I suppose if you wanted to graph out the spectrum of variations in order from less varied to more varied, you'd end up with OSX, Windows, OSS OSes. But the point of contention would be scale. I believe Windows and OSS OSes are closer than how it's being presented.
The first major divide is hardware. Apple has tight control on their product line so there's only so many variations you're going to see. As soon as you get in to commodity hardware, the variations go wild. While you can minimize this with an API, there's still variation.
I don't run in to this being a big issue at work as we tend to use set hardware configurations according to support contracts. The variations aren't as big. But I do see this manifest itself at home. Back in the day, my wife had a problem with World of Warcraft. After a patch, whenever she entered the location called Ironforge, her client would crash. Long story short - I ended up swapping her network card with one from another system and the problem went away (we tried to negate corrupted drivers being an issue - but who knows).
Going beyond hardware - let's look at the OSes themselves. "Windows" is not a singular environment. There are all manner of Windows versions (i.e. WinXP vs Win7). There are sub-versions within those Windows versions (i.e. Standard vs Pro). And then there are smaller variations in what software has been added to the base install (i.e. HP vs. Dell).
On the OSS OS side, let's pick on Linux. As is common to point out, "Linux" is not an OS per se. So what you end up with is "hundreds" of variations of "Linux". But really, it boils down pretty quickly to major distros like SUSE, RHEL, Ubuntu, etc. Within those distros there are numerous window managers and tweaks a user can do. But they really are pretty interchangeable and I've never had a problem running Software X because I decided to jump to, say, XCFE instead of using the default GNOME. Yes - there are numerous libraries within a Linux distro. But then, Windows goes through that as well. Requiring GNOME libraries isn't much worse than requiring DirectX or.NET.
We could get in to a really tedious argument over exactly where all the points lay out. But in the end, as we track out all the variations and common application of those variations, I think you'd find that Windows and (for example) Linux are much closer than some would have you believe.
The larger point is that while this is all rather chaotic, there is still some control over that chaos. So while it may be much easier working within the controlled world, the chaotic world is still very functional (and IMHO offers advantages that make up for the lack of control - or more accurately, putting the control in different hands).
On top of that, the compatibility with MS Office documents is really bad if you try any sort of formatting. In a world where MS Office is still king, that's just not acceptable. On it's own OpenOffice is alright, but in an environment where people are switching between MS Office and OpenOffice or working with people who use MS Office, it's just not good enough.
I regularly use OpenOffice at work. It is my preferred Office suite even though I do have access to Office 2007 on my WinXP VM. The most common reason for me to fire up the VM and load Word2007 is file format compatibility with Word2007.
Most of what I produce with OO flys under the radar. But once in awhile, someone will note that Document X has gotten it's formatting corrupted. That's when I know that Document X requires Word2007 (sometimes I do open Document X in Word2007 first to see if OO has borked it before publishing my changes). Usually it is a heavily formated document created in Word, however, there have been occasional OO documents that Word completely borks up. Since the majority of the business runs Word, that's the standard I work to.
Microsoft's point on this is fair as far as I can tell. There is a compatibility issue. No matter where you draw the line (internal to the organization or interaction with external entities), you're going to run in to this issue as long as MS Office remains a defacto standard. That Microsoft themselves are creating this problem is going to be lost on people who's job isn't worrying about compatibility and file format issues.
Microsoft purists (read: fan-boys) would probably read this and lambaste me for even trying to run OO in a Microsoft environment. How can I get away with the risk of breaking documents? Pretty simple. Occasionally there's emails that go out because someone used Word2010 on a document and broken it. Eventually, the issue gets fixed and everyone goes on their merry way. But it does give me pause to wonder if OO / Word compatibility would be the big issue it's made out to be if Word / Word compatibility isn't even a given.
It's interesting to me that this is the same problem facing PC's, where there are hundreds of different versions of open source OSes vs. Windows/OSX.
