Because burning iTMS songs to CD and converting those back to mp3 is a pain in the ass and you lose sound quality in the process.
Redownloading the songs from Microsoft's store is more convenient. Also, iTMS songs are 128k AACs while Micrsoft's are 160kbps WMAs (that's what they are at the MSN Music Store, so by redownloading the songs from Microsoft for free, you actually get an increase in quality.
If those hardware companies didn't do such a piss-poor job of competing with the iPod (including virtually zero advertising; Creative makes decent players, but most people don't even know they exist due to their horrible marketing; most iPod buyers don't know there are alternatives), then Microsoft wouldn't be doing this. Note that Microsoft isn't making their own PCs, smartphones, PDAs, etc, because their hardware partners were actually competent in those markets.
Your first point is stupid, as this has nothing to do with Linux.
As for your second point, you say that Microsoft openly acknowledges that "they don't control the market, but that they are forced to bow to the pressure of their clients." (BTW, this has been the case for years, but you've refused to admit it. Microsoft has always maintained this position.)
But let's get to my point: Those of your ilk have been whining about how abusive Microsoft is because they *do* control the market. Which is it?
If Microsoft doesn't control the market, which you and Microsoft openly acknowledge, then you'll shut up about the supposed abuse? Somehow, I doubt it.
When it serves your anti-MS propaganda purposes, you'll shout about how Microsoft does control the market and needs big government to bring them down. And when it serves your purpose to proclaim that Microsoft does NOT control the market, you'll do that too. Typical slashdot-thinking.
OpenXML is documented (ECMA draft 1.3 is available via a link in the same blog referenced by this thread's article).
And the command-line tool requires.NET 2.0 because it was written in.NET. Java command-line tools require a JVM. Perle command-line tools require the Perle runtime. etc.
It's open source, so why don't you just make a C version and be done with it?
The ODF version is probably garbage, that's why it's secret. By garbage, I mean that it converts between ODF and OO.o's *guess* of the binary Office formats. (OO.o's support of Microsoft binary file format is not 100% correct, or anywhere near that, despite what OO.o's proponents claim; it's good for simple documents only).
The Microsoft-sponsered version converts between ODF and OpenXML, which are both open specs, so there's no guesswork needed.
You completely miss the point. Microsoft is providing OpenXML plugins for older versions of Office. The OSS community, via the MS-sponsered project, will provide ODFOpenXML converters, for any version of Office that supports OpenXML, be that OpenXML support native or via the MS OpenXML plugin. Therefore the OSS community will be able to, if it wishes, make ODFOpenXML plugins for older versions of Office, which will work in those versions as long as they have MS's OpenXML plugin installed.
Wait -- You have the colossal gall to compare the ability to mooch free digital content without payment to the appropriate party with the Civil Rights Movement? Good God - so many slashdotters are truly deluded.
I really don't get why so many slashdotters support, defend, condone, and/or excuse piracy. I guess it's because they've bought into giving away the software they create for free, so they expect everyone else to do the same with their creations (and if they don't, then it's all right to just take them (I'm sorry, I mean "make free copies of them" (I guess that helps you sleep at night))).
While you guys celebrate Google hiring MS execs that do nothing, Microsoft is hiring away Google tech guys that actually do something besides draw a huge salary. I refer to guys like Danny Thorpe, who grew to be a legend as a Delphi dev at Borland, went to Google, stayed for 4 months, then quit and went to Microsoft to work on their live.com stuff. (If you read between the lines of Danny Thorpe's posts to the borland.public.delphi.non-technical newsgroup (accessible from Borland's newsserver and Google Groups), you get the idea that Danny concluded that Google isn't all it's cracked up to be.)
Also, Scoble's recent blog regarding this thread's topic says that he's met many former Google employees that now work at Microsoft, but you don't hear about them (I assume because they aren't big fat salary drawing execs, but are instead actual tech guys; and Microsoft doesn't feel the need to alert the media to such hirings like Google does (Google needs to do all it can to justify its inflated stock price)).
