Sorry, I must have missed that memo. How many major name web services actually make money today?
A lot more than you think, apparently. My last two employers have provided services over the web in the Financial and Health Care industries. They're both rather well-off from that business alone.
A more visible example would be news and blog sites. Quite a few of them make a killing off of advertisements. Their profit models are more difficult to maintain than direct service costs, I'll grant you, but many do well for themselves in spite of the challenges facing them.
On another note, I did just occur to me that I may have caused some confusion by using the term "web services". A lot of people think "SOAP" when they hear that term. While I do know a company or two who charges for access to their SOAP interface (basically, a really fancy remote database interface), I was referring primarily to the delivery of business services over the web. My apologies for any confusion.:-)
Relating this to open source market revenue, Desphande and Riehle conclude that open source is eating into closed source at a non-trivial pace.
Welcome to competition. Open Source tends to cover the areas where software is well established and should be commoditized. As much as we'd all like to keep charging $250 a copy for a library to unzip files, technology marches on. Commercial providers of technology must work harder to win the dollars of their customer. And I for one think the results can only be positive.
What's particularly interesting to note is that web services are the latest craze in software development. The idea is that the value is not so much in the software itself, but in the service provided. This means that both using and supporting Open Source development can help these companies deliver real value to their customers rather than twiddling their thumbs on problems that are long-solved.
Michio Kaku hosted a series of documentaries from Discovery Channel, among them is 2057 The city.
Now that you mention it, I remember seeing that episode. It was absolutely terrible.
"Base code so old that no one remembers how to modify it?" Apparently, the host knows absolutely nothing about how large scale software projects are managed, and how incredibly fragile they become when not actively maintained. And even if we accept his premise, I think you'll find that "The City" (SPOOOOON!) would have patched against those ancient vulnerabilities decades ago. No one is going to leave an entire city unpatched against an active worm.
And don't even get me started about the level of "The City's" integration. The kid just pops his shark into a billboard and it manages to make its way across hundreds of disparate systems into "The City's" primary mainframe? That must be some impressive code to run on so many platforms, exploiting the exact same vulnerability at every turn! And yet the virus is somehow constrained to "The City" even though it's being passed along the Internet? If it was really so virulent, wouldn't nearly every city in the world be affected?
Oh, that's right. He used his momma's security codes. That makes complete sense. Not. Because I really trust a cop with complete access to "The City's" systems? Maybe, just maybe, she might have been restricted to only systems she needs access to? Even if we assume she occasionally needs increased access, one would think there would be a procedure in place to provide only temporary access upon request and approval from a superior. Otherwise, what's to prevent Joe Badguy from kidnapping a cop, torturing her for the passcodes, then taking over "The City" before anyone can stop him?
By the way, The Tomorrow People distinguishes between telepathy and telekinesis and is generally closer to the concepts described by ESP enthusiasts than, say, The X-Men comics.
The original or the remake? The remake was somewhat grounded, but telepathy was shown to function over worldwide distances. An unlikely possibility given the difficulties and long wavelengths necessary to send radio signals around the curve of the Earth. The teleportation capability was even more unlikely.
Now in the classic series, "Jaunting" at least required special belts. That was somewhat acceptable, even if it was a bit out there. But (as I recall) telepathy was shown to work at incredible distances reaching far into the solar system, and even into hyperspace. (Hyperspace itself being a "magic" shortcut for FTL travel.) The amount of power necessary to communicate over those distances is a bit too much for a human-powered, omnidirectional radio. However, the central computer of the series was at least consistent with the concept of radio telepathy.:-)
Putting aside the "magic" aspect of telepathy that most SciFi authors seem to strive for, I have often considered how telepathy might look if it were a feature of a real species of creature. What I came up with is surprisingly realistic, though it lacks the charm of SciFi style telepathy.