I believe you put Windows on the wrong side of that equation. The controlled platform is OSX. The wild-cards are Windows and Open Source OSes; much wider selection of hardware and much less control over OS tree / components / build.
See... you're the type of person to blame for the blatant, ham-fisted attempts to invoke libido to overcome a lack of creativity and ideas. Thanks a lot, you bastard.
There's a little voice in me that thinks the thank-you should be sincere. But that's not the point.
No, I'm fully aware that Google's fanbois are never going to realize Google's in it for the money. Even Larry Ellison and Bill Gates have gotten themselves a private jumbo jet.
How does that meme go. Ah yes. "I see what you've done there."
So you're expecting a big, collective gasp as suddenly thousands of people realize Google is a company? You might want to prepare yourself for disappointment.
On a different note, Google's model seems to be more interesting than simply controlling data. They don't want control; they want visibility. They want data to flow through their systems. And they want systems that will make better use of that data. All the free services produce advertising eyeballs, to be sure. But they also provide massive amounts of test data on which Google can try new ideas and tweak useful tools. GOOG411 is a great example. Google presented the service and used it to collect voice samples and feedback to tweak their voice recognition. Now that they're to a certain point (and perhaps Android devices are providing a cost-effective alternative), GOOG411 is EOL.
You're missing part of the equation. Malware that targets Linux doesn't survive long. We've got historical precedence of malware attacks on Linux. And we have historical precedence of malware that targets smaller target groups. What we also see is that, at this point, targeting Linux gets relatively little bang for the buck.
While it's easier to network Windows desktops with Linux servers than it is to network Linux desktops with Windows servers, it's still easier to network Linux desktops with Linux servers.
There's also the factor of familiarity. If you've become a "computer expert" on Windows, you're much more likely to be comfortable with Windows servers. Anything else puts you on unfamiliar ground. I've seen that played out time and again in various environments (and sometimes here on/.).
Linux is more than a blip in server space (and thanks to Android, mobile space as well). Windows 7 isn't a server OS. In the desktop world, Linux is most certainly a blip.
I have to agree that Linux on the desktop is, in fact, a blip (even though for me, it's much more than a blip having used Linux as my main desktop OS for over 13 years). However, what goes on in the server room is linked to what happens on the desktop and visa versa. The rise in Linux across many industry niches is enough to threaten even Microsoft's strongest holding - the desktop. The potential is considerable even if the practical application remains a blip.
The CIO for my current employer was facing down migration to Windows 7 for standard desktops. They were also seriously considering Ubuntu. The entire project has been put on hold once Microsoft announced extending the life of WinXP. We remain a predominately Windows shop (at the desktop level) but the potential is still there as EOL for WinXP still looms.
Very good point. What I find interesting is that Google used the ActiveSync protocol for their own services. The license doesn't appear to be intended for compatibility with Exchange. This has me pondering two points.
First, does compatibility come in to play? Implementing ActiveSync on one's own server is one thing. But is it the same as using it to talk to someone else's server that's using that protocol? Unfortunately, I don't think there's any fair use provisions in patent law which is why patents are so prevalent these days (and often used to attack reverse engineering which is, in itself, completely legal).
Secondly - does Google's license apply to Android code Google produces? If Google includes an API in Android that enables applications to get data from sources that talk ActiveSync without actually implementing ActiveSync themselves, does this dodge on of Microsoft's complaints? Somehow I doubt it. Microsoft got a real leg-up for WinNT by multiplexing Novell servers and have never forgotten that lesson; being very wary of someone pulling the same trick on them.
In this regard, whoever is calling these shots at Microsoft seems smarter than Larry Ellison.
I agree with your initial point, re: war by proxy. But on Ellison's intelligence, it's probably more a matter of goals. Microsoft needs to salt the earth for Android (and Linux in general) as it is taking the market niche Microsoft wants. Sun / Oracle is more interested in protection / maintaining control over Java. These very different goals can mean vastly different strategies and targets.
