If I remember correctly, the government had asked for (and received from the judge) an exemption from the shutdown. In other words, RIM would have been forced to shut down everyone but the government's Crackberry addicts.
When I get a movie, I just want to watch the movie.
Damn, the anti-piracy / commercials / trailers that can't be skipped on most DVDs are super-annoying. When the kid wants to see the movie, I've got to stand there and wait for a couple of minutes (pressing FF when the disc deems that I am allowed), and then finally press "play"?
I learned how to use DVDDecrypter / DVD Shrink based on this annoyance alone! Now I tell everyone about it. Way to shoot yourself in the foot, studios!
Yeah, but the DVD plays just as well (actually better) on that "media PC" than the download, and has the extra flexibility of playing anywhere to boot.
The only thing that can make this sensical is to give the downloaded version some substantial advantage over the DVD. Higher res? The download would be way too large. Even more "special features" and "games"? This isn't a selling point, at least not for me. No, the only substantial advantage that a download should have over a physical DVD are the two things that they will not offer: lower price and no DRM.
Online sales are designed to fail in the marketplace, this scheme only proves the point.
If I were a conspiracy theorist type I'd say this venture is intended to fail.
I believe you are entirely correct. This is indeed designed from the outset to be a tremendous failure in the marketplace.
No one in their right mind is going to purchase these downloads. It makes no sense from any angle except for someone who inexplicably has access to broadband and is also not anywhere close to a store which sells the video (a virtually zero chance of occuring). There is no way that the studios don't know this. We accuse them of being idiots, but they know precisely what they are doing.
Their intent is to demonstrate that online sales of their product is not viable, and that they can be justified in pulling out of the segment while crying "We tried! Those darned internet leeches just won't pay a fair price!" Then they can go back to distributing physical media (a business they can better control), while sponsering laws to ban any interesting uses for the Internet.
Let's face it: the RI/MP/xxAA's will never truly embrace any online sales, because to do so is to move their business in a direction of less control and lower profitibility. They will fight it tooth and nail to their graves, in the marketplace and in the halls of power. My believe that they will eventually die, but my fear is that they will be responsible for the trampling of a lot of consumer rights while thrashing in their death throes.
For every mail service that blocks received mail that does not pay the extortion fee, customers of those services need to be made aware of what their provider is doing. The problem of users not knowing what is being blocked goes away when you tell them up-front that it's going to happen!
There should be well-known list of providers (like Hotmail) that use this practice. Then there should be a standard page that can be freely used by anyone who offers a mailing-list subscription. What this page does is examines the email address entered by the interested end-user. If it detects a domain on the list, then it forwards the user to a page which explains plainly and simply that their provider will block the mailings they are signing up for, that their provider is asking for money from what should be a free service, and that they should sign up with another provider if they want to receive your mailings.
Then, you might see more than a few people complaining and/or leaving their offending service over this issue.
it just makes me wonder why useless minds were put behind this great idea.
Because they want the concept to fail, that's why. The companies have a huge investment made in the infrastructure of distributing physical media, not bits over the internet. If they wanted to sell movies for the rate that is "fair", it would be the current cost, minus the cost of warehousing/DVD production/shipping/etc (substantial), plus the cost of servers and internet connectivity (peanuts). The new selling price would indeed be substantially lower, as you stated. But it would also devalue the public's perceived value of movies, if this were to catch on.
As a side benefit to sabatoging sales of downloading movies, they can claim to lawmakers "See? We offer it online and no one buys it! Yet downloading off of bittorrent continues to grow! We need you to legislate regulations for the internet, or we'll go broke!"
It was originally designed to protect the artists but now it also benefits the labels and other big business.
Umm, the DMCA was always for the labels and big business: the "artists" never entered the equation.
Copyright law (in the sense of how it was conceived of a few hundred years ago) had the purpose of temporarily protecting the distribution rights of an artist.
The DMCA's purpose is to make DRM solutions on media/downloads a technology which is forbidden to mess with by end users. Artists generally shouldn't concern themselves with the details of the technology of distribution.
The rest of your comment: I agree wholeheartedly, but I don't believe we will see any change to the situation soon.
