Wii is being shut out. It's exceeded the sales of Xbox 360 (just before halo hit) with Xbox having a 1 year head start!!!! But AAA titles are few... heck even introductory games like Smash Bros. and Mario Galaxy STILL aren't out yet. Part of the issue is that developers don't want to admit they didn't even bother to START games, so now they want to say sales of Wiis are "down" so they stop getting nagged.
I haven't seen many games for Wii that a casual gamer would die for.. Mario Party was a good one to have, but what else past Wii play? They all scream "rental" rather than buy. Nintendo needs to do more with interaction as well. Where's the DS/Wii interactive games? There's 1 or 2 but come on. Nintendo needs to lower the bar for games on Wii/DS in a big hurry. They need to move to small downloadable content via Wii Points or something... perhaps sync downloadable DS games (with a special cart) via Wii like iPods. They could put larger games on SD cards as they are already keyed to your Wii they can't go anywhere online. They need to get more casual games QUICKLY. I've got one and only bothered to rent half a dozen games so far... that's not good. Where's games like Pikmin 3 or Katamari? Or DDR or Guitar Hero? Those are low overhead games aimed at the target Wii demographic but no where to be seen.
Actually AllofMP3 was legal under US law, that's why they couldn't stop Credit Card payments. It was legal under Russian law so under WTO it was legal for a US person to buy there, same as if you traveled to Russia and bought them under "first sale" doctrine, same as if you bought anything else legally. Unless it's a good subject to import/export control the US govt can't regulate where you buy it, sans to tax it, but for personal goods you already have exceptions and rules, changing them for 1 item would be breaking WTO. That's why they wanted it shut down so badly.
But it's not then the federal government's right to interfere with free trade between Nevada and Monte Carlo for example. The trouble with the internet is that if I'm in Utah right next to Nevada it may be illegal to gamble at all.. but with a long extension cord I can get to the internet in Nevada and play "illegally" from there. Hence the states want the feds to step in and make it illegal to use the federal wires for gambling, but not for say, horse races in Kentucky from Nevada... see how it's not a 100% ban. The federal law says states can decide INSIDE the USA, but gambling OUTSIDE the USA is illegal at the federal level. In that case it should be up to the states to police their "internet" if they want to have different rules.
but that retaliation messed up his numbers while he was telling investors big deals were almost done... oops now it went south, the check wasn't in the mail... and he can't talk about it because it's secret. Now he's charged with a crime for not talking about it when the stock did poorly without those contracts. One could almost argue that the prosecutor had cherry picked that time frame knowing he couldn't use the facts to defend himself.
It is a fact that he had meetings discussing contracts with the NSA, the details are redacted but the meeting is there. The fact that the judge won't allow the redacted information in the trial is somewhat disturbing as they prove he didn't have intent to defraud investors. Along the same line, the nature of such contracts means that investor notification may not be entirely possible or even legal. If he said he would probably make numbers dependent on pending government work he should be in the clear. Numbers are just that, numbers, they have risk.. greater when working for secret agencies as Quest is an order of magnitude smaller than Verizon or AT&T.
yes it seems stupid, but that is exactly what Microsoft was expecting to happen.. after all they got away with "rebates" for overcharging in other cases. That doesn't really hurt their market much does it? I think this is still a MINIMUM impact and most are probably going to more Windows PCs.
Built in adapters have no ram of their own and proprietary connections to the internals of the chipset.. this is bunk. This might be interesting on a PCI-E Geforce with 256MB of DDR3 though.
If you want Linux taken seriously it should come pre-installed in such a manner. With packages set up for the most common configurations and documentation how they work. That's what Windows Home Server is doing and that whole market of low CPU data tanks is Ubuntu's to lose.
My opinion is that a distro like Ubuntu server or CentOS should come with a minimal set up but have "what do you want to do?" menu. As you determine you need more features you would add them from a menu.. tied right back to the normal repositories that have been fully tested. Only the package files should be community driven in terms of what works and is generally accepted practice.. and tied to the community sites for help and support. In short the "how to set up XXX on Ubuntu" articles should be turned into these programs so newbies can select them with little hassle.