As much as I dislike Microsoft and think that their "indemnification" sales pitch is a load of crap, seeing them going after Moto is a bit disconcerting.
The big question is why Motorola? Why not Google? I know Motorola implemented some of their own code in their products. For example, when I got my Droid, I could sync the corporate Exchange server out of the box. I had a separate email and calendar app for Exchange than Google email and calendaring. My co-workers (G1 and a Nexus One after seeing us enjoy our phones) bought 3rd party apps. So while the lawsuit is naming the Droid2, I have to wonder if it's something Motorola's done with their devices that makes them a target.
Of course, Motorola isn't the first. HTC came under Microsoft's guns. And the lawsuit includes filesystem compatability components. So while this particular patent might be custom-made for Motorola, it could also be just another stage in Microsoft's larger strategy.
With MS suing Android for things as innocuous as "syncing"...
No, MS is suing Motorola. Within that suit are listed patents that may or may not apply to other Android implementations. Which may or may not mean Google has the information to make such a simple list.
Yeah, I'm sure the reason for lack of blu-ray and Netflix support is too much time toying with The GIMP. There's nothing about either blu-ray or Netflix that's restricted. The only thing stopping Ubuntu from supporting these is all the time spent trying to decide on a brown or blue color pallet for the next release desktop default.
It's easier to just take the Windows install. Our IT folks still have to touch every new Dell box that comes through the door to load the standard image. The company still has to buy CALs for all workstations whether they're pre-installed with Windows or not. The two Dell systems (desktop, laptop, array of monitors) on my desk all get wiped and set up with Ubuntu with vbox handling the IT WinXP image. But ordering those systems without Windows would have been an additional level of effort with not enough financial gain to justify it.
But one of the aims in marketing is to make it the marketing completely invisible such that the potential customer does not see it. i was trying to explain it as a benefit; but not very well.
True. But not all marketing strategies are subtle.
As an example: Who cares if Mrs Jefferson likes Classical Music I can't afford to make a product just for Mrs Jefferson, when it is far more important that People of Mrs Jefferson's age tend to like Classical Music. So Mrs Jefferson no longer matters. I can make a product, and market it to people of Mrs Jefferson's age. So in that way there is type of privacy.
Again - that's one strategy. But there's a lot of data shuffling going on to support "leads". Let's say you have your classical music selection product you want to sell. You're not content with just waiting for customers to find you or blanketing mass media. Any targeted marketing is going to require a listing of potential customers; leads. First - you need a list of people who like classical music. Even better is if that list has been limited to people with expendable income that can afford your collection. Or even better, a list of people who've been known to purchase classical music in the past. That's when you find a Mrs. Jefferson on your list.
This is where RealID gets very interesting if / when they link it to Myspace. Forget about Activision / Blizzard marketing its games or the video game angle in general. Myspace's datamining machine now gets a listing of people who are comfortable with making regular online credit card transactions (monthly game fees). Not only that, but with pay content like vanity pets, mounts, etc. Myspace also has a listing of people who are comfortable with paying for entirely digital product. A listing of those kinds of leads is pretty close to a holy grail in online targeted marketing right now.
Let's mix filters. Mrs. Jefferson likes classical music but also spends her weekends riding her sparkle pony as a Blood Elf paladin on her way to taking down the Lich King with her guild. You can bet that Mrs. Jefferson is going to be getting messages letting her know that there's a web site offering a new music collection she just doesn't want to miss.
Remember the lesson of SCO and Darl McBride.... even though the claims had no legal merit, they still were messy enough that it was cheaper to pay the settlement price than fight them and win the case. When faced with such a problem, any sane business man will take the less expensive option even if it's not the one that's good for the world.