"I think Google's lawyer said it all; they have no obligation to promote competitors."
That's true, until the day comes when a judge rules in an antitrust case that Google has a monopoly on web searches.
And even if that doesn't happen, why would slashdotters, of all people, support Google rigging its search results? I'm not saying Google is doing that or not, but your statement above suggests that you'd have no problem with it. Surprising for a slashdotter, and I doubt you'd feel the same way if we weren't talking about a company of which you were a devotee.
"Since google is not a monopoly, why on earth would they be required to actively promote (search engines are promoting sites with results and the higher the ranking the stronger the promotion) the competition?"
We don't *know* whether Google is a "monopoly" as might be defined by the judge. The antitrust trial's Findings of Fact would determine such. Microsoft wasn't an official monopoly until they were declared such in the middle of the trial in which they were tried for monopolistic abuses (one reason why antitrust law is complete BS; you're tried for abuses that took place before you were ever officially declared a monopoly). If Google is declared to be a monopoly at the end of the Findings of Fact phase of the proposed antitrust trial, and Google is found to have abused that position, then we move on to the remedies phase.
"To use an analogy that people might be more familiar with, this isn't like when Netscape complained Microsoft included Internet Explorer with Windows, this would be like if Netscape demanded that Microsoft included Netscape Navigator with Windows."
Um, Netscape and the DOJ *did* demand that Microsoft bundle Netscape Navigator with Windows. Just before the DOJ filed their case, Microsoft and the DOJ were in last-ditch talks to come to a settlement to avoid the trial altogether, and Microsoft basically gave the DOJ everything it wanted except for that particular demand. Go look it up.
"KinderStart should focus on Yahoo or MSN and watch when they do the same thing as Google."
The problem is that Yahoo and MSN aren't monopolies, while Google might be (the court will decide this). Just as other OSes can bundle all sorts of software without anyone batting an eye, everyone throws a hissy fit if Microsoft bundles anything. Arguably, Microsoft should be able to bundle just as much as other OSes, but since they have a monopoly in that market, they can't. Similarly, one could argue, as you have, that Google should be able to act exactly as Yahoo and MSN do wrt KinderStart, but since Google may have a monopoly (yet to be decided by the court), they might not be able to.
"Since Google and Kinderstart are direct competitors, we cannot expect Google to help a direct competitor. Google's management is well within its right to even remove Kinderstart from all of Google's search results (i.e. Google's shelf space)."
All it takes is a single man in a black robe to rule that Google is a monopoly, and the rules for Google change. And that's exactly what this proposed antitrust suit seeks to do. If that happens then Google would indeed be forced to help its competitors (according to slashdot doctrine, or does that doctrine only apply to companies you hate and not to companies you worship?).
"I think that this whole case is a load of shit. Honestly, I think Google has the fairest ranking system for it's results, compared to MSN or Yahoo! especially."
Oh, please... You have no metric on which to base such a claim, you're only saying it because you're a Google fan.
BS. Microsoft does tell you the revenues, profits, and losses per business unit, not simply overall revenues, profits, and losses per geographic region. That's why we know that Xbox has lost 4 billion dollars, for example.
LOL In otherwords, "information wants to be free" refers to making piracy as easy as possible (as if an mp3 is "information" to begin with), but when it comes to genuine information such as profit margins, then information wants to be kept in bondage. LOL
How about this, bright boy? Re-read the article, substituting the words "Apple" and "iPod" with "Microsoft" and "Xbox" and see if you feel the same way. Microsoft has been reporting its losses on Xbox for years, much to the delight of Microsoft haters. What if Microsoft, instead, had simply reported profits for each geographical region rather than profits/losses per business unit? In that case, Xbox revenues would be completely unknown. You'd approve of that? Of course not. But you approve of it in Apple's case because Steve Jobs is the primary actor in your wet dreams at night.
