>The President of my company has said that he wants to eventually see the day when a person can walk into the theater, watch a film and on the way out buy the DVD. This could, and probably will happen, but it would likely be a domestic only 5.1 and/or Lt/Rt with little or no extras.
That would be awesome. I really dont like all the extras, and you can't tell me it doesn't cost more money to make. If what you suggest is true and the movies are priced cheaper than current DVDs, sweet.
Hell, IE bugs became simple predominant coding styles, and that was a huge thing in terms of sticking to one browser if you didnt have the cash or expertise to develop web content for multiple browsers.
Security is different; you're making APIs and parsers and the like more picky, not less picky.. its gunna be damn interesting to see what happens in the next 5 years.
For what its worth, a wide release movie has already made money (well, most) by the time the DVD comes out.
The CD has to pay back for the entire cost of the production, since the revenues earned on tour dont go to the studio.
I still think its retarded tho. What the actual musicians make from the cost of that CD is tiny, and the money used to make the CDs is actually in the form of a loan the artist.
I think the threat would be enough. Would the EU call them on it? I don't think big business constituants would allow it to happen, and I think it would villify the already tough job market regulators have.
> Sorry, I think I must have missed something. Who is it who's freedoms are or would be being restricted, and how? That's not sarcasm, just honest incomprehension. While I agree with the generalities, I can't tell who they apply to.
I just meant that *if* MS pulled out in a spat, the users that needed Windows from a practical standpoint (interoperability issues, other investments in software that only runs windows, etc) would have to pay. So in that sense, restricting people's freedoms (be it producer or consumer) in a marketplace is sometimes neccessary in order to ensure the long term health of the market place.
> What? To change one disk image for another one? How much overhead does that entail? It's not like they have to retool the production line. They don't even need bigger disks.
I'm talking about users here, not OEMs.. OEMs could offer it, but the demand isn't there because upgrading the OS in a company (even XP -> XP N) would be expensive and time consuming. If theres no demand at the buyer level, theres no demand at the OEM level.
If the market always got it right in the first place, we wouldn't need market regulation to begin with. Its just that individual buyers are focused on very immediate goals that can't take the economic/historical/political implications of market collusion into account when they buy things.
See the history of the pharmaceutical industry to see that concept in action. People need medication, over priced or not, which is why its historicaly been easy for the industry to collude against individual consumers. You can't vote with your dollars if you dont have a choice to begin with.
> What? To change one disk image for another one? How much overhead does that entail? It's not like they have to retool the production line. They don't even need bigger disks.
Are you sure you're talking about a large corperation going from WinXP to WinXP N? That would take time and money; its not a simple ghosting issue, and corperations would have to re-test and re-evaluate the product.
> What I don't understand is why the EU didn't prohibit the sale of the WMPlayer inclusive version
Probably for the same reason the OEMs shake at the knees when MS threatens to do exactly that (ie, not sell the product to them at all.)
Also, it would make users and businesses pay for MS's mistake; I have not a doubt in my mind that MS would threaten to walk away from the european market entirely until it got its way.. people would scream murder at the EU for the same reason that we hate it when cops ask us not to dirnk and drive. Its for our own good, but we hate them for it.
Nobody likes it when they're freedoms are restricted, but some restriction of freedom, ie, the General Will of a society, is neccessary in order to support civilized social and economic systems. There are very basic freedoms that we simply should not have; say, like taking somebody elses legally obtained personal property.
It seems so simple to me. They did something wrong. Punish them for it, and ensure that they provide the minimum level of choice deemed to be market friendly for consumers on a forward basis.
Yeah well, the law is shades of grey, yadda yadda. You would prefer the company play fast and loose and hope they interpret the law the way the courts will, rather than safe and solid with a decent return, and a product that benifits us all?
If you like high risk, high returns, try a casino. Otherwise, I'm left to conclude that the reason we fund investment is simply to get richer than our friends, rather than provide an environment in which we can fund civilization advancing research and development via the the pooling of financial resources.
Anybody who supports lopping off competitors at the knees instead of beating them fair and square to the finish line is an enemy of the original intents of capitalism, in my opinion. Thats not competing, thats cheating. Well, until we rewrite the laws to reflect this new goal of simply centralizing wealth and power as much as possible. Enjoy your single (but well furnished, no doubt) tree, and I'll enjoy the forest.
Incidentally, does this mean you're an opponant of all laws involving market tampering or anti-competative practices?
Well, of course nobody is going to re-deploy. Thats expensive, time consuming, etc.
Basically, MS should have been punished by market regulators and brought into compliance. They have been. Under or over punished, maybe, but thats another thread.
I don't think the amount of people who actually use it really matters; the fact that its wasted MS money in developing this version is just punishment, and I can't see anybody but corperate apologists and MS shareholders whining about that. If they do have a problem with it, maybe they can be a little more vigilent about ensuring that the company they have money in is more careful about using its might in the market place in order to sll & market in markets adjacent to the OS market.