The way I see it, telepathy is basically wireless communications. A species that "spoke" telepathically to one another in close proximity could use radio waves to communicate in an omnidirectional fashion. For high enough wavelengths, a nerve center acting as an antenna could be exposed from nearly any location on the body. (Possibly metallic in nature?) By modulating the frequency range used to "speak", a creature could become louder or quieter, effectively maintaining the type of privacy we humans enjoy with a whisper rather than a shout.
Of course, the disadvantage becomes immediately clear. There's no mind-reading involved. No cool body-takeovers, no telekinesis developing, nothing but a simple method of communication that is alien to us, yet accomplishes approximately the same task as human speech.
It's fun to think that "telepathy is the next stage of human evolution", but there are no obvious physics to support the SciFi interpretation of telepathy. (Especially when you get into telekinesis, which requires WAY more energy than the human body can produce!) What physics does allow us is slightly more boring, but none the less an interesting concept to explore.:-)
You'll note that everything from IRIX to OS/2 is listed as a supported platform. Which was true when RealAudio was first released in April/June 1995. (Several months BEFORE Windows 95 was released WITHOUT a web browser.) Real was attempting to target every platform that Netscape supported. Which meant heavy, heavy Unix support. Especially since Microsoft was majorly dropping the ball on the Internet at the time. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't leave Microsoft because they weren't paying enough attention to the Internet. More than one Microsoft bigwig has left for those types of reasons.:)
Wow, these articles have all been so informative. I could not possibly have predicted those outcomes.
Meanwhile the rest of us have been enjoying these articles immensely because we get to obtain some insight about what each of the major players are thinking in regards to Real-Time Raytracing. The great thing about obtaining insight from others is that you can then use your newfound insight to come to your own conclusions.
If you're simply looking for a consensus from the industry, don't expect one for a long while. The concept won't entirely be accepted until someone goes out there and proves it out. Just like high-quality 3D graphics were thought to be too slow on the PC. Until game creators proved out a few different methods to make them usable, that is. (Starting with Wing Commander, moving to Wolf-3D, Doom, Duke 3D, and eventually Quake. After that, the industry said, "Welp, we better make some hardware for this." And thus 3DFX was born.;-))
No, that would be section 512(c) of the DMCA which provides indemnification (so called "safe harbor" protection) for ISPs that are hosting user content. 512(c) is what protects web hosting providers and service providers like YouTube against copyright infringement claims.
That's different from 512(a), which establishes common carrier status for Internet Service Providers.
You again? You really are batting a million today, aren't you? Go read section 512(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and then come back and tell me that again. Here, I'll even be nice and link to it for you:
No, it just shows that you don't know what you're talking about. The SDK may have its own license, but it does nothing to change the license under which the iPhone OS was released. And unless you see those restrictions in the iPhone packaging (which I doubt you'll find), Apple cannot hold you hostage if you build against their platform.
Or are saying there is actually some rule against this, and you are simply not referencing it?
Bingo. From section 512(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act:
A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or except as provided in subsection (i) for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement for the provider's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or the intermediate and transient storage of such material in the course of such transmitting, routing or providing connections, if--
`(2) it is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of such material by the service provider;
`(5) the material is transmitted without modification to its content.
Forging packets would be considered modification to the content, and thus pierce the Common Carrier Status that the DMCA provides. Which means that Comcast may well have shot themselves in 'zee tootsies.
As a cable provider, they don't. As an internet and phone provider, they do.
It's all about control. Cable companies have control over their content and thus can be held liable for their content. Internet and phone providers, however, do NOT have control over the data that passes over their wires. Thus they cannot be reasonably expected to be held accountable for that data. Unless they demonstrate that they are actively attempting to control the content. Then the legal veil is pierced and the common carrier status is lost.
Without the iPhone SDKs license, you couldn't redistribute stuff based on it either.
Quite wrong. The output of programs is difficult (if not impossible) to control unless the output is significantly based on the work itself. (e.g. A script to compile GCC would produce GPLed output.) The GPL says as much in the part I quoted. The SDK just provides an environment in which to develop against libraries that already exist in the iPhone. So anything that is output from the SDK environment is not Apple's to control.