After a couple years, they'll start offering some entire movies only on high-def DVD. In other words, they'll force the transition on us.
That'll take a lot more than a couple of years for them to pull off. DVD adoption was extremely fast, because of the clear advantages that DVDs have over tape. And it still took about 8 years before you saw any movies that were not released in VHS as well as DVD.
Now you're looking at a situation where the market will say "heck, HD-DVD/Blu-ray is expensive, and I have to buy an expensive TV as well? Screw that!" Adoption of these new players will be significantly slower than DVD, simply because the advantages are not nearly as obvious as DVD's were over VHS. To top it off, a common standard hasn't even been created, putting people off even more!
A studio that tries in the next 10 years to release a movie exclusively to either HD format would be guaranteeing that movie's failure in rental and retail stores alike. There simply won't be enough people who will have the equipment to play it, and no single movie is enough of a "must see" to warrant the purchase of a new TV and disc player. If a distributor tried this before HD players are universal, they'd be sued by the production company for sabotaging post-theatrical sales.
As for (the police), as long as what I do is legal, they can keep tabs on me all they like.
You think that everyone in the police departments / intelligence agencies who has access to private information does so only out of legitimate investigative purposes?
we're really fooling ourselves that we have much privacy anyway.
So we should let what we have left erode even further?
let them know. I don't care. I'll rally when Peta tries to make eating a burger illegal, but in the meantime, what can they do with that knowledge? What do I care what my racist neighbor thinks/does? Until he does something illegal against me or my friends, it's his right to be a racist bastard as much as it is mine not to be. I am my own man. If my parents have a problem with what I do, that's tough sh*t. Do you see what I'm getting at? None of these people can do anything with that knowledge because none of it is illegal/wrong.
That last part is where you're wrong: you can be harrassed by those "interested" parties for the actions you take, even if your actions are legal. This harrassment may or may not be, in itself, illegal, but the point is that without privacy you will almost certainly be subjected to the unwanted attention of a large number of people for whom your actions are absolutely none of their business! Why should we open to attack over, and then have to defend, actions that are just fine? Why should those who aren't conforming to "societal norms" be under a microscope by Lord-knows-who?
And, yes, this harrassment can cost you plenty! In my examples, your landlord could issue an eviction notice. Your neighbour could deface your property. PETA could set up a picket in front of your business. Your parents could kick you out of the house. Your boss could fire you. Your church could kick you out for the porn. Yes, I suppose you can get justice with all of these (with a bunch of time, effort and money), but even if you get this justice your reputation with a lot of people takes an enormous beating, and you will lose friends, opportunities, and more. But if personal information was kept private as much as possible, you would have far fewer chances for a-holes to abuse you in this way, simply because they wouldn't know! My point was that there are a lot of people who would otherwise not care about you who can, and will, bring harm to you if they know more about you than they currently do. It's sad, but the truth, so we should be vigilent about protecting privacy at all times.
I never understood what the big deal is with privacy.
The big deal is that no one in this world is free from having committed actions that many others would find objectionable. There are any number of everyday activities that you do everyday that would fall into this catagory. Eat a burger lately, PETA would like to know who you are. You have a DNA gene that predisposes you to a certain disease, your health insurance company sure would like to know that. You look at hardcore (but legal) porn, the police might like to keep tabs on you. You show interest in the plight of people who might be "associated with terrorism", all sorts of agencies would love to gather what they can about you.
These are just a few off the top of my head. Heck, here's a few more: a potential landlord would surely like a look at your bank balance. Your boyfriend/girlfriend might be interested in your visits to medical clinics. Your boss might like to know how much spare time you have on weekends. Your racist neighbour might like to know about your ethnic friends. Your parents might like to track where you go on your own time. And on and on and on...
All of your actions could be legal and ethical, but that doesn't stop people who frown upon (or could benefit from) your legitimate actions from using this information against you in some way. Do you really want people you don't like you, and that you don't like, knowing everything about you?
Privacy is something that may not be required in the distant future, when humanity evolves to the point where we no longer judge one another, and there exists no reason for fear of recrimmonations for holding beliefs and taking actions that are different than anyone else's. Human nature may never allow us to ever reach this level of trust and comfort with our fellow man. So until that happens, I will value privacy until it is no longer required.
