"While the stock holder's "entire value" may, superficially, have not been at risk, in practice a large number of investors, particularly employees (who, one might argue, were those who could hold the corporation accountable the most), did, in practice, lose everything, or a close enough approximation that the difference doesn't matter."
Right, but whose fault is that? Ken Lay took the brunt of the blame. The Employees and other stakeholders are also to blame, because they weren't diligent enough during the "good years" and greed took over all rational thought.
I personally know someone who smelled the coming fart that was the collapse of Enron years beforehand, and got out. He left because nobody CARED, just as long as the profits kept coming.
Sorry, but I have little sympothy to people who look the other way for a buck.
As for revoking the corporate charter, it still hasn't been revoked "in effect" reality), as the corporation still exists even as a shell. Again, it is the stockholder and stakeholders responsibility to make sure the company is sound, not the government.
The government's job here is to enforce the corporate charter and collect taxes.
Except for the fact that they got many if not most of the actual details completely wrong...... you're right!
Further, it isn't the integration of all the items that Apple put in, those have been done to death by the likes of Motorola and others, it is the whole "experience" thing.
I was looking forward to the iPhone, but this thing BLEW ME AWAY, in both styling and functionality. Again, Apple pays attention to details, doing and getting things right the first time, and blowing people's mind in doing so.
"Why should anyone be entitled to all you can consume bandwidth for a miniscule amount each month?"
Because that is what I am being sold, and what I am paying for.
The old days of restricted bandwidth didn't work. 5MB downloads per month or whatever proved to be worthless for most people. You obviously weren't around during the dark early days, when dialup was 28.8kbs, T1s were expensive, and the internet was a few web pages and email, and one could surf the most interesting parts of the internet in a few hours.
Then came the DOT.COM boom and everything exploded, dialup went to 56k, and it wasn't enough. People started bonding ISDN lines to get 128 and partial T1s to get faster links.
Now, T1s aren't enough for most places, and DS3s and other HighSpeed connections are common. My DSL at home is faster than the T1s I had as an early ISP.
There is a saying you should learn. "It is better to be thought of as a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt".
There is a difference, even if subtle one, between adding value (higher speed) for a cost, and restricting access unless a toll is paid.
In California, we have a couple of toll roads, and a bunch of free ones. Most people choose the free ones and most of the time it works well enough that most people choose the freeways. However during periods of high congestion some people, who have extra cash, can route around the traffic and go through the toll roads.
I don't have a problem with this.
However, if the fictional freeway company were to suddenly change the way the freeways work, so that only one lane was available UNLESS people paid the toll, or worse, only those with BMWs could use that free of charge, and everyone else had to pay the toll, well then that is a big problem, since we all paid for the roads (through taxes).
In otherwords, I pay ATT for my DSL, I expect full speed access on their network. I Pay for the highway with my monthly fee. Using the highway metaphor (yes, metaphors are broken) it is like the city of San Diego charging extra for people to use their off ramps, for "content providers" charging extra for their content.
I say, let them charge for their content, and put up toll booths on the offramps (Yahoo, etc). Don't expect me or the Highway company (ATT) to want to get off in your city. I don't want to pay extra for getting off in San Diego every month, because I happen to live in Nor Cal, and hardly ever go there.
Net Neutrality is like this fictional/metaphorical highway. I really don't see a need for the government to get involved, one way or another. Let Yahoo try to extort from me, and see if I use Yahoo ever again. However if Yahoo and ATT can assure great content as part of the package (dedicated road for ATT customers), then fine. If they charge too much, I'll just move. I do have other alternatives.
The problem with modern version of Corporations is that nobody is willing to revoke a corporate charter for malfeasance by the corporation. I guarantee that if stock holders entire value was at risk for the ENRON type accounting fraud, they would enact much stricter guidelines for accounting than even the government requires. But since nobody is willing to revoke corporate charters and let the chips fall, we have an artificial barrier to self policing within the corporation.
