This arrogance demonstrates the problem. This industry had it really good for a long time and did nothing to prepare for the day when it had to grow up. Every other industry has or will have to do it, but the software industry thinks it's the exception.
Here's the rebuttal:
Quality costs money. This is simply the 90%-10% rule applied to make it look like 100%. In truth, most don't need all the bells and whistles. But you make everyone pay for what perhaps only 85% use. And open source just lowered the boom on that game, fella.
Software reproduction costs next to $0. But you have to justify volume, don't you, and you can't compete with true $0. The simple truth is that volume doesn't justify the business plan. Ask the music industry if you need help with this, although they may not give you a straight answer.
High initial fees encourage piracy. That's only part of the story. You have to ask "what is the software being used for?" We're paying an average of $90 a game these days in Australia. Considering you might get 20-40 hours of real use out of your average game, that's not $90 value to most people. The same is true to a varying extent with other software. If most wordprocessors basically do the same thing and yours is more expensive, whose fault is that?
Subscriptions spread out the cost. Absolute bullshit. I live just across from a service station that pays subscription for its POS software. It's money for jam. The core software hasn't changed for years. They keep charging these guys essentially for bugfixes, not significant functionality. They charged them for turning part of the functionality back on that had been turned off by request previously. And looking at the likes of Intuit and anti-virus companies, its pure extortion. The real reason you're making this argument is that you're already under pressure for your prices. This might look clever on a corporate balance sheet, but we won't play that game.
Put up with the bugs or shut up When companies like Microsoft essentially condone piracy for the benefit of mindshare they can later exploit, this argument wears most thinly. People are more prepared to put up with bugs in open source software where they at least have the opportunity to get those bugs fixed without the extra extortion of "maintenence fees" and "support fee structures". So we are shutting up and leaving in droves. You think it's a fair price now? You've seen nothing yet.
Whine whine something-for-nothing whine Now we see the contempt you have for your customers. We are not idiots. We want to use what we paid for in the way we want. Deal with it.
The assumption in this brave new world of yours is that if you can be the gatekeeper, you essentially own the road. Well, in terms of cost, we expected to pay the cost of the travel and the cost of experiencing that travel. We didn't expect some asshole standing there with a gun demanding that we pay or turn around.
So we built our own road. Because, in life, you try that shit with us, you've got another thing coming.
Ask them in Sydney, there's a tunnel there that noone's using.
...and so did a few others. Remember all the footsie with AOL in weeks past? Methinks the price for merging AIM might have been a tad high, so they've gone the other route with yahoo. The point of all this isn't to attack AOL, it's Google they're worried about. They've no doubt settled on a no-compete deal with AOL, so it's a sort-off united front.
Except that then they don't have the excuses of their predecessors to fall back on. Many make the mistake that the RIAA *is* the music industry when it merely *represents* them. And all it represents are marketing people who are carried away with the idea that they create the artists. Inevitably, this will become clear to everyone. The large volume business is unsustainable, and they only have themselves to blame for outsourcing their own distribution networks. How sustainable is Clearchannel's business really?
Today we have the ability to turn out a finished production (with maybe some overhead for a producer) and only depend on a marketing/distribution network, which increasingly looks like being the internet. Record companies are being squeezed between this potential and the big distribution chains that are tired of retailing a lot of merchandise that doesn't sell quickly enough for not enough profit. And who says you *have* to have an expensive music video? Or payola radio stations? It isn't inevitable that record companies are a given.
Technically, they are, but 9/10 times they seek to hide the problem and avoid liability. It is irresponsible in my view to put major databases in another country where it is known the information is being sold on the blackmarket, yet banks continue to insist there's nothing to be done. Remember, these are the same guys who organized shadow accounts so that the Russian mafia could siphon off billions in US aid to Russia a few years ago. It took the combined efforts of several governments to put political pressure on all countries where this method was known to exist (in places like Bermuda, etc). Banks will *never* act in the customer's interest unless forced, and yes, charge the customer for the privilege afterwards.
Well put, and with major corporate interests involved, a scary scenario. Imagine a "goodwill" gesture between one of these guys and a major oil company unhappy with the level of service it's getting from oh say Venezuala.
