreed, and TFA isn't talking about this crazy satellite mirror system, a Slashdot poster threw that into the mix.:D And I was really only talking about the first part, getting the laser to hit the satellite accurately. Having the satellite actually know where the laser is coming from and aiming the mirror such that it deflects the beam at a supersonic target is a bit, er, impractical, as you point out.
Hmm. I suppose you could have the source laser first send a low-power targeting signal to the satellite to indicate the laser's position, then the satellite aims the mirror deflector, then the laser does the full blast.
Of course, it might be easier just to have a space-based laser, too, though that might violate a few pesky treaties.
To achieve the pointing requirements, both from the plane and the spacecraft, to hit the target (priceless... literally...).
Although there are numerous other practical problems as others have pointed out, this one doesn't seem unsolvable. I'd think you could have the satellite beam back a targeting signal (a la lighting up a target for a smart bomb), and then have the laser blast right down the signal at the satellite.
Anyhow it's a deliberatley misleading argument - they're not being penalised for being successful, they're being penalised for BREAKING THE LAW. They really need to understand that the EU sees them as CRIMINALS and not contributing members of society.
Oh, geez. Don't be naive. The EU sees them as an almost bottomless well of money that they can plunge their greedy hands into. And, oh yeah, put out that wrist so we can slap it a bit.
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"
on
Apple vs Bloggers
·
· Score: 1
What part of "Congress shall make no law..." was unclear?
The meaning of "make no law" is not the part that's unclear, it's the definition of "speech" that is unclear. The whole point of the clause is political speech, not any noise you might want to make, written or otherwise (don't make me pull out the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" standard).
Of course Java was killed by Microsoft introducing a non-standard implementation on IE.
Oh, please. You could write a standard Java app for IE if you wanted to. The problem was that Java-in-the-browser SUCKED. It was slow, it was an UNBELIEVABLE memory hog, and the widgets looked absolutely amateurish and awful. In fact, computers are faster, but the widgets STILL look awful (and it's still arguably a memory pig, though the proportion is smaller since we have more memory to throw around).
The other problem was that Java apps tended to be quite big, which made them a bear to download on slow connections. Not as much of a problem these days with broadband, but there are still a lot of modems out there.
There's a reason that Google maps with AJAX is good (instant loading), and a similar thing with Java would be bad.
Yes, because it'd be oh so much better to take a hit to the face and have them beat you to death.
They were looking for an easy hit. That's why they asked me for what time it was -- to put me off my guard. If I'd been facing them, they would've just waited for someone else. Most criminals aren't stone-cold professionals that will face you and do whatever the hell they want. Most are cowards that just want a hit-and-run with a little risk as possible.
But, that's okay, right. They had it coming. Being all smart and everything. That justifies systematic humiliation.
I didn't say anything justifies it. Only that it's better to accept reality that life isn't fair, and do what you can do to stop it. But most people would rather wallow in self-pity and hate rather than take a practical look at the situation and control what they can control.
But I dunno, maybe you think it's better to just get picked on day after day, rather than analyzing why other people don't get picked on, and applying those lessons.
I'm a practical kind of guy. I don't sit around whining about things that suck, I try and figure out how to make them NOT suck.
Only those strong enough to reject victim-hood put their foot down, say "NO!" and make a citizens' arrest.
The point isn't to stop something in progress, the point is not to wallow in your victimhood until your life is completely screwed up.
I was mugged once while taking a walk around my neighborhood (wasn't a bad neighborhood, either). Hit on the back of the head by a group of young black men. I woke up in a pool of blood from my head. Now, what are my responses after this?
1) Extreme fear of black men in the future
2) Extreme fear of walking alone
3) Chalk it up to experience and move on.
Guess what I did? That would be (3). And in fact, I realized after the fact that part of it was MY FAULT. Yes, MY FAULT. You know why?
What happened was that they asked me for the time. I told them, but got a funny feeling that something was wrong. But I chalked it up to "nothing" and turned my back on them. Then WHAM. What I learned was that I should trust my feelings when something doesn't feel right about a situation. It sucks that I was mugged, but I was smart enough to realize that part of it was my fault for not controlling what I could control.
But I guess you aren't prepared to hear that truth, since you spent all that time bullying and hazing, and don't want to think of yourself as a predator, just like those rapists
LOL. I was one of the victims. I totally understand how much it sucks. I'm just smart enough to live in reality and realize that LIFE ISN'T FAIR. Yeah, it'd be a great world if no one got bullied. But in retrospect, I realize that while bullies aren't going to go away, there was a lot I could have done to eliminate it.
Would that work for rape too? How about child abuse? Someone abused you and filmed it? Great, make a sequel!
You're not seriously comparing an embarrassing video of someone dancing around to rape, are you? Yeah, I'm sure women think it's EXACTLY the same thing.
Sorry, but there's a reason why some people are bullied, and some aren't. But I don't think you're prepared to hear that truth.
unless you happen to be a trained child psychologist experienced in dealing with child stars and media figures
I don't need to be an "expert" to know that many people have something like this happen to them. And some manage to work their way through it, and some don't . What's the difference between someone who gets through and someone who doesn't? Obviously it's the makeup and response of the individual.
