It doesn't matter what the terms are - phone home means they can be arbitrarily changed. Just look at the guys who bought Terminator-2 with the WMV-HD edition on the 2nd disc. The box says nothing about phone home, but it requires phone home to enable at least once per week and if you are phoning from outside the USA, you will be refused activation. If the company backing the phone-home functionality goes out of business (say Artisan gets sold to another studio who doesn't like Micorsoft as much as Artisan did, and the new owner stops funding the phone home service) then even officially legit USA purchasers are dead in the water.
Then they're failing contractual obligations under the HD-DVD standard, and in doing so open themselves up to a class action lawsuit (among other things).
1) Lots of people, isolation from the net means not having to worry about attacks that come in from the net.
So that program guide data comes out of thin air does it?
2) It isn't necessarily the ability to phone home that is the problem, it is the conversation. Since there is effectively zero protection of personal data in the USA, anyone with even a hint of wanting to preserve their privacy knows what phoning home opens them to all kinds of data-exposure risks.
The "phone home" option isn't a random program the producer of the HD-DVD launches. But, if you choose to be paranoid, there is nothing saying you have to take advantage of it. With bluray, you probably won't have the option.
They're not just shrinking the size. They're cost reducing. They're redesigining/combining chips in order to make production and manufacturing less expensive.
Possible, but not necessarily reasonable given that it has to phone home in order to authorize the "managed copy" and thus any number of terms and requirements can be affixed, and worse changed on the fly.
I don't know how the managed copy functionality is implemented or what 'features' it supports, so I can't say what those terms and conditions may be, but it is still better than what you get with blu-ray. The lack of such a requirement is what got Fox and Disney to move over to the blu-ray camp.
And who the hell has a media center pc without a net connection anyway?
Unfortunately, startup costs for blu-ray are currently estimated at $1 BILLION. (An hd-dvd conversion costs $90 million in comparison)
To break even, they must add $10 to the cost of the stamped disc over your proposed 100,000,000 disc lifetime just to break even -- and we're assuming that the company didn't need to take out a loan to finance massive the startup costs.
I would also point out that at a production rate of 4 seconds per disc (non-stop), it would take 12.5 years for a single line to produce 100 million discs.
We're not even starting to talk about the actual differences in cost actually producing a disk, maintenance, or how long it takes to stamp out a single disc vs competing technology. Nor are we considering indirect costs (ie: idle lines) arising from a lack of production flexability during the transitional period.
The major reason why Microsoft is supporting HD-DVD is that managed copy support is mandatory for HD-DVD while optional for blu-ray. Without managed copy enabled, media center pc's can't legally cache movies onto the harddrive.
If blu-ray tanks, it is convenient for Microsoft in that it hurts Sony, but their primary objective isn't to hurt Sony. It may be secondary, but...:)
They have three big reasons for selecting a normal dvd drive for the xbox360: 1) availability; they wanted to ship this year, but hd-dvd and blu-ray drives won't become available until next year 2) cost; both next gen drives will be expensive 3) speed; current generation dvd drives will be able to seek and spool data off the disc much faster than a 1st generation hd-dvd or blu-ray drive (the dvdrom in the 360 is supposedly faster than the hd in the original xbox).
HP also wants managed copy support to be mandatory. Blu-ray makes managed copy an optional feature on a disc, while HD-DVD requires managed copy be enabled for at least one copy. Managed copy makes it possible to legally copy content onto, say, a pc or portable device.
MS is touting their improvements in this area because as a console manufacturer, it is the only thing they can tout. Everything else is up to the game developers. The small handful of 1st party launch titles Microsoft is putting out all look very good titles.
I think a comparison to movies is a fair one for the point I was trying to make. I don't think the analogy holds up much beyond that though. The point I'm trying to make is that while graphics don't make a good story/game, they do make it better -- it makes the experience more immersive.
As you already mentioned, the author of TFA covered these two things.