Throwing Ken Lay and a few others in jail for what happened at ENRON, isn't going to prevent others from trying similar tactics. And the share holders didn't care a lick when the profits were rolling in. The employees were rewarded for their lack of oversight. Enron only collapsed when it couldn't maintain the pyramid scheme. Up until that point, not enough people cared about Enron, nor its profits enough to stop it before it happened.
I guarantee you that if the corporate charter could have been revoked, that threat would have had an entirely different effect. When profits are the only care, rather than proper stewardship of all the corporate assets, these things are bound to happen.
BTW, The government grants corporate charters, as they are legal entities ordained by the government under the rules of incorporation. The government has lost sight that they can also revoke said charters.
So, while your slam against "libertarians" was funny, it wasn't accurate towards true libertarians, who believe that ALL stockholders and stakeholders are responsible and should be held accountable for the actions of the corporation, at least to the degree of how much stock or stake holdings they have.
I don't feel a bit sorry for Enron employees, shareholders or anyone associated with Enron. They got what they deserved for not looking deeper into those put in position of stewardship.
I feel sorry for the stupid grandmas and grandpas who were suckered, but only to a degree. Rarely does "get rich quick" actually work. Most of the time it takes hard work or true innovation and often both.
If Novell wins its counterclaims, SCO will cease operations, having no IP to speak of, especially in light of Counter claim 4, which says that Novell sold NOTHING to SCO, but only authorized them to sell licenses for Novell for an agent's fee.
This would mean that SCO falsely represented ownership claims to IBM in that lawsuit, and would have a huge liability regarding that fraud. In addition to all the other IBM counter claims, there is no way either Novell nor IBM would buy anything of SCO, if only to avoid the taint. Novell likes IBM here, at least partially, on a professional level.
My prediction is that SCO will simply disolve, having no IP, and no cash, and no value whatsoever. Whatever unencumbered assests (If any) and IP (If any) SCO has, will probably be split somehow between IBM and Novell, and probably down the lines of Unix IP / Other assets, IP. With the Unix IP going to Novell, and everything else going to IBM.
The only other option is a firesale of all the assets/IP SCO has, and the money split between IBM and Novell, along some agreed upon number.
Computers are programmable muti-devices, agreed. But they are limited by design. Just look at this statement of yours....
"After all, a computer has all the pieces of a DVD player (or a HD player with the right drive), a PVR (if you have a TV card), a mp3 jukebox, and a front end for media stored anywhere (including the web), and perhaps a game machine."
If it has, if it has, if it has. Sure, most computers are coming with options to include or already includes items that make it Multimedia, however, most computers do not come with the software to tie all the pieces together seamlessly, and easily. And, unless you get the right item, the software may or may not work right with the devices you have, or use.
There are inherent differences between all-in-one devices and general purpose computing devices, in that the all-in-one are designed for limited tasks. Those tasks need to be coordinated and symbiotic or they don't make sense in a all-in-one.
I like the KISS approach to understanding what a All-in-one media device should be. Simple, Elegant, Easy. If grandma can't use it, then it is almost worthless. That blinking 12:00 on the VCR is a clue that setting up a VCR is beyond many, but the newer ones all have automatic, or easy to see menus for setting the clock. Truly, the All-in-One device should strive towards that level of simplicity.
1.3 MP camera that has no focus, sucks compared to the other "real" one I have. Besides the fact that the camara SUCKS big time even by 5 year old standards, I can't seem to get them off my phone easily.
The MP3 Player SUCKS compared to my iPod Nano. It sucks power faster than anything else I do with the phone, making it useless beyond the occasional whatever. Not that I've ever really used it, because it SUCKS so much. Besides the fact that it SUCKS, I can't seem to get it to sync any MP3 stuff with my computer, at all.
I'm not a freaking Luddite, standing in the way of convergence. I simply refuse to compromise quality and ease of use just so that I don't have to carry around 4 or 5 items, most of which I don't use more than occasionally, and when I do use them, I want them to be fully functional for the purposes I use them for.