I don't doubt that this kid was miserable. But it didn't have to have the result that it had.
I certainly wasn't emotionally unstable in high school but this would have put me well over the edge.
Why?
Now, I can see how it might if you had someone pull you out of school, let you hide away from everyone and stew in your juices until your psyche was completely screwed up. On the other hand, if you had someone telling you to "suck it up" and get your ass back in school, and laugh with everyone until life was back to normal, I could see that it wouldn't be a huge deal.
But why in a vacuum would this put you "over the edge"?
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, it's "nice" that Microsoft has to disclose their APIs, and that is more broadly applicable than just the browser. But that's the context of this. Again I say, "who the f*** cares" that Microsoft has disclose all their APIs. That was always a minor thing in the great scheme of more competition for Microsoft, which is what all this should have been about.
Yes. But all of this is in the context of THE BROWSER. The judge was making the argument that the BROWSER was an alternative development platform, which of course it wasn't, to any significant degree. The government was completely idiotic in pinning their whole case on the fact that Microsoft was anticompetitive in the area of browsers. Who the f*** cares if Microsoft is crushing Netscape's crappy browser?
You'll note that for all the huffing and puffing by the government, we still don't have much in the way of OPERATING SYSTEM competition, which is what the REAL case should have been about. (of course, part of the reason we don't have OS competition is because of the incompetence of the Microsoft's competitors, but that's a different story).
You say that now, but when faced with the Dell that costs $1,200, and the same Mac that costs $2,000, you (or people like you) will sing a different tune.
they would be flooded with calls that want them to support this such and the other piece of hardware
What, like Microsoft is flooded now? No, they'll call the hardware manufacturer, just like they do now when they buy a Brand X hardware for a Mac.
And the price of OSX would need to be raised from around $125 per copy, to around $200 per copy.
No, they'll have similar pricing to Microsoft (except Apple forces you to buy WAY more upgrades than Microsoft). Except they'd sell a hell of a lot more copies, with the overhead being the cost of the media.
I *like* the way Apple does its business right now, and I don't need some God-granted-right to run OSX on commodity hardware,
No one would stop you from buying from Apple if they allowed people to choose whether they want to pay the Apple hardware tax or not.
What, you mean like when Microsoft used the techniques in Outlook Web Access in 2000? But I guess web-based email isn't a really good example of Asynchronous Javascript and XML.
My favorite part of this is still when you said, "Technologies like AJAX should have existed in the late '90s, but were killed so that microsoft could maintain the platform dependence they worked so hard for." Yeah, Microsoft invented the technology, then killed it so they could maintain the platform dependence.
Exactly what part of AJAX did they kill?
Jesus, I can't believe I have to keep saying this. Yes, the findings of fact are the findings of fact. But the CASE was ABOUT THE BROWSER. Period. If you want to talk about what the case SHOULD have been about, that's a different subject. Findings of fact are not "convicting a monopolist".
A lot of people will buy anything. The point is that most people would not buy Apple hardware if they were not forced to. If Apple was just another hardware manufacturer, but with the same pricing, they would still sell a few units, but not very many.
Apple gets the majority of its income from hardware, that makes it a hardware company.
Apple gets most of its Macintosh money from selling OSX which happens to have hardware forced to be bought along with it. If Apple allowed OSX to be run on commodity hardware, they're sales of OSX would rocket up and their hardware sales would drop into the toilet (though, some would still buy it). Of course, they would make enormously more money that way, too.
The DOJ brought the wrong case.
Err, Microsoft invented AJAX in 1999.
*snicker*
No, because veryh few care about running Mac applications, and they especially aren't going to pay 50% more for the hardware AND a copy of Windows just for the privilege.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
Microsoft was convicted of including a BROWSER in their operating system. Roll that around in your head for a second -- doesn't that seem utterly ridiculous from the vantage point of 2006? Can you imagine an operation system that doesn't include a browser as a fundamental tool? (I personally thought the whole thing was ridiculous at the time).
Because of Microsoft's illegal coercion tactics toward OEMs in the 90s, superior products weren't allowed to compete, and Microsoft cheated to achieve 95+% market share.
No doubt Microsoft did some coercion (though it wasn't illegal), but that's not why Microsoft won. Microsoft won because they were COMPATIBLE. Pure and simple. Windows 3.1 killed all the competition at the time because it was the most compatible with DOS. Windows 95 killed everything because it was STILL the most compatible with DOS and Windows 3.1.
Look at OS/2. IBM, with every computer they sold, included OS/2 as the default operating system and also Windows 3.1. People had to go out of their way to delete OS/2 and use Windows 3.1 instead. And they did it! They deleted something that was clearly superior in every way. You know why? Because OS/2 was INCOMPATIBLE with a hell of a lot of software and drivers.
People don't want to throw away their whole software investment. No one cares about operating systems -- they care about applications, which is what they use for *work*. All people see of operating systems is that it's a program launcher.
Microsoft won because they were smart enough to give people an upgrade path, and secondarily they treat the development community very well (Apple was notorious on crapping on developers and treating them like second class citizens who should be honored for being "allowed" to develop for the Mac).
