Seriously, I agree with all but the Android part. Back in 2010 Nokia was the biggest phone maker in the world, both in smart and dumbphones. They had the distribution network, the manufacturing capabilities and the brand name to keep that position. With Android they could have stayed in this position, possibly losing a bit of it or gained a bit more depending on their implementation and quality, but they would still have had a fighting chance to be the top dog.
Why the hell has Samsung gone from a bit player to a giant with Android while we should think that Nokia couldn't even keep their dominating position with the same system? It just doesn't compute. Of course Nokia should have seen the lights 5-6 years ago and either dedicated themselves to Meego/maemo or they should have jumped ship and gone with Android. But they would still have a be in a position if they had gone with Android instead of Windows close to 2 years ago. Of course they could still have fucked up, but saying they couldn't have competed with Android just makes no sense at all.
Sony has been acting seriously consumer hostile for at least a couple of decades. I personally stopped buying their products after I bought an "MP3" player that would only play ATRAC, not MP3. Event though they have had some good tech, I consequently don't even look at their products. Most tech savy people i know feel the same way and we nerds have a lot of sway when it comes to influencing other people buying tech.
Sony need a total change of leadership, so they can start focusing on selling customers things they need instead of screwing their customers. Or maybe its best they just go down in flames. For me they are nothing but an annoyance everytime they come up in the news with some new pathetic scheme.
Ok, here we are talking different numbers, and we shouldnt really compare or multiply but we do anyway: 10% have the ability, 60% of apps can be pirated, 34% instances of these apps are pirated - 0.10*0.60*0,34 = 0.0204 = 2.04% of apps are pirated
Many point of error here, but for gods sake, stop crying wolf about iphone piracy!
I have had an iPhone for about 2 years now, and I am still happy with my hacked / jailbroken 1st gen phone. I am what, amongst my friends, can be considered a computer geek. I can fix computers and code quite a bit, I have hacked my iPhone several times (upgrading from os 1-2-3) and I have no problem pirating games. Still, I have never pirated anything on the iPhone. And yes, I have pirated PC games.
The app store is just too easy and affordable. I buy about 2-4 apps, totalling about $5, per month. This is about equivalent to half a pint of beer here in Norway. I feel I get good value, I compensate developers and I dont get the hassle of hacking. And yes, I consider any kind of manually moving files on my computer and syncing with iTunes a hassle compared to clicking on the app twice on appstore.
I have about 20 friends with iPhone. Out of them about 1 has Cydia installed and maybe a couple would consider pirating. For most people the iPhone represents ease of use, and they dont wanna hack and figure out stuff. I see people all over with the iPhone, and the majority is not the hacking type. Of course it matters what age group and income level we are at, but I still think only a minor percentage of iPhone owners even have Cydia installed. The only number I have seen for is that less than 10% of all iPhones are even jailbroken.
So my point: From this personal annecdotal experience, I claim with confidence that at most 5-10 percent of the Apple iPhone owners have ever pirated an iPhone app. The numbers can be discussed, but the major part of the app market buy their apps.
Then the specific cases can be evaluated. Why is this app pirated so much? Does it appeal to geeks, has it been marketed better in the "pirating" community? Does the pirates download and use / try more sw because its "free"? Are people that upload highscores more likely to be geeks that have hacked iPhones? Are disproportionally more people who have hacked phones living in countries with lower GDP because the iPhone hasnt been sold there before, and they are therefore less likely to pay for apps because they have less money? These and many more are interesting questions, but I still believe that most potential users of iPhone apps does not even consider pirating.
The main market for computers are not for gaming PCs. By far the major part of the PC market is for "typewriting", net browsing and email. Any old P4 computer can satisfy these needs easily. Whenever somebody want a "gaming PC", 9 times as many people would be satisfied with an older, functional PC (talking worldwide, not the western world). If there are older PCs to be recycled for cheaper, there will be less production of new PCs.
This is also why the major PC manufacturers are so eager for good recycling programs.
What you say is true, but there are different efficiencies is how the fuel is burned. The most efficient gas generators have 60% efficiency.
Maybe if you read up a bit on this (http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf), you will understand that there is a big difference. The article linked explains how a real life example well-to-wheel efficiency of an electric car is more than twice that of the most fuel efficient gasoline car.
Like I said, there will be some variation in what kind of biomass used, but the main difference is in the use of the electrical motor, and yes, in combination with more efficient burning.