At least until they implement end-to-end hardware-supported trusted computing, with laws making it illegal to circumvent or produce analog peripherals.
They'll won't do this, because Microsoft relys on piracy to perpetuate its demand. They know perfectly well that if they actually make it impossible (or even very difficult) to pirate Windows, a LOT of people will suddenly become interested in Linux. This is the last thing MS wants: they need Windows to be the "only" OS that the vast majority of users run, or even know much about.
This is an order of magnitude even more important in Asia and the developing world, where just about all MS software is pirated. They're fine with this situation: if they were to clamp down, no one would buy it (way too expensive in the local economy) and it would cause Linux to become the "standard" OS in a significant chunk of the world. Then they would have no hope of stamping it out for good worldwide with IP laws.
In short, Windows will always be easy to pirate, at least until it becomes illegal to use anything else. That may be coming, but not for quite some time.
Further up this thread, a couple of people say that you have to point out to people how different Linux is from Windows: that if it is just like Windows, then what is the point of switching? Emphasize the differences that are positive.
In Linux, there is essentially no need to box up software on a shelf at Staples. The way that it is different is that you just need an internet connection. All of the software you will need (both Free and commercial) is available as downloads, not on the shelf. It's a new way of looking at things! Let people know about this, and they won't look for it at Staples.
I wouldn't want a complete turn-key solution, I'd want to have the infrastructure in place so that I could tinker as I chose.
My new house would have a wiring closet/server room that would be the electronic equivalent of the furnace/AC/water heater room. There would be racks and/or cabinets for various computers and A/V equipment. The room would be properly ventilated. The house would be wired to hell and back before walls went up.
Then leave me to my devices. I'll handle the rest!
I for one would purchase a Mac Mini for myself and two more for family & friends right away if I could run some major Windows apps on a Macintel.
Just as an example, I help an older lady with her computer. She uses Quicken for her accounting, and cannot move off of it because that's what her trusted accountant wants her to have. Intuit makes Quicken for Mac, but no Canadian edition, so she cannot move to a Mac platform unless Quicken for Windows runs on OSX.
She has seen the Mac Mini in the store and loves both its interface and its tiny size. I know I would far rather support her using OSX than Windows. Maybe we'll see Crossover Office eventually come out for OSX: I hope so.
If I was the CEO of RIM (ignoring the realities of fiduciary duties to shareholders) I would rather go bankrupt than let the patent trolls become wealthy from my hard work.
From what I gather about what I've read about the two founders of the company, this stubborness and pride is likely to be the exact reason that things extended as far as they did. The signs of weaknesses on product sales, more than anything, prompted RIM to just cut their losses and get on with being in the technology business, not the litigation business. But if RIM were a privately held company, I think they just might have saw this through to the bitter end.
(Sorry for the off-topic, but this is somewhat related to the headline)
I thought that the article was going to talk about those huge, bright video billboards that I'm seeing at the sides of expressways. Specifically, here in Toronto on the Gardiner Expressway there are about a dozen of these things, with fast-action motion video trying to get your attention. I equate these to the meatspace equivalent of Flash banner ads on websites (if only there were a "Flashblock" plugin for my car's windshield:-)
I have personlly observed several instances, during stop-and-go rush hour, where the person in the car beside me would not keep pace with traffic for a few seconds because he/she was mesmerized by a video billboard. I also have noticed that fender-benders invariably take place right in the vicinity of these monstrocities (where someone likely rear-ended another because they were watching the video). Someone should investigate to see what is the cost to the city in wasted time due to these things causing delays in traffic flow.
Discover that after you buy your two shiny new players that they will not work with your existing HDTV so fork out more cash for a new HDTV.
On one hand, I kind of hope that this scheme is a success, because if it is and the early adopters act as you quoted above, then there should be a glut of high-quality HDTVs hitting the used market real soon. Then I might actually be able to afford one! And since any content I view in HD would be over the air (or perhaps *cough* "unencumbered content" aquired by other manners), I wouldn't need the stinking HDMI ports!