Yet oddly enough, the very few businesses who did actually see legal action from SCO did fight and win. And those few cases were less about Linux (despite all the noise in the press) and more about actions of specific companies. SCO vs. IBM was about breach of contract and didn't even touch on Linux until much later in the course of the case. SCO vs. Autozone was about alleged re-use of specific SCO libraries when migrating applications to Linux. SCO vs DaimlerChrysler was about Chrysler's a stipulation in the Unix source license they took out from AT&T decades previously that SCO tried to invoke. Indemnification from Microsoft would not have covered any of these lawsuits.
The real lesson here is being careful who you do business with. SCO's lawsuits were against former customers. Meanwhile, Microsoft helped make SCO's foray possible. If we're going to use SCO as a FUD case against Linux solutions, then it stands as an equally valid FUD case against Microsoft solutions.
Everything I've read coming out of Blizzard so far leads me to believe that Blizzard is as much behind it as Activision. The Blizzard guys want to milk that cow as much as they can, too.
It's hard to tell where the distinction is between "Blizzard" and "Activision". If you look at the timeline, a lot of this additional nickle-and-dime behavior started up shortly after Activision came in to the picture. It is behavior in line with what Activision did before aquiring Blizzard. So while these things happen within the Blizzard realm, it really has the overtones of Activision. But all this is a moot point. It doesn't matter what internal group came up with these ideas. All that matters is that they are attempting to implement them.
I agree, it probably is to allow better marketing and monitization strategies through social media; But that by itself is not nessesarily a bad thing. We all get annoyed at junk mail, and random salesmen/preachers knocking at our door. Only because we already know what we want.
You make it sound as if marketing / sales and I are a team. We're not; we're adversaries. That plays out in almost every interaction between us.
The sales and marketing folks are in the business of being seen and delivering their pitch. The vast majority of my day involves doing things other than receiving a sales pitch. I am not annoyed because the sales pitch isn't targeted, I'm annoyed at the sales pitch. I don't ever look at my day thinking "you know - what I need is another sales pitch." It doesn't matter if the pitch is for something in my interest. I don't want to give them another opportunity to get in my face.
Even when I'm at the point that I need information / am prepared to buy, I have to control how much information the sales / marketing side gets about me. With too much information about me, my adversaries will be able to better determine how much money I'm willing to part with. Prices adjust according to the pressure that the market will bear. As a part of a mass market, that means the individual can find good deals that are priced below what they, personally, are willing to accept. Forget about those good deals. You're no longer a part of the mass market. You are a market of one. And once the seller knows what the market will bear, expect the price to adjust accordingly (or be completely ignored if you don't fit the right price profile).
Privacy also becomes a personal issue. Sure - the average sales force is only interested in the sale (we'll set aside how profound an affect that is on one's life). But any information available about you to a sales team is information that's available to anyone else. Especially as that information is likely to be handled by other corporate entities who's sole business is the selling of information. Once information is a service (as it is now), there is little concern over the reason that service has been engaged.
Banning or shaming customers who disagree with you and publicly say so is no way to run a business. It doesn't leave you in the perfect world where everybody agrees with you, it leaves you in a world where nobody cares about you and you go away.
I don't believe this is about silencing dissenting opinion. RealID is about other things beyond forums. If you believe that using RealID in the forums was about altering posting behavior, then it was simply a conveniently available tool to attempt leveraging peer pressure to self-police the community. In which case, whoever came up with the idea is out of touch and / or delusional. More likely RealID is buying in to the whole "social media" thing and, even more so, the marketing / "monitization" strategies associated with it.
Now go to the homescreen, hit menu, applications, manage applications, text edit. Scroll down and what do we see under permissions? "modify/delete SD card contents" and "read phone state and identity". Permissions you were NOT warned about during the install.
Is this more of an issue with the Market (which is, of course, Google's to fix)?
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose if you wanted to graph out the spectrum of variations in order from less varied to more varied, you'd end up with OSX, Windows, OSS OSes. But the point of contention would be scale. I believe Windows and OSS OSes are closer than how it's being presented.