Like the author says, ""The internal combustion engine just isn't very efficient, especially when compared to electric vehicles".
It is, of course, hard to know exactly what is happening here, since bioelectricity is not defined very clearly.
Wow, they say have have made a study into what mostly everybody knows: The electrical motor is vastly more efficient than the internal combustion engine.
Electrical motors have an efficiency of about 80%+, while ICM has an efficiency of about 20-30%.
This is one of several reasons why the electric car is more environmentally friendly that the gasoline car. Whether you use ethanol or gas doesnt really affect this, but ethanol is seen as better because it is renewable and reduces co2 emissions.
This seems, from my reading, to be the gist of the story. What is not very clear is if using other forms of biomass can provide significantly more electricity per acre than corn+ that is used for ethanol. While this might be, the main advantace they talk about is just the fact that the electrical motor is more efficient than tha ICM.
The problem with this debate is that it requires people to look at the issue from outside of the system we have today. This is hard to do without the ideas maturing over time, especially because we have been from childhood taught that "IP" laws are necessary to create innovation/art.
I have not read the book (I would like to), but here are a few general point I have about the issue after reading the comments:
-"IP" laws are not inherent rights in society. Rather they are laws that goes agaist the basic foundations of western society - freedom and capitalism (IP laws restrict both freedom of expression and free competition). -"IP" laws are in place because some people think the benefits of the incentive they create are larger than the damage the restrictions represents. -"IP" laws are not there for the sake of the "creators", but for the benefit of society. It is believed the incentives creates positive value for society. -Our progress and culture are based on information sharing and "copying". All ideas, music, art and inventions are based on what we have learned in our life and what other people have made before us. -Without this sharing of information there would be virtually no innovation or advanced culture. -Claiming "ownership of an idea" is a matter of definition. Trying to restrict others from adapting the idea is absurd, since a plethora of other peoples ideas have certainly been used to form it.
The important aspect here is for people to see that there is a definitive cost to restricting information. Whether or not the cost is worth the benefit could be debated, but assuming it is necessary without understanding the negatives is ignorant. I would advice the people that try to parrot the old propaganda "IP laws are necessary for there to be innovation" to read the book before they comment.
Just wanted to comment that I totally disagree about the N95. I had that for 2 months before finally giving in and getting a hacked iPhone. On the checklist the N95 is better, in real life the iPhone is not just better, it is a quantum leap ahead. The only functions that are usable on the N95 is phone, sms and camera. The only thing I miss is the camera (and maybe 3G). The camera on iPhone is not satisfactory (lowres, no light, no vid). But the rest, the total experience, is not even comparable. I do have a hacked iPhone, so I have lots of apps on it, but even with just the basics, I would pay 10 times more for the iPhone.
Sorry to sound like a fanboi, this is just my honest (subjective) experience...
Yes, I know the 800 is faster and the 810 is faster still. Because of my experience with the 770 I assume that the two upgrades (though significant they are not enormous) are not enough to make it smooth enough to be usable. I might be wrong. And I know there have been development in software that are really good. But much of the development comes from the community. The N-series is a bit more of a hobbyist device, and it is also a bit of a hobbyist project at Nokia also (is my impression). The point is there is so much to like and if Nokia just put a bit more(considering how much they spend on phone development) effort towards it, it could go head to head with the Iphone. I like the additions now, but I fear without mass appeal it will not have enough momentum and will go the way of the Dodo (Zaurus...).
I have the N770. An interesting device that shows a lot of potential, but at the same time disappoints in many ways. It is way too slow, has no phone functionality, and the software development has not been prioritized enough. I just got an Iphone a week ago, and I have to say I dont anticipate getting any other device for a long time. I do not like Apples proprietary attitude, but everything just works superbly.
Unfortunately Nokias lack of priority given to this device and their fear of cannibalizing the phone market has kept them from realizing the potential that was there. I am a bit attracted to the GPS and keyboard, and the open platform and screen has always been great for these devices.
But to really realize the potential that is there and not be overrun by Apple, they need to put in a phone, devote serious resources towards development and add multitouch screen.
Not that I think this is a good thing, but I just hate all these companies thinking it's the shizzats when they get a close business relationship with Microsoft. They think they gonna be big and profitable cause they are friends with MS, and then they are always surprised when they are screwed over. Check out Stack, Spyglass and all the rest. History is littered with companies that got close to MS and then were ripped off. Whenever the market gets big enough, MS will want the market for themselves, and take it.