I'm kind of surprised Dell hasn't caught on to that idea yet. If they sell Dell hardware and make sure Ubuntu has all the drives they could load up a custom live CD with all sorts of troubleshooting goodies. Then rather then asking a zillion stupid questions they could point you to the CD if you have to call with broken hardware.. no matter what OS you chose to use! Live CD can read the hard drive, connect to the internet, have 3D desktops, etc.... they're far from tech only "recovery" discs they used to be. Moves like that would go a long way to making regular users see Linux as Legit.
That can't be allowed.. those prices are secret, the public and even the DOJ can't see them as they are under contract. The only legally fair price to charge is the full retail price. That's what Microsoft advertises their OS is "worth" to the public while "illegally dumping" the product below costs to OEMs to keep them under financial control.
Yes, the point is to make it hurt. A Lot. Contracts are the Microsoft problem, the DOJ never addressed the horrible contractual blackmail Microsoft was pulling and even allowed more in the "settlement". As a monopoly they don't need "exclusivity" from anybody to make a fair buck. They need to be sold like a utility... to everybody exactly the same. Everybody gets 1 box, 1 license, 1 serial number, 1 disc.
The other stipulation would be to fix the price for 5 years. That way they can't adjust them to the "real" prices. The side effect of that will be corporate raiders finally going after the cash reserves because Microsoft would be cash rich and not legally able to spend it all! If you understand how Wall street works that's a corporate death sentence.. by all of Microsoft's "fans" now.
By choosing this path, there's no need to regulate what they put into their OS or what is bundled, or if it can be used in a VM, or how many times it's can be moved., and the list goes on and on. If everybody gets the full version they can have all fair sale rights to use their shiny discs how they please. 1001 other problems are fixed choosing this method, not just the monopoly situation. Retail copies restore a lot of rights the OEMS take away from customers behind their backs. The monopoly will then fix itself when people have a steady price target to hit and make a business plan around. Think of it as "corporate jail" or tying Microsoft's hands and letting the competitors take a few free shots.
But that NTFS "database" isn't really user accessible like BeFS was.
What you say is important.. it "could be done" typical Microsoft drivel... in BeOS it WAS done. When Microsoft was shipping Windows ME! They had features like OSX Spotlight and better because they implemented the OS and file system AROUND those features. The programmers that worked on BeOS moved over to Apple and reimplemented something "like" what BeOS had to make Spotlight on top of MacOSX.
BeOS had warts mostly because it was such a different programming model nobody could even port applications to it to use features properly... and it was way too small of installed base to get money to fix the issues... chicken/egg problem (and mortgage payments) and all. Consider 10 years later Microsoft after bragging for 3 years about adding it in to Vista had to pull WinFS from general distribution in Vista because they couldn't get it right... but somebody did way back then.
These are the facts. Microsoft ended up paying $100 million to shut them up. And that contract term is STILL in OEM contracts today.. no Grub will be installed with Linux AND Windows from a licensed OEM ever for this reason.
"Be says in its suit that in early 1998 equipment manufacturer Hitachi committed verbally that it would load BeOS alongside Windows on a line of its PCs. Several months later, Hitachi told the start-up that it could not install the BeOS on its computers and that BeOS would have to be booted off a floppy disk, according to Be. Hitachi explained that the terms of its license with Microsoft prohibited pre-installation of another OS in a dual-boot configuration. Be further claims Hitachi revealed that Microsoft expressed its "anger" with Hitachi over its arrangement with Be.
Hitachi eventually shipped a line of computers with BeOS preinstalled on the hard drive. However, those computers were not preconfigured to allow the user to boot into the BeOS. "Hitachi's decision [...] resulted directly from threats by Microsoft," Be claimed in its filing. Be says that the same restrictions that deprived it from financial benefit through its Hitachi deal precluded it from entering pre-installation deals with other PC makers."
but as soon as you add regulation and concessions it's just a few months until we're back to status quo. The only way to beat Microsoft is to completely remove all contractual dealings with OEMS. How would you like your electric company hawking appliances, or car dealers hawking gasoline... it's just a bad mix. Microsoft is a monopoly, there is no valid reason for them to have "exclusive" contracts with anybody anymore. All the OEM contracts do is prop up a few players with big wallets so Microsoft can work "handshake" deals behind regulators' backs. There's fewer PC vendors in good financial health now than when the current rules came around.. so they are ineffectual. Screw the whole industry for being complicit with both Microsoft and Intel and remove volume pricing contracts. Then all of the other things like bundling web browsers, media players, icons on the desktop... it all goes away... Microsoft's product becomes just a commodity box on a shelf you install. As far as support, microsoft can do it themselves!!! After all they have $5 Billion to blow on selling games why not support their own damn software.. watch it improve 10x if THEY had to pay the bills to babysit their crap OS!