The first major divide is hardware. Apple has tight control on their product line so there's only so many variations you're going to see. As soon as you get in to commodity hardware, the variations go wild. While you can minimize this with an API, there's still variation.
I don't run in to this being a big issue at work as we tend to use set hardware configurations according to support contracts. The variations aren't as big. But I do see this manifest itself at home. Back in the day, my wife had a problem with World of Warcraft. After a patch, whenever she entered the location called Ironforge, her client would crash. Long story short - I ended up swapping her network card with one from another system and the problem went away (we tried to negate corrupted drivers being an issue - but who knows).
Going beyond hardware - let's look at the OSes themselves. "Windows" is not a singular environment. There are all manner of Windows versions (i.e. WinXP vs Win7). There are sub-versions within those Windows versions (i.e. Standard vs Pro). And then there are smaller variations in what software has been added to the base install (i.e. HP vs. Dell).
On the OSS OS side, let's pick on Linux. As is common to point out, "Linux" is not an OS per se. So what you end up with is "hundreds" of variations of "Linux". But really, it boils down pretty quickly to major distros like SUSE, RHEL, Ubuntu, etc. Within those distros there are numerous window managers and tweaks a user can do. But they really are pretty interchangeable and I've never had a problem running Software X because I decided to jump to, say, XCFE instead of using the default GNOME. Yes - there are numerous libraries within a Linux distro. But then, Windows goes through that as well. Requiring GNOME libraries isn't much worse than requiring DirectX or .NET.
We could get in to a really tedious argument over exactly where all the points lay out. But in the end, as we track out all the variations and common application of those variations, I think you'd find that Windows and (for example) Linux are much closer than some would have you believe.
The larger point is that while this is all rather chaotic, there is still some control over that chaos. So while it may be much easier working within the controlled world, the chaotic world is still very functional (and IMHO offers advantages that make up for the lack of control - or more accurately, putting the control in different hands).
On top of that, the compatibility with MS Office documents is really bad if you try any sort of formatting. In a world where MS Office is still king, that's just not acceptable. On it's own OpenOffice is alright, but in an environment where people are switching between MS Office and OpenOffice or working with people who use MS Office, it's just not good enough.
I regularly use OpenOffice at work. It is my preferred Office suite even though I do have access to Office 2007 on my WinXP VM. The most common reason for me to fire up the VM and load Word2007 is file format compatibility with Word2007.
Most of what I produce with OO flys under the radar. But once in awhile, someone will note that Document X has gotten it's formatting corrupted. That's when I know that Document X requires Word2007 (sometimes I do open Document X in Word2007 first to see if OO has borked it before publishing my changes). Usually it is a heavily formated document created in Word, however, there have been occasional OO documents that Word completely borks up. Since the majority of the business runs Word, that's the standard I work to.
Microsoft's point on this is fair as far as I can tell. There is a compatibility issue. No matter where you draw the line (internal to the organization or interaction with external entities), you're going to run in to this issue as long as MS Office remains a defacto standard. That Microsoft themselves are creating this problem is going to be lost on people who's job isn't worrying about compatibility and file format issues.
Microsoft purists (read: fan-boys) would probably read this and lambaste me for even trying to run OO in a Microsoft environment. How can I get away with the risk of breaking documents? Pretty simple. Occasionally there's emails that go out because someone used Word2010 on a document and broken it. Eventually, the issue gets fixed and everyone goes on their merry way. But it does give me pause to wonder if OO / Word compatibility would be the big issue it's made out to be if Word / Word compatibility isn't even a given.
It's interesting to me that this is the same problem facing PC's, where there are hundreds of different versions of open source OSes vs. Windows/OSX.
I believe you put Windows on the wrong side of that equation. The controlled platform is OSX. The wild-cards are Windows and Open Source OSes; much wider selection of hardware and much less control over OS tree / components / build.