Interesting article, but I think it missed a bit on the cause. It starts out good with the line "PR fiascoes tend to be a sign that nobody's thinking about the customer". That is the main problem with Sony.
Sony seems to have an extremely entrenched philosophy that says that the only way they can do well is to lock in the customer. Like the article touched on, the beta wars, the memory card wars, the mp3 wars... This attitude is amplified by their music division, and they do their utmost to lock the customers into proprietary formats. Putting this in front of giving their customers what they want is what is really killing Sony.
It is a long time since I stopped buying Sony products, even though they do have really great stuff. I also actively discourage other people from buying Sony. They promote mp3 players that dont play mp3? What the f#%k!
It is sad, but I think the unhealthy business attitude runs so deep in the company that there is no turning back. Personally I agree with the conclusion. For me its going to be the Wii.
The point is that microsoft has been proven to break the law, and as the GP said, stifled competition and harmed consumers. MS has a long history of using "evil" business methods (STAC, DRdos, netscape). Google has not - for the moment.
First, I have to say that I totally disagree that Linux have a long way to go before becoming a decent desktop alternative. Distros like Mandriva and Suse are quite good in this respect (its the two that I've used). One thing is that the installation is way easier and better at detecting hardware than Windows (and this is indisputable to someone who has done both lately). They are also quite a bit ahead at doing several things like desktop search and cd-burning, file-management (konqueror) and a lot of other things. Yes, there are some areas where it is still lagging, as with media capabilities (which can be fixes with some messing around). But in general they are at least on par with Windows as desktop systems. I have installed Mandriva for my parents and my sister. They both have dual-boot with windows, but they always use Linux, without problems.
Second, the specialisation of distros like this is really the beauty of Linux distros / liveCDs. Having one CD you can boot into without having to fiddle around with installing specialised software is great. CDs that lets you make media, play games, develop with eclipse and so on is great for trying out stuff. You can test out different software and find out which is the best or if you find it interesting, and then go on an install it if it suits you. This is not a general desktop, it's for a certain group which. It lets you tune the system for one thing, so everything works better. I think this is one of the strenghts of Linux, having niche distros that do certain things really good.
This sort of stuff is bad business for creative, just like the DRM thing is bad for Sony. I will not buy stuff from creative, and I do have a long memory on these sorts of things. I will likewise recommend most people (and yes, people ask me) other people not to buy creative. The sad thing is that nobody will be held accountable. Loss of goodwill is not easy to measure, and executives that does stuff like this do not have to pay for their mistakes. Just look at SCO.
(Of course you could say that the problem is with the Patent system that allows software to be patented, but that does not mean you should abuse it):
Hard to decide whether to moderate you as a troll or to reply, but I figure it is best to reply.
Your main argument here is just patently false. Most word processors does not interoperate just fine. No wp program can read MS office documents right. Openoffice 1.x does not convert documents too good, and even though it is better with 2.0, it is still not perfect. This is exactly why people buy MS office. MS office has no way of reading Openoffice documents. So both ways the conversion is just not there. It is definitely not easy to reverse engineer binary formats. This is why there are no SW that does this perfectly with MS office formats.
And no, there will not always be incompatibilities between software. There will be when not using standards, but the whole point of the open standards is to eliminate this. Look at how the web works (even though there are some incompatibilities with IE on purpose). The whole web is built on open standards.
Aside from your false claims, there are no reason to have closed formats except to limit competition and cooperation. The possibilities that become available when you work in open formats are endless, from making information sorting software that access documents, to extracting numbers from spreadsheet formats. Just because we have not had open document formats does not mean they have no use.
I think this is the wrong way to see it. It is the sad and false understanding that a lot of business people have. Just look at the dvd industry. They tried to stop the whole technology, Then the technology still commes thru and people buy dvd players. The market grows, and somehow, miraculously, the prices for dvd goes down. What happens? people buy more dvds! Shock and awe. Having the dvd prices just above the renting price, the industry is blooming, and people buy them all over.
The thing with lego is, its cool to have the basic kit. Its better to have more, because then you can combine. I never had the mindstrom, but I would like to. Its just a tad stiff on price. So I never bought one. But if the basic kit was $50-$70, I probly would've bought it and liked it, and then bought more to expand. And more. The chances are, I would have used more on the series than $200. And there would also be a happy customer out there recruiting new customers. Now I bought nothing.