Why don't you speak plainly? "I can understand the things being done to Microsoft because *I hate Microsoft*, but not Apple because I love Apple."
Guess what, you (that is, those of your ilk), begged big government to put its nose into the tech biz so that they could bring down a company you despise. Were you really so naive to think that once government started to go after high-tech companies, that they would stop with Microsoft? That they wouldn't go after one of your own pet companies? To quote Malcom X, "This is a case of the chickens coming home to roost."
You're showing your ignorance. "MS's word processors" do NOT cost "$300".
Word 2003 costs $229, ($109 for the upgrade version) Microsoft Office 2003 Student/Teacher Edition costs $149, which includes Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook. Microsoft Works 8 costs $49, which includes a word processor (less functional than Word, but you just said "MS's word processors", not "Word"). Microosft Works Suite 2006 costs $99, which includes Word.
(Office itself does cost over $300 for the full version (the upgrade version is ~$230); Microsoft Office 2003 Standard Edition costs $330 ($106 at Amazon.com for used versions), which includes Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook.)
Microsoft also provides both "Academic pricing" (a low low price for students and teachers) and "Volume pricing" (low price for high volume purchases).
There's no "hype to live up to"? What do you call Google's overpriced stock? Their stock value is based entirely on the hype that you claim doesn't exist. Make no mistake, if Google does fail to live up to the hype, the stock will come crashing down, VA-Linux-style.
That's the typical OSS strategy. Let a commercial company spend millions of dollars in research and development, then copy the results. (And slashdotters accuse Microsoft of this tactic.) BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft has a few patents in place regarding their new UI, to prevent such blatant copying by a competitor whose goal is to destroy Microsoft Office with product-dumping tactics.
Slashdot Mirror
"The iPod is a) simple, b) reliable, c) user-friendly, d) cool, e) well designed"
The same was said regarding Palm PDAs, which had a dominance in the PDA market similar to that enjoyed by the iPod in the PMP market.
Because burning iTMS songs to CD and converting those back to mp3 is a pain in the ass and you lose sound quality in the process.
Redownloading the songs from Microsoft's store is more convenient.
Also, iTMS songs are 128k AACs while Micrsoft's are 160kbps WMAs (that's what they are at the MSN Music Store, so by redownloading the songs from Microsoft for free, you actually get an increase in quality.
If those hardware companies didn't do such a piss-poor job of competing with the iPod (including virtually zero advertising; Creative makes decent players, but most people don't even know they exist due to their horrible marketing; most iPod buyers don't know there are alternatives), then Microsoft wouldn't be doing this. Note that Microsoft isn't making their own PCs, smartphones, PDAs, etc, because their hardware partners were actually competent in those markets.
Formats that can be played on many many devices, unlike iTMS songs/vids?
Yes.
Or India, for that matter?
Your first point is stupid, as this has nothing to do with Linux.
As for your second point, you say that Microsoft openly acknowledges that "they don't control the market, but that they are forced to bow to the pressure of their clients."
(BTW, this has been the case for years, but you've refused to admit it. Microsoft has always maintained this position.)
But let's get to my point:
Those of your ilk have been whining about how abusive Microsoft is because they *do* control the market.
Which is it?
If Microsoft doesn't control the market, which you and Microsoft openly acknowledge, then you'll shut up about the supposed abuse? Somehow, I doubt it.
When it serves your anti-MS propaganda purposes, you'll shout about how Microsoft does control the market and needs big government to bring them down. And when it serves your purpose to proclaim that Microsoft does NOT control the market, you'll do that too. Typical slashdot-thinking.
OpenXML is documented (ECMA draft 1.3 is available via a link in the same blog referenced by this thread's article).
.NET 2.0 because it was written in .NET.
And the command-line tool requires
Java command-line tools require a JVM.
Perle command-line tools require the Perle runtime.
etc.
It's open source, so why don't you just make a C version and be done with it?
