There's plenty of evidence that indicates that Linux software just doesn't sell well enough to justify the investment. Loki tried it, and failed. Corel tried it, and failed. Even WordPerfect failed to sell, despite the fact that Linux users are screaming for a viable replacement for MS Word.
Sure, most of these titles sold a few copies; I didn't claim otherwise. But none of them sold well enough to justify their continued development - that's why they're gone.
You and your l33t h@x0r friends may have bought every game that Loki produced, but that isn't evidence that Linux software sells well. A financial report from a company that sells software for Linux, and makes a profit doing it, would be.
I understand that there are a variety of reasons for commercial software's relative lack of success in the Linux market. Some people are cheapskates, some are poor, some see commercial software as morally wrong, etc., etc.
The point I think you're missing here is that bean counters don't care about any of that. They're not making value judgments about Linux users, they're simply adding up the numbers. For the sake of argument, let's say it cost VaporWare, Inc. $x to produce a Linux version of their Foo application, and it made $y. A Linux version of Foo II will only see the light of day if y is a larger number than x.
I just don't see a good business case to be made for Apple porting QT to Linux. It would be a huge effort with a minimal return on investment.
And didn't you just contradict yourself: Linux users expect everything to be free, yet I was/am a Linux user and paid for something. ?
Not really. All the evidence I've seen indicates that, for the most part, commercial software for Linux doesn't sell very well. That seems to indicate that Linux users as a group don't like to buy software. Of course there are individuals within that group who are exceptions - I never claimed otherwise.
Media companies save time and resources by encoding material once for playback everywhere. No longer will content providers need to encode, host, and store media in multiple formats. Instead, a single format can reach a broad audience equipped with playback devices from not one, but a multitude of companies across a wide array of platforms. Finally, content creators have a format that will reach a global audience and will stand the test of time. While other formats and versions come and go, MPEG-4 will safeguard multimedia content for a secure future.
There's nothing in that about DRM or copy protection. The "secure future" mentioned here is simply referring to the fact that MPEG-4 is an open standard, and thus is not vulnerable to the whims of proprietary players who want you to upgrade to their latest version.
Not everyone who uses the word "secure" is part of a global conspiracy to undermine your fair use rights, you know. The word has other uses, too.:-)
I don't think Apple is quaking in their boots about a mass migration of Mac OS X users to Linux.
I think the opposite is true. Obviously not every Linux user is a die-hard zealot, but there are quite a few of them, and they're afraid that the rest of us will choose pragmatism over religion and migrate to OS/X.
it looks like they're quietly mentioning some DRM stuff being thrown in
That's the second time I've heard this; they must have been very, very quiet about it, because I seem to have missed it. Where is it mentioned again?
which may or may not be a good thing.
I guess that would depend on whether they've separated the DRM mechanism from policy. If independent authors can set the protection bits on their own work without having to have a license to do so from some industry cartel, and if authors can also choose to allow free distribution of their work, it would be a good thing. It would put independent authors on a level playing field, as far as DRM goes, with the big studios.
On the other hand, if a DRM mechanism is licensed under terms that basically just enforce the media cartel's policies, then it's a bad thing. In that case, DRM does nothing to protect the author's rights; it's merely another mechanism to help preserve the cartel's exclusive hold on distribution.
In that respect, DRM is just like any other technology, from simple things like matches all the way up to nuclear power. In itself, the technology is amoral; it's up to the user to decide whether to use it for good or for evil.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Trying to sell software to a community that expects everything to be given away for free is a pretty stupid business model.
they won't pay for things they already own - would you?
As a matter of fact, I did. I bought Civ:CTP from Loki, even though I already owned the Windows version.
I wasn't responding solely to your comments, there's a ton of silly IE bashing in this thread is all.
Fair enough. Sorry for the flamage, then. You're right about IE - recent versions of it are very, very good about standards compliance. But then, IE is a product of the Evil Empire, so I don't expect to see very many unbiased opinions about it here.
how you can write strictly to the standards when NO BROWSER conforms perfectly.
I'm not afraid to bend the rules a little, when it can be done safely. By definition, unknown attributes and elements are supposed to be ignored by standards compliant browsers. So, if the only complaint a validator has about my page is that I have an "align" attribute here and there, that's good enough. It may be technically invalid, but the errors are harmless, so I don't have a problem with it.
What I do have a problem with is pages that depend on nonstandard markup or specific browser features for their basic functionality. Enhancing pages with non-critical bells and whistles that only work in Browser X is one thing; creating pages that require Browser X in order to function at all, is quite another.
the problem lies in the fact that you cannot code by standards and expect it to look and act the same in every browser
That's not a problem, it's a feature. How do you expect a page to look and act exactly the same way when displayed on a 21" monitor, a 2" cellphone, and a WebTV browser? It can't, so get over it.