It's possibly on a par with the scenario of countries cutting others off their internet connections. Not that it can't be done, but the repercussions are akin to MAD. Although these days with the effective merger of state and corporate interests anything can happen...
How does a different file format equate to the merits of a competing product? If MS Office supported the OpenDocument format, does that change whether you would use it in preference to another office suite? It's a Chewbacca argument and nothing to do with the issue.
Given some of the Australian-US FTA requirements, I'd be surprised if they weren't trying to make it apply elsewhere. iTunes certainly isn't going anywhere here. WTF does the music industry think it's winning?
First, claim OpenDocument costs more and then whine about the implications (my emphasis):
Worse, the policy represents an attack on market-based competition, which in turn will hurt innovation.
Don't say it is an attack, that'd make you look more stupid. Never mind that there's no logic whatsoever in the statement.
How about a strawman argument about something unrelated:
Many technology writers, in fact, have cast a skeptical eye on OpenDocument and applications that support the format. George Ou, writing on ZDNet, recently compared the new Open Office Calc product to Microsoft Excel and found it lacking, writing, "[i]f someone from Open Office can explain why it takes more than 100 times longer to create and load spreadsheet documents and why it uses up several more times memory that Microsoft Excel to work with the same data, I'd love to hear it."
And that's the fault of a document specification? Let's make a wish...but wait, there's more comedy:
It may be that an array of exceptional, low-cost OpenDocument applications will emerge in the coming years. Such innovation would be welcome by anyone, but these applications should have to compete on merit and cost. They should not be given an arbitrary leg up that shuts out other vendors and forces government agencies to settle on under-performing technologies.
Eh? Are we trying to say that Microsoft products are the market leaders because their file formats are superior? That if those nasty OpenDocument apps get help from dimwitted politicians it amounts to market interference? No, it can't be! Surely Microsoft paid them off, er, made valuable campaign donations to ensure they wouldn't be swayed by a load of dirty geek hippies?
After that, the attempt at scaremongering Adobe about PDF going the same way is just hilarious. And mentioning CAGW is bad PR, James, they've already been outed.
I just want to thank the many infuriated Americans for their comments here, it tempers my cynicism that maybe someone somewhere is willing to stand up and risk having a corporate whipper-snipper lop their heads off. The corporate agenda has gone beyond mere control, it's spiralling into a dangerous self-defeating power vaccum. The haves think they are safe behind their walls but ignoring the havenots outside isn't rational, no matter how economic or conservative.
If this is true, then the Microsoft-AOL deal is probably focussed on the IM partnership alone and not infrastructure. This is about advertising, so MS might be paying AOL to spruik its products through the IM channel and align the IM protocols to lock users away from Google. One IM channel, 3 different brands chasing different market segments perhaps. MS wants to get into the Internet service business, this might be a way of grabbing mindshare without large up-front costs. In any case, expect big changes to IM in the coming year.
Is so Microsoft can own ICQ and AIM. They don't want Google winning IM, so this kills two birds with one stone: present a credible competitor for anti-trust monitors while taking over most of the IM market. I'm not sure Microsoft won't ruin the advantage they gain with this, however. Turning everything into MSN isn't everyone's idea of IM heaven. Who cares about the subscribers? It's the network infrastructure and IM audience they want for Microsoft Internet.
IMHO, using technical arguments to shoot down an admittedly vague whine about UI is missing the point: users shouldn't have to be technical
But as noone can think outside this particular box yet, or are hostile to approaches that might lead them out of it, nothing much can be added. And users are still frustrated.
I think the parable of the VCR is still relevant. If VCR programming is still arcane knowledge to most people computer UI has a LONG way to go.
In an odd way, that's exactly what I believe Microsoft wishes the situation to be: Linux the junior partner to Windows. Microsoft will not accept Linux as the dominant server in the enterprise in any way. It has been suggested that recent acquisitions in the area of enterprise management by Microsoft is to ensure that whatever the Linux/Windows balance is, Windows will be in charge of the data centre. All the better to enforce its IP rights, no doubt.