As for me, screw a new operating system, just provide me with a patch that allows me to remove WMPlayer and IExplorer from my existing install, and I'll make the call myself, thanks.
Well, obviously, the 'right' tool is a subjective term to begin with, so theoretically, the 'right' tool would take vendor lock-in, political ideals, et al into account.
Agreed. This is the first time in 6 years of/. where I'll actually complain about the article summary. Its confusing as hell to read, and it looks like nobody actually proof read it before it went live.
First off, you're off the flippin' map when it comes to writing virii. Most if not all common exploits today are application level exploits and have very little to do with the processor. Those who do write virii can target any platform they damn well like.. if everyone woke up and accepted your argument about PPC being awesome, and everyone bought PPC, you'd be a prime virii target.
Secondly, your friend owns a sweet machine that is no faster or slower than if this announcement hadn't been made, NOR are there any garauntees that a similar performing x86 arch would cost any less had the transition been done 2 years ago. If he's pissed off, he's not objective enough to have gotten the best bang for his buck in the first place, Intel transition announcement or not. (Incidentally, if he's mad enough to give away his sweet new dual G5, I'll take it.)
Apple is not dismissing the G5, nor is it ceasing support for it, nor will applications in the future not run on it.
> Apple is a fucking stupid company who has one goal in mind that their entire history cannot deny: pissing their customers off.
Seems to work wonders for MicroSoft./hadn't fed the flamers yet today
Oh yeah, to that other company that makes x86 consumer level operating systems.
You know, like IBM, who makes OS2/Wa.. oh wait. Well, okay, at least to beOS.. oh wait.
Sorry, which OS do you suggest I use as an alternative on x86?
(Just to mitigate the legions of *nix replies, I run FreeBSD at home. I don't consider it to be a viable mainstream option until it is marketed and supported on a large scale commercial level such as OSX, etc.. )
The point is, MS has (arguably, natch) created a playing field in which the competitors are few to non existant, and the market transparency is about as clear as cement to the average consumer. Tell me why I can buy a DVD player (a complex technological product) from many different manufacturers, and on the other hand, I can only buy one mainstream grade operating system? Is it because MS is the only company capable of producing something as stable and userfriendly as Windows? (Man, I love backhanded compliments.)
There's nothing wrong with bundling, but everything wrong with using your domination of the OS market to attempt to secure a monopoly in content distribution, encryption, tool chains, etc.
Basically, bundle all you want. But forcing a bundle of seperate vertical market platforms all from the same vendor that has an economic interest in using a loss-leader approach to securing monopolies, and you've lost my sympathy.
I don't know why this is so confusing. Using predetory pricing reduces competition. Reduced competition = un-{american,capitalist,whatever}. Reduced competition = higher prices, less innovation. The hardcore freemarket capitalists crying foul have just got a bad case of Stockholm syndrom. Apparently, MS is so wildly financially successful, that people chalk their financial awesomeness up to deservedness rather than shifty business.
It mirrors the kind of fanatical nonsense we've seen throughout history where totalitarians earn the blind trust of those who are relatively comfortable enough not to look at the situation objectively.
Unless you're prepared to state that every level of authority or power that anybody or any group has ever achieved is deserved by way of intrinsic ability, value, etc, I think its important that we have people who are prepared to wade through puddles of grey to ensure that those who participate in systems such as politics or markets are doing so in a way that befits the ultimate purpose of those systems.
Which, last time I checked, was to furthur human understanding and ability. Instead, some people seem to think the market is there to give you an opportunity to become a millionaire. It speaks volumes that some people defend various big business practices with gems along the lines of, "Well, whats wrong, at least they're not sneaking into your home at night and killing your family while you sleep." (Okay, thats hyperbole, but the "not holding a gun to your head" is a downright common defence 'round these parts.)
> Why don't collectivists accept the notion that individuals have a right to what they produce?
I dunno? Why do people assume that the "right to what they produce" is somehow codified into our DNA or laws of physics or something equally irrefutable?
Strangely enough, infinate ownership was the exact kind of fuedal bullshit copyright and patent laws were enacted to prevent. If you cared to look outside of your miopic existance, you'll find loads of social and historical examples of what happens when too much power is placed in the hands of the producer, or the consumer.
It's all about balance. Sorry, I know thats not very sexy idea from an ideological parrot point of view.
Unfortunately, by the time you've got a gun to your head, its a little late to do much about it.
I'm guessing you don't believe that a company that is sufficiently large can ask the government to hold the gun? See oil companies/clothing companies in many countries.
> Last I check Microsoft was not pointing a gun at your head, and telling you to buy their crap.
No, but they are pointing market dominance at PC manufacturers' heads, thus limiting my freedom to select my hardware supplier and OS supplier seperately.