And, yes, I did inherit lego block from my brother. Was I satisfied? Did I want other toys for xmas? No, I wanted Lego, because I had a base, and could expand even more. I wanted more, and my family was a good customer for Lego.
There might come a time when everyone has too much lego, but then they have to innovate. Make it cooler, so people want more again. Like they did with technics. Like they did with mindstrom. But innovate on the old base. It makes the customers happy, and it makes the customers want more because the already have the base.
Its just basic business sense. Give the customers something they like at a good pricepoint, and he will be coming back. This is something that is not taught enough in business schools, however simple it is.
I think you have some good points here, but I have to disagree with "blaming" the problem on the"Economist Dream". The first thing I learned when taking Micro/macro Economics 101 was that economics is the science of allocation of scarce resources. I think for this purpose, economics is an excellent tool. the problem is when people try to apply the tool on the wrong problem. Information is not scarce, and so the government has imposed false restrictions on information, to try to make them behave like scarce resources. Of course the way they did this is by giving out monopolies, thus eliminating competition and fucking everything up even more. Like you said, information can be copied for no cost, and gains everyone when shared.
The theory of supply and demand is a good one, it just doesnt apply to information, because it is not a scarce resource.
Windwos XP install is not directly unfriendly, but compared to Mandriva Linux install (and most other distros), a couple of issues stand out:
1. Time to install; Windows XP takes on average ~1-2 hours to install the OS and install all the drivers for motherboard, graphics card and so on. Mandriva takes on average 20 minutes, and is then configured with all drivers including NVidia/ATI 3d drivers and everything set up to go.
2. User interaction required; XP requires constant interaction during said install, to enter information, make choices, reboot and insert CDs. Mandriva requires a few choices first, the installation starts, and you can go away for 15 minutes and come back when everything is all set. One reboot to be up and running.
3. Functionality; XP, after said install, has the bare minimum requirements for an OS. If you want any more functionality, you need to spend lots of extra time and effort to install lots of software. Mandiva is all set up with office software, photo-software (manipulation and album software), games, calendaring, messaging, email, internet and most everything you need. All included in the 20 minutes (you can manage to make the install take up to 40 minutes, but then you install everything you can including server software and all).
All in all, I have installed quite a few of both, and I do not think you can compare the two. Setting up a windows machine is half a days work, while Mandriva is maybe one hour for everything including updates. In addition, the process of upgrading / reinstalling is much easier because of the separation of user data in the home folder.
Microsoft is a company that has been sentenced for abusing their monopoly in OS market to gain and maintain positions in other markets, amongs others the browser market. It seems quite obvious to me that them doing more to maintain and build the monopoly in the browser market is not a good thing, while google doing something to even out the market is good. The difference is as usual that MS has a monopoly and has been abusing this.
Also, MS would be pushing a non-standard compliant browser, while google would be pushing a much more standard compliant browser.
This is actually not right at all. Exactly at the time of the symantec report, FF had ONE exploit that was more critical than IE. In general they have less severe exploits, and A LOT less unpatched exploits. Check out the following links:
Secunia IE vulnerabilitiesSecunia FF vulnerabilities
As you can see, FF has 3 unpatched vulnerabilities, while IE has 19, the highest rated of these being more severe than FFs.
I would say it is quite clear that FF has less unpatched vulnerabilities.
The whole argument of the Lindows case was that MS had gotten the trademark for a generic word used to describe the type of system they were selling*. This should not be possible, and thus the whole Windows name was kinda iffy. That is why MS made a deal with Lindows, who on their side milked the whole issue for pr and money. Personally I wish Lindows had stuck with it and gone all the way.
* It is a bit like trademarking the word "car" for a car product after the word had been established as meaning what it does, and then suing other companies for using the word "car" in their name. it should not happen under trademark law.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, I agree with all but the Android part. Back in 2010 Nokia was the biggest phone maker in the world, both in smart and dumbphones. They had the distribution network, the manufacturing capabilities and the brand name to keep that position. With Android they could have stayed in this position, possibly losing a bit of it or gained a bit more depending on their implementation and quality, but they would still have had a fighting chance to be the top dog.