He glossed over them. The paragraph he spent on it concluded (incorrectly) that the population density of covered areas in Canada was equal to or less than the population density of covered areas in the US. He also compares San Francisco with 2 of the most densly populated regions in the world (the comparison also amuses me on a couple of different levels, related to their position on the 'coverage' chart and their moves relative the US's in the same period of time).
That should only change what people are able to pay, not what it costs to provide the service in the first place.
So you're telling me that the cost of a service is the same even though I have to pay someone $25/hr in one region while $5/hr in a different region?
Again, the author doesn't do anything of the kind; this is a conclusion that you made up. The problems are 1) the U.S. has no broadband policy 2) the FCC considers.375 Mbits to be a "high speed" connection and 3) eliminating common carrier regulations.
That's the whole tone of the article! Hell, he starts off by saying people in other countries get 20 times the bandwidth for half the price. He dives into the "big companies tried to kill free wifi" arguement, how the "big companies got the FCC to eliminate open access provisions", how the courts screw the little company ruling they owners of lines can't be forced to lease them, and so on. If only the government would get out of bed with the "big companies" we'd be getting free T1's into all of our homes...
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Missing. The. Point.
He's the one trying to convince me that his arguement is correct. He failed to do so (for me) because he failed to adequately address several legitimate alternative reasons.
The only thing I'm trying to convince people of is that the article failed to consider several alternative reasons.
That would be a better way of looking at it, but still won't yield a terribly useful figure. You need to consider cost of living, taxes, etc. A better way to look at it would be to examine it relative to the amount of disposable income available.
France is an excellent example about how you can't compare 'converted dollar' figures between countries.
In France, income taxes range from 7-48%. You will pay an additional 8% of your income to CSG, CRDS and PS. Finally, you'll pay another 8% of your income to their national health system.
France collects 55% of its GDP in taxes.
Spending the equivelent of $1 effects my pocketbook differently in France than it will in the US. Comparing income levels, minimum wages, cost of living, etc won't give you that information. The closest you can get is by examining how much disposable income the average person has available.
Great, that's a good start (though you or I shouldn't be the ones who have to dig up that information).
Now, what is the breakdown of densly populated areas in canada vs rural area? In other words how does the arguement change, if 90% of canada's population resides in 3% of it's area? Ie: what is the effective population density of the areas covered by broadband?
With regards to cost of living levels: Cost of living doesn't tell us much about how much the perceived cost of something is. What I'm trying to get at here is that the exchange rate of money from one currency to another isn't the only factor in considering cost. In other words, would spending $25 for broadband in the foreign country "effect" my budget more or less as spending $45 on broadband in the US? Combining that information with average income levels yields a more accurate (but not complete) picture.
The article fails to seriously consider the following factors accounting for the cost, speed, and availability of internet service in different regions:
* Population densities * Area to cover * Income levels & cost of living differences * Government subsidies, taxes, and regulatory costs
It does, at points note that some of these are arguements against his point, but the author fails to adequately address them. (Ex: while arguing against the area factor, he uses san francisco as a counter arguement, while failing to provide any information about how SF is performing more 'poorly').
The article jumps to the conclusion that "the man" is trying to screw you. This may or may not be true. However, without accounting for the above factors the author doesn't have a logic basis in making that conclusion and is just ranting.
No matter what anyone says, graphics and sound are always important qualities in a game. This doesn't mean that they're the only qualities that matter, just that they matter.
To spin this on the side a bit: take the voice acting and plot from the last pixar flick and replace the animation with stick figure slides. Would you consider that to be just as good as the real movie? The plot and substance are the same, right? Of course you wouldn't want to see it -- you aren't going to plop down 10 bones to watch a bunch of stick figures.
They've got a technologically inferior console that's the sequel to a console whose only redeeming feature was technological superiority.
The inferiority/superiority of the consoles isn't something anyone can decide on until both are out and you see what both are capable. Comparing paper specs of an unreleased console to something that is actually real is like mag-racing cars. It's lame, unproductive, and everyone has their own special 'source' which proves the other guy wrong.