"An unfortunate side effect from law enforcement is it would be technically fairly seriously difficult to dig encrypted material out of the system if it has been set up competently." (emphasis mine)
Well, I guess we can be sure that the UK has absolutely nothing to worry about!
Examples of where they have not wiped out an established competitor include.....
I didn't say that MS was not a viable competitor in these markets: I said that there are some markets where they are not viable competitors, and others where they are competitive, but have not steamrollered over everybody. The OP's point was that RIM is dead in 2-3 years. I only wanted to show how that will not be the case. They will be another player, not some unstoppable force that will force RIM to bankruptcy in short order.
Anybody want to bet how long RIM's going to last? Two years? Three?
Microsoft is not a juggernaut that rolls over everything that it touches. They have failed *many* times in becoming even a viable competitor in certain marketplaces, let alone a dominant force that squashes everyone. Examples of where they have not wiped out an established competitor include home finances software (vs Quicken), PDA platforms (vs Palm), game consoles (vs Sony), search engines (vs Google), web portals (vs Yahoo), DRM'ed music files (vs Apple), etc, etc, etc.
RIM is no pushover. They've been building Blackberries for almost 10 years now, and have a lot of technology experience (and a lot of patents) in their pocket. They also have a fanatical following in the corporate world, not unlike iPods in the consumer world. Sure, MS might compete, but put RIM out of business in 2-3 years. *NOT* going to happen!
The biggest risk to running a MS shop is the proven history of exploits on the platform that can wreck havoc on your network. True, if the patches are up to date your risk is greatly reduced, but we have seen plenty of organizations that ought to have been better prepared get clobbered. It is a real risk, and can be as a result of intentionally not being up to date (because the patch hadn't finished QA), or unintentionally (mistake or oversight by the sysadmins).
The problem from a TCO point of view: How do you quantify this in terms of a cost? Many (most?) companies are never affected at all, and thus have no cost. Others have their entire business grind to a halt for a day or two, at what must be a massive cost. So there is most definitely a cost here that should be included in the study, but any figure is almost certainly going to be criticized as either much too high or much too low. How are you planning to address this?
Slashdot Mirror
If I remember correctly, the government had asked for (and received from the judge) an exemption from the shutdown. In other words, RIM would have been forced to shut down everyone but the government's Crackberry addicts.
When I get a movie, I just want to watch the movie.
Damn, the anti-piracy / commercials / trailers that can't be skipped on most DVDs are super-annoying. When the kid wants to see the movie, I've got to stand there and wait for a couple of minutes (pressing FF when the disc deems that I am allowed), and then finally press "play"?
I learned how to use DVDDecrypter / DVD Shrink based on this annoyance alone! Now I tell everyone about it. Way to shoot yourself in the foot, studios!
Yeah, but the DVD plays just as well (actually better) on that "media PC" than the download, and has the extra flexibility of playing anywhere to boot.
The only thing that can make this sensical is to give the downloaded version some substantial advantage over the DVD. Higher res? The download would be way too large. Even more "special features" and "games"? This isn't a selling point, at least not for me. No, the only substantial advantage that a download should have over a physical DVD are the two things that they will not offer: lower price and no DRM.
Online sales are designed to fail in the marketplace, this scheme only proves the point.
If I were a conspiracy theorist type I'd say this venture is intended to fail.
I believe you are entirely correct. This is indeed designed from the outset to be a tremendous failure in the marketplace.
No one in their right mind is going to purchase these downloads. It makes no sense from any angle except for someone who inexplicably has access to broadband and is also not anywhere close to a store which sells the video (a virtually zero chance of occuring). There is no way that the studios don't know this. We accuse them of being idiots, but they know precisely what they are doing.
Their intent is to demonstrate that online sales of their product is not viable, and that they can be justified in pulling out of the segment while crying "We tried! Those darned internet leeches just won't pay a fair price!" Then they can go back to distributing physical media (a business they can better control), while sponsering laws to ban any interesting uses for the Internet.
Let's face it: the RI/MP/xxAA's will never truly embrace any online sales, because to do so is to move their business in a direction of less control and lower profitibility. They will fight it tooth and nail to their graves, in the marketplace and in the halls of power. My believe that they will eventually die, but my fear is that they will be responsible for the trampling of a lot of consumer rights while thrashing in their death throes.