When you have to deal with a creative dep't that doesn't understand the web and wants designs to be pixel-for-pixel perfect on all platforms, this is a big issue.
The first thing you need to do in that situation is educate your creative department about what's possible on the web, and what's not. It's called managing expectations.
Don't put words in my mouth. Not once have I suggested that pages shouldn't support IE. Not once. What I have said, several times, is that pages should be written to standards, so that they work in every browser. What part of "every browser" do you find so difficult to understand?
When standard markup is used, the "target audience" is still reached. No potential customers have been lost; instead, the "other 5%" have been reached too.
It takes more development hours ($) to develop multiple versions of scripts, and more QA test machines and personnel ($) to test those pages on multiple platforms and more support personnel ($) to support those multiple platforms.
That's precisely why standards exist. Why should anyone waste money and time developing multiple browser-specific versions of a site, when a single standards-based site that supports all browsers will work just as well, for far less money?
I don't consider browser/computer/OS/hardware platform choice a moral issue.
Are you trying to tell me that when you create pages that say "you're using the wrong browser, go away," you're not making a value judgment? Rubbish. If you were truly neutral on the issue, you'd let your users decide for themselves what browser to use, instead of expecting them to use your own personal favorite.
Sue me.
If a blind user finds your site to be inaccessible to his screen reader, and decided to take issue with it, that is a possibility. Criminal prosecution is another possibility; in the US at least, discrimination against the handicapped is a crime.
What are you babbling about? I didn't say he should write pages that don't work in IE. I said he shouldn't write pages that only work in IE. There's a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you, a parrot?
There's plenty of evidence that indicates that Linux software just doesn't sell well enough to justify the investment. Loki tried it, and failed. Corel tried it, and failed. Even WordPerfect failed to sell, despite the fact that Linux users are screaming for a viable replacement for MS Word.
Sure, most of these titles sold a few copies; I didn't claim otherwise. But none of them sold well enough to justify their continued development - that's why they're gone.
You and your l33t h@x0r friends may have bought every game that Loki produced, but that isn't evidence that Linux software sells well. A financial report from a company that sells software for Linux, and makes a profit doing it, would be.
I understand that there are a variety of reasons for commercial software's relative lack of success in the Linux market. Some people are cheapskates, some are poor, some see commercial software as morally wrong, etc., etc.
The point I think you're missing here is that bean counters don't care about any of that. They're not making value judgments about Linux users, they're simply adding up the numbers. For the sake of argument, let's say it cost VaporWare, Inc. $x to produce a Linux version of their Foo application, and it made $y. A Linux version of Foo II will only see the light of day if y is a larger number than x.
I just don't see a good business case to be made for Apple porting QT to Linux. It would be a huge effort with a minimal return on investment.
And didn't you just contradict yourself: Linux users expect everything to be free, yet I was/am a Linux user and paid for something. ?
Not really. All the evidence I've seen indicates that, for the most part, commercial software for Linux doesn't sell very well. That seems to indicate that Linux users as a group don't like to buy software. Of course there are individuals within that group who are exceptions - I never claimed otherwise.
The way I figure it, design a player system that loads codecs from the data file/stream
...and within a week, there will be a Star Wars trailer circulating around the 'net with a virus "codec" embedded in it.
Not everyone who uses the word "secure" is part of a global conspiracy to undermine your fair use rights, you know. The word has other uses, too.
Who the hell modded this as troll?!? It's so true it hurts.
You must be new here. Criticism of Linux always gets modded down - especially if it's true.
I don't think Apple is quaking in their boots about a mass migration of Mac OS X users to Linux.
I think the opposite is true. Obviously not every Linux user is a die-hard zealot, but there are quite a few of them, and they're afraid that the rest of us will choose pragmatism over religion and migrate to OS/X.
Do you have any evidence to back up these claims, or are they just paranoid conspiracy theories?
it looks like they're quietly mentioning some DRM stuff being thrown in
That's the second time I've heard this; they must have been very, very quiet about it, because I seem to have missed it. Where is it mentioned again?
which may or may not be a good thing.
I guess that would depend on whether they've separated the DRM mechanism from policy. If independent authors can set the protection bits on their own work without having to have a license to do so from some industry cartel, and if authors can also choose to allow free distribution of their work, it would be a good thing. It would put independent authors on a level playing field, as far as DRM goes, with the big studios.