They're releasing a console without any significant original titles
What about Kameo or Condemned?
And while PGR3 isn't a 'significantly original' title, it certain brings a lot to the table with their online plans; and its graphics quality/detail is simply amazing. Then there is Call of Duty, which again isn't 'significantly original' but brings an experience to the console world that previously was only possible on a high end PC (in other words, if you don't have a high-end gaming PC you gotta get this one).
That's 4 gotta-have titles (for me anyway) right there, which is significantly better than any console launch lineup that I've ever seen.
Then there is the whole live-arcade concept... there's a few neat games there as well (mmm...Geometry wars).
So in essence, they're delivering a time-crunched crappy box that doesn't run anything... even existing XBOX
Ah, now the troll shows it's face. You have absolutely no data to base this comment off of.
People buy consoles for games, or at least the surety of games down the line.
What, you think that no developer is ever going to release any games for it, ever? Ah, more trolling.
In my experience, which is somewhat dated (by about 5 years), what you state is generally true for simple loops.
However, for more complicated loops the compiler fails to opimize the loop very well. My 'experience' was in writing an alogirthm which took a raw camera sensor ccd data and ordered it into a proper bayer pattern. When moving from indexer based access to pointer based access I saw a significant increase in performance.
Even basing one pointer off of another was slower than maintaining separate pointers and manipulating them via arithmatic.
The loop looked pretty nasty when it was done (the loop also mixed several other stages of the image processing pipe at once, such as application of color correction & calibration data, dead pixel correction, etc; probably had something like 30 pointers that had to be maintained), but it was quick.
I ended up taking following the same approach converting the raw ccd data to a live preview and code which generated a thumnail preview, obtaining the same kind of gains.
When I was done with the thumnail code, it was capable of generating 108 fully processed thumnails (color 768x512 8bpc image) per second on a 700mhz PIII from a 6 megapixel source image (3072x2048, 16bpc bayer image). I was proud of that at the time...
You hadn't explained it, but that is certainly a reasonable arguement to make.
The findings of fact go to great lengths to explain why Apple and server operating systems are EXCLUDED from the relevent market (because it would be prohibitively expensive to transition from an intel pc running windows), which is justification required to limit the market in the manner they did. The findings of fact do not state that Apple or other systems do not hold monopolies on their own, because that isn't a finding of the court, nor would it have been relevent to the case in question.
The market isn't simply "intel compatible PC operating systems", because there are server operating systems that run on intel compatible PCs which were excluded from the relevent market. Albiet, both of us are attempting to summarize several pages of documents into half a dozen words, but I still feel that my characterization of the relevent market is appropriate.
Oddly, I wonder the judge would have come to the same conclusion if Microsoft had chosen to charge excessively large fees for the operating system (such that 'switching' would have been less expensive).
You're taking what I'm saying and try to twist it around into some sort of anti-microsoft-monopoly arguement.
The market microsoft was held to have a monopoly in is "x86 desktop operating systems". Not "desktop operating systems". Not "operating systems". Your feelings on what the market should be is irrelevent, as that the market defined for the anti-trust trial was "x86 desktop operating systems".
It is a nuanced detail, but nuances are significant in legal proceedings.
I'm saying that if you define a market for Apple in the same way that the market was restricted for Microsoft, Apple would have a monopoly on that market. I'm saying that restriction is VALID (because it was valid with Microsoft), and restricting the market in that way was NECESSARY (because they would have made it more broad if possible), and thusly a similar restriction would be VALID if applied to Apple as well.
"Whaaa...your logic forces me to reconsider my position. I thusly shall label you as a fanboy and ignore everything you said, while insisting that it does indeed prove my fantasy based arguement."
I feel sorry for anyone who uses your software if it is written with as much 'logic' as you've demonstrated here.
A monopoly is defined as "A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity." You have to have near 100% control over a market to be considered a monopoly; 94% wouldn't meet the bar. In 1999 Windows95/98 held somewhere around 85% of the total desktop OS market, and 75% of the total OS market.