I hear MCSE's praise Active Directory to the skies and claim that Unix ACL's can never match W2K's group attribute management. I don't really see anything a competent Unix admin couldn't match with OpenLDAP and efficient automation, but that's not the point, its the idea that whatever Linux can do, Windows has already done it and in a superior fashion. This is the direction I expect the pro-Microsoft argument to run once they've "accepted" that their TCO argument has failed.
The true value of open source solutions involving Linux and the *BSD's is that you're not trapped into one management model, and only the larger adoptees seem to have grasped this. If Microsoft insist on being the gatekeeper in the server market, they might have more resistance than they expected.
No standard can last if the cost/benefit analysis doesn't stand up. A large number of important businesses do not agree with you, nor do an increasing number of non-techie grandmothers.
I dunno about optimizing, it's yet to work with gcc 4.0.2 on my Debian unstable yet (dies on vm_x86.c). And punkbuster was specifically excluded from the code so that punkbuster servers would be safe from it.
Slashdot Mirror
This arrogance demonstrates the problem. This industry had it really good for a long time and did nothing to prepare for the day when it had to grow up. Every other industry has or will have to do it, but the software industry thinks it's the exception.
Here's the rebuttal:
The assumption in this brave new world of yours is that if you can be the gatekeeper, you essentially own the road. Well, in terms of cost, we expected to pay the cost of the travel and the cost of experiencing that travel. We didn't expect some asshole standing there with a gun demanding that we pay or turn around. So we built our own road. Because, in life, you try that shit with us, you've got another thing coming. Ask them in Sydney, there's a tunnel there that noone's using.
It just prints Mozilla. Back to the exploit drawing board with you, script kiddies...
Just because we look like sheep doesn't mean we aren't penguins. Ignore Dvorak, he's just a shonky tech journo jumping on the bandwagon.
...and so did a few others. Remember all the footsie with AOL in weeks past? Methinks the price for merging AIM might have been a tad high, so they've gone the other route with yahoo. The point of all this isn't to attack AOL, it's Google they're worried about. They've no doubt settled on a no-compete deal with AOL, so it's a sort-off united front.
Except that then they don't have the excuses of their predecessors to fall back on. Many make the mistake that the RIAA *is* the music industry when it merely *represents* them. And all it represents are marketing people who are carried away with the idea that they create the artists. Inevitably, this will become clear to everyone. The large volume business is unsustainable, and they only have themselves to blame for outsourcing their own distribution networks. How sustainable is Clearchannel's business really?
Today we have the ability to turn out a finished production (with maybe some overhead for a producer) and only depend on a marketing/distribution network, which increasingly looks like being the internet. Record companies are being squeezed between this potential and the big distribution chains that are tired of retailing a lot of merchandise that doesn't sell quickly enough for not enough profit. And who says you *have* to have an expensive music video? Or payola radio stations? It isn't inevitable that record companies are a given.
Technically, they are, but 9/10 times they seek to hide the problem and avoid liability. It is irresponsible in my view to put major databases in another country where it is known the information is being sold on the blackmarket, yet banks continue to insist there's nothing to be done. Remember, these are the same guys who organized shadow accounts so that the Russian mafia could siphon off billions in US aid to Russia a few years ago. It took the combined efforts of several governments to put political pressure on all countries where this method was known to exist (in places like Bermuda, etc). Banks will *never* act in the customer's interest unless forced, and yes, charge the customer for the privilege afterwards.
Well put, and with major corporate interests involved, a scary scenario. Imagine a "goodwill" gesture between one of these guys and a major oil company unhappy with the level of service it's getting from oh say Venezuala.
It's possibly on a par with the scenario of countries cutting others off their internet connections. Not that it can't be done, but the repercussions are akin to MAD. Although these days with the effective merger of state and corporate interests anything can happen...
Lonely?
He thinks Google is tuffer than Microsoft. Buy his book to find out if he is right.
How does a different file format equate to the merits of a competing product? If MS Office supported the OpenDocument format, does that change whether you would use it in preference to another office suite? It's a Chewbacca argument and nothing to do with the issue.
Given some of the Australian-US FTA requirements, I'd be surprised if they weren't trying to make it apply elsewhere. iTunes certainly isn't going anywhere here. WTF does the music industry think it's winning?