Read the statistics for yourself. About half-way down is the key chart, "Driver deaths per million registered passenger vehicles 1-3 years old, 2004":
Cars
Mini 117
Small 98
Midsize 68
Large 67
Very large 50
Pickups
Small 118
Large 100
Very large 104
SUVs
Small 68
Midsize 65
Large 56
Very large *
Yeah, and from a Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT! How dare they publish such a hack from a lousy institution like that! I'm sure they're due to lose their accreditation any day now.
Agreed, and TFA isn't talking about this crazy satellite mirror system, a Slashdot poster threw that into the mix. :D And I was really only talking about the first part, getting the laser to hit the satellite accurately. Having the satellite actually know where the laser is coming from and aiming the mirror such that it deflects the beam at a supersonic target is a bit, er, impractical, as you point out.
Hmm. I suppose you could have the source laser first send a low-power targeting signal to the satellite to indicate the laser's position, then the satellite aims the mirror deflector, then the laser does the full blast.
Of course, it might be easier just to have a space-based laser, too, though that might violate a few pesky treaties.
Although there are numerous other practical problems as others have pointed out, this one doesn't seem unsolvable. I'd think you could have the satellite beam back a targeting signal (a la lighting up a target for a smart bomb), and then have the laser blast right down the signal at the satellite.
Having done a lot of scanning of regular ol' prints myself, you'd be surprised how low resolution they are. 300dpi is often overkill.
Oh, geez. Don't be naive. The EU sees them as an almost bottomless well of money that they can plunge their greedy hands into. And, oh yeah, put out that wrist so we can slap it a bit.
The meaning of "make no law" is not the part that's unclear, it's the definition of "speech" that is unclear. The whole point of the clause is political speech, not any noise you might want to make, written or otherwise (don't make me pull out the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" standard).
Oh, please. You could write a standard Java app for IE if you wanted to. The problem was that Java-in-the-browser SUCKED. It was slow, it was an UNBELIEVABLE memory hog, and the widgets looked absolutely amateurish and awful. In fact, computers are faster, but the widgets STILL look awful (and it's still arguably a memory pig, though the proportion is smaller since we have more memory to throw around).
The other problem was that Java apps tended to be quite big, which made them a bear to download on slow connections. Not as much of a problem these days with broadband, but there are still a lot of modems out there.
There's a reason that Google maps with AJAX is good (instant loading), and a similar thing with Java would be bad.
They were looking for an easy hit. That's why they asked me for what time it was -- to put me off my guard. If I'd been facing them, they would've just waited for someone else. Most criminals aren't stone-cold professionals that will face you and do whatever the hell they want. Most are cowards that just want a hit-and-run with a little risk as possible.
I didn't say anything justifies it. Only that it's better to accept reality that life isn't fair, and do what you can do to stop it. But most people would rather wallow in self-pity and hate rather than take a practical look at the situation and control what they can control.
But I dunno, maybe you think it's better to just get picked on day after day, rather than analyzing why other people don't get picked on, and applying those lessons.
I'm a practical kind of guy. I don't sit around whining about things that suck, I try and figure out how to make them NOT suck.
The point isn't to stop something in progress, the point is not to wallow in your victimhood until your life is completely screwed up.
I was mugged once while taking a walk around my neighborhood (wasn't a bad neighborhood, either). Hit on the back of the head by a group of young black men. I woke up in a pool of blood from my head. Now, what are my responses after this?
1) Extreme fear of black men in the future
2) Extreme fear of walking alone
3) Chalk it up to experience and move on.
Guess what I did? That would be (3). And in fact, I realized after the fact that part of it was MY FAULT. Yes, MY FAULT. You know why?
What happened was that they asked me for the time. I told them, but got a funny feeling that something was wrong. But I chalked it up to "nothing" and turned my back on them. Then WHAM. What I learned was that I should trust my feelings when something doesn't feel right about a situation. It sucks that I was mugged, but I was smart enough to realize that part of it was my fault for not controlling what I could control.
LOL. I was one of the victims. I totally understand how much it sucks. I'm just smart enough to live in reality and realize that LIFE ISN'T FAIR. Yeah, it'd be a great world if no one got bullied. But in retrospect, I realize that while bullies aren't going to go away, there was a lot I could have done to eliminate it.
You're not seriously comparing an embarrassing video of someone dancing around to rape, are you? Yeah, I'm sure women think it's EXACTLY the same thing.
Sorry, but there's a reason why some people are bullied, and some aren't. But I don't think you're prepared to hear that truth.
I don't need to be an "expert" to know that many people have something like this happen to them. And some manage to work their way through it, and some don't . What's the difference between someone who gets through and someone who doesn't? Obviously it's the makeup and response of the individual.
I don't doubt that this kid was miserable. But it didn't have to have the result that it had.
Why?
Now, I can see how it might if you had someone pull you out of school, let you hide away from everyone and stew in your juices until your psyche was completely screwed up. On the other hand, if you had someone telling you to "suck it up" and get your ass back in school, and laugh with everyone until life was back to normal, I could see that it wouldn't be a huge deal.
But why in a vacuum would this put you "over the edge"?