Valve doesn't need an increase in Linux market share, but, yes, they'll need to port the games.
If Linux is a viable gamming plataform, despite nobody using it, MS won't be able to lock Steam out of Windows. If MS does so, people will start to use Linux, and MS loses way more than they gain. Valve still loses more than MS, but that shouldn't matter for MS.
Linux is not a plan B. Linux is a threat that will put the game in a chess-like stalemate, and guarantee that Microsoft won't make Steam not work (Lotus Office style) at Windows 8.
And if anyone thinks those in control are going to let millions of subscribers save millions of dollars this way, they've never heard of "equilibrium." Or "greed." They'll throttle you, or cap you, or charge more, or all of the above, until it's not worth it.
Have you heard about competition? Ok some places don't have that, but that problem is much easier to fix for the internet than for cable.
how does torpedoing the only OS business you aren't getting stomped in make ANY sense at all?
The only viable explanation I was able to get it that they expect portables to destroy some aspect of their monopoly, and that people won't buy Windows anymore once they stop having a monopoly. Consequently, gambling with Windows makes perfect sense.
I don't agree with their perspective, but it is the only one that makes sense.
Do MS know something that I don't? Well, judging by past behaviour, that's less probable than it appears at first. (AKA, the answer is not "of course, stupid!")
It is quite different from swalowing a coin. A pair of magnets can cause some pretty big damage.
It is still better than swalowing things commonly found at houses, like sodium hydroxide, or amoniac. Also, it is better than swalowing things nomaly found out of home, like oil contaminated rocks. But they are nasty, don't ever givem them to babies or small kids.
Can you name the parents that are stong arming the governemnt here? Because, you know, forcing a government to do something takes some work, and lots of media exposition.
The truth is that somebody once tought that it was import to "think of the children", and created a self sustaining bureocracy to do that. All the rest is consequence.
The blame isn't with either Democracy or the parents this time. It is an inplementation detail.
So the product is either good enough to succeed on its own merits or it isn't
Unfortunately, no product is good enough to succed on its own merits. You must tell people about it, so they can tell their friends, and that is marketing. Yeah, you can get it for free sometimes, but paying will get you from point A to point B much faster.
About the ad being completely contrary to the expert's opinion, well, that's part of what I called 'low quality' above. Your ads shouldn't lie, if you lie, people won't belive you. Nobody will be convinced by a ad claiming that your product is good, above an article claiming that it isn't. But you can convince people to try (or at least research a bit more) your product if you put an ad telling why it is good above an article claiming that your competitor is great.
The user is there to do something, to find something, to read a specific article, to discuss a specific subject, etc. Any advertisement under those circumstances is almost guaranteed to A. garner little or no attention and B. annoy the heck out of the user if it does.
Well, that's a wild overgeneralization. Ok, statisticaly, near all of them would cause one of those problems, but you have just generalized away all the ads that would work.
What is the user doing on your site? Does he need no other tool for completing the task?
Those are the reason I started to use AdBlock. At the time, they often had sound, failed to unnactivate after you passed the mouse over them, or simply filled all the browser's window, so you couldn't take the mouse out of them.
No, they're not selling their users data since day 1. In fact, I doubt they ever sold it at all. At day 1 they were not relevant. And then, after they become relevant, they gave the data for everybody for free, so no governemnt was buying it. After that, they started to try not giving their data for everyone, but couldn't really keep it secure, so no government is buying it.
I've clicked on many of those ads that look like buttons, and also on those moving ads (that get themselves under the cursor) that become common once.
I've also clicked on a few ads without being decieved. I do that mostly, at Google, but once in a while I click in ads on other pages, when they have something interesting (I've clicked n/. ads a few times already).
The last time I clicked in one, it was at a Google search for the JQuery API. Google displayed an ad for Groupon (the same of my last several searches), and I tough "They are poisoning those keywords, I'll make they pay!"
The real problem with internet ads is nobody pays them any attention; we've become blind/oblivious to them.
And the cause of that problem is, again, the low quality of the ads.
Out of Google, have you ever seen any ad that helps you choosing a product/service? People see ads as something to impress customers, and to convince them they need you... Nearly nobody sees an ad as a presentation, and shows any resemblance of respect for their customers. If you keep not respecting people, you shouldn't be surprized that they avoid you.
People have been saying that the "end is near" since human beings developed speech.
Have you read que citation you posted? Where do Malthus say anything equivalent to "end is near"?
People have being predicting several different kinds of problems since the beggining of speech? Oh shit, do you mean that people didin't have several different problems since then? When did those problems started to appear? Oh, your point is actualy that no, there is still no problem, everything is perfect and anybody concerned about anything is crazy.