A McDonalds Hamburger is fine in a pinch, but if you rather have them than real home made burgers because you are too lazy to cook your own, fine by me. But don't tell me that a McDonalds Hamburger is the same as my homemade one, because they are not even close.
"If you can't see the utility of (for example) a phone with a GPS and a flux compass, that can take pictures with a position and a heading and then mail them to a remote location, well, you are a bear of very little brain at all."
Stupidest thing I've ever read on slashdot. Give me one good reason why I would need to do such a thing, when I could do it all with 1) higher quality photographs 2) not using high cost, propriatary wireless email services 3)Making notes (mental or otherwise). Convenience? Time for that McDonalds hamburger huh? Brain, its what is used when things aren't convenient, like knowing how to cook a burger. McDonalds may be covenient, and that is all you can see as hamburgers, rather than experience the joy of creating your own, then I feel sorry for you.
Except we tend to call them L-Users, or function 1d10t faults. As in "We suffered a fault in function 1d10t and are currently patching the system."
Seriously though, Never underestimate the power of a group of average persons to exceed your expectations and find the one (many?) undiscovered bug. Whatever you can think of, they can exceed in mere minutes.
I tend not to like "all in one" type units, especially the first generation of them, as they tend to be not very reliable, nor any easier to use. They definitely aren't any cheaper than separate components.
The time when "all in one" starts to make sense, is when the combining the components makes the aggregate easier to use, and is cost comparible or even cheaper to buy than the separate components, with reliability nearly equal to or surpassing the separate component versions.
The point of "all in one" on some things makes sense. Printer/scanner/fax units makes sense, even before they met the requirements I outlined above, namely because all those features have something in common, and I don't lose much by having it "all in one"
An example of something that doesn't quite make sense is the MP3/camara/Cellphone/PDA/GPS/Kitchen Sink. I have one of these and yet I still use stand alone components (Camara, iPod, Computer, Map) rather than the crappy versions on my cell phone. So the "all in one" features go unused or only when I leave one of the others behind, and I need a camara in a pinch or just goofing off.
Now, getting to the idea of a Media Center, as long as the them is "media" and not "all in one" for the sake of "all in one" then I'm sure that something will eventually make sense, being related. If I can plug in a camara, edit the video, splice it with a movie (PVR) or sound file(MP3), and dump it to a DVD so that I can watch it anytime, then woo hoo, that makes sense. Making it a telephone, computer, email and toaster oven too, doesn't necessarily make sense.
I suspect that Apple will do it best first, and everyone will try to copy it, including Microsoft. Though there is a chance that someone like Sony might get there first. (not that I will ever buy a Sony Product again).
Oh, and if any of the BIG MEDIA corps are watching, DRM sucks and doesn't prevent anything you want to prevent. It only prevents people from enjoying that which you supposedly produce for people to enjoy. Give the people paying for a product what they want and you'll make plenty of money. Make it hard for them to pay for it, or overtly expensive, then don't expect any customers.
It's not just you. Its me too. There is something odd about my post, because I don't think God would troll on slashdot like me. But then again, I saw how the whole thread was devolving and thought I would like to end it, once and for all.
Though I was figuring on seeing some sort of "God is Dead" type post.
Wrong. Like Babies with knives and guns (from the GP), the problem isn't the babies, it is the parents fault for giving the babies the wrong freaking tools. Don't blame the babies, they don't know any better.
So, the question is, what is the equivalent to plastic guns and knives in the programming world?
I predict that the market will clone the Windows API, and it will stablize, much like Unix has.
Apple will implement the API and tie it with all the goodness of Mac OS X and none of the badness of Windows.
Linux will implement the API and tie it with all the goodness of... well Linux, and none of the badness of Windows.
The term "Windows Compatable" will become much like "IBM Compatable" was in 1980s. Software will no longer be written for Microsoft Windows, but rather the new Windows API.
Microsoft will abandon Vista fairly quickly after nobody wants it. Mac and linux takes off.
Apple will implement wireless right. Don't ask me how, I just know they don't just throw _____ (insert latest gadget here) into a product as a checkbox filler.