Most engineering firms don't seek out patents for the same reason... it's better to work 100% independently without looking at other code or patents. Then if you do run across a patent, you have the lawyers tell you how to deal with it one claim at a time. You may only need to change 1 thing to not infringe and you can show a clean trail of independant research leading to different results. IF you make a policy of searching the patent database, then people may claim you were "trying" to get around their patents and the work wasn't your own. They may claim you willfully ignored THEIR patent amid all the others if you happen to infringe.. if you start a program to read them you have to read ALL of them, even the submarines and such you may not know about!!! It's wasted effort to still get sued.
but the auction page is the sellers AD that they PAY FOR!!! Ebay has lots of other space to advertise on, but the auction page "belongs" to the seller. Another poster mentioned a mall selling ads inside competing stores..that they rent to sell stuff. How is this different?
that's exactly what it's like. The seller pays for that page as their "space" on ebay. Adding targeted ads for the same product is exactly what you describe above.
why shouldn't they use retail price of Vista Ultimate... Microsoft's prices are secret.. leverage used to bring OEMs in line even though they have 95% of the market. Why does Microsoft need contractual protection at all? i think all copies of windows should be retail full box, and the OEM can preinstall them if they wish. that way Microsoft can be forbidden from any contracts with OEMs.. not even sales contracts. No more "mutual" newspaper or TV ads, no more prefered pricing, no more secret back room blackmail to sign Microsoft's outrageous terms or have your business screwed. The retail price is the only non-tainted, honest price published... we should use that to be absolutely fair to Microsoft. then let the competition roll!
The whole thing was sick, better written, faster, smaller... BeOS had database filesystems Microsost STILL hasn't managed to ship with Vista!! they were ready to ship in 6 weeks until the OEM lawyers pulled the plug. It was blatantly illegal, monopoly tactics but never got much press outside slashdot and OSnews... very sad
OEM's would just need to have different hard drives ready to go, one for Windows, Ubuntu, RedHat, etc. It would take 5 minutes to put the preloaded drive in there for the customer at purchase. There's some issues for retail stores but it's not that hard. The key is that the transaction is separate. The bigger issue is tying Microsoft's hands from interference... no stickers, no advertising budgets for OEMs, no "discounts"... nothing offered to any OEM that's not exactly offered on the retail shelf. That would also have the side effect of simplifying their licensing as you would always have a retail copy.. no more silly control of the aftermarket.. after all they're already locking down OEM copies with WGA.
I think it should be a separate line item and non-negotiable. Yank all contractual deals between Microsoft and OEMS.. the only contract Microsoft can make is to cash the checks. The price should be fixed at Retail for the OS with no discounts of any kind, If they're a monoply why does anybody need volume discounts.. exept to keep big spenders from funding competition. Sure companies like Dell will continue to bundle and install, but they'll have to compete on PC price as Microsoft won't be able to influence the price anymore.
that's called XBox, and you notice Microsoft did that right under the noses of all the people selling gaming hardware for 5 years.. then dropped ALL the vendors and said "too bad", hell now that the glory days of Halo are over they even cut Bungie loose just like nVidia and intel before. Wait for it, it will be the "Office Box" and will come with Office installed and run totally off the network, locked down to hell and have trusted software (not on discs but you'll pay to run their distribution server) Their only reason for waiting is that they can't get Office ported to a non-x86 windows platform like.Net to save their asses. So they have to string the PC makers along so they don't jump ship too soon.
There's no reason PCs can't come with it, it' s not about forcing customers into installing stuff. It is about customers being forced to pay a seperate price for windows. In my opinion, it should be the posted retail price for everybody. That's Microsoft's RAND price and what they state piracy numbers from. Then every body can pay that price, installed on the new computer they buy, if they build their own, or if they want it on VM under OSX. The point is that it has to be a seperate line item so people can compare features between other OSes they might want. Sure Windows bundled was a big deal, now it's a big part of the price quietly snuck in there. Do customers want to spend $300 on an OS for $300 worth of hardware? But they don't KNOW that they are, nor do they know the details that some PC maker cut $50 bucks of cost while hosing their machine with crippled windows and spyware/nagware.. they don't know it's not supposed to be like that!!!
not at all, the whole bundling issue was really about Microsoft adding technologies that OEMS had to pay for from independant companies to make them more dependant on Microsoft. The whole point of seperating the OS is that for each feature microsoft added for "free" as a bundle, they tightened the contract terms playing the OEMs against each other when Microsoft was already near monopoly. Now there's nobody to even buy extra piece from without stepping on Bills toes.