Obviously, this does only work for new subscriptions. But I would think that it would raise the awareness of the issue, at least for this situation.
For every mail service that blocks received mail that does not pay the extortion fee, customers of those services need to be made aware of what their provider is doing. The problem of users not knowing what is being blocked goes away when you tell them up-front that it's going to happen!
There should be well-known list of providers (like Hotmail) that use this practice. Then there should be a standard page that can be freely used by anyone who offers a mailing-list subscription. What this page does is examines the email address entered by the interested end-user. If it detects a domain on the list, then it forwards the user to a page which explains plainly and simply that their provider will block the mailings they are signing up for, that their provider is asking for money from what should be a free service, and that they should sign up with another provider if they want to receive your mailings.
Then, you might see more than a few people complaining and/or leaving their offending service over this issue.
it just makes me wonder why useless minds were put behind this great idea.
Because they want the concept to fail, that's why. The companies have a huge investment made in the infrastructure of distributing physical media, not bits over the internet. If they wanted to sell movies for the rate that is "fair", it would be the current cost, minus the cost of warehousing/DVD production/shipping/etc (substantial), plus the cost of servers and internet connectivity (peanuts). The new selling price would indeed be substantially lower, as you stated. But it would also devalue the public's perceived value of movies, if this were to catch on.
As a side benefit to sabatoging sales of downloading movies, they can claim to lawmakers "See? We offer it online and no one buys it! Yet downloading off of bittorrent continues to grow! We need you to legislate regulations for the internet, or we'll go broke!"
One of the funniest comments ever!
Umm, the DMCA was always for the labels and big business: the "artists" never entered the equation.
The rest of your comment: I agree wholeheartedly, but I don't believe we will see any change to the situation soon.
After a couple years, they'll start offering some entire movies only on high-def DVD. In other words, they'll force the transition on us.
That'll take a lot more than a couple of years for them to pull off. DVD adoption was extremely fast, because of the clear advantages that DVDs have over tape. And it still took about 8 years before you saw any movies that were not released in VHS as well as DVD.
Now you're looking at a situation where the market will say "heck, HD-DVD/Blu-ray is expensive, and I have to buy an expensive TV as well? Screw that!" Adoption of these new players will be significantly slower than DVD, simply because the advantages are not nearly as obvious as DVD's were over VHS. To top it off, a common standard hasn't even been created, putting people off even more!
A studio that tries in the next 10 years to release a movie exclusively to either HD format would be guaranteeing that movie's failure in rental and retail stores alike. There simply won't be enough people who will have the equipment to play it, and no single movie is enough of a "must see" to warrant the purchase of a new TV and disc player. If a distributor tried this before HD players are universal, they'd be sued by the production company for sabotaging post-theatrical sales.
As for (the police), as long as what I do is legal, they can keep tabs on me all they like.
You think that everyone in the police departments / intelligence agencies who has access to private information does so only out of legitimate investigative purposes?
we're really fooling ourselves that we have much privacy anyway.
So we should let what we have left erode even further?
let them know. I don't care. I'll rally when Peta tries to make eating a burger illegal, but in the meantime, what can they do with that knowledge? What do I care what my racist neighbor thinks/does? Until he does something illegal against me or my friends, it's his right to be a racist bastard as much as it is mine not to be. I am my own man. If my parents have a problem with what I do, that's tough sh*t. Do you see what I'm getting at? None of these people can do anything with that knowledge because none of it is illegal/wrong.
That last part is where you're wrong: you can be harrassed by those "interested" parties for the actions you take, even if your actions are legal. This harrassment may or may not be, in itself, illegal, but the point is that without privacy you will almost certainly be subjected to the unwanted attention of a large number of people for whom your actions are absolutely none of their business! Why should we open to attack over, and then have to defend, actions that are just fine? Why should those who aren't conforming to "societal norms" be under a microscope by Lord-knows-who?