I neither support nor deride the decision to ship IE with Windows. That is a simple business decision. I don't support IE because of the problems associated with it, and its integration with Windows OS.
Like I said before, the natural course of things requires competition, in all ecosystems. Where there is no competition, there is failure, until there is equilibrium and balance in competition.
Google will have competition, or it will end up eating itself, just as M$ is beginning to show this result.
Compete and build a better product, very small niche markets in a monopolistic environment can be profitable.
"I believe, for instance, that shipping Internet Explorer with Windows was a good move." Hmm, doesn't that hurt Firefox?"
No. Why you might ask. Simple, Firefox didn't exist when the decision was made to bundle IE with windows. I think what you mean is didn't it hurt Netscape? To which the answer would be yes.
Firefox has thrived, after coming to the party late, and in spite of MS bundling IE with Windows. First thing I do on a new computer is DL Firefox, then I disable IE on Windows Machines.
Sometimes, just sometimes the best product for the job gets the marketshare it deserves.
Personally, I don't think M$ Windows or Google are necissarily bad. I doubt Linux would be where it is today if 3 or more viable options were available for desktop OS. I doubt that windows would be imploding under its own weight if there was real competition.
Patience is a virtue because eventually nature will equalize the environment.
so, what Blake is complaining about is that when comparing vaporware products to actual products that do what the user wants, google should ignore the actual product and promote the vaporware product nobody else has heard about, because He is the supposed author of said vaporware product.
Got it.
Somewhere deep inside, my view of Firefox just diminished.
Slashdot Mirror
That's Just Perfect!
I think I am going to use Zune as a verb now. Almost fits with the Hebrew meaning too. LOL
Actually, Yoda would say ...
Evil, Palpal is.
The verb is either at the front of the sentance, or at the end (or both), depending on whether it includes the "to be" verb.
"away put your weapon"
"Begun, the clone wars have"
"While the stock holder's "entire value" may, superficially, have not been at risk, in practice a large number of investors, particularly employees (who, one might argue, were those who could hold the corporation accountable the most), did, in practice, lose everything, or a close enough approximation that the difference doesn't matter."
Right, but whose fault is that? Ken Lay took the brunt of the blame. The Employees and other stakeholders are also to blame, because they weren't diligent enough during the "good years" and greed took over all rational thought.
I personally know someone who smelled the coming fart that was the collapse of Enron years beforehand, and got out. He left because nobody CARED, just as long as the profits kept coming.
Sorry, but I have little sympothy to people who look the other way for a buck.
As for revoking the corporate charter, it still hasn't been revoked "in effect" reality), as the corporation still exists even as a shell. Again, it is the stockholder and stakeholders responsibility to make sure the company is sound, not the government.
The government's job here is to enforce the corporate charter and collect taxes.
Make that two out of three that think it is very stylish. How about a Slashdot Poll????
Except for the fact that they got many if not most of the actual details completely wrong ...... you're right!
Further, it isn't the integration of all the items that Apple put in, those have been done to death by the likes of Motorola and others, it is the whole "experience" thing.
I was looking forward to the iPhone, but this thing BLEW ME AWAY, in both styling and functionality. Again, Apple pays attention to details, doing and getting things right the first time, and blowing people's mind in doing so.
"Now the "Head On" headache remedy commercials -- those are genuinely annoying AND disgusting."
;)
Yet, you remember their name, and repeat it in your post. Sounds like the campaign might be working after all.
"Why should anyone be entitled to all you can consume bandwidth for a miniscule amount each month?"
Because that is what I am being sold, and what I am paying for.
The old days of restricted bandwidth didn't work. 5MB downloads per month or whatever proved to be worthless for most people. You obviously weren't around during the dark early days, when dialup was 28.8kbs, T1s were expensive, and the internet was a few web pages and email, and one could surf the most interesting parts of the internet in a few hours.
Then came the DOT.COM boom and everything exploded, dialup went to 56k, and it wasn't enough. People started bonding ISDN lines to get 128 and partial T1s to get faster links.