Note that Apple manages to sell an equivelent computer for nearly the same cost as Dell without subisdies from Intel or Microsoft. Without plastering stickers all over their boxes, or being told what icons and media players they can have. The OEM agreements are holding companies like Dell back from innovation on their own as deviating too far from Microsoft's narrow path gets funds for stickers, TV ads, Print adds, mailers, etc pulled.
The only fair thing to do is to reset the board... wipe out all the OEM agreements and pay one flat price for windows.. they're a monopoly, if people really need them it won't hurt their business not being bundled.. right? My opinion is that all copies of Microsoft windows should cost the posted retail price... that's what Red Hat or SuSe has had to do for years. No volume discounts...how stupid is it for a MONOPOLY to give volume discounts.. won't you need to buy it anyway? From them? That would immediately put Linux for Free or $79 in a box versus Windows at $199, $299, etc.. Then there will be money in the market available as people don't want to pay the higher price. That doesn't infringe Microsoft's IP, it doesn't tell Microsoft how to run their business.. it just stops them from telling OTHER people how to run theirs. And it opens up options for the free market to step in and reward Linux, Apple or whoever else may step up.
What Iron grip on users? I can run Ubuntu on my mac without even downloading patches.. the live CD works out of the box. Now that Macs are x86 the OS is a free for all... you just can't take THEIR OS to another system... (legally that is, but it's quite trivial to make work)
but that's the point, the Radio stations pay big bucks for royalties to blast their ads to lots of people. This behavior should reduce some of their payments because they are reducing the number of legal people that could be listing to ads during the day time peak time while office people work. Not to mention Small businesses that play the radio as a show of community support and buy advertisements from the stations.
Slashdot Mirror
Wii is being shut out. It's exceeded the sales of Xbox 360 (just before halo hit) with Xbox having a 1 year head start!!!! But AAA titles are few... heck even introductory games like Smash Bros. and Mario Galaxy STILL aren't out yet. Part of the issue is that developers don't want to admit they didn't even bother to START games, so now they want to say sales of Wiis are "down" so they stop getting nagged.
I haven't seen many games for Wii that a casual gamer would die for.. Mario Party was a good one to have, but what else past Wii play? They all scream "rental" rather than buy. Nintendo needs to do more with interaction as well. Where's the DS/Wii interactive games? There's 1 or 2 but come on. Nintendo needs to lower the bar for games on Wii/DS in a big hurry. They need to move to small downloadable content via Wii Points or something... perhaps sync downloadable DS games (with a special cart) via Wii like iPods. They could put larger games on SD cards as they are already keyed to your Wii they can't go anywhere online. They need to get more casual games QUICKLY. I've got one and only bothered to rent half a dozen games so far... that's not good. Where's games like Pikmin 3 or Katamari? Or DDR or Guitar Hero? Those are low overhead games aimed at the target Wii demographic but no where to be seen.
Actually AllofMP3 was legal under US law, that's why they couldn't stop Credit Card payments. It was legal under Russian law so under WTO it was legal for a US person to buy there, same as if you traveled to Russia and bought them under "first sale" doctrine, same as if you bought anything else legally. Unless it's a good subject to import/export control the US govt can't regulate where you buy it, sans to tax it, but for personal goods you already have exceptions and rules, changing them for 1 item would be breaking WTO. That's why they wanted it shut down so badly.
But it's not then the federal government's right to interfere with free trade between Nevada and Monte Carlo for example. The trouble with the internet is that if I'm in Utah right next to Nevada it may be illegal to gamble at all.. but with a long extension cord I can get to the internet in Nevada and play "illegally" from there. Hence the states want the feds to step in and make it illegal to use the federal wires for gambling, but not for say, horse races in Kentucky from Nevada... see how it's not a 100% ban. The federal law says states can decide INSIDE the USA, but gambling OUTSIDE the USA is illegal at the federal level. In that case it should be up to the states to police their "internet" if they want to have different rules.
but that retaliation messed up his numbers while he was telling investors big deals were almost done... oops now it went south, the check wasn't in the mail... and he can't talk about it because it's secret. Now he's charged with a crime for not talking about it when the stock did poorly without those contracts. One could almost argue that the prosecutor had cherry picked that time frame knowing he couldn't use the facts to defend himself.