On the other hand, if a DRM mechanism is licensed under terms that basically just enforce the media cartel's policies, then it's a bad thing. In that case, DRM does nothing to protect the author's rights; it's merely another mechanism to help preserve the cartel's exclusive hold on distribution.
In that respect, DRM is just like any other technology, from simple things like matches all the way up to nuclear power. In itself, the technology is amoral; it's up to the user to decide whether to use it for good or for evil.
had a stupid business model.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Trying to sell software to a community that expects everything to be given away for free is a pretty stupid business model.
they won't pay for things they already own - would you?
As a matter of fact, I did. I bought Civ:CTP from Loki, even though I already owned the Windows version.
Also I get sick and tired of this Linux users don't pay for anything mantra, this is not true.
Yeah, the folks at Loki are swimming in money they made from selling software for Linux. Not.
You won't convince me that Apple isn't trying to ride the coat-tails of popularity and press that .mp3 gets.
.mp4, double-click it, and up pops the Quicktime player. What is there to keep up with?
I won't try to. All I have to say is, so what if they are?
These poor computer users that don't live the life like we do, how on earth can they expect to keep up?
Keep up? Keep up with what? Download an
I wasn't responding solely to your comments, there's a ton of silly IE bashing in this thread is all.
Fair enough. Sorry for the flamage, then. You're right about IE - recent versions of it are very, very good about standards compliance. But then, IE is a product of the Evil Empire, so I don't expect to see very many unbiased opinions about it here.
how you can write strictly to the standards when NO BROWSER conforms perfectly.
I'm not afraid to bend the rules a little, when it can be done safely. By definition, unknown attributes and elements are supposed to be ignored by standards compliant browsers. So, if the only complaint a validator has about my page is that I have an "align" attribute here and there, that's good enough. It may be technically invalid, but the errors are harmless, so I don't have a problem with it.
What I do have a problem with is pages that depend on nonstandard markup or specific browser features for their basic functionality. Enhancing pages with non-critical bells and whistles that only work in Browser X is one thing; creating pages that require Browser X in order to function at all, is quite another.
the problem lies in the fact that you cannot code by standards and expect it to look and act the same in every browser
That's not a problem, it's a feature. How do you expect a page to look and act exactly the same way when displayed on a 21" monitor, a 2" cellphone, and a WebTV browser? It can't, so get over it.
When you have to deal with a creative dep't that doesn't understand the web and wants designs to be pixel-for-pixel perfect on all platforms, this is a big issue.
The first thing you need to do in that situation is educate your creative department about what's possible on the web, and what's not. It's called managing expectations.
So get off the IE-hating trip
Don't put words in my mouth. Not once have I suggested that pages shouldn't support IE. Not once. What I have said, several times, is that pages should be written to standards, so that they work in every browser. What part of "every browser" do you find so difficult to understand?
When standard markup is used, the "target audience" is still reached. No potential customers have been lost; instead, the "other 5%" have been reached too.
It takes more development hours ($) to develop multiple versions of scripts, and more QA test machines and personnel ($) to test those pages on multiple platforms and more support personnel ($) to support those multiple platforms.
That's precisely why standards exist. Why should anyone waste money and time developing multiple browser-specific versions of a site, when a single standards-based site that supports all browsers will work just as well, for far less money?
I don't consider browser/computer/OS/hardware platform choice a moral issue.
Are you trying to tell me that when you create pages that say "you're using the wrong browser, go away," you're not making a value judgment? Rubbish. If you were truly neutral on the issue, you'd let your users decide for themselves what browser to use, instead of expecting them to use your own personal favorite.
Sue me.
If a blind user finds your site to be inaccessible to his screen reader, and decided to take issue with it, that is a possibility. Criminal prosecution is another possibility; in the US at least, discrimination against the handicapped is a crime.
What are you babbling about? I didn't say he should write pages that don't work in IE. I said he shouldn't write pages that only work in IE. There's a difference.
If I'm designing web sites, I design for IE.
They you're part of the problem.
And it's still used because it's a larger number than either horizontal or vertical measurements, and as all good sheeple know, bigger == better.
Seriously doubt the validity of this one.
Try this one instead, then. It claims the opposite - that Quantas has had trouble, and they're losing the iMac production contract.
almost every group has one or two people that do the work and understand the material.
Sounds to me like an excellent simulation of Real Life.
You know - 667 is across the street from the beast. The neighbor of the beast lives in 668. Just thought you might want to know that. :-)
Yeah, but why is it that the 10 percent that makes money is seldom the same 10 percent that doesn't suck? :-(