Why the hell has Samsung gone from a bit player to a giant with Android while we should think that Nokia couldn't even keep their dominating position with the same system? It just doesn't compute. Of course Nokia should have seen the lights 5-6 years ago and either dedicated themselves to Meego/maemo or they should have jumped ship and gone with Android. But they would still have a be in a position if they had gone with Android instead of Windows close to 2 years ago. Of course they could still have fucked up, but saying they couldn't have competed with Android just makes no sense at all.
Sony has been acting seriously consumer hostile for at least a couple of decades. I personally stopped buying their products after I bought an "MP3" player that would only play ATRAC, not MP3. Event though they have had some good tech, I consequently don't even look at their products. Most tech savy people i know feel the same way and we nerds have a lot of sway when it comes to influencing other people buying tech.
Sony need a total change of leadership, so they can start focusing on selling customers things they need instead of screwing their customers. Or maybe its best they just go down in flames. For me they are nothing but an annoyance everytime they come up in the news with some new pathetic scheme.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the combustion engine still only has about 20% efficiency.
ICE
Just some quick numbers here showing piracy on the iphone is not a huge problem:
-About 10% of all iphones and ipod touch are jailbroken.
-This study says 60% of apps on jailbroken phones are pirated
-The same study says out of these apps, 34% of installed instances are pirated
Ok, here we are talking different numbers, and we shouldnt really compare or multiply but we do anyway:
10% have the ability, 60% of apps can be pirated, 34% instances of these apps are pirated - 0.10*0.60*0,34 = 0.0204 = 2.04% of apps are pirated
Many point of error here, but for gods sake, stop crying wolf about iphone piracy!
I have had an iPhone for about 2 years now, and I am still happy with my hacked / jailbroken 1st gen phone. I am what, amongst my friends, can be considered a computer geek. I can fix computers and code quite a bit, I have hacked my iPhone several times (upgrading from os 1-2-3) and I have no problem pirating games. Still, I have never pirated anything on the iPhone. And yes, I have pirated PC games.
The app store is just too easy and affordable. I buy about 2-4 apps, totalling about $5, per month. This is about equivalent to half a pint of beer here in Norway. I feel I get good value, I compensate developers and I dont get the hassle of hacking. And yes, I consider any kind of manually moving files on my computer and syncing with iTunes a hassle compared to clicking on the app twice on appstore.
I have about 20 friends with iPhone. Out of them about 1 has Cydia installed and maybe a couple would consider pirating. For most people the iPhone represents ease of use, and they dont wanna hack and figure out stuff. I see people all over with the iPhone, and the majority is not the hacking type. Of course it matters what age group and income level we are at, but I still think only a minor percentage of iPhone owners even have Cydia installed. The only number I have seen for is that less than 10% of all iPhones are even jailbroken.
So my point: From this personal annecdotal experience, I claim with confidence that at most 5-10 percent of the Apple iPhone owners have ever pirated an iPhone app. The numbers can be discussed, but the major part of the app market buy their apps.
Then the specific cases can be evaluated. Why is this app pirated so much? Does it appeal to geeks, has it been marketed better in the "pirating" community? Does the pirates download and use / try more sw because its "free"? Are people that upload highscores more likely to be geeks that have hacked iPhones? Are disproportionally more people who have hacked phones living in countries with lower GDP because the iPhone hasnt been sold there before, and they are therefore less likely to pay for apps because they have less money? These and many more are interesting questions, but I still believe that most potential users of iPhone apps does not even consider pirating.
The main market for computers are not for gaming PCs. By far the major part of the PC market is for "typewriting", net browsing and email. Any old P4 computer can satisfy these needs easily. Whenever somebody want a "gaming PC", 9 times as many people would be satisfied with an older, functional PC (talking worldwide, not the western world). If there are older PCs to be recycled for cheaper, there will be less production of new PCs.
This is also why the major PC manufacturers are so eager for good recycling programs.
Link to article
What you say is true, but there are different efficiencies is how the fuel is burned. The most efficient gas generators have 60% efficiency.
Maybe if you read up a bit on this (http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf), you will understand that there is a big difference. The article linked explains how a real life example well-to-wheel efficiency of an electric car is more than twice that of the most fuel efficient gasoline car.
Like I said, there will be some variation in what kind of biomass used, but the main difference is in the use of the electrical motor, and yes, in combination with more efficient burning.