It is a fact that he had meetings discussing contracts with the NSA, the details are redacted but the meeting is there. The fact that the judge won't allow the redacted information in the trial is somewhat disturbing as they prove he didn't have intent to defraud investors. Along the same line, the nature of such contracts means that investor notification may not be entirely possible or even legal. If he said he would probably make numbers dependent on pending government work he should be in the clear. Numbers are just that, numbers, they have risk.. greater when working for secret agencies as Quest is an order of magnitude smaller than Verizon or AT&T.
yes it seems stupid, but that is exactly what Microsoft was expecting to happen.. after all they got away with "rebates" for overcharging in other cases. That doesn't really hurt their market much does it? I think this is still a MINIMUM impact and most are probably going to more Windows PCs.
Built in adapters have no ram of their own and proprietary connections to the internals of the chipset.. this is bunk. This might be interesting on a PCI-E Geforce with 256MB of DDR3 though.
If you want Linux taken seriously it should come pre-installed in such a manner. With packages set up for the most common configurations and documentation how they work. That's what Windows Home Server is doing and that whole market of low CPU data tanks is Ubuntu's to lose.
My opinion is that a distro like Ubuntu server or CentOS should come with a minimal set up but have "what do you want to do?" menu. As you determine you need more features you would add them from a menu.. tied right back to the normal repositories that have been fully tested. Only the package files should be community driven in terms of what works and is generally accepted practice.. and tied to the community sites for help and support. In short the "how to set up XXX on Ubuntu" articles should be turned into these programs so newbies can select them with little hassle.
I'm kind of surprised Dell hasn't caught on to that idea yet. If they sell Dell hardware and make sure Ubuntu has all the drives they could load up a custom live CD with all sorts of troubleshooting goodies. Then rather then asking a zillion stupid questions they could point you to the CD if you have to call with broken hardware.. no matter what OS you chose to use! Live CD can read the hard drive, connect to the internet, have 3D desktops, etc.... they're far from tech only "recovery" discs they used to be. Moves like that would go a long way to making regular users see Linux as Legit.
That can't be allowed.. those prices are secret, the public and even the DOJ can't see them as they are under contract. The only legally fair price to charge is the full retail price. That's what Microsoft advertises their OS is "worth" to the public while "illegally dumping" the product below costs to OEMs to keep them under financial control.
Yes, the point is to make it hurt. A Lot. Contracts are the Microsoft problem, the DOJ never addressed the horrible contractual blackmail Microsoft was pulling and even allowed more in the "settlement". As a monopoly they don't need "exclusivity" from anybody to make a fair buck. They need to be sold like a utility... to everybody exactly the same. Everybody gets 1 box, 1 license, 1 serial number, 1 disc.
The other stipulation would be to fix the price for 5 years. That way they can't adjust them to the "real" prices. The side effect of that will be corporate raiders finally going after the cash reserves because Microsoft would be cash rich and not legally able to spend it all! If you understand how Wall street works that's a corporate death sentence.. by all of Microsoft's "fans" now.
By choosing this path, there's no need to regulate what they put into their OS or what is bundled, or if it can be used in a VM, or how many times it's can be moved., and the list goes on and on. If everybody gets the full version they can have all fair sale rights to use their shiny discs how they please. 1001 other problems are fixed choosing this method, not just the monopoly situation. Retail copies restore a lot of rights the OEMS take away from customers behind their backs. The monopoly will then fix itself when people have a steady price target to hit and make a business plan around. Think of it as "corporate jail" or tying Microsoft's hands and letting the competitors take a few free shots.
But that NTFS "database" isn't really user accessible like BeFS was.
What you say is important.. it "could be done" typical Microsoft drivel... in BeOS it WAS done. When Microsoft was shipping Windows ME! They had features like OSX Spotlight and better because they implemented the OS and file system AROUND those features. The programmers that worked on BeOS moved over to Apple and reimplemented something "like" what BeOS had to make Spotlight on top of MacOSX.