Now, T1s aren't enough for most places, and DS3s and other HighSpeed connections are common. My DSL at home is faster than the T1s I had as an early ISP.
There is a saying you should learn. "It is better to be thought of as a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt".
There is a difference, even if subtle one, between adding value (higher speed) for a cost, and restricting access unless a toll is paid.
In California, we have a couple of toll roads, and a bunch of free ones. Most people choose the free ones and most of the time it works well enough that most people choose the freeways. However during periods of high congestion some people, who have extra cash, can route around the traffic and go through the toll roads.
I don't have a problem with this.
However, if the fictional freeway company were to suddenly change the way the freeways work, so that only one lane was available UNLESS people paid the toll, or worse, only those with BMWs could use that free of charge, and everyone else had to pay the toll, well then that is a big problem, since we all paid for the roads (through taxes).
In otherwords, I pay ATT for my DSL, I expect full speed access on their network. I Pay for the highway with my monthly fee. Using the highway metaphor (yes, metaphors are broken) it is like the city of San Diego charging extra for people to use their off ramps, for "content providers" charging extra for their content.
I say, let them charge for their content, and put up toll booths on the offramps (Yahoo, etc). Don't expect me or the Highway company (ATT) to want to get off in your city. I don't want to pay extra for getting off in San Diego every month, because I happen to live in Nor Cal, and hardly ever go there.
Net Neutrality is like this fictional/metaphorical highway. I really don't see a need for the government to get involved, one way or another. Let Yahoo try to extort from me, and see if I use Yahoo ever again. However if Yahoo and ATT can assure great content as part of the package (dedicated road for ATT customers), then fine. If they charge too much, I'll just move. I do have other alternatives.
The problem with modern version of Corporations is that nobody is willing to revoke a corporate charter for malfeasance by the corporation. I guarantee that if stock holders entire value was at risk for the ENRON type accounting fraud, they would enact much stricter guidelines for accounting than even the government requires. But since nobody is willing to revoke corporate charters and let the chips fall, we have an artificial barrier to self policing within the corporation.
Throwing Ken Lay and a few others in jail for what happened at ENRON, isn't going to prevent others from trying similar tactics. And the share holders didn't care a lick when the profits were rolling in. The employees were rewarded for their lack of oversight. Enron only collapsed when it couldn't maintain the pyramid scheme. Up until that point, not enough people cared about Enron, nor its profits enough to stop it before it happened.
I guarantee you that if the corporate charter could have been revoked, that threat would have had an entirely different effect. When profits are the only care, rather than proper stewardship of all the corporate assets, these things are bound to happen.
BTW, The government grants corporate charters, as they are legal entities ordained by the government under the rules of incorporation. The government has lost sight that they can also revoke said charters.
So, while your slam against "libertarians" was funny, it wasn't accurate towards true libertarians, who believe that ALL stockholders and stakeholders are responsible and should be held accountable for the actions of the corporation, at least to the degree of how much stock or stake holdings they have.
I don't feel a bit sorry for Enron employees, shareholders or anyone associated with Enron. They got what they deserved for not looking deeper into those put in position of stewardship.
I feel sorry for the stupid grandmas and grandpas who were suckered, but only to a degree. Rarely does "get rich quick" actually work. Most of the time it takes hard work or true innovation and often both.
If Novell wins its counterclaims, SCO will cease operations, having no IP to speak of, especially in light of Counter claim 4, which says that Novell sold NOTHING to SCO, but only authorized them to sell licenses for Novell for an agent's fee.
This would mean that SCO falsely represented ownership claims to IBM in that lawsuit, and would have a huge liability regarding that fraud. In addition to all the other IBM counter claims, there is no way either Novell nor IBM would buy anything of SCO, if only to avoid the taint. Novell likes IBM here, at least partially, on a professional level.
My prediction is that SCO will simply disolve, having no IP, and no cash, and no value whatsoever. Whatever unencumbered assests (If any) and IP (If any) SCO has, will probably be split somehow between IBM and Novell, and probably down the lines of Unix IP / Other assets, IP. With the Unix IP going to Novell, and everything else going to IBM.