Like the author says, ""The internal combustion engine just isn't very efficient, especially when compared to electric vehicles".
It is, of course, hard to know exactly what is happening here, since bioelectricity is not defined very clearly.
Wow, they say have have made a study into what mostly everybody knows:
The electrical motor is vastly more efficient than the internal combustion engine.
Electrical motors have an efficiency of about 80%+, while ICM has an efficiency of about 20-30%.
This is one of several reasons why the electric car is more environmentally friendly that the gasoline car. Whether you use ethanol or gas doesnt really affect this, but ethanol is seen as better because it is renewable and reduces co2 emissions.
This seems, from my reading, to be the gist of the story. What is not very clear is if using other forms of biomass can provide significantly more electricity per acre than corn+ that is used for ethanol. While this might be, the main advantace they talk about is just the fact that the electrical motor is more efficient than tha ICM.
The problem with this debate is that it requires people to look at the issue from outside of the system we have today. This is hard to do without the ideas maturing over time, especially because we have been from childhood taught that "IP" laws are necessary to create innovation/art.
I have not read the book (I would like to), but here are a few general point I have about the issue after reading the comments:
-"IP" laws are not inherent rights in society. Rather they are laws that goes agaist the basic foundations of western society - freedom and capitalism (IP laws restrict both freedom of expression and free competition).
-"IP" laws are in place because some people think the benefits of the incentive they create are larger than the damage the restrictions represents.
-"IP" laws are not there for the sake of the "creators", but for the benefit of society. It is believed the incentives creates positive value for society.
-Our progress and culture are based on information sharing and "copying". All ideas, music, art and inventions are based on what we have learned in our life and what other people have made before us.
-Without this sharing of information there would be virtually no innovation or advanced culture.
-Claiming "ownership of an idea" is a matter of definition. Trying to restrict others from adapting the idea is absurd, since a plethora of other peoples ideas have certainly been used to form it.
The important aspect here is for people to see that there is a definitive cost to restricting information. Whether or not the cost is worth the benefit could be debated, but assuming it is necessary without understanding the negatives is ignorant. I would advice the people that try to parrot the old propaganda "IP laws are necessary for there to be innovation" to read the book before they comment.
Just wanted to comment that I totally disagree about the N95. I had that for 2 months before finally giving in and getting a hacked iPhone. On the checklist the N95 is better, in real life the iPhone is not just better, it is a quantum leap ahead. The only functions that are usable on the N95 is phone, sms and camera. The only thing I miss is the camera (and maybe 3G). The camera on iPhone is not satisfactory (lowres, no light, no vid). But the rest, the total experience, is not even comparable. I do have a hacked iPhone, so I have lots of apps on it, but even with just the basics, I would pay 10 times more for the iPhone.
Sorry to sound like a fanboi, this is just my honest (subjective) experience...
Yes, I know the 800 is faster and the 810 is faster still. Because of my experience with the 770 I assume that the two upgrades (though significant they are not enormous) are not enough to make it smooth enough to be usable. I might be wrong. And I know there have been development in software that are really good. But much of the development comes from the community. The N-series is a bit more of a hobbyist device, and it is also a bit of a hobbyist project at Nokia also (is my impression). The point is there is so much to like and if Nokia just put a bit more(considering how much they spend on phone development) effort towards it, it could go head to head with the Iphone. I like the additions now, but I fear without mass appeal it will not have enough momentum and will go the way of the Dodo (Zaurus...).
I have the N770. An interesting device that shows a lot of potential, but at the same time disappoints in many ways. It is way too slow, has no phone functionality, and the software development has not been prioritized enough. I just got an Iphone a week ago, and I have to say I dont anticipate getting any other device for a long time. I do not like Apples proprietary attitude, but everything just works superbly.
Unfortunately Nokias lack of priority given to this device and their fear of cannibalizing the phone market has kept them from realizing the potential that was there. I am a bit attracted to the GPS and keyboard, and the open platform and screen has always been great for these devices.
But to really realize the potential that is there and not be overrun by Apple, they need to put in a phone, devote serious resources towards development and add multitouch screen.
Here is my pro and con list of the 810:
Pro:
-Keyboard
-Open platform
-Good screen
-GPS
-Radio
-Expandability (SD cards)
Con
-Slow (assuming it hasnt jumped lightyears ahead of the 770)
-No phone
-No multitouch
-A bit large
-Not enough development
All in all I dont think I will buy one, but it is close. Had I not gotten the Iphone I would definitely gotten one, but now it is just not enough.