What Apple is thus trying to do is control the use of the SDK. You are not allowed to use it to develop certain types of programs. (Something which may or may not hold up in a court of law.) So in effect, Apple is TAKING AWAY rights as copyright law does not restrict the use of a software copy.
You seem to be confusing legal ability with what is right and just. Just because Apple can doesn't mean they should. Understand?
Just like the GPL. Comply with the license or write your own.
Funny thing, the GPL. I don't have to accept JACK to use GPL software. It says so right in the license:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it.
In effect, I can use GPL software willy-nilly with no restrictions. The GPL's entire purpose in life is to grant additional rights in the form of redistribution rights. If I want to redistribute the software, copyright law says I cannot without permission from the copyright holder. The GPL is a form of permission from the copyright holder.
Soooo.... terrible analogy. Someone call BadAnalogyGuy, someone is horning in on his territory.:-P
I have never seen an SDK that so blatantly locks users out of common usage like this, have you? Maybe I've managed a decade and a half in this industry without noticing that it's normal practice to use legal force to ensure that an SDK is only used a particular way?
(That was sarcasm, in case you didn't catch it. The worst I've ever seen is Sun's "do not use this in a nuclear reactor" bit, which wasn't written in a binding fashion. More like a "if you do this and frak it up, it's on your head, not ours.")
Apple is only exerting control over their store. You can use the SDK to install non-approved apps to your iPhone.
Not according to TFA:
The key section of the SDK says that "no interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and built-in interpreter(s)." Even worse is the section just after that which specifically says no to plugin architectures: "An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plugin architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise."
They just won't support you doing it through their framework.
There's a difference between not providing support and using legal means to restrict the usage. Apple isn't just not supporting the SDK (which would be fine), they're saying that you LEGALLY cannot do this with your phone and the SDK.
It's not their phone. It's MY phone, bought and paid for. (Assuming I had one, of course.:P) As a consumer, it's not up to Apple to decide what programs I can and can't run. Keeping software from the app store is one thing. Restricting use of the cellular network is also understandable. (Why would you want to run Skype over GSM/EDGE rather than WiFi anyway?) But keeping users from running Java or an alternate browser by way of licensing? Sorry, that's not going to fly.
My device, my decision. Apple should control only their store, not license away the competition.
Thanks for the info! I had completely forgotten about VDOPhone. Which makes me nostalgic for one of the BEST IP Telephony products of the time. Remember VoxPhone of Voxware fame? As in the same guys who compressed JFK's entire "ask not what your country can do for you" speech into a few hundred KB?
Those guys had some of the most amazing technology. Sure, it only did voice, but it did it pretty well. Then they decided to go into inventory management for warehousing. How they ever got from one to the other is beyond me.
Vivo was the provider I was thinking of. Man, were they a blast back in the day.:-)
VDONet afaik died on the vine with a hefty Microsoft "investment". Which probably means that Microsoft ended up with all their stuff. (Not too surprising when one realizes that VDONet was powering DirectShow.) Knowing Microsoft, they probably had something to do with VDONet's demise. Perhaps they did the same thing as they did to Spyglass and conveniently didn't pay them?
Except that WMP was included in windows many years before Real was ever founded.
Congratulations, you've been suckered by Microsoft's intentionally confusing naming scheme. To give you an idea of the grave error you have just committed, a good comparison would be to point at FileMan from Windows 3.1 and say that Microsoft has had a web browser FOREVER. Just as Windows Explorer != Internet Explorer, Media Player != Windows Media Player. In fact, WMP was predated by ActiveMovie, Microsoft's first real attempt at streaming video playback.
Netscape was the first to give away their browser.
What is it with Slashdotters and bad history today? Is this "make up history as we go" day and someone forgot to tell me? Or is it national unencyclopedia month?