Have a hint: Before the Modern Age the Europe worked exactly the way Malthus described. Then, there were advancements (and problems too) that pushed the west, and later the world out of this situation. But are you really stating that our population can grow indefinitely, on this same planet, and we'll never run out of resources? Really?
Another hint: Malthus description isn't even original. On his book he was simply repeating a well known (by the time) aspect of Economics, and explaining why it didn't apply to his time. That aspect become well accepted at the earlier times (you'll see it if you read Adam Smith, for example), based on empiric evidence. You are claiming that a phenomenum actualy reported for generations is impossible.
1) "Life" doesn't care if we get off the "planet" or not. Life is fine waiting for the sun to go out, thank you very much.
So? "Life" also doesn't care if several species go extinct or not. "Life" wouldn't ever care if we destroy the entire biosphere, except for us (what we seem to be doomed to achieve) - several criters have done that before, and there is nobody around complaining about that pesky oxigen at the atmosphere.
If you don't care if life out-survives our Sun (or even the freezing of the Earth's core, that may happen much sooner), why do you care about life out-surviving people?
Of course, the truth is that we aren't doing it because we don't know how. If the technology for a self contained habitat on Antartica were available, there would be people there already. And that has some obvious implications about colonizing Mars or any other body.
Now, we don't have a problem with space. That's because people don't like to spread, we just do it because of natural constraints.
Android users aren't more corruptible than Apple users, they simply have greater incentive to hack their phones (for reasons entirely unrelated to piracy)
Not to say about all those nice backup apps and improvements you can get for Android once you root your phone. It is not only for device compatibility.
And yes, some of those apps sell for reasonable high prices (like $10) and seem to have no problem with piracy. There is no reason at all to belive that most people unlock their phones for running pirated software.
I refuse to pay up-front, and would be willing to donate after playing.
The reasons I refuse to pay aren't linked to the price ($0.99, what difference does that make), but to the DRM system of Android, that gives you a huge headache if you install any paid app.
Yep, iOS gets the people with more disposition to spend, Android gets the people that don't want to overpay for a Apple device, or want control.
That reflects at the markets, on iOS one can sell applications for a nice price, but for a limited number of people, while on Android one can sell to more people, but they won't pay as much (or at all). That probably also reflects on the actual apps that sell on each plataform, I bet iOS ones have a better look, while Android ones have more functionality (but I didn't look, that's speculation).
All said, both are quite saturated markets, and people claiming being unable to make money on any of them due to piracy have to support their claim very well if they want anybody to belive them. More likely, their intented customers simply don't like their software or don't know about it.
Slashdot Mirror
And what do you think he'd build if he couldn't buy a gun? As a bonus, a bomb is also easier to make than either a sword or a crossbow.
Valve doesn't need an increase in Linux market share, but, yes, they'll need to port the games.
If Linux is a viable gamming plataform, despite nobody using it, MS won't be able to lock Steam out of Windows. If MS does so, people will start to use Linux, and MS loses way more than they gain. Valve still loses more than MS, but that shouldn't matter for MS.
And everybody knows that developers are fungible.
(But then, we have no evidence that they are living the app stopre.)
Linux is not a plan B. Linux is a threat that will put the game in a chess-like stalemate, and guarantee that Microsoft won't make Steam not work (Lotus Office style) at Windows 8.
If Steam runs on Linux, MS won't ever shut it down on Windows.
It is not an escape route. It is caled "keeping the boat floationg".
Have you heard about competition? Ok some places don't have that, but that problem is much easier to fix for the internet than for cable.
Yep, minerals that come from blue crystals.
The only viable explanation I was able to get it that they expect portables to destroy some aspect of their monopoly, and that people won't buy Windows anymore once they stop having a monopoly. Consequently, gambling with Windows makes perfect sense.
I don't agree with their perspective, but it is the only one that makes sense.
Do MS know something that I don't? Well, judging by past behaviour, that's less probable than it appears at first. (AKA, the answer is not "of course, stupid!")
How do you syntesize that hydrogen dioxide you want banned? And how long does it live out of the lab? (Obviously, it's not stable.)
It is quite different from swalowing a coin. A pair of magnets can cause some pretty big damage.
It is still better than swalowing things commonly found at houses, like sodium hydroxide, or amoniac. Also, it is better than swalowing things nomaly found out of home, like oil contaminated rocks. But they are nasty, don't ever givem them to babies or small kids.
Can you name the parents that are stong arming the governemnt here? Because, you know, forcing a government to do something takes some work, and lots of media exposition.
The truth is that somebody once tought that it was import to "think of the children", and created a self sustaining bureocracy to do that. All the rest is consequence.
The blame isn't with either Democracy or the parents this time. It is an inplementation detail.
Unfortunately, no product is good enough to succed on its own merits. You must tell people about it, so they can tell their friends, and that is marketing. Yeah, you can get it for free sometimes, but paying will get you from point A to point B much faster.