I wonder, what will the next great "moral panic" be?
Whatever it is, you can bet someone will market their product towards it or create a product to specifically cater to it.
See... you're the type of person to blame for the blatant, ham-fisted attempts to invoke libido to overcome a lack of creativity and ideas. Thanks a lot, you bastard.
There's a little voice in me that thinks the thank-you should be sincere. But that's not the point.
No, I'm fully aware that Google's fanbois are never going to realize Google's in it for the money. Even Larry Ellison and Bill Gates have gotten themselves a private jumbo jet.
How does that meme go. Ah yes. "I see what you've done there."
So you're expecting a big, collective gasp as suddenly thousands of people realize Google is a company? You might want to prepare yourself for disappointment.
On a different note, Google's model seems to be more interesting than simply controlling data. They don't want control; they want visibility. They want data to flow through their systems. And they want systems that will make better use of that data. All the free services produce advertising eyeballs, to be sure. But they also provide massive amounts of test data on which Google can try new ideas and tweak useful tools. GOOG411 is a great example. Google presented the service and used it to collect voice samples and feedback to tweak their voice recognition. Now that they're to a certain point (and perhaps Android devices are providing a cost-effective alternative), GOOG411 is EOL.
You're missing part of the equation. Malware that targets Linux doesn't survive long. We've got historical precedence of malware attacks on Linux. And we have historical precedence of malware that targets smaller target groups. What we also see is that, at this point, targeting Linux gets relatively little bang for the buck.
While it's easier to network Windows desktops with Linux servers than it is to network Linux desktops with Windows servers, it's still easier to network Linux desktops with Linux servers.
There's also the factor of familiarity. If you've become a "computer expert" on Windows, you're much more likely to be comfortable with Windows servers. Anything else puts you on unfamiliar ground. I've seen that played out time and again in various environments (and sometimes here on /.).
And you'd almost have a point if there were desktop versions of OS/400 and Netware. In the meantime, Windows went from desktop to server just fine.
Linux is more than a blip in server space (and thanks to Android, mobile space as well). Windows 7 isn't a server OS. In the desktop world, Linux is most certainly a blip.
I have to agree that Linux on the desktop is, in fact, a blip (even though for me, it's much more than a blip having used Linux as my main desktop OS for over 13 years). However, what goes on in the server room is linked to what happens on the desktop and visa versa. The rise in Linux across many industry niches is enough to threaten even Microsoft's strongest holding - the desktop. The potential is considerable even if the practical application remains a blip.
The CIO for my current employer was facing down migration to Windows 7 for standard desktops. They were also seriously considering Ubuntu. The entire project has been put on hold once Microsoft announced extending the life of WinXP. We remain a predominately Windows shop (at the desktop level) but the potential is still there as EOL for WinXP still looms.
Very good point. What I find interesting is that Google used the ActiveSync protocol for their own services. The license doesn't appear to be intended for compatibility with Exchange. This has me pondering two points.
First, does compatibility come in to play? Implementing ActiveSync on one's own server is one thing. But is it the same as using it to talk to someone else's server that's using that protocol? Unfortunately, I don't think there's any fair use provisions in patent law which is why patents are so prevalent these days (and often used to attack reverse engineering which is, in itself, completely legal).
Secondly - does Google's license apply to Android code Google produces? If Google includes an API in Android that enables applications to get data from sources that talk ActiveSync without actually implementing ActiveSync themselves, does this dodge on of Microsoft's complaints? Somehow I doubt it. Microsoft got a real leg-up for WinNT by multiplexing Novell servers and have never forgotten that lesson; being very wary of someone pulling the same trick on them.
In this regard, whoever is calling these shots at Microsoft seems smarter than Larry Ellison.
I agree with your initial point, re: war by proxy. But on Ellison's intelligence, it's probably more a matter of goals. Microsoft needs to salt the earth for Android (and Linux in general) as it is taking the market niche Microsoft wants. Sun / Oracle is more interested in protection / maintaining control over Java. These very different goals can mean vastly different strategies and targets.
