I said this when we talked about this rumor before. It is as simple as it can get. Intel has a Fab business that is a part of their manufacturing operation. They turn sand into chips, and then to money. Fabs are horrifically expensive and new process fabs even more so. If people pay Intel to turn their designs into chips Intel gets that money to sink into future R&D and more wonderful fabs - and of course, profits. If Intel turns away that work, Intel's Fab competitors get that money to do those things with and are so better able to try to keep up with Intel on volume and process technologies.
It's just that easy. If Intel has excess capacity they should sell it at a profit - if not just for the profit then just to take some bread off the table.
Last I checked seeing the ads is the tradeoff for receiving the amusing content - a deal I entered of my own free will. Nobody clicked it for me, and the ads never came near my throat. This is how the Internet works. If you don't like ad supported content you should probably sell your computer, tv and radio - and cancel your mail delivery too.
It's not just that Android has 400,000 apps. It's that they're all instantly available through the market - unlike what you have to go through to find, select and install a Windows app. And they're backed up in the market too. And there are 250 million people who have acquired 10 billion apps. Ifyou had an Android PC you would just log in and Google would offer to install all of the apps you ever bought.
Now compare that to setting up a new PC. Gah. Can you imagine trying to get Norton and Quicken going on your new W8 PC with all your other apps? Do you even remember where you put the install discs and license keys? The horror!
Hosting videos ads that attack you is such over-the-top fairness that it's remarkable. I hope Google makes more off the ads than Microsoft paid to produce them.
All these companies are in all-out patent war with each other already anyway. I don't see why Moto should unilaterally disarm so Microsoft can kill them. Microsoft is upset because their Android mugging has been interrupted. Boo hoo.
Even the inventors of nuclear bombs didn't want the damned things to exist. They knew they were possible and somebody would invent them - so they did. Oppenheimer said afterward that on watching a nuclear test he was reminded of a verse from the Hindu scripture: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
So we don't like these things. We don't want them to have to exist, but they do. And they've got to be moved around, which means over the roads we have. If you shovel enough shit, eventually you get dirty. Shit happens.
Until Intel makes something useful of it and ships it at retail, it may as well be that "single atom transistor" tech from a few stories ago, or the holographic storage from yesterday, or cold fusion.
Fortunately for you Android tablets come in every conceivable dimension from 1.4" to 24" in both 4:3 and 16:9. They're so "fragmented" that they've got your specific need covered - and everybody else's too.
Google having so much influence is pretty scary, as it would be for anybody else to have so much influence. To look at it as a threat though, you have to understand the nature of the people and who they are. Sergey Brin's father escaped the former Soviet Union to avoid oppression and censorship. Sergey has internalized this as a moral imperative to prevent censorship that exceeds commercial interests. When Google was faced in China with the position of "filter and censor or go away" they chose "go away" even though China is a huge growth market with lots of profit potential that Bing and Yahoo were readily willing to compromise freedom of speech and do monitoring for. Eric Schmidt wasn't a big fan of this escape from China, and that's part of how he came to not be Google's CEO any more.
I think Larry Page might have the scruples of Mark Zuckerberg: it's all about the power for him - but he's got Sergey Brin to use as a moral compass for now, and he's willing to do that. I think Larry just doesn't care but they have mutual respect. Larry and Sergey are geniuses so far beyond the common ken it must be difficult to communicate with them at all. Sergey's got the "if you're going to be evil then Fuck You! You're doing it without me" thing going on. They might make a go of it for a while without Sergey, but he's got a lot of value-add. He's smarter than Larry by a good bit, and Larry knows it. But Sergey's neither inclined nor fit to run the business from day to day - that's not who he is, which makes him and Larry a good fit. One day Larry might find a genius equivalent to Sergey to work with, but I think Sergey's intellect is sufficiently rare and stratospheric that such a person might have other issues that makes them even more difficult to deal with. And Sergey would see it coming and just spin off a new company that suited his ethical standards because he has the means.
The thing about the "evil Google" claims is that they lack substance and proof, or they're about something nobody cares about. There is no smoking gun - but there's lots of evidence that Google is doing great things that benefit us all like open source, giving back, energy research, spectrum auctions and whatnot. All the companies that compete with Google have huge libraries of misdeeds and malfeasances well documented in court records, and in some cases findings of actual crimes. Check out "Halloween documents" or "Comes collection" for details. Google has none of that.
If you think about it, for decent folks to rise up and have influence is a pretty cool thing - and that's where I'm at with Google. I'm not so jaded as to think that people with morals and ethics can't get ahead if they're also brilliant and skillful. I'm not so naive as to think a good man can't be turned to evil, but to believe it I would want real proof and right now I don't see the proof.