Microsoft was held to have a monopoly on the x86 desktop operating system market. That market definition definition excludes Apple's marketshare all together. It also excludes DOS and "server" operating systems and platforms.
Similarly, one could easily define a market for "PPC desktop operating systems", in which Apple would be found to have monopoly share.
Your impression of the information available about Windows development at the time is also laughable, as "iTunes" for Windows can (and has) easily been written in the timeframe we're talking about.
So a product only qualifies if it represents a company's core business? Nope, sorry, doesn't work right that.
Fact of the matter is, if the market Microsoft were held to have a monopoly in were simply "desktop operating systems", the court would have been forced to rule that Microsoft did not hold a monopoly. This is the same reason they didn't define the market as "operating systems" or "x86 operating systems" as well.
You must also keep in mind that they were trying to declare a certain operating system had a monopoly on the market, which means they had to define the market in a manner that excluded DOS and older versions of Windows.
Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on desktop computer operating systems. They have a monopoly on x86 compatible desktop computer systems. The definition was restricted to this "area". Restricted in a similar way, Apple has a monopoly on operating systems that run on Apple PPC compatible computers.
Old licensing mechanism: each virtual machine must be licensed for each CPU on the machine. Got 4 active virtual machines running in a 2 proc box, you must have 8 licenses.
New licensing mechanism: one license is required per each executing virtual machine instance. Got 4 virtual machines running in a 2 proc box, you must have 4 licenses.
"Best" is a subjective comment. You can no more say that he is correct than he is incorrect in labeling a game as such, because your opinion is different than his.
You could also argue that the others were inspired by the work done by the patent holder, and that the concept at the time of conception was non-obvious; the fact that others implemented the idea years later has no relevence. The patent system is designed to reward whoever gets "there" first.
I personally think that the patent in question is vague and overly broad crap. But my opinion doesn't count.
Slashdot Mirror
If anything, I think the responses to your post demonstrate that Microsoft isn't the only entity represented by a 500,000 ton tanker ... :)
It doesn't matter what the terms are - phone home means they can be arbitrarily changed. Just look at the guys who bought Terminator-2 with the WMV-HD edition on the 2nd disc. The box says nothing about phone home, but it requires phone home to enable at least once per week and if you are phoning from outside the USA, you will be refused activation. If the company backing the phone-home functionality goes out of business (say Artisan gets sold to another studio who doesn't like Micorsoft as much as Artisan did, and the new owner stops funding the phone home service) then even officially legit USA purchasers are dead in the water.
Then they're failing contractual obligations under the HD-DVD standard, and in doing so open themselves up to a class action lawsuit (among other things).
1) Lots of people, isolation from the net means not having to worry about attacks that come in from the net.
So that program guide data comes out of thin air does it?
2) It isn't necessarily the ability to phone home that is the problem, it is the conversation. Since there is effectively zero protection of personal data in the USA, anyone with even a hint of wanting to preserve their privacy knows what phoning home opens them to all kinds of data-exposure risks.
The "phone home" option isn't a random program the producer of the HD-DVD launches. But, if you choose to be paranoid, there is nothing saying you have to take advantage of it. With bluray, you probably won't have the option.
They're not just shrinking the size. They're cost reducing. They're redesigining/combining chips in order to make production and manufacturing less expensive.
Possible, but not necessarily reasonable given that it has to phone home in order to authorize the "managed copy" and thus any number of terms and requirements can be affixed, and worse changed on the fly.
I don't know how the managed copy functionality is implemented or what 'features' it supports, so I can't say what those terms and conditions may be, but it is still better than what you get with blu-ray. The lack of such a requirement is what got Fox and Disney to move over to the blu-ray camp.
And who the hell has a media center pc without a net connection anyway?
Unfortunately, startup costs for blu-ray are currently estimated at $1 BILLION. (An hd-dvd conversion costs $90 million in comparison)
To break even, they must add $10 to the cost of the stamped disc over your proposed 100,000,000 disc lifetime just to break even -- and we're assuming that the company didn't need to take out a loan to finance massive the startup costs.