Netscape gave away their browser to non-profit entities like students. Corporations had to pay to use the browser as late as 1998. In fact, I happen to have the press release right here that made Navigator a free product:
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. (January 22, 1998) -- In addition, the company is making its currently available Netscape Navigator and Communicator Standard Edition 4.0 software products immediately free for all users. With this action, Netscape makes it easier than ever for individuals at home, at school or at work to choose the world's most popular Internet client software as their preferred interface to the Internet.
Real's offerings just SUCKED
And if you had actually read my post, you'd know that it doesn't actually matter. But I will add this: Netscape, Real, Eudora, WinSock, etc. were all pioneers of the Internet age. No one had given them roadmaps to follow, so they pretty much had to make it up as they went along. (And keep in mind that these companies were born in the fires of Unix, not Windows.) Microsoft was able to swoop in and provide a better experience by way of bundling their product. They were able to learn from all the mistakes of their predecessors, then use their market power to CRUSH them.
Even worse? Microsoft didn't write Internet Explorer. They obtained the source code to a competitor of Netscape's called "Spyglass". Their deal with Spyglass was that Spyglass would get a tiny sum up front in exchange for long-term royalties. Of course, Microsoft gave Internet Explorer away, so they refused to pay Spyglass any royalties. How's that for anti-competitive behavior?
If you went back and installed one of those older versions, I think you'll find that it did not contain ANY auto-annoy daemons. Those were added in the RealOne player AFTER Microsoft screwed with the market.
Now that's not to say that RealPlayer didn't have other probbuffering...lems, but it was othbuffering...erwise free from buffering... its modern annoybuffering...ware.
In any case, I will repeat what I said earlier. The REAL PROBLEM was that Microsoft killed the market before there could be any competition. I remember some pretty good video technologies coming out at the time, including a browser plugin that could stream high-quality video over a modem. (Though the picture was a rather small QVGA size.) Those competitors never got their chance because of (wait for it) Microsoft's anti-competitive nature. And certainly we never got to see Real get a chance to reinvent their player to compete in the market. After all, how could they possibly compete with free?
The Grandparent post has no moderation. He's obviously posting from an account that was modded into oblivion at some point in the past, thus giving him a -1 ding. If he posted as himself, he would have had a score of 0. But he decided to post anonymously instead, and thus got a starting score of -1.
Personally, I'm not going to shed any tears. The GP was a moron who can't be bothered to even figure out when Microsoft integrated their browser and when KDE 1.0 was introduced.
It amazes me how many people get their history wrong on this stuff. WMP started competing with Real long before version 10. Real's seemingly nasty business practices were a response to Windows Media Player. Because WMP was so ubiquitous, Real had to take more drastic measures to make money. So they started branching out into new services and used their media player as a method of advertisement.
So in effect, Microsoft caused the suckiness you are complaining about.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot more than you think, apparently. My last two employers have provided services over the web in the Financial and Health Care industries. They're both rather well-off from that business alone.
A more visible example would be news and blog sites. Quite a few of them make a killing off of advertisements. Their profit models are more difficult to maintain than direct service costs, I'll grant you, but many do well for themselves in spite of the challenges facing them.
On another note, I did just occur to me that I may have caused some confusion by using the term "web services". A lot of people think "SOAP" when they hear that term. While I do know a company or two who charges for access to their SOAP interface (basically, a really fancy remote database interface), I was referring primarily to the delivery of business services over the web. My apologies for any confusion.
Welcome to competition. Open Source tends to cover the areas where software is well established and should be commoditized. As much as we'd all like to keep charging $250 a copy for a library to unzip files, technology marches on. Commercial providers of technology must work harder to win the dollars of their customer. And I for one think the results can only be positive.
What's particularly interesting to note is that web services are the latest craze in software development. The idea is that the value is not so much in the software itself, but in the service provided. This means that both using and supporting Open Source development can help these companies deliver real value to their customers rather than twiddling their thumbs on problems that are long-solved.
Now that you mention it, I remember seeing that episode. It was absolutely terrible.