Nobody really offers indemnification against anybody but themselves. That's the way things are - a license is just permission to use the IP you have, not a guarantee that a specific implementation won't violate somebody else's IP. This indemnification thing was a huge part of the anti-Linux FUD during the SCO case, and we all know how that turned out. Now it's a part of the defense against WebM, and I expect it to work out the same.
WebM hardware acceleration has been integrated into ARM SOC designs. It's proven in silicon and had 20 licensees already a year ago. The license terms are quite agreeable. A year from now it will probably be ubiquitous - some inexpensive webcams and videocams and phones will probably record in it by default, and there's no reason not to include it as an option in the premium webcam or recorder that also does H.264 (unless the H.264 patent pool decides to be bitchy about licensing their engine to multi-codec devices, and we all know that's going to the Justice department for monopoly regulation). And since WebM software encoding and decoding is free, it's a no-brainer to put your content in that format. It's dumb to not include it because it's free and almost all of YouTube and many other sources can use it.
No, I really think WebM isn't going to have trouble gaining traction. That was quite the point of Google buying On2 technologies in the first place. To liberate video from the clutches of MPEG and the H.264 patent pool so we could all be free to record our kids' birthday parties without the threat of being sued, to develop our own video capture devices or streaming services or conversion software in whatever way we may choose without the hindrance of somebody trying to prevent it unless they're paid, and preventing free solutions from using video. And that's just one of the reasons why I'm a big Google fan: moving pictures with audio is a technology that should be as plain as tapwater at this point in history. It's only the deliberate efforts of folks like the H.264 patent pool who have prevented it from being available to all to date, and that era is ending now. The H.264 patent pool has relented now on decoding, but on encoding they're holding the line and so will pass into history.
H.264 members like Microsoft stand to benefit if no competing solutions can record and stream video have held this progress back. That's a prevention of progress they seem to crave but can no longer achieve. So thanks Sergey and Larry! I know opening things up like this serves your commercial purposes, but they serve my personal purposes too - and you didn't have to make it this open. You're working your magic in myriad other ways like wireless spectrum and last-mile fiber Internet and I thank you for those things too!
SuperKendall, you wield this lack of indemnification like a club. You imply a threat that OEMs who deploy WebM might be sued - without specifics. Are you going to sue somebody? Who and why? Are you serving at counsel for somebody who might, or guiding lawyers who might do so as an executive? Or are you just blowing hot air, warning folks about boojums and goblins in the dark? This is exactly the type of IP terrorism I was talking about in my original post. It's counter to progress, mongering Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. It's part of why people hate prevention-of-progress companies like Microsoft and Oracle. If you've got some claim to rights against WebM, or know somebody who does - name them. Otherwise you're just full of shit, spinning tales of ghosts that aren't there. Nobody has ever made a claim against WebM that stuck and until they at least make a claim it's just vague empty threats you don't even dare come all the way out and say. It's less than nothing. Man up and make a claim if you dare.
I guess that depends. Google gives me Android, to use however I wish. They give me the fastest browser, interesting new languages, interesting applications of age-old technologies. And a first-rate video and audio codec family with no patent encumbrances. And of course when I look for stuff they are Johnny on the spot. And then there's this new web platform in TFA that I can use however I like. The only thing I can't do with this stuff is tell people I invented it.
Microsoft offers us freebies now and then - like freeware feature-limited applications and development environments. But there's always a catch, like it only works with their for-pay ware, has limited use, is nagware or whatever. Even the search engine just doesn't do it for me - and they sold out to China.
Of course Google's pouring money into lots of interesting stuff, like carbon-neutral energy research, space research, just bunches of stuff.
Overall I think I'm OK with giving Google more slack than a company that has the Halloween Memo collection and the Comes Collection history of horrors behind it. Google seems to be more about driving the pace of progress and keeping things open - and by the way, having great other stuff that they make money on. To me Microsoft seems committed to preventing all the progress they can't control utterly. I think Google has the better offer here, and I don't think anybody else even comes close to trying.
SOPA sponsor Lamar Smith, under the guise of protecting childred from online pornographers, has proposed a new bill that requires every Internet Service Provider to spy on every customer, logging every thing that they do online and keeping records for an entire year. Just in case. So... yeah. It's getting pretty bad.
And of course these records would be discoverable by his Big Media sponsors.
Sometimes I do data entry on my Android tablet. You can install a software keyboard replacement that scans barcodes into anything - including a spreadsheet. It works great if the light is good.
Last year more computers were sold with iOS and Android than Windows. And the companies that sold them made awesome profit margins, which isn't going to happen in PC clients ever.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you designing? Happy Meal toys?
I said this when we talked about this rumor before. It is as simple as it can get. Intel has a Fab business that is a part of their manufacturing operation. They turn sand into chips, and then to money. Fabs are horrifically expensive and new process fabs even more so. If people pay Intel to turn their designs into chips Intel gets that money to sink into future R&D and more wonderful fabs - and of course, profits. If Intel turns away that work, Intel's Fab competitors get that money to do those things with and are so better able to try to keep up with Intel on volume and process technologies.