The only other option is a firesale of all the assets/IP SCO has, and the money split between IBM and Novell, along some agreed upon number.
Computers are programmable muti-devices, agreed. But they are limited by design. Just look at this statement of yours ....
"After all, a computer has all the pieces of a DVD player (or a HD player with the right drive), a PVR (if you have a TV card), a mp3 jukebox, and a front end for media stored anywhere (including the web), and perhaps a game machine."
If it has, if it has, if it has. Sure, most computers are coming with options to include or already includes items that make it Multimedia, however, most computers do not come with the software to tie all the pieces together seamlessly, and easily. And, unless you get the right item, the software may or may not work right with the devices you have, or use.
There are inherent differences between all-in-one devices and general purpose computing devices, in that the all-in-one are designed for limited tasks. Those tasks need to be coordinated and symbiotic or they don't make sense in a all-in-one.
I like the KISS approach to understanding what a All-in-one media device should be. Simple, Elegant, Easy. If grandma can't use it, then it is almost worthless. That blinking 12:00 on the VCR is a clue that setting up a VCR is beyond many, but the newer ones all have automatic, or easy to see menus for setting the clock. Truly, the All-in-One device should strive towards that level of simplicity.
1.3 MP camera that has no focus, sucks compared to the other "real" one I have. Besides the fact that the camara SUCKS big time even by 5 year old standards, I can't seem to get them off my phone easily.
The MP3 Player SUCKS compared to my iPod Nano. It sucks power faster than anything else I do with the phone, making it useless beyond the occasional whatever. Not that I've ever really used it, because it SUCKS so much. Besides the fact that it SUCKS, I can't seem to get it to sync any MP3 stuff with my computer, at all.
I'm not a freaking Luddite, standing in the way of convergence. I simply refuse to compromise quality and ease of use just so that I don't have to carry around 4 or 5 items, most of which I don't use more than occasionally, and when I do use them, I want them to be fully functional for the purposes I use them for.
A McDonalds Hamburger is fine in a pinch, but if you rather have them than real home made burgers because you are too lazy to cook your own, fine by me. But don't tell me that a McDonalds Hamburger is the same as my homemade one, because they are not even close.
"If you can't see the utility of (for example) a phone with a GPS and a flux compass, that can take pictures with a position and a heading and then mail them to a remote location, well, you are a bear of very little brain at all."
Stupidest thing I've ever read on slashdot. Give me one good reason why I would need to do such a thing, when I could do it all with 1) higher quality photographs 2) not using high cost, propriatary wireless email services 3)Making notes (mental or otherwise). Convenience? Time for that McDonalds hamburger huh? Brain, its what is used when things aren't convenient, like knowing how to cook a burger. McDonalds may be covenient, and that is all you can see as hamburgers, rather than experience the joy of creating your own, then I feel sorry for you.
Exactly!
Except we tend to call them L-Users, or function 1d10t faults. As in "We suffered a fault in function 1d10t and are currently patching the system."
Seriously though, Never underestimate the power of a group of average persons to exceed your expectations and find the one (many?) undiscovered bug. Whatever you can think of, they can exceed in mere minutes.
I tend not to like "all in one" type units, especially the first generation of them, as they tend to be not very reliable, nor any easier to use. They definitely aren't any cheaper than separate components.
The time when "all in one" starts to make sense, is when the combining the components makes the aggregate easier to use, and is cost comparible or even cheaper to buy than the separate components, with reliability nearly equal to or surpassing the separate component versions.
The point of "all in one" on some things makes sense. Printer/scanner/fax units makes sense, even before they met the requirements I outlined above, namely because all those features have something in common, and I don't lose much by having it "all in one"
An example of something that doesn't quite make sense is the MP3/camara/Cellphone/PDA/GPS/Kitchen Sink. I have one of these and yet I still use stand alone components (Camara, iPod, Computer, Map) rather than the crappy versions on my cell phone. So the "all in one" features go unused or only when I leave one of the others behind, and I need a camara in a pinch or just goofing off.