"Base code so old that no one remembers how to modify it?" Apparently, the host knows absolutely nothing about how large scale software projects are managed, and how incredibly fragile they become when not actively maintained. And even if we accept his premise, I think you'll find that "The City" (SPOOOOON!) would have patched against those ancient vulnerabilities decades ago. No one is going to leave an entire city unpatched against an active worm.
And don't even get me started about the level of "The City's" integration. The kid just pops his shark into a billboard and it manages to make its way across hundreds of disparate systems into "The City's" primary mainframe? That must be some impressive code to run on so many platforms, exploiting the exact same vulnerability at every turn! And yet the virus is somehow constrained to "The City" even though it's being passed along the Internet? If it was really so virulent, wouldn't nearly every city in the world be affected?
Oh, that's right. He used his momma's security codes. That makes complete sense. Not. Because I really trust a cop with complete access to "The City's" systems? Maybe, just maybe, she might have been restricted to only systems she needs access to? Even if we assume she occasionally needs increased access, one would think there would be a procedure in place to provide only temporary access upon request and approval from a superior. Otherwise, what's to prevent Joe Badguy from kidnapping a cop, torturing her for the passcodes, then taking over "The City" before anyone can stop him?
Really stupid show.
The original or the remake? The remake was somewhat grounded, but telepathy was shown to function over worldwide distances. An unlikely possibility given the difficulties and long wavelengths necessary to send radio signals around the curve of the Earth. The teleportation capability was even more unlikely.
Now in the classic series, "Jaunting" at least required special belts. That was somewhat acceptable, even if it was a bit out there. But (as I recall) telepathy was shown to work at incredible distances reaching far into the solar system, and even into hyperspace. (Hyperspace itself being a "magic" shortcut for FTL travel.) The amount of power necessary to communicate over those distances is a bit too much for a human-powered, omnidirectional radio. However, the central computer of the series was at least consistent with the concept of radio telepathy.
Putting aside the "magic" aspect of telepathy that most SciFi authors seem to strive for, I have often considered how telepathy might look if it were a feature of a real species of creature. What I came up with is surprisingly realistic, though it lacks the charm of SciFi style telepathy.
:-)
The way I see it, telepathy is basically wireless communications. A species that "spoke" telepathically to one another in close proximity could use radio waves to communicate in an omnidirectional fashion. For high enough wavelengths, a nerve center acting as an antenna could be exposed from nearly any location on the body. (Possibly metallic in nature?) By modulating the frequency range used to "speak", a creature could become louder or quieter, effectively maintaining the type of privacy we humans enjoy with a whisper rather than a shout.
Of course, the disadvantage becomes immediately clear. There's no mind-reading involved. No cool body-takeovers, no telekinesis developing, nothing but a simple method of communication that is alien to us, yet accomplishes approximately the same task as human speech.
It's fun to think that "telepathy is the next stage of human evolution", but there are no obvious physics to support the SciFi interpretation of telepathy. (Especially when you get into telekinesis, which requires WAY more energy than the human body can produce!) What physics does allow us is slightly more boring, but none the less an interesting concept to explore.
Just because the creator was a former Microsoft employee doesn't mean that everything Internet still wasn't centered around Unix.
:)
Check out this download page from 1996:
http://web.archive.org/web/19961220181218/http://www.realaudio.com/products/player/download.html
You'll note that everything from IRIX to OS/2 is listed as a supported platform. Which was true when RealAudio was first released in April/June 1995. (Several months BEFORE Windows 95 was released WITHOUT a web browser.) Real was attempting to target every platform that Netscape supported. Which meant heavy, heavy Unix support. Especially since Microsoft was majorly dropping the ball on the Internet at the time. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't leave Microsoft because they weren't paying enough attention to the Internet. More than one Microsoft bigwig has left for those types of reasons.
Meanwhile the rest of us have been enjoying these articles immensely because we get to obtain some insight about what each of the major players are thinking in regards to Real-Time Raytracing. The great thing about obtaining insight from others is that you can then use your newfound insight to come to your own conclusions.