It's just that easy. If Intel has excess capacity they should sell it at a profit - if not just for the profit then just to take some bread off the table.
Last I checked seeing the ads is the tradeoff for receiving the amusing content - a deal I entered of my own free will. Nobody clicked it for me, and the ads never came near my throat. This is how the Internet works. If you don't like ad supported content you should probably sell your computer, tv and radio - and cancel your mail delivery too.
It's not just that Android has 400,000 apps. It's that they're all instantly available through the market - unlike what you have to go through to find, select and install a Windows app. And they're backed up in the market too. And there are 250 million people who have acquired 10 billion apps. Ifyou had an Android PC you would just log in and Google would offer to install all of the apps you ever bought.
Now compare that to setting up a new PC. Gah. Can you imagine trying to get Norton and Quicken going on your new W8 PC with all your other apps? Do you even remember where you put the install discs and license keys? The horror!
Microsoft and Verizon aren't getting along well lately. Verizon got burned on KIN.
Hosting videos ads that attack you is such over-the-top fairness that it's remarkable. I hope Google makes more off the ads than Microsoft paid to produce them.
All these companies are in all-out patent war with each other already anyway. I don't see why Moto should unilaterally disarm so Microsoft can kill them. Microsoft is upset because their Android mugging has been interrupted. Boo hoo.
The ion engines will get better over time. And there are quite a few problems with your math.
Even the inventors of nuclear bombs didn't want the damned things to exist. They knew they were possible and somebody would invent them - so they did. Oppenheimer said afterward that on watching a nuclear test he was reminded of a verse from the Hindu scripture: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
So we don't like these things. We don't want them to have to exist, but they do. And they've got to be moved around, which means over the roads we have. If you shovel enough shit, eventually you get dirty. Shit happens.
Until Intel makes something useful of it and ships it at retail, it may as well be that "single atom transistor" tech from a few stories ago, or the holographic storage from yesterday, or cold fusion.
Fortunately for you Android tablets come in every conceivable dimension from 1.4" to 24" in both 4:3 and 16:9. They're so "fragmented" that they've got your specific need covered - and everybody else's too.
You're welcome to try.
Google having so much influence is pretty scary, as it would be for anybody else to have so much influence. To look at it as a threat though, you have to understand the nature of the people and who they are. Sergey Brin's father escaped the former Soviet Union to avoid oppression and censorship. Sergey has internalized this as a moral imperative to prevent censorship that exceeds commercial interests. When Google was faced in China with the position of "filter and censor or go away" they chose "go away" even though China is a huge growth market with lots of profit potential that Bing and Yahoo were readily willing to compromise freedom of speech and do monitoring for. Eric Schmidt wasn't a big fan of this escape from China, and that's part of how he came to not be Google's CEO any more.
I think Larry Page might have the scruples of Mark Zuckerberg: it's all about the power for him - but he's got Sergey Brin to use as a moral compass for now, and he's willing to do that. I think Larry just doesn't care but they have mutual respect. Larry and Sergey are geniuses so far beyond the common ken it must be difficult to communicate with them at all. Sergey's got the "if you're going to be evil then Fuck You! You're doing it without me" thing going on. They might make a go of it for a while without Sergey, but he's got a lot of value-add. He's smarter than Larry by a good bit, and Larry knows it. But Sergey's neither inclined nor fit to run the business from day to day - that's not who he is, which makes him and Larry a good fit. One day Larry might find a genius equivalent to Sergey to work with, but I think Sergey's intellect is sufficiently rare and stratospheric that such a person might have other issues that makes them even more difficult to deal with. And Sergey would see it coming and just spin off a new company that suited his ethical standards because he has the means.
The thing about the "evil Google" claims is that they lack substance and proof, or they're about something nobody cares about. There is no smoking gun - but there's lots of evidence that Google is doing great things that benefit us all like open source, giving back, energy research, spectrum auctions and whatnot. All the companies that compete with Google have huge libraries of misdeeds and malfeasances well documented in court records, and in some cases findings of actual crimes. Check out "Halloween documents" or "Comes collection" for details. Google has none of that.
If you think about it, for decent folks to rise up and have influence is a pretty cool thing - and that's where I'm at with Google. I'm not so jaded as to think that people with morals and ethics can't get ahead if they're also brilliant and skillful. I'm not so naive as to think a good man can't be turned to evil, but to believe it I would want real proof and right now I don't see the proof.
Nobody really offers indemnification against anybody but themselves. That's the way things are - a license is just permission to use the IP you have, not a guarantee that a specific implementation won't violate somebody else's IP. This indemnification thing was a huge part of the anti-Linux FUD during the SCO case, and we all know how that turned out. Now it's a part of the defense against WebM, and I expect it to work out the same.