Now, getting to the idea of a Media Center, as long as the them is "media" and not "all in one" for the sake of "all in one" then I'm sure that something will eventually make sense, being related. If I can plug in a camara, edit the video, splice it with a movie (PVR) or sound file(MP3), and dump it to a DVD so that I can watch it anytime, then woo hoo, that makes sense. Making it a telephone, computer, email and toaster oven too, doesn't necessarily make sense.
I suspect that Apple will do it best first, and everyone will try to copy it, including Microsoft. Though there is a chance that someone like Sony might get there first. (not that I will ever buy a Sony Product again).
Oh, and if any of the BIG MEDIA corps are watching, DRM sucks and doesn't prevent anything you want to prevent. It only prevents people from enjoying that which you supposedly produce for people to enjoy. Give the people paying for a product what they want and you'll make plenty of money. Make it hard for them to pay for it, or overtly expensive, then don't expect any customers.
LOL
It's not just you. Its me too. There is something odd about my post, because I don't think God would troll on slashdot like me. But then again, I saw how the whole thread was devolving and thought I would like to end it, once and for all.
Though I was figuring on seeing some sort of "God is Dead" type post.
I'm God, You are the program I wrote before there was even proteins for you to secrete.
"Too many babies using C/C++."
Wrong. Like Babies with knives and guns (from the GP), the problem isn't the babies, it is the parents fault for giving the babies the wrong freaking tools. Don't blame the babies, they don't know any better.
So, the question is, what is the equivalent to plastic guns and knives in the programming world?
I predict that the market will clone the Windows API, and it will stablize, much like Unix has.
... well Linux, and none of the badness of Windows.
Apple will implement the API and tie it with all the goodness of Mac OS X and none of the badness of Windows.
Linux will implement the API and tie it with all the goodness of
The term "Windows Compatable" will become much like "IBM Compatable" was in 1980s. Software will no longer be written for Microsoft Windows, but rather the new Windows API.
Microsoft will abandon Vista fairly quickly after nobody wants it. Mac and linux takes off.
Apple will implement wireless right. Don't ask me how, I just know they don't just throw _____ (insert latest gadget here) into a product as a checkbox filler.
I neither support nor deride the decision to ship IE with Windows. That is a simple business decision. I don't support IE because of the problems associated with it, and its integration with Windows OS.
Like I said before, the natural course of things requires competition, in all ecosystems. Where there is no competition, there is failure, until there is equilibrium and balance in competition.
Google will have competition, or it will end up eating itself, just as M$ is beginning to show this result.
Compete and build a better product, very small niche markets in a monopolistic environment can be profitable.
Funny, I'm running FF right now, it shows none of the problems you speak of. Currently FF is 33M, and all the sites I go to load just fine.
....
IE 7 on the otherhand
"I believe, for instance, that shipping Internet Explorer with Windows was a good move." Hmm, doesn't that hurt Firefox?"
No. Why you might ask. Simple, Firefox didn't exist when the decision was made to bundle IE with windows. I think what you mean is didn't it hurt Netscape? To which the answer would be yes.
Firefox has thrived, after coming to the party late, and in spite of MS bundling IE with Windows. First thing I do on a new computer is DL Firefox, then I disable IE on Windows Machines.
Sometimes, just sometimes the best product for the job gets the marketshare it deserves.
Personally, I don't think M$ Windows or Google are necissarily bad. I doubt Linux would be where it is today if 3 or more viable options were available for desktop OS. I doubt that windows would be imploding under its own weight if there was real competition.
Patience is a virtue because eventually nature will equalize the environment.
so, what Blake is complaining about is that when comparing vaporware products to actual products that do what the user wants, google should ignore the actual product and promote the vaporware product nobody else has heard about, because He is the supposed author of said vaporware product.
Got it.
Somewhere deep inside, my view of Firefox just diminished.
Actually, they have found a use for Lawyers ... as source of nutrients for Pond Scum.
Hey, at least you get some.