If you're simply looking for a consensus from the industry, don't expect one for a long while. The concept won't entirely be accepted until someone goes out there and proves it out. Just like high-quality 3D graphics were thought to be too slow on the PC. Until game creators proved out a few different methods to make them usable, that is. (Starting with Wing Commander, moving to Wolf-3D, Doom, Duke 3D, and eventually Quake. After that, the industry said, "Welp, we better make some hardware for this." And thus 3DFX was born.
No, that would be section 512(c) of the DMCA which provides indemnification (so called "safe harbor" protection) for ISPs that are hosting user content. 512(c) is what protects web hosting providers and service providers like YouTube against copyright infringement claims.
That's different from 512(a), which establishes common carrier status for Internet Service Providers.
You again? You really are batting a million today, aren't you? Go read section 512(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and then come back and tell me that again. Here, I'll even be nice and link to it for you:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512
No, it just shows that you don't know what you're talking about. The SDK may have its own license, but it does nothing to change the license under which the iPhone OS was released. And unless you see those restrictions in the iPhone packaging (which I doubt you'll find), Apple cannot hold you hostage if you build against their platform.
Bingo. From section 512(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act:
Forging packets would be considered modification to the content, and thus pierce the Common Carrier Status that the DMCA provides. Which means that Comcast may well have shot themselves in 'zee tootsies.
As a cable provider, they don't. As an internet and phone provider, they do.
It's all about control. Cable companies have control over their content and thus can be held liable for their content. Internet and phone providers, however, do NOT have control over the data that passes over their wires. Thus they cannot be reasonably expected to be held accountable for that data. Unless they demonstrate that they are actively attempting to control the content. Then the legal veil is pierced and the common carrier status is lost.
Quite wrong. The output of programs is difficult (if not impossible) to control unless the output is significantly based on the work itself. (e.g. A script to compile GCC would produce GPLed output.) The GPL says as much in the part I quoted. The SDK just provides an environment in which to develop against libraries that already exist in the iPhone. So anything that is output from the SDK environment is not Apple's to control.
What Apple is thus trying to do is control the use of the SDK. You are not allowed to use it to develop certain types of programs. (Something which may or may not hold up in a court of law.) So in effect, Apple is TAKING AWAY rights as copyright law does not restrict the use of a software copy.
Funny thing, the GPL. I don't have to accept JACK to use GPL software. It says so right in the license:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it.
In effect, I can use GPL software willy-nilly with no restrictions. The GPL's entire purpose in life is to grant additional rights in the form of redistribution rights. If I want to redistribute the software, copyright law says I cannot without permission from the copyright holder. The GPL is a form of permission from the copyright holder.
Soooo.... terrible analogy. Someone call BadAnalogyGuy, someone is horning in on his territory.
I have never seen an SDK that so blatantly locks users out of common usage like this, have you? Maybe I've managed a decade and a half in this industry without noticing that it's normal practice to use legal force to ensure that an SDK is only used a particular way?
(That was sarcasm, in case you didn't catch it. The worst I've ever seen is Sun's "do not use this in a nuclear reactor" bit, which wasn't written in a binding fashion. More like a "if you do this and frak it up, it's on your head, not ours.")
Not according to TFA:
(Emphasis mine)
There's a difference between not providing support and using legal means to restrict the usage. Apple isn't just not supporting the SDK (which would be fine), they're saying that you LEGALLY cannot do this with your phone and the SDK.
It's not their phone. It's MY phone, bought and paid for. (Assuming I had one, of course. :P) As a consumer, it's not up to Apple to decide what programs I can and can't run. Keeping software from the app store is one thing. Restricting use of the cellular network is also understandable. (Why would you want to run Skype over GSM/EDGE rather than WiFi anyway?) But keeping users from running Java or an alternate browser by way of licensing? Sorry, that's not going to fly.