First, claim OpenDocument costs more and then whine about the implications (my emphasis):
Don't say it is an attack, that'd make you look more stupid. Never mind that there's no logic whatsoever in the statement.How about a strawman argument about something unrelated:
And that's the fault of a document specification? Let's make a wish...but wait, there's more comedy:Eh? Are we trying to say that Microsoft products are the market leaders because their file formats are superior? That if those nasty OpenDocument apps get help from dimwitted politicians it amounts to market interference? No, it can't be! Surely Microsoft paid them off, er, made valuable campaign donations to ensure they wouldn't be swayed by a load of dirty geek hippies?
After that, the attempt at scaremongering Adobe about PDF going the same way is just hilarious. And mentioning CAGW is bad PR, James, they've already been outed.
I just want to thank the many infuriated Americans for their comments here, it tempers my cynicism that maybe someone somewhere is willing to stand up and risk having a corporate whipper-snipper lop their heads off. The corporate agenda has gone beyond mere control, it's spiralling into a dangerous self-defeating power vaccum. The haves think they are safe behind their walls but ignoring the havenots outside isn't rational, no matter how economic or conservative.
If this is true, then the Microsoft-AOL deal is probably focussed on the IM partnership alone and not infrastructure. This is about advertising, so MS might be paying AOL to spruik its products through the IM channel and align the IM protocols to lock users away from Google. One IM channel, 3 different brands chasing different market segments perhaps. MS wants to get into the Internet service business, this might be a way of grabbing mindshare without large up-front costs. In any case, expect big changes to IM in the coming year.
Is so Microsoft can own ICQ and AIM. They don't want Google winning IM, so this kills two birds with one stone: present a credible competitor for anti-trust monitors while taking over most of the IM market. I'm not sure Microsoft won't ruin the advantage they gain with this, however. Turning everything into MSN isn't everyone's idea of IM heaven. Who cares about the subscribers? It's the network infrastructure and IM audience they want for Microsoft Internet.
tasty.
Ballmer will be killing Google just about .... now.
Great way to manufacture "news" guys.
Pardon my scepticism, but a bunch of people sitting around pontificating about Apple won't affect Steve's vision.
You might as well shout "Users!" at Ballmer.
...at the elephant in the room which is UI.
IMHO, using technical arguments to shoot down an admittedly vague whine about UI is missing the point: users shouldn't have to be technical
But as noone can think outside this particular box yet, or are hostile to approaches that might lead them out of it, nothing much can be added. And users are still frustrated.
I think the parable of the VCR is still relevant. If VCR programming is still arcane knowledge to most people computer UI has a LONG way to go.
In an odd way, that's exactly what I believe Microsoft wishes the situation to be: Linux the junior partner to Windows. Microsoft will not accept Linux as the dominant server in the enterprise in any way. It has been suggested that recent acquisitions in the area of enterprise management by Microsoft is to ensure that whatever the Linux/Windows balance is, Windows will be in charge of the data centre. All the better to enforce its IP rights, no doubt.
I hear MCSE's praise Active Directory to the skies and claim that Unix ACL's can never match W2K's group attribute management. I don't really see anything a competent Unix admin couldn't match with OpenLDAP and efficient automation, but that's not the point, its the idea that whatever Linux can do, Windows has already done it and in a superior fashion. This is the direction I expect the pro-Microsoft argument to run once they've "accepted" that their TCO argument has failed.
The true value of open source solutions involving Linux and the *BSD's is that you're not trapped into one management model, and only the larger adoptees seem to have grasped this. If Microsoft insist on being the gatekeeper in the server market, they might have more resistance than they expected.
No standard can last if the cost/benefit analysis doesn't stand up. A large number of important businesses do not agree with you, nor do an increasing number of non-techie grandmothers.
Never count on your competitor agreeing with you.
I dunno about optimizing, it's yet to work with gcc 4.0.2 on my Debian unstable yet (dies on vm_x86.c). And punkbuster was specifically excluded from the code so that punkbuster servers would be safe from it.
Yeah Carmack's speech was a real ripper. Warms this old Aussie heart. Mate, I'd watch it again but I need another slab eh.
MSN doesn't have an innovation culture?! I'm deeply shocked.