HA HA!
Not that I think this is a good thing, but I just hate all these companies thinking it's the shizzats when they get a close business relationship with Microsoft. They think they gonna be big and profitable cause they are friends with MS, and then they are always surprised when they are screwed over. Check out Stack, Spyglass and all the rest. History is littered with companies that got close to MS and then were ripped off. Whenever the market gets big enough, MS will want the market for themselves, and take it.
-TN
Interesting article, but I think it missed a bit on the cause. It starts out good with the line "PR fiascoes tend to be a sign that nobody's thinking about the customer". That is the main problem with Sony.
Sony seems to have an extremely entrenched philosophy that says that the only way they can do well is to lock in the customer. Like the article touched on, the beta wars, the memory card wars, the mp3 wars... This attitude is amplified by their music division, and they do their utmost to lock the customers into proprietary formats. Putting this in front of giving their customers what they want is what is really killing Sony.
It is a long time since I stopped buying Sony products, even though they do have really great stuff. I also actively discourage other people from buying Sony. They promote mp3 players that dont play mp3? What the f#%k!
It is sad, but I think the unhealthy business attitude runs so deep in the company that there is no turning back. Personally I agree with the conclusion. For me its going to be the Wii.
-TN
A lot of things "could be".
The point is that microsoft has been proven to break the law, and as the GP said, stifled competition and harmed consumers. MS has a long history of using "evil" business methods (STAC, DRdos, netscape). Google has not - for the moment.
First, I have to say that I totally disagree that Linux have a long way to go before becoming a decent desktop alternative. Distros like Mandriva and Suse are quite good in this respect (its the two that I've used). One thing is that the installation is way easier and better at detecting hardware than Windows (and this is indisputable to someone who has done both lately). They are also quite a bit ahead at doing several things like desktop search and cd-burning, file-management (konqueror) and a lot of other things. Yes, there are some areas where it is still lagging, as with media capabilities (which can be fixes with some messing around). But in general they are at least on par with Windows as desktop systems. I have installed Mandriva for my parents and my sister. They both have dual-boot with windows, but they always use Linux, without problems.
Second, the specialisation of distros like this is really the beauty of Linux distros / liveCDs. Having one CD you can boot into without having to fiddle around with installing specialised software is great. CDs that lets you make media, play games, develop with eclipse and so on is great for trying out stuff. You can test out different software and find out which is the best or if you find it interesting, and then go on an install it if it suits you. This is not a general desktop, it's for a certain group which. It lets you tune the system for one thing, so everything works better. I think this is one of the strenghts of Linux, having niche distros that do certain things really good.
-TN
This sort of stuff is bad business for creative, just like the DRM thing is bad for Sony. I will not buy stuff from creative, and I do have a long memory on these sorts of things. I will likewise recommend most people (and yes, people ask me) other people not to buy creative. The sad thing is that nobody will be held accountable. Loss of goodwill is not easy to measure, and executives that does stuff like this do not have to pay for their mistakes. Just look at SCO.
(Of course you could say that the problem is with the Patent system that allows software to be patented, but that does not mean you should abuse it):
Hard to decide whether to moderate you as a troll or to reply, but I figure it is best to reply.
Your main argument here is just patently false. Most word processors does not interoperate just fine. No wp program can read MS office documents right. Openoffice 1.x does not convert documents too good, and even though it is better with 2.0, it is still not perfect. This is exactly why people buy MS office. MS office has no way of reading Openoffice documents. So both ways the conversion is just not there. It is definitely not easy to reverse engineer binary formats. This is why there are no SW that does this perfectly with MS office formats.
And no, there will not always be incompatibilities between software. There will be when not using standards, but the whole point of the open standards is to eliminate this. Look at how the web works (even though there are some incompatibilities with IE on purpose). The whole web is built on open standards.
Aside from your false claims, there are no reason to have closed formats except to limit competition and cooperation. The possibilities that become available when you work in open formats are endless, from making information sorting software that access documents, to extracting numbers from spreadsheet formats. Just because we have not had open document formats does not mean they have no use.