WebM hardware acceleration has been integrated into ARM SOC designs. It's proven in silicon and had 20 licensees already a year ago. The license terms are quite agreeable. A year from now it will probably be ubiquitous - some inexpensive webcams and videocams and phones will probably record in it by default, and there's no reason not to include it as an option in the premium webcam or recorder that also does H.264 (unless the H.264 patent pool decides to be bitchy about licensing their engine to multi-codec devices, and we all know that's going to the Justice department for monopoly regulation). And since WebM software encoding and decoding is free, it's a no-brainer to put your content in that format. It's dumb to not include it because it's free and almost all of YouTube and many other sources can use it.
No, I really think WebM isn't going to have trouble gaining traction. That was quite the point of Google buying On2 technologies in the first place. To liberate video from the clutches of MPEG and the H.264 patent pool so we could all be free to record our kids' birthday parties without the threat of being sued, to develop our own video capture devices or streaming services or conversion software in whatever way we may choose without the hindrance of somebody trying to prevent it unless they're paid, and preventing free solutions from using video. And that's just one of the reasons why I'm a big Google fan: moving pictures with audio is a technology that should be as plain as tapwater at this point in history. It's only the deliberate efforts of folks like the H.264 patent pool who have prevented it from being available to all to date, and that era is ending now. The H.264 patent pool has relented now on decoding, but on encoding they're holding the line and so will pass into history.
H.264 members like Microsoft stand to benefit if no competing solutions can record and stream video have held this progress back. That's a prevention of progress they seem to crave but can no longer achieve. So thanks Sergey and Larry! I know opening things up like this serves your commercial purposes, but they serve my personal purposes too - and you didn't have to make it this open. You're working your magic in myriad other ways like wireless spectrum and last-mile fiber Internet and I thank you for those things too!
SuperKendall, you wield this lack of indemnification like a club. You imply a threat that OEMs who deploy WebM might be sued - without specifics. Are you going to sue somebody? Who and why? Are you serving at counsel for somebody who might, or guiding lawyers who might do so as an executive? Or are you just blowing hot air, warning folks about boojums and goblins in the dark? This is exactly the type of IP terrorism I was talking about in my original post. It's counter to progress, mongering Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. It's part of why people hate prevention-of-progress companies like Microsoft and Oracle. If you've got some claim to rights against WebM, or know somebody who does - name them. Otherwise you're just full of shit, spinning tales of ghosts that aren't there. Nobody has ever made a claim against WebM that stuck and until they at least make a claim it's just vague empty threats you don't even dare come all the way out and say. It's less than nothing. Man up and make a claim if you dare.
They haven't always been working together in that cause.
H.264 doesn't indemnify against anybody but their patent pool holders either - and they want money. A lie of omission. For shame.
I guess that depends. Google gives me Android, to use however I wish. They give me the fastest browser, interesting new languages, interesting applications of age-old technologies. And a first-rate video and audio codec family with no patent encumbrances. And of course when I look for stuff they are Johnny on the spot. And then there's this new web platform in TFA that I can use however I like. The only thing I can't do with this stuff is tell people I invented it.
Microsoft offers us freebies now and then - like freeware feature-limited applications and development environments. But there's always a catch, like it only works with their for-pay ware, has limited use, is nagware or whatever. Even the search engine just doesn't do it for me - and they sold out to China.
Of course Google's pouring money into lots of interesting stuff, like carbon-neutral energy research, space research, just bunches of stuff.
Overall I think I'm OK with giving Google more slack than a company that has the Halloween Memo collection and the Comes Collection history of horrors behind it. Google seems to be more about driving the pace of progress and keeping things open - and by the way, having great other stuff that they make money on. To me Microsoft seems committed to preventing all the progress they can't control utterly. I think Google has the better offer here, and I don't think anybody else even comes close to trying.
It's so crowded nobody goes there anymore. - Yogi Berra
SOPA sponsor Lamar Smith, under the guise of protecting childred from online pornographers, has proposed a new bill that requires every Internet Service Provider to spy on every customer, logging every thing that they do online and keeping records for an entire year. Just in case. So... yeah. It's getting pretty bad.
And of course these records would be discoverable by his Big Media sponsors.
That's not the only question. Office on iOS cannibalizes the market for Windows. That's a pretty big "no."
Sometimes I do data entry on my Android tablet. You can install a software keyboard replacement that scans barcodes into anything - including a spreadsheet. It works great if the light is good.
You don't. Not only does Citrix receiver work well on it - it comes preinstalled.
If you're handy you can make a 24" Android tablet and God's own wireless keyboard. It's a shame we can't get anybody to sell that to us.
You might get it on if you try a little less Wine.
Last year more computers were sold with iOS and Android than Windows. And the companies that sold them made awesome profit margins, which isn't going to happen in PC clients ever.