The ODF version is probably garbage, that's why it's secret.
By garbage, I mean that it converts between ODF and OO.o's *guess* of the binary Office formats. (OO.o's support of Microsoft binary file format is not 100% correct, or anywhere near that, despite what OO.o's proponents claim; it's good for simple documents only).
The Microsoft-sponsered version converts between ODF and OpenXML, which are both open specs, so there's no guesswork needed.
You completely miss the point.
Microsoft is providing OpenXML plugins for older versions of Office.
The OSS community, via the MS-sponsered project, will provide ODFOpenXML converters, for any version of Office that supports OpenXML, be that OpenXML support native or via the MS OpenXML plugin. Therefore the OSS community will be able to, if it wishes, make ODFOpenXML plugins for older versions of Office, which will work in those versions as long as they have MS's OpenXML plugin installed.
And by the same token OO.o will have to compete on its features rather than, "Use us because we support ODF!!".
Wait --
You have the colossal gall to compare the ability to mooch free digital content without payment to the appropriate party with the Civil Rights Movement? Good God - so many slashdotters are truly deluded.
I really don't get why so many slashdotters support, defend, condone, and/or excuse piracy. I guess it's because they've bought into giving away the software they create for free, so they expect everyone else to do the same with their creations (and if they don't, then it's all right to just take them (I'm sorry, I mean "make free copies of them" (I guess that helps you sleep at night))).
While you guys celebrate Google hiring MS execs that do nothing, Microsoft is hiring away Google tech guys that actually do something besides draw a huge salary. I refer to guys like Danny Thorpe, who grew to be a legend as a Delphi dev at Borland, went to Google, stayed for 4 months, then quit and went to Microsoft to work on their live.com stuff. (If you read between the lines of Danny Thorpe's posts to the borland.public.delphi.non-technical newsgroup (accessible from Borland's newsserver and Google Groups), you get the idea that Danny concluded that Google isn't all it's cracked up to be.)
Also, Scoble's recent blog regarding this thread's topic says that he's met many former Google employees that now work at Microsoft, but you don't hear about them (I assume because they aren't big fat salary drawing execs, but are instead actual tech guys; and Microsoft doesn't feel the need to alert the media to such hirings like Google does (Google needs to do all it can to justify its inflated stock price)).
"I think Google's lawyer said it all; they have no obligation to promote competitors."
That's true, until the day comes when a judge rules in an antitrust case that Google has a monopoly on web searches.
And even if that doesn't happen, why would slashdotters, of all people, support Google rigging its search results? I'm not saying Google is doing that or not, but your statement above suggests that you'd have no problem with it. Surprising for a slashdotter, and I doubt you'd feel the same way if we weren't talking about a company of which you were a devotee.
"Since google is not a monopoly, why on earth would they be required to actively promote (search engines are promoting sites with results and the higher the ranking the stronger the promotion) the competition?"
We don't *know* whether Google is a "monopoly" as might be defined by the judge. The antitrust trial's Findings of Fact would determine such. Microsoft wasn't an official monopoly until they were declared such in the middle of the trial in which they were tried for monopolistic abuses (one reason why antitrust law is complete BS; you're tried for abuses that took place before you were ever officially declared a monopoly). If Google is declared to be a monopoly at the end of the Findings of Fact phase of the proposed antitrust trial, and Google is found to have abused that position, then we move on to the remedies phase.
"To use an analogy that people might be more familiar with, this isn't like when Netscape complained Microsoft included Internet Explorer with Windows, this would be like if Netscape demanded that Microsoft included Netscape Navigator with Windows."
Um, Netscape and the DOJ *did* demand that Microsoft bundle Netscape Navigator with Windows. Just before the DOJ filed their case, Microsoft and the DOJ were in last-ditch talks to come to a settlement to avoid the trial altogether, and Microsoft basically gave the DOJ everything it wanted except for that particular demand. Go look it up.