I think this is the wrong way to see it. It is the sad and false understanding that a lot of business people have. Just look at the dvd industry. They tried to stop the whole technology, Then the technology still commes thru and people buy dvd players. The market grows, and somehow, miraculously, the prices for dvd goes down. What happens? people buy more dvds! Shock and awe. Having the dvd prices just above the renting price, the industry is blooming, and people buy them all over.
The thing with lego is, its cool to have the basic kit. Its better to have more, because then you can combine. I never had the mindstrom, but I would like to. Its just a tad stiff on price. So I never bought one. But if the basic kit was $50-$70, I probly would've bought it and liked it, and then bought more to expand. And more. The chances are, I would have used more on the series than $200. And there would also be a happy customer out there recruiting new customers. Now I bought nothing.
And, yes, I did inherit lego block from my brother. Was I satisfied? Did I want other toys for xmas? No, I wanted Lego, because I had a base, and could expand even more. I wanted more, and my family was a good customer for Lego.
There might come a time when everyone has too much lego, but then they have to innovate. Make it cooler, so people want more again. Like they did with technics. Like they did with mindstrom. But innovate on the old base. It makes the customers happy, and it makes the customers want more because the already have the base.
Its just basic business sense. Give the customers something they like at a good pricepoint, and he will be coming back. This is something that is not taught enough in business schools, however simple it is.
I think you have some good points here, but I have to disagree with "blaming" the problem on the"Economist Dream". The first thing I learned when taking Micro/macro Economics 101 was that economics is the science of allocation of scarce resources. I think for this purpose, economics is an excellent tool. the problem is when people try to apply the tool on the wrong problem. Information is not scarce, and so the government has imposed false restrictions on information, to try to make them behave like scarce resources. Of course the way they did this is by giving out monopolies, thus eliminating competition and fucking everything up even more. Like you said, information can be copied for no cost, and gains everyone when shared.
The theory of supply and demand is a good one, it just doesnt apply to information, because it is not a scarce resource.
Windwos XP install is not directly unfriendly, but compared to Mandriva Linux install (and most other distros), a couple of issues stand out:
1. Time to install; Windows XP takes on average ~1-2 hours to install the OS and install all the drivers for motherboard, graphics card and so on. Mandriva takes on average 20 minutes, and is then configured with all drivers including NVidia/ATI 3d drivers and everything set up to go.
2. User interaction required; XP requires constant interaction during said install, to enter information, make choices, reboot and insert CDs. Mandriva requires a few choices first, the installation starts, and you can go away for 15 minutes and come back when everything is all set. One reboot to be up and running.
3. Functionality; XP, after said install, has the bare minimum requirements for an OS. If you want any more functionality, you need to spend lots of extra time and effort to install lots of software. Mandiva is all set up with office software, photo-software (manipulation and album software), games, calendaring, messaging, email, internet and most everything you need. All included in the 20 minutes (you can manage to make the install take up to 40 minutes, but then you install everything you can including server software and all).
All in all, I have installed quite a few of both, and I do not think you can compare the two. Setting up a windows machine is half a days work, while Mandriva is maybe one hour for everything including updates. In addition, the process of upgrading / reinstalling is much easier because of the separation of user data in the home folder.
Microsoft is a company that has been sentenced for abusing their monopoly in OS market to gain and maintain positions in other markets, amongs others the browser market. It seems quite obvious to me that them doing more to maintain and build the monopoly in the browser market is not a good thing, while google doing something to even out the market is good. The difference is as usual that MS has a monopoly and has been abusing this. Also, MS would be pushing a non-standard compliant browser, while google would be pushing a much more standard compliant browser.
This is actually not right at all. Exactly at the time of the symantec report, FF had ONE exploit that was more critical than IE. In general they have less severe exploits, and A LOT less unpatched exploits. Check out the following links: Secunia IE vulnerabilities Secunia FF vulnerabilities As you can see, FF has 3 unpatched vulnerabilities, while IE has 19, the highest rated of these being more severe than FFs. I would say it is quite clear that FF has less unpatched vulnerabilities.
The whole argument of the Lindows case was that MS had gotten the trademark for a generic word used to describe the type of system they were selling*. This should not be possible, and thus the whole Windows name was kinda iffy. That is why MS made a deal with Lindows, who on their side milked the whole issue for pr and money. Personally I wish Lindows had stuck with it and gone all the way.
* It is a bit like trademarking the word "car" for a car product after the word had been established as meaning what it does, and then suing other companies for using the word "car" in their name. it should not happen under trademark law.