BeOS had warts mostly because it was such a different programming model nobody could even port applications to it to use features properly... and it was way too small of installed base to get money to fix the issues... chicken/egg problem (and mortgage payments) and all. Consider 10 years later Microsoft after bragging for 3 years about adding it in to Vista had to pull WinFS from general distribution in Vista because they couldn't get it right... but somebody did way back then.
As far as proof look here: http://www.itjungle.com/mid/mid022702-story06.html
(found on an old slashdot post! http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/08/2031244)
These are the facts. Microsoft ended up paying $100 million to shut them up. And that contract term is STILL in OEM contracts today.. no Grub will be installed with Linux AND Windows from a licensed OEM ever for this reason.
"Be says in its suit that in early 1998 equipment manufacturer Hitachi committed verbally that it would load BeOS alongside Windows on a line of its PCs. Several months later, Hitachi told the start-up that it could not install the BeOS on its computers and that BeOS would have to be booted off a floppy disk, according to Be. Hitachi explained that the terms of its license with Microsoft prohibited pre-installation of another OS in a dual-boot configuration. Be further claims Hitachi revealed that Microsoft expressed its "anger" with Hitachi over its arrangement with Be.
Hitachi eventually shipped a line of computers with BeOS preinstalled on the hard drive. However, those computers were not preconfigured to allow the user to boot into the BeOS. "Hitachi's decision [...] resulted directly from threats by Microsoft," Be claimed in its filing. Be says that the same restrictions that deprived it from financial benefit through its Hitachi deal precluded it from entering pre-installation deals with other PC makers."
but as soon as you add regulation and concessions it's just a few months until we're back to status quo. The only way to beat Microsoft is to completely remove all contractual dealings with OEMS. How would you like your electric company hawking appliances, or car dealers hawking gasoline... it's just a bad mix. Microsoft is a monopoly, there is no valid reason for them to have "exclusive" contracts with anybody anymore. All the OEM contracts do is prop up a few players with big wallets so Microsoft can work "handshake" deals behind regulators' backs. There's fewer PC vendors in good financial health now than when the current rules came around.. so they are ineffectual. Screw the whole industry for being complicit with both Microsoft and Intel and remove volume pricing contracts. Then all of the other things like bundling web browsers, media players, icons on the desktop... it all goes away... Microsoft's product becomes just a commodity box on a shelf you install. As far as support, microsoft can do it themselves!!! After all they have $5 Billion to blow on selling games why not support their own damn software.. watch it improve 10x if THEY had to pay the bills to babysit their crap OS!
Most engineering firms don't seek out patents for the same reason... it's better to work 100% independently without looking at other code or patents. Then if you do run across a patent, you have the lawyers tell you how to deal with it one claim at a time. You may only need to change 1 thing to not infringe and you can show a clean trail of independant research leading to different results. IF you make a policy of searching the patent database, then people may claim you were "trying" to get around their patents and the work wasn't your own. They may claim you willfully ignored THEIR patent amid all the others if you happen to infringe.. if you start a program to read them you have to read ALL of them, even the submarines and such you may not know about!!! It's wasted effort to still get sued.
So I can go to Best Buy and pass out Walmart ads next to the items being sold... right...
but the auction page is the sellers AD that they PAY FOR!!! Ebay has lots of other space to advertise on, but the auction page "belongs" to the seller. Another poster mentioned a mall selling ads inside competing stores..that they rent to sell stuff. How is this different?
that's exactly what it's like. The seller pays for that page as their "space" on ebay. Adding targeted ads for the same product is exactly what you describe above.
why shouldn't they use retail price of Vista Ultimate... Microsoft's prices are secret.. leverage used to bring OEMs in line even though they have 95% of the market. Why does Microsoft need contractual protection at all? i think all copies of windows should be retail full box, and the OEM can preinstall them if they wish. that way Microsoft can be forbidden from any contracts with OEMs .. not even sales contracts. No more "mutual" newspaper or TV ads, no more prefered pricing, no more secret back room blackmail to sign Microsoft's outrageous terms or have your business screwed. The retail price is the only non-tainted, honest price published... we should use that to be absolutely fair to Microsoft. then let the competition roll!
I did!!!