As much as I dislike Microsoft and think that their "indemnification" sales pitch is a load of crap, seeing them going after Moto is a bit disconcerting.
The big question is why Motorola? Why not Google? I know Motorola implemented some of their own code in their products. For example, when I got my Droid, I could sync the corporate Exchange server out of the box. I had a separate email and calendar app for Exchange than Google email and calendaring. My co-workers (G1 and a Nexus One after seeing us enjoy our phones) bought 3rd party apps. So while the lawsuit is naming the Droid2, I have to wonder if it's something Motorola's done with their devices that makes them a target.
Of course, Motorola isn't the first. HTC came under Microsoft's guns. And the lawsuit includes filesystem compatability components. So while this particular patent might be custom-made for Motorola, it could also be just another stage in Microsoft's larger strategy.
With MS suing Android for things as innocuous as "syncing"...
No, MS is suing Motorola. Within that suit are listed patents that may or may not apply to other Android implementations. Which may or may not mean Google has the information to make such a simple list.
Yeah, I'm sure the reason for lack of blu-ray and Netflix support is too much time toying with The GIMP. There's nothing about either blu-ray or Netflix that's restricted. The only thing stopping Ubuntu from supporting these is all the time spent trying to decide on a brown or blue color pallet for the next release desktop default.
It's easier to just take the Windows install. Our IT folks still have to touch every new Dell box that comes through the door to load the standard image. The company still has to buy CALs for all workstations whether they're pre-installed with Windows or not. The two Dell systems (desktop, laptop, array of monitors) on my desk all get wiped and set up with Ubuntu with vbox handling the IT WinXP image. But ordering those systems without Windows would have been an additional level of effort with not enough financial gain to justify it.
Not quite. Terry Childs gave out the password and he still stayed in jail. It's almost as if there was something else going on than just a password.
s/myspace/facebook/g
But one of the aims in marketing is to make it the marketing completely invisible such that the potential customer does not see it. i was trying to explain it as a benefit; but not very well.
True. But not all marketing strategies are subtle.
As an example:
Who cares if Mrs Jefferson likes Classical Music I can't afford to make a product just for Mrs Jefferson, when it is far more important that People of Mrs Jefferson's age tend to like Classical Music. So Mrs Jefferson no longer matters. I can make a product, and market it to people of Mrs Jefferson's age. So in that way there is type of privacy.
Again - that's one strategy. But there's a lot of data shuffling going on to support "leads". Let's say you have your classical music selection product you want to sell. You're not content with just waiting for customers to find you or blanketing mass media. Any targeted marketing is going to require a listing of potential customers; leads. First - you need a list of people who like classical music. Even better is if that list has been limited to people with expendable income that can afford your collection. Or even better, a list of people who've been known to purchase classical music in the past. That's when you find a Mrs. Jefferson on your list.
This is where RealID gets very interesting if / when they link it to Myspace. Forget about Activision / Blizzard marketing its games or the video game angle in general. Myspace's datamining machine now gets a listing of people who are comfortable with making regular online credit card transactions (monthly game fees). Not only that, but with pay content like vanity pets, mounts, etc. Myspace also has a listing of people who are comfortable with paying for entirely digital product. A listing of those kinds of leads is pretty close to a holy grail in online targeted marketing right now.
Let's mix filters. Mrs. Jefferson likes classical music but also spends her weekends riding her sparkle pony as a Blood Elf paladin on her way to taking down the Lich King with her guild. You can bet that Mrs. Jefferson is going to be getting messages letting her know that there's a web site offering a new music collection she just doesn't want to miss.
Remember the lesson of SCO and Darl McBride.... even though the claims had no legal merit, they still were messy enough that it was cheaper to pay the settlement price than fight them and win the case. When faced with such a problem, any sane business man will take the less expensive option even if it's not the one that's good for the world.
