Testing? Who knows? And why does it matter anyway what Apple runs iCloud on? Apple will use whatever service makes iCloud good enough to encourage more hardware sales, as that is what Apple cares about.
Microsoft was required to buy non-voting stock in Apple as part of a settlement over the theft of Quicktime code. It's amazing that, after all these years, people still think Microsoft swooped in to "save" Apple.
Totally. When I go to the store, Apple's will magically forces me to buy their hardware, and Microsoft's will forces me to buy their software. I definitely don't have a choice in the matter. Excuse me while I browse the open source repository for the Google search engine and use Flash-free Chrome, because they're such an open company and all.
In Slashdot's worldview, everyone who competes with Google is in an evil conspiracy together. All those years Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board of directors didn't happen, I guess.
The iTunes Store is very different from a data syncing service. You download your files once, and you're done. You may as well also cite Software Update.
All this was discussed last time (yep, this is an old rumor). Assuming it's an even true, Apple is free to use Azure and EC2 to get iCloud up and running and then move it to their own data centers later on. Or, maybe they'll just keep using what they're using now. It doesn't matter except to sites like this that treat companies as warring tribes to aid in battle. Apple doesn't give a shit what they're using as long as it helps them sell more Apple hardware. That's the point of iCloud in the first place.
What does it matter? Why shouldn't Apple use Azure for iCloud, assuming this old rumor is even true? Apple isn't offering a cloud computing platform for third parties (just a data service for consumers), so it's not like this is in competition with one of their own products. Apple just wants to sell hardware.
Google isn't open. Their core business, the search and advertising platform, is a closed source product. They are also withholding Android source as well as bundling closed technology like Flash in Chrome. Their PR department has certainly been successful over the years convincing tech crowds that they are about openness.
A lot of developers have been publicly complaining about Xbox Live, calling it too closed. Even Gabe Newell of Valve--who used to work at Microsoft--criticized Live for being too restrictive because Microsoft wouldn't allow Valve to use Steam. Meanwhile, Sony not only allows Steam but lets Valve offer a free copy of the PC and Mac version to buyers of the PS3 version of Portal 2.
Microsoft has ridden the success of Halo and Gears of War, and the 360 was easier to develop for when people were learning how to work with the PS3, but sales of the PS3 are surpassing the 360 this year, and PS3 developers have caught up. In addition, the poor reception to Microsoft's focus on motion gaming as well as a lack of an answer to mobile gaming signals a diminishing of the their position to third place.
Microsoft used to get mocked for its constant stream of pointless experiments and go-nowhere products. It seems to be what companies do when they're too big and don't know what to focus on.
The recent developments within Google and their moving to identity servi.. social networking with demands for ID scans if someone reports you for "fake" name, and other general evil stuff just shows Google has matured as a company and is now just like everyone else.
They've been just like everyone else since they went public.
This is exactly the audience Google+ will attract--people who just want to be different and not use Facebook. Google+ traffic has already begun to drop off.
It is interesting to see other people's perspective on this. Like many of us here, I'm a geek. I've seen more than one person I know post a countdown on Facebook with a link to their Google+ account and then, kill off their Facebook account entirely.
You acknowledge that you're a geek, which is exactly what the grandparent post said Google+ would appeal to--niche technical users who feel the need to abandon Facebook in favor of the a geekier product.
It doesn't matter what you think of their business decisions or their target markets (Atari was before my time, but I'd still play a retro Asteroids). That doesn't mean they don't have the right.
How dare a company protect its trademarks and copyrighted property, such as BIOS ROMs. The nerve! This is the internet--if you have the capability of pirating something, that suddenly makes it okay.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously? Is that supposed to be funny?
Testing? Who knows? And why does it matter anyway what Apple runs iCloud on? Apple will use whatever service makes iCloud good enough to encourage more hardware sales, as that is what Apple cares about.
Microsoft was required to buy non-voting stock in Apple as part of a settlement over the theft of Quicktime code. It's amazing that, after all these years, people still think Microsoft swooped in to "save" Apple.
Totally. When I go to the store, Apple's will magically forces me to buy their hardware, and Microsoft's will forces me to buy their software. I definitely don't have a choice in the matter. Excuse me while I browse the open source repository for the Google search engine and use Flash-free Chrome, because they're such an open company and all.
In Slashdot's worldview, everyone who competes with Google is in an evil conspiracy together. All those years Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board of directors didn't happen, I guess.
The iTunes Store is very different from a data syncing service. You download your files once, and you're done. You may as well also cite Software Update.
I'm sure your opinion is unbiased, "Linux user #520758."
All this was discussed last time (yep, this is an old rumor). Assuming it's an even true, Apple is free to use Azure and EC2 to get iCloud up and running and then move it to their own data centers later on. Or, maybe they'll just keep using what they're using now. It doesn't matter except to sites like this that treat companies as warring tribes to aid in battle. Apple doesn't give a shit what they're using as long as it helps them sell more Apple hardware. That's the point of iCloud in the first place.
So far, I don't actually see any Apple "fanboys" complaining. As the premiere Microsoft-bashing website, you're the ones who actually care about this.
What does it matter? Why shouldn't Apple use Azure for iCloud, assuming this old rumor is even true? Apple isn't offering a cloud computing platform for third parties (just a data service for consumers), so it's not like this is in competition with one of their own products. Apple just wants to sell hardware.
Google isn't open. Their core business, the search and advertising platform, is a closed source product. They are also withholding Android source as well as bundling closed technology like Flash in Chrome. Their PR department has certainly been successful over the years convincing tech crowds that they are about openness.
In what way is any PS3 owner or their content "fatally crippled by insane DRM?"
No, it doesn't.
Are you kidding? Until recently, Xbox versions of games were sort of infamous for having exclusives.
A lot of developers have been publicly complaining about Xbox Live, calling it too closed. Even Gabe Newell of Valve--who used to work at Microsoft--criticized Live for being too restrictive because Microsoft wouldn't allow Valve to use Steam. Meanwhile, Sony not only allows Steam but lets Valve offer a free copy of the PC and Mac version to buyers of the PS3 version of Portal 2.
Microsoft has ridden the success of Halo and Gears of War, and the 360 was easier to develop for when people were learning how to work with the PS3, but sales of the PS3 are surpassing the 360 this year, and PS3 developers have caught up. In addition, the poor reception to Microsoft's focus on motion gaming as well as a lack of an answer to mobile gaming signals a diminishing of the their position to third place.
Microsoft used to get mocked for its constant stream of pointless experiments and go-nowhere products. It seems to be what companies do when they're too big and don't know what to focus on.
They've been just like everyone else since they went public.
What Android devices looked like before and after the iPhone/iPad
Isn't it funny how quickly everyone forgot that Eric Schmidt said Google+ is an identity service rather than a social network?
This is exactly the audience Google+ will attract--people who just want to be different and not use Facebook. Google+ traffic has already begun to drop off.
You acknowledge that you're a geek, which is exactly what the grandparent post said Google+ would appeal to--niche technical users who feel the need to abandon Facebook in favor of the a geekier product.
Nobody actually cares that much about circles except for tech journalists who think dragging things to a circle is the most amazing innovation ever.
It doesn't matter what you think of their business decisions or their target markets (Atari was before my time, but I'd still play a retro Asteroids). That doesn't mean they don't have the right.
How dare a company protect its trademarks and copyrighted property, such as BIOS ROMs. The nerve! This is the internet--if you have the capability of pirating something, that suddenly makes it okay.
They're not legal if they're using Atari trademarks or linking to Atari ROMs, such as BIOS images.