The whole thing was sick, better written, faster, smaller... BeOS had database filesystems Microsost STILL hasn't managed to ship with Vista!! they were ready to ship in 6 weeks until the OEM lawyers pulled the plug. It was blatantly illegal, monopoly tactics but never got much press outside slashdot and OSnews... very sad
OEM's would just need to have different hard drives ready to go, one for Windows, Ubuntu, RedHat, etc. It would take 5 minutes to put the preloaded drive in there for the customer at purchase. There's some issues for retail stores but it's not that hard. The key is that the transaction is separate. The bigger issue is tying Microsoft's hands from interference... no stickers, no advertising budgets for OEMs, no "discounts" ... nothing offered to any OEM that's not exactly offered on the retail shelf. That would also have the side effect of simplifying their licensing as you would always have a retail copy.. no more silly control of the aftermarket.. after all they're already locking down OEM copies with WGA.
I think it should be a separate line item and non-negotiable. Yank all contractual deals between Microsoft and OEMS.. the only contract Microsoft can make is to cash the checks. The price should be fixed at Retail for the OS with no discounts of any kind, If they're a monoply why does anybody need volume discounts.. exept to keep big spenders from funding competition. Sure companies like Dell will continue to bundle and install, but they'll have to compete on PC price as Microsoft won't be able to influence the price anymore.
that's called XBox, and you notice Microsoft did that right under the noses of all the people selling gaming hardware for 5 years.. then dropped ALL the vendors and said "too bad", hell now that the glory days of Halo are over they even cut Bungie loose just like nVidia and intel before. Wait for it, it will be the "Office Box" and will come with Office installed and run totally off the network, locked down to hell and have trusted software (not on discs but you'll pay to run their distribution server) Their only reason for waiting is that they can't get Office ported to a non-x86 windows platform like .Net to save their asses. So they have to string the PC makers along so they don't jump ship too soon.
There's no reason PCs can't come with it, it' s not about forcing customers into installing stuff. It is about customers being forced to pay a seperate price for windows. In my opinion, it should be the posted retail price for everybody. That's Microsoft's RAND price and what they state piracy numbers from. Then every body can pay that price, installed on the new computer they buy, if they build their own, or if they want it on VM under OSX. The point is that it has to be a seperate line item so people can compare features between other OSes they might want. Sure Windows bundled was a big deal, now it's a big part of the price quietly snuck in there. Do customers want to spend $300 on an OS for $300 worth of hardware? But they don't KNOW that they are, nor do they know the details that some PC maker cut $50 bucks of cost while hosing their machine with crippled windows and spyware/nagware.. they don't know it's not supposed to be like that!!!
not at all, the whole bundling issue was really about Microsoft adding technologies that OEMS had to pay for from independant companies to make them more dependant on Microsoft. The whole point of seperating the OS is that for each feature microsoft added for "free" as a bundle, they tightened the contract terms playing the OEMs against each other when Microsoft was already near monopoly. Now there's nobody to even buy extra piece from without stepping on Bills toes.
Note that Apple manages to sell an equivelent computer for nearly the same cost as Dell without subisdies from Intel or Microsoft. Without plastering stickers all over their boxes, or being told what icons and media players they can have. The OEM agreements are holding companies like Dell back from innovation on their own as deviating too far from Microsoft's narrow path gets funds for stickers, TV ads, Print adds, mailers, etc pulled.
The only fair thing to do is to reset the board... wipe out all the OEM agreements and pay one flat price for windows.. they're a monopoly, if people really need them it won't hurt their business not being bundled.. right? My opinion is that all copies of Microsoft windows should cost the posted retail price... that's what Red Hat or SuSe has had to do for years. No volume discounts.. .how stupid is it for a MONOPOLY to give volume discounts.. won't you need to buy it anyway? From them? That would immediately put Linux for Free or $79 in a box versus Windows at $199, $299, etc.. Then there will be money in the market available as people don't want to pay the higher price. That doesn't infringe Microsoft's IP, it doesn't tell Microsoft how to run their business.. it just stops them from telling OTHER people how to run theirs. And it opens up options for the free market to step in and reward Linux, Apple or whoever else may step up.
What Iron grip on users? I can run Ubuntu on my mac without even downloading patches.. the live CD works out of the box. Now that Macs are x86 the OS is a free for all... you just can't take THEIR OS to another system... (legally that is, but it's quite trivial to make work)
but that's the point, the Radio stations pay big bucks for royalties to blast their ads to lots of people. This behavior should reduce some of their payments because they are reducing the number of legal people that could be listing to ads during the day time peak time while office people work. Not to mention Small businesses that play the radio as a show of community support and buy advertisements from the stations.