My device, my decision. Apple should control only their store, not license away the competition.
Thanks for the info! I had completely forgotten about VDOPhone. Which makes me nostalgic for one of the BEST IP Telephony products of the time. Remember VoxPhone of Voxware fame? As in the same guys who compressed JFK's entire "ask not what your country can do for you" speech into a few hundred KB?
Those guys had some of the most amazing technology. Sure, it only did voice, but it did it pretty well. Then they decided to go into inventory management for warehousing. How they ever got from one to the other is beyond me.
Vivo was the provider I was thinking of. Man, were they a blast back in the day. :-)
VDONet afaik died on the vine with a hefty Microsoft "investment". Which probably means that Microsoft ended up with all their stuff. (Not too surprising when one realizes that VDONet was powering DirectShow.) Knowing Microsoft, they probably had something to do with VDONet's demise. Perhaps they did the same thing as they did to Spyglass and conveniently didn't pay them?
Congratulations, you've been suckered by Microsoft's intentionally confusing naming scheme. To give you an idea of the grave error you have just committed, a good comparison would be to point at FileMan from Windows 3.1 and say that Microsoft has had a web browser FOREVER. Just as Windows Explorer != Internet Explorer, Media Player != Windows Media Player. In fact, WMP was predated by ActiveMovie, Microsoft's first real attempt at streaming video playback.
What is it with Slashdotters and bad history today? Is this "make up history as we go" day and someone forgot to tell me? Or is it national unencyclopedia month?
Netscape gave away their browser to non-profit entities like students. Corporations had to pay to use the browser as late as 1998. In fact, I happen to have the press release right here that made Navigator a free product:
And if you had actually read my post, you'd know that it doesn't actually matter. But I will add this: Netscape, Real, Eudora, WinSock, etc. were all pioneers of the Internet age. No one had given them roadmaps to follow, so they pretty much had to make it up as they went along. (And keep in mind that these companies were born in the fires of Unix, not Windows.) Microsoft was able to swoop in and provide a better experience by way of bundling their product. They were able to learn from all the mistakes of their predecessors, then use their market power to CRUSH them.
Even worse? Microsoft didn't write Internet Explorer. They obtained the source code to a competitor of Netscape's called "Spyglass". Their deal with Spyglass was that Spyglass would get a tiny sum up front in exchange for long-term royalties. Of course, Microsoft gave Internet Explorer away, so they refused to pay Spyglass any royalties. How's that for anti-competitive behavior?
If you went back and installed one of those older versions, I think you'll find that it did not contain ANY auto-annoy daemons. Those were added in the RealOne player AFTER Microsoft screwed with the market.
Now that's not to say that RealPlayer didn't have other probbuffering...lems, but it was othbuffering...erwise free from buffering... its modern annoybuffering...ware.
In any case, I will repeat what I said earlier. The REAL PROBLEM was that Microsoft killed the market before there could be any competition. I remember some pretty good video technologies coming out at the time, including a browser plugin that could stream high-quality video over a modem. (Though the picture was a rather small QVGA size.) Those competitors never got their chance because of (wait for it) Microsoft's anti-competitive nature. And certainly we never got to see Real get a chance to reinvent their player to compete in the market. After all, how could they possibly compete with free?
The Grandparent post has no moderation. He's obviously posting from an account that was modded into oblivion at some point in the past, thus giving him a -1 ding. If he posted as himself, he would have had a score of 0. But he decided to post anonymously instead, and thus got a starting score of -1.
Personally, I'm not going to shed any tears. The GP was a moron who can't be bothered to even figure out when Microsoft integrated their browser and when KDE 1.0 was introduced.
It amazes me how many people get their history wrong on this stuff. WMP started competing with Real long before version 10. Real's seemingly nasty business practices were a response to Windows Media Player. Because WMP was so ubiquitous, Real had to take more drastic measures to make money. So they started branching out into new services and used their media player as a method of advertisement.
So in effect, Microsoft caused the suckiness you are complaining about.