Yet oddly enough, the very few businesses who did actually see legal action from SCO did fight and win. And those few cases were less about Linux (despite all the noise in the press) and more about actions of specific companies. SCO vs. IBM was about breach of contract and didn't even touch on Linux until much later in the course of the case. SCO vs. Autozone was about alleged re-use of specific SCO libraries when migrating applications to Linux. SCO vs DaimlerChrysler was about Chrysler's a stipulation in the Unix source license they took out from AT&T decades previously that SCO tried to invoke. Indemnification from Microsoft would not have covered any of these lawsuits.
The real lesson here is being careful who you do business with. SCO's lawsuits were against former customers. Meanwhile, Microsoft helped make SCO's foray possible. If we're going to use SCO as a FUD case against Linux solutions, then it stands as an equally valid FUD case against Microsoft solutions.
Everything I've read coming out of Blizzard so far leads me to believe that Blizzard is as much behind it as Activision. The Blizzard guys want to milk that cow as much as they can, too.
It's hard to tell where the distinction is between "Blizzard" and "Activision". If you look at the timeline, a lot of this additional nickle-and-dime behavior started up shortly after Activision came in to the picture. It is behavior in line with what Activision did before aquiring Blizzard. So while these things happen within the Blizzard realm, it really has the overtones of Activision. But all this is a moot point. It doesn't matter what internal group came up with these ideas. All that matters is that they are attempting to implement them.
I agree, it probably is to allow better marketing and monitization strategies through social media; But that by itself is not nessesarily a bad thing. We all get annoyed at junk mail, and random salesmen/preachers knocking at our door. Only because we already know what we want.
You make it sound as if marketing / sales and I are a team. We're not; we're adversaries. That plays out in almost every interaction between us.
The sales and marketing folks are in the business of being seen and delivering their pitch. The vast majority of my day involves doing things other than receiving a sales pitch. I am not annoyed because the sales pitch isn't targeted, I'm annoyed at the sales pitch. I don't ever look at my day thinking "you know - what I need is another sales pitch." It doesn't matter if the pitch is for something in my interest. I don't want to give them another opportunity to get in my face.
Even when I'm at the point that I need information / am prepared to buy, I have to control how much information the sales / marketing side gets about me. With too much information about me, my adversaries will be able to better determine how much money I'm willing to part with. Prices adjust according to the pressure that the market will bear. As a part of a mass market, that means the individual can find good deals that are priced below what they, personally, are willing to accept. Forget about those good deals. You're no longer a part of the mass market. You are a market of one. And once the seller knows what the market will bear, expect the price to adjust accordingly (or be completely ignored if you don't fit the right price profile).
Privacy also becomes a personal issue. Sure - the average sales force is only interested in the sale (we'll set aside how profound an affect that is on one's life). But any information available about you to a sales team is information that's available to anyone else. Especially as that information is likely to be handled by other corporate entities who's sole business is the selling of information. Once information is a service (as it is now), there is little concern over the reason that service has been engaged.
Banning or shaming customers who disagree with you and publicly say so is no way to run a business. It doesn't leave you in the perfect world where everybody agrees with you, it leaves you in a world where nobody cares about you and you go away.
I don't believe this is about silencing dissenting opinion. RealID is about other things beyond forums. If you believe that using RealID in the forums was about altering posting behavior, then it was simply a conveniently available tool to attempt leveraging peer pressure to self-police the community. In which case, whoever came up with the idea is out of touch and / or delusional. More likely RealID is buying in to the whole "social media" thing and, even more so, the marketing / "monitization" strategies associated with it.
Now go to the homescreen, hit menu, applications, manage applications, text edit. Scroll down and what do we see under permissions? "modify/delete SD card contents" and "read phone state and identity". Permissions you were NOT warned about during the install.
Is this more of an issue with the Market (which is, of course, Google's to fix)?