About the ad being completely contrary to the expert's opinion, well, that's part of what I called 'low quality' above. Your ads shouldn't lie, if you lie, people won't belive you. Nobody will be convinced by a ad claiming that your product is good, above an article claiming that it isn't. But you can convince people to try (or at least research a bit more) your product if you put an ad telling why it is good above an article claiming that your competitor is great.
Well, that's a wild overgeneralization. Ok, statisticaly, near all of them would cause one of those problems, but you have just generalized away all the ads that would work.
What is the user doing on your site? Does he need no other tool for completing the task?
Those are the reason I started to use AdBlock.
At the time, they often had sound, failed to unnactivate after you passed the mouse over them, or simply filled all the browser's window, so you couldn't take the mouse out of them.
No, they're not selling their users data since day 1. In fact, I doubt they ever sold it at all.
At day 1 they were not relevant.
And then, after they become relevant, they gave the data for everybody for free, so no governemnt was buying it.
After that, they started to try not giving their data for everyone, but couldn't really keep it secure, so no government is buying it.
I've clicked on many of those ads that look like buttons, and also on those moving ads (that get themselves under the cursor) that become common once.
I've also clicked on a few ads without being decieved. I do that mostly, at Google, but once in a while I click in ads on other pages, when they have something interesting (I've clicked n /. ads a few times already).
The last time I clicked in one, it was at a Google search for the JQuery API. Google displayed an ad for Groupon (the same of my last several searches), and I tough "They are poisoning those keywords, I'll make they pay!"
And the cause of that problem is, again, the low quality of the ads.
Out of Google, have you ever seen any ad that helps you choosing a product/service? People see ads as something to impress customers, and to convince them they need you... Nearly nobody sees an ad as a presentation, and shows any resemblance of respect for their customers. If you keep not respecting people, you shouldn't be surprized that they avoid you.
The hability to lie every day of the year, be proven wrong after nearly all of those, and still have people like the GP trusting them.
A way to visualize quantum field theory? I think not.
I'm still looking into a way to understand it.
Have you read que citation you posted? Where do Malthus say anything equivalent to "end is near"?
People have being predicting several different kinds of problems since the beggining of speech? Oh shit, do you mean that people didin't have several different problems since then? When did those problems started to appear? Oh, your point is actualy that no, there is still no problem, everything is perfect and anybody concerned about anything is crazy.
Have a hint: Before the Modern Age the Europe worked exactly the way Malthus described. Then, there were advancements (and problems too) that pushed the west, and later the world out of this situation. But are you really stating that our population can grow indefinitely, on this same planet, and we'll never run out of resources? Really?
Another hint: Malthus description isn't even original. On his book he was simply repeating a well known (by the time) aspect of Economics, and explaining why it didn't apply to his time. That aspect become well accepted at the earlier times (you'll see it if you read Adam Smith, for example), based on empiric evidence. You are claiming that a phenomenum actualy reported for generations is impossible.
So? "Life" also doesn't care if several species go extinct or not. "Life" wouldn't ever care if we destroy the entire biosphere, except for us (what we seem to be doomed to achieve) - several criters have done that before, and there is nobody around complaining about that pesky oxigen at the atmosphere.
If you don't care if life out-survives our Sun (or even the freezing of the Earth's core, that may happen much sooner), why do you care about life out-surviving people?
Of course, the truth is that we aren't doing it because we don't know how. If the technology for a self contained habitat on Antartica were available, there would be people there already. And that has some obvious implications about colonizing Mars or any other body.
Now, we don't have a problem with space. That's because people don't like to spread, we just do it because of natural constraints.
Not to say about all those nice backup apps and improvements you can get for Android once you root your phone. It is not only for device compatibility.
And yes, some of those apps sell for reasonable high prices (like $10) and seem to have no problem with piracy. There is no reason at all to belive that most people unlock their phones for running pirated software.
I refuse to pay up-front, and would be willing to donate after playing.
The reasons I refuse to pay aren't linked to the price ($0.99, what difference does that make), but to the DRM system of Android, that gives you a huge headache if you install any paid app.
Yep, iOS gets the people with more disposition to spend, Android gets the people that don't want to overpay for a Apple device, or want control.
That reflects at the markets, on iOS one can sell applications for a nice price, but for a limited number of people, while on Android one can sell to more people, but they won't pay as much (or at all). That probably also reflects on the actual apps that sell on each plataform, I bet iOS ones have a better look, while Android ones have more functionality (but I didn't look, that's speculation).
All said, both are quite saturated markets, and people claiming being unable to make money on any of them due to piracy have to support their claim very well if they want anybody to belive them. More likely, their intented customers simply don't like their software or don't know about it.
Or, succintly, TFA is BS.