And, yes, this harrassment can cost you plenty! In my examples, your landlord could issue an eviction notice. Your neighbour could deface your property. PETA could set up a picket in front of your business. Your parents could kick you out of the house. Your boss could fire you. Your church could kick you out for the porn. Yes, I suppose you can get justice with all of these (with a bunch of time, effort and money), but even if you get this justice your reputation with a lot of people takes an enormous beating, and you will lose friends, opportunities, and more. But if personal information was kept private as much as possible, you would have far fewer chances for a-holes to abuse you in this way, simply because they wouldn't know! My point was that there are a lot of people who would otherwise not care about you who can, and will, bring harm to you if they know more about you than they currently do. It's sad, but the truth, so we should be vigilent about protecting privacy at all times.
I never understood what the big deal is with privacy.
The big deal is that no one in this world is free from having committed actions that many others would find objectionable. There are any number of everyday activities that you do everyday that would fall into this catagory. Eat a burger lately, PETA would like to know who you are. You have a DNA gene that predisposes you to a certain disease, your health insurance company sure would like to know that. You look at hardcore (but legal) porn, the police might like to keep tabs on you. You show interest in the plight of people who might be "associated with terrorism", all sorts of agencies would love to gather what they can about you.
These are just a few off the top of my head. Heck, here's a few more: a potential landlord would surely like a look at your bank balance. Your boyfriend/girlfriend might be interested in your visits to medical clinics. Your boss might like to know how much spare time you have on weekends. Your racist neighbour might like to know about your ethnic friends. Your parents might like to track where you go on your own time. And on and on and on...
All of your actions could be legal and ethical, but that doesn't stop people who frown upon (or could benefit from) your legitimate actions from using this information against you in some way. Do you really want people you don't like you, and that you don't like, knowing everything about you?
Privacy is something that may not be required in the distant future, when humanity evolves to the point where we no longer judge one another, and there exists no reason for fear of recrimmonations for holding beliefs and taking actions that are different than anyone else's. Human nature may never allow us to ever reach this level of trust and comfort with our fellow man. So until that happens, I will value privacy until it is no longer required.
At least until they implement end-to-end hardware-supported trusted computing, with laws making it illegal to circumvent or produce analog peripherals.
They'll won't do this, because Microsoft relys on piracy to perpetuate its demand. They know perfectly well that if they actually make it impossible (or even very difficult) to pirate Windows, a LOT of people will suddenly become interested in Linux. This is the last thing MS wants: they need Windows to be the "only" OS that the vast majority of users run, or even know much about.
This is an order of magnitude even more important in Asia and the developing world, where just about all MS software is pirated. They're fine with this situation: if they were to clamp down, no one would buy it (way too expensive in the local economy) and it would cause Linux to become the "standard" OS in a significant chunk of the world. Then they would have no hope of stamping it out for good worldwide with IP laws.
In short, Windows will always be easy to pirate, at least until it becomes illegal to use anything else. That may be coming, but not for quite some time.
Further up this thread, a couple of people say that you have to point out to people how different Linux is from Windows: that if it is just like Windows, then what is the point of switching? Emphasize the differences that are positive.
In Linux, there is essentially no need to box up software on a shelf at Staples. The way that it is different is that you just need an internet connection. All of the software you will need (both Free and commercial) is available as downloads, not on the shelf. It's a new way of looking at things! Let people know about this, and they won't look for it at Staples.
Sorry, forgot the :-) emoticon. No offense taken. I knew you were having some fun at the expense of a fellow geek.
you'd NEVER have everything working right, as you'd be constantly taking it apart and redesigning it
Very probably correct!
Your a gentoo user arn't you?
Absolutely correct! My answer isn't the one the OP wanted, but it my answer to the question he asked. I'm a tinkerer, and that's the way I like it!
I wouldn't want a complete turn-key solution, I'd want to have the infrastructure in place so that I could tinker as I chose.
My new house would have a wiring closet/server room that would be the electronic equivalent of the furnace/AC/water heater room. There would be racks and/or cabinets for various computers and A/V equipment. The room would be properly ventilated. The house would be wired to hell and back before walls went up.
Then leave me to my devices. I'll handle the rest!
I for one would purchase a Mac Mini for myself and two more for family & friends right away if I could run some major Windows apps on a Macintel.
Just as an example, I help an older lady with her computer. She uses Quicken for her accounting, and cannot move off of it because that's what her trusted accountant wants her to have. Intuit makes Quicken for Mac, but no Canadian edition, so she cannot move to a Mac platform unless Quicken for Windows runs on OSX.