I would also point out that at a production rate of 4 seconds per disc (non-stop), it would take 12.5 years for a single line to produce 100 million discs.
We're not even starting to talk about the actual differences in cost actually producing a disk, maintenance, or how long it takes to stamp out a single disc vs competing technology. Nor are we considering indirect costs (ie: idle lines) arising from a lack of production flexability during the transitional period.
I think your scale is a bit off.
The major reason why Microsoft is supporting HD-DVD is that managed copy support is mandatory for HD-DVD while optional for blu-ray. Without managed copy enabled, media center pc's can't legally cache movies onto the harddrive.
... :)
If blu-ray tanks, it is convenient for Microsoft in that it hurts Sony, but their primary objective isn't to hurt Sony. It may be secondary, but
They have three big reasons for selecting a normal dvd drive for the xbox360:
1) availability; they wanted to ship this year, but hd-dvd and blu-ray drives won't become available until next year
2) cost; both next gen drives will be expensive
3) speed; current generation dvd drives will be able to seek and spool data off the disc much faster than a 1st generation hd-dvd or blu-ray drive (the dvdrom in the 360 is supposedly faster than the hd in the original xbox).
HP also wants managed copy support to be mandatory. Blu-ray makes managed copy an optional feature on a disc, while HD-DVD requires managed copy be enabled for at least one copy. Managed copy makes it possible to legally copy content onto, say, a pc or portable device.
MS is touting their improvements in this area because as a console manufacturer, it is the only thing they can tout. Everything else is up to the game developers. The small handful of 1st party launch titles Microsoft is putting out all look very good titles.
I think a comparison to movies is a fair one for the point I was trying to make. I don't think the analogy holds up much beyond that though. The point I'm trying to make is that while graphics don't make a good story/game, they do make it better -- it makes the experience more immersive.
As you already mentioned, the author of TFA covered these two things.
.375 Mbits to be a "high speed" connection and 3) eliminating common carrier regulations.
...
He glossed over them. The paragraph he spent on it concluded (incorrectly) that the population density of covered areas in Canada was equal to or less than the population density of covered areas in the US. He also compares San Francisco with 2 of the most densly populated regions in the world (the comparison also amuses me on a couple of different levels, related to their position on the 'coverage' chart and their moves relative the US's in the same period of time).
That should only change what people are able to pay, not what it costs to provide the service in the first place.
So you're telling me that the cost of a service is the same even though I have to pay someone $25/hr in one region while $5/hr in a different region?
Again, the author doesn't do anything of the kind; this is a conclusion that you made up. The problems are 1) the U.S. has no broadband policy 2) the FCC considers
That's the whole tone of the article! Hell, he starts off by saying people in other countries get 20 times the bandwidth for half the price. He dives into the "big companies tried to kill free wifi" arguement, how the "big companies got the FCC to eliminate open access provisions", how the courts screw the little company ruling they owners of lines can't be forced to lease them, and so on. If only the government would get out of bed with the "big companies" we'd be getting free T1's into all of our homes
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Missing. The. Point.
He's the one trying to convince me that his arguement is correct. He failed to do so (for me) because he failed to adequately address several legitimate alternative reasons.
The only thing I'm trying to convince people of is that the article failed to consider several alternative reasons.
That would be a better way of looking at it, but still won't yield a terribly useful figure. You need to consider cost of living, taxes, etc. A better way to look at it would be to examine it relative to the amount of disposable income available.
France is an excellent example about how you can't compare 'converted dollar' figures between countries.
In France, income taxes range from 7-48%. You will pay an additional 8% of your income to CSG, CRDS and PS. Finally, you'll pay another 8% of your income to their national health system.
France collects 55% of its GDP in taxes.
Spending the equivelent of $1 effects my pocketbook differently in France than it will in the US. Comparing income levels, minimum wages, cost of living, etc won't give you that information. The closest you can get is by examining how much disposable income the average person has available.