"KinderStart should focus on Yahoo or MSN and watch when they do the same thing as Google."
The problem is that Yahoo and MSN aren't monopolies, while Google might be (the court will decide this). Just as other OSes can bundle all sorts of software without anyone batting an eye, everyone throws a hissy fit if Microsoft bundles anything. Arguably, Microsoft should be able to bundle just as much as other OSes, but since they have a monopoly in that market, they can't. Similarly, one could argue, as you have, that Google should be able to act exactly as Yahoo and MSN do wrt KinderStart, but since Google may have a monopoly (yet to be decided by the court), they might not be able to.
"Since Google and Kinderstart are direct competitors, we cannot expect Google to help a direct competitor. Google's management is well within its right to even remove Kinderstart from all of Google's search results (i.e. Google's shelf space)."
All it takes is a single man in a black robe to rule that Google is a monopoly, and the rules for Google change. And that's exactly what this proposed antitrust suit seeks to do. If that happens then Google would indeed be forced to help its competitors (according to slashdot doctrine, or does that doctrine only apply to companies you hate and not to companies you worship?).
"I think that this whole case is a load of shit. Honestly, I think Google has the fairest ranking system for it's results, compared to MSN or Yahoo! especially."
Oh, please...
You have no metric on which to base such a claim, you're only saying it because you're a Google fan.
BS.
Microsoft does tell you the revenues, profits, and losses per business unit, not simply overall revenues, profits, and losses per geographic region. That's why we know that Xbox has lost 4 billion dollars, for example.
LOL
In otherwords, "information wants to be free" refers to making piracy as easy as possible (as if an mp3 is "information" to begin with), but when it comes to genuine information such as profit margins, then information wants to be kept in bondage. LOL
How about this, bright boy? Re-read the article, substituting the words "Apple" and "iPod" with "Microsoft" and "Xbox" and see if you feel the same way. Microsoft has been reporting its losses on Xbox for years, much to the delight of Microsoft haters. What if Microsoft, instead, had simply reported profits for each geographical region rather than profits/losses per business unit? In that case, Xbox revenues would be completely unknown. You'd approve of that? Of course not. But you approve of it in Apple's case because Steve Jobs is the primary actor in your wet dreams at night.
Why don't you speak plainly?
"I can understand the things being done to Microsoft because *I hate Microsoft*, but not Apple because I love Apple."
Guess what, you (that is, those of your ilk), begged big government to put its nose into the tech biz so that they could bring down a company you despise. Were you really so naive to think that once government started to go after high-tech companies, that they would stop with Microsoft? That they wouldn't go after one of your own pet companies? To quote Malcom X, "This is a case of the chickens coming home to roost."
You're showing your ignorance. "MS's word processors" do NOT cost "$300".
Word 2003 costs $229, ($109 for the upgrade version)
Microsoft Office 2003 Student/Teacher Edition costs $149, which includes Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook.
Microsoft Works 8 costs $49, which includes a word processor (less functional than Word, but you just said "MS's word processors", not "Word").
Microosft Works Suite 2006 costs $99, which includes Word.
(Office itself does cost over $300 for the full version (the upgrade version is ~$230); Microsoft Office 2003 Standard Edition costs $330 ($106 at Amazon.com for used versions), which includes Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook.)
Microsoft also provides both "Academic pricing" (a low low price for students and teachers) and "Volume pricing" (low price for high volume purchases).
There's no "hype to live up to"? What do you call Google's overpriced stock? Their stock value is based entirely on the hype that you claim doesn't exist. Make no mistake, if Google does fail to live up to the hype, the stock will come crashing down, VA-Linux-style.
That's the typical OSS strategy. Let a commercial company spend millions of dollars in research and development, then copy the results. (And slashdotters accuse Microsoft of this tactic.) BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft has a few patents in place regarding their new UI, to prevent such blatant copying by a competitor whose goal is to destroy Microsoft Office with product-dumping tactics.