She has seen the Mac Mini in the store and loves both its interface and its tiny size. I know I would far rather support her using OSX than Windows. Maybe we'll see Crossover Office eventually come out for OSX: I hope so.
If I was the CEO of RIM (ignoring the realities of fiduciary duties to shareholders) I would rather go bankrupt than let the patent trolls become wealthy from my hard work.
From what I gather about what I've read about the two founders of the company, this stubborness and pride is likely to be the exact reason that things extended as far as they did. The signs of weaknesses on product sales, more than anything, prompted RIM to just cut their losses and get on with being in the technology business, not the litigation business. But if RIM were a privately held company, I think they just might have saw this through to the bitter end.
(Sorry for the off-topic, but this is somewhat related to the headline)
:-)
I thought that the article was going to talk about those huge, bright video billboards that I'm seeing at the sides of expressways. Specifically, here in Toronto on the Gardiner Expressway there are about a dozen of these things, with fast-action motion video trying to get your attention. I equate these to the meatspace equivalent of Flash banner ads on websites (if only there were a "Flashblock" plugin for my car's windshield
I have personlly observed several instances, during stop-and-go rush hour, where the person in the car beside me would not keep pace with traffic for a few seconds because he/she was mesmerized by a video billboard. I also have noticed that fender-benders invariably take place right in the vicinity of these monstrocities (where someone likely rear-ended another because they were watching the video). Someone should investigate to see what is the cost to the city in wasted time due to these things causing delays in traffic flow.
Discover that after you buy your two shiny new players that they will not work with your existing HDTV so fork out more cash for a new HDTV.
On one hand, I kind of hope that this scheme is a success, because if it is and the early adopters act as you quoted above, then there should be a glut of high-quality HDTVs hitting the used market real soon. Then I might actually be able to afford one! And since any content I view in HD would be over the air (or perhaps *cough* "unencumbered content" aquired by other manners), I wouldn't need the stinking HDMI ports!
"An unfortunate side effect from law enforcement is it would be technically fairly seriously difficult to dig encrypted material out of the system if it has been set up competently." (emphasis mine)
Well, I guess we can be sure that the UK has absolutely nothing to worry about!
Examples of where they have not wiped out an established competitor include .....
I didn't say that MS was not a viable competitor in these markets: I said that there are some markets where they are not viable competitors, and others where they are competitive, but have not steamrollered over everybody. The OP's point was that RIM is dead in 2-3 years. I only wanted to show how that will not be the case. They will be another player, not some unstoppable force that will force RIM to bankruptcy in short order.
Anybody want to bet how long RIM's going to last? Two years? Three?
Microsoft is not a juggernaut that rolls over everything that it touches. They have failed *many* times in becoming even a viable competitor in certain marketplaces, let alone a dominant force that squashes everyone. Examples of where they have not wiped out an established competitor include home finances software (vs Quicken), PDA platforms (vs Palm), game consoles (vs Sony), search engines (vs Google), web portals (vs Yahoo), DRM'ed music files (vs Apple), etc, etc, etc.
RIM is no pushover. They've been building Blackberries for almost 10 years now, and have a lot of technology experience (and a lot of patents) in their pocket. They also have a fanatical following in the corporate world, not unlike iPods in the consumer world. Sure, MS might compete, but put RIM out of business in 2-3 years. *NOT* going to happen!
The biggest risk to running a MS shop is the proven history of exploits on the platform that can wreck havoc on your network. True, if the patches are up to date your risk is greatly reduced, but we have seen plenty of organizations that ought to have been better prepared get clobbered. It is a real risk, and can be as a result of intentionally not being up to date (because the patch hadn't finished QA), or unintentionally (mistake or oversight by the sysadmins).
The problem from a TCO point of view: How do you quantify this in terms of a cost? Many (most?) companies are never affected at all, and thus have no cost. Others have their entire business grind to a halt for a day or two, at what must be a massive cost. So there is most definitely a cost here that should be included in the study, but any figure is almost certainly going to be criticized as either much too high or much too low. How are you planning to address this?