Great, that's a good start (though you or I shouldn't be the ones who have to dig up that information).
Now, what is the breakdown of densly populated areas in canada vs rural area? In other words how does the arguement change, if 90% of canada's population resides in 3% of it's area? Ie: what is the effective population density of the areas covered by broadband?
With regards to cost of living levels: Cost of living doesn't tell us much about how much the perceived cost of something is. What I'm trying to get at here is that the exchange rate of money from one currency to another isn't the only factor in considering cost. In other words, would spending $25 for broadband in the foreign country "effect" my budget more or less as spending $45 on broadband in the US? Combining that information with average income levels yields a more accurate (but not complete) picture.
The article fails to seriously consider the following factors accounting for the cost, speed, and availability of internet service in different regions:
* Population densities
* Area to cover
* Income levels & cost of living differences
* Government subsidies, taxes, and regulatory costs
It does, at points note that some of these are arguements against his point, but the author fails to adequately address them. (Ex: while arguing against the area factor, he uses san francisco as a counter arguement, while failing to provide any information about how SF is performing more 'poorly').
The article jumps to the conclusion that "the man" is trying to screw you. This may or may not be true. However, without accounting for the above factors the author doesn't have a logic basis in making that conclusion and is just ranting.
No matter what anyone says, graphics and sound are always important qualities in a game. This doesn't mean that they're the only qualities that matter, just that they matter.
To spin this on the side a bit: take the voice acting and plot from the last pixar flick and replace the animation with stick figure slides. Would you consider that to be just as good as the real movie? The plot and substance are the same, right? Of course you wouldn't want to see it -- you aren't going to plop down 10 bones to watch a bunch of stick figures.
They've got a technologically inferior console that's the sequel to a console whose only redeeming feature was technological superiority.
... there's a few neat games there as well (mmm...Geometry wars).
The inferiority/superiority of the consoles isn't something anyone can decide on until both are out and you see what both are capable. Comparing paper specs of an unreleased console to something that is actually real is like mag-racing cars. It's lame, unproductive, and everyone has their own special 'source' which proves the other guy wrong.
They're releasing a console without any significant original titles
What about Kameo or Condemned?
And while PGR3 isn't a 'significantly original' title, it certain brings a lot to the table with their online plans; and its graphics quality/detail is simply amazing. Then there is Call of Duty, which again isn't 'significantly original' but brings an experience to the console world that previously was only possible on a high end PC (in other words, if you don't have a high-end gaming PC you gotta get this one).
That's 4 gotta-have titles (for me anyway) right there, which is significantly better than any console launch lineup that I've ever seen.
Then there is the whole live-arcade concept
So in essence, they're delivering a time-crunched crappy box that doesn't run anything... even existing XBOX
Ah, now the troll shows it's face. You have absolutely no data to base this comment off of.
People buy consoles for games, or at least the surety of games down the line.
What, you think that no developer is ever going to release any games for it, ever? Ah, more trolling.
In my experience, which is somewhat dated (by about 5 years), what you state is generally true for simple loops.
However, for more complicated loops the compiler fails to opimize the loop very well. My 'experience' was in writing an alogirthm which took a raw camera sensor ccd data and ordered it into a proper bayer pattern. When moving from indexer based access to pointer based access I saw a significant increase in performance.
Even basing one pointer off of another was slower than maintaining separate pointers and manipulating them via arithmatic.
The loop looked pretty nasty when it was done (the loop also mixed several other stages of the image processing pipe at once, such as application of color correction & calibration data, dead pixel correction, etc; probably had something like 30 pointers that had to be maintained), but it was quick.
I ended up taking following the same approach converting the raw ccd data to a live preview and code which generated a thumnail preview, obtaining the same kind of gains.
When I was done with the thumnail code, it was capable of generating 108 fully processed thumnails (color 768x512 8bpc image) per second on a 700mhz PIII from a 6 megapixel source image (3072x2048, 16bpc bayer image). I was proud of that at the time...
You hadn't explained it, but that is certainly a reasonable arguement to make.
The findings of fact go to great lengths to explain why Apple and server operating systems are EXCLUDED from the relevent market (because it would be prohibitively expensive to transition from an intel pc running windows), which is justification required to limit the market in the manner they did. The findings of fact do not state that Apple or other systems do not hold monopolies on their own, because that isn't a finding of the court, nor would it have been relevent to the case in question.
The market isn't simply "intel compatible PC operating systems", because there are server operating systems that run on intel compatible PCs which were excluded from the relevent market. Albiet, both of us are attempting to summarize several pages of documents into half a dozen words, but I still feel that my characterization of the relevent market is appropriate.
Oddly, I wonder the judge would have come to the same conclusion if Microsoft had chosen to charge excessively large fees for the operating system (such that 'switching' would have been less expensive).
You're taking what I'm saying and try to twist it around into some sort of anti-microsoft-monopoly arguement.
The market microsoft was held to have a monopoly in is "x86 desktop operating systems". Not "desktop operating systems". Not "operating systems". Your feelings on what the market should be is irrelevent, as that the market defined for the anti-trust trial was "x86 desktop operating systems".
It is a nuanced detail, but nuances are significant in legal proceedings.
I'm saying that if you define a market for Apple in the same way that the market was restricted for Microsoft, Apple would have a monopoly on that market. I'm saying that restriction is VALID (because it was valid with Microsoft), and restricting the market in that way was NECESSARY (because they would have made it more broad if possible), and thusly a similar restriction would be VALID if applied to Apple as well.
"Whaaa...your logic forces me to reconsider my position. I thusly shall label you as a fanboy and ignore everything you said, while insisting that it does indeed prove my fantasy based arguement."
I feel sorry for anyone who uses your software if it is written with as much 'logic' as you've demonstrated here.
A monopoly is defined as "A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity." You have to have near 100% control over a market to be considered a monopoly; 94% wouldn't meet the bar. In 1999 Windows95/98 held somewhere around 85% of the total desktop OS market, and 75% of the total OS market.
Microsoft was held to have a monopoly on the x86 desktop operating system market. That market definition definition excludes Apple's marketshare all together. It also excludes DOS and "server" operating systems and platforms.
Similarly, one could easily define a market for "PPC desktop operating systems", in which Apple would be found to have monopoly share.
Your impression of the information available about Windows development at the time is also laughable, as "iTunes" for Windows can (and has) easily been written in the timeframe we're talking about.
So a product only qualifies if it represents a company's core business? Nope, sorry, doesn't work right that.
Fact of the matter is, if the market Microsoft were held to have a monopoly in were simply "desktop operating systems", the court would have been forced to rule that Microsoft did not hold a monopoly. This is the same reason they didn't define the market as "operating systems" or "x86 operating systems" as well.
You must also keep in mind that they were trying to declare a certain operating system had a monopoly on the market, which means they had to define the market in a manner that excluded DOS and older versions of Windows.
Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on desktop computer operating systems. They have a monopoly on x86 compatible desktop computer systems. The definition was restricted to this "area". Restricted in a similar way, Apple has a monopoly on operating systems that run on Apple PPC compatible computers.
No, it doesn't, and that's the entire point.
Old licensing mechanism: each virtual machine must be licensed for each CPU on the machine. Got 4 active virtual machines running in a 2 proc box, you must have 8 licenses.
New licensing mechanism: one license is required per each executing virtual machine instance. Got 4 virtual machines running in a 2 proc box, you must have 4 licenses.
"Best" is a subjective comment. You can no more say that he is correct than he is incorrect in labeling a game as such, because your opinion is different than his.
You could also argue that the others were inspired by the work done by the patent holder, and that the concept at the time of conception was non-obvious; the fact that others implemented the idea years later has no relevence. The patent system is designed to reward whoever gets "there" first.
I personally think that the patent in question is vague and overly broad crap. But my opinion doesn't count.