If the invisible hand really worked that well, it'd probably be making sure monopolies didn't exist, not giving uneducated folks like you handjobs in return for drooling praise.
I was being sarcastic. I'm not an IT person, and I certainly don't power trip from being a software developer.
None the less, most contracts you sign for service providers of any sort these days include provisions that allow them to change the terms and and conditions of your service plans at any time.
I don't likeit as much as the next guy, but hey, until we all boycott the standard T&C boilerplate bullshit...
Slashdot Mirror
See if you can find "I, Rowboat" in the archives. (It might be premiumed by now.)
>Seriously, who is going to buy into a platform that will be obsolete in 9 months?
If you go by that logic, nobody would ever buy a videocard.
At some point, you have to buy.
PS. not made no more != unsupported
>The President of my company has said that he wants to eventually see the day when a person can walk into the theater, watch a film and on the way out buy the DVD. This could, and probably will happen, but it would likely be a domestic only 5.1 and/or Lt/Rt with little or no extras.
That would be awesome. I really dont like all the extras, and you can't tell me it doesn't cost more money to make. If what you suggest is true and the movies are priced cheaper than current DVDs, sweet.
Alexa? Did you just quote Alexa rankings? Thats embarassing for you.
Cmon, Occums razor, hard core.
The ONLY reason windows users complain about windows machines these days is because of virii and spyware. Are you even a programmer?
Not to defend MS, cause I loathe their guts, but really now, have I been trolled?
Agreed.
.. its gunna be damn interesting to see what happens in the next 5 years.
Hell, IE bugs became simple predominant coding styles, and that was a huge thing in terms of sticking to one browser if you didnt have the cash or expertise to develop web content for multiple browsers.
Security is different; you're making APIs and parsers and the like more picky, not less picky
For what its worth, a wide release movie has already made money (well, most) by the time the DVD comes out.
The CD has to pay back for the entire cost of the production, since the revenues earned on tour dont go to the studio.
I still think its retarded tho. What the actual musicians make from the cost of that CD is tiny, and the money used to make the CDs is actually in the form of a loan the artist.
Tru nuff, I only meant to point out that sometimes overzealous competative practices can have the opposite effect on investment.
.. erm, Enron? :)
See
I think the threat would be enough. Would the EU call them on it? I don't think big business constituants would allow it to happen, and I think it would villify the already tough job market regulators have.
> Sorry, I think I must have missed something. Who is it who's freedoms are or would be being restricted, and how? That's not sarcasm, just honest incomprehension. While I agree with the generalities, I can't tell who they apply to.
I just meant that *if* MS pulled out in a spat, the users that needed Windows from a practical standpoint (interoperability issues, other investments in software that only runs windows, etc) would have to pay. So in that sense, restricting people's freedoms (be it producer or consumer) in a marketplace is sometimes neccessary in order to ensure the long term health of the market place.
> What? To change one disk image for another one? How much overhead does that entail? It's not like they have to retool the production line. They don't even need bigger disks.
.. OEMs could offer it, but the demand isn't there because upgrading the OS in a company (even XP -> XP N) would be expensive and time consuming. If theres no demand at the buyer level, theres no demand at the OEM level.
I'm talking about users here, not OEMs
If the market always got it right in the first place, we wouldn't need market regulation to begin with. Its just that individual buyers are focused on very immediate goals that can't take the economic/historical/political implications of market collusion into account when they buy things.
See the history of the pharmaceutical industry to see that concept in action. People need medication, over priced or not, which is why its historicaly been easy for the industry to collude against individual consumers. You can't vote with your dollars if you dont have a choice to begin with.
> What? To change one disk image for another one? How much overhead does that entail? It's not like they have to retool the production line. They don't even need bigger disks.
.. people would scream murder at the EU for the same reason that we hate it when cops ask us not to dirnk and drive. Its for our own good, but we hate them for it.
Are you sure you're talking about a large corperation going from WinXP to WinXP N? That would take time and money; its not a simple ghosting issue, and corperations would have to re-test and re-evaluate the product.
> What I don't understand is why the EU didn't prohibit the sale of the WMPlayer inclusive version
Probably for the same reason the OEMs shake at the knees when MS threatens to do exactly that (ie, not sell the product to them at all.)
Also, it would make users and businesses pay for MS's mistake; I have not a doubt in my mind that MS would threaten to walk away from the european market entirely until it got its way
Nobody likes it when they're freedoms are restricted, but some restriction of freedom, ie, the General Will of a society, is neccessary in order to support civilized social and economic systems. There are very basic freedoms that we simply should not have; say, like taking somebody elses legally obtained personal property.
It seems so simple to me. They did something wrong. Punish them for it, and ensure that they provide the minimum level of choice deemed to be market friendly for consumers on a forward basis.
> while complying with the letter of the law
Yeah well, the law is shades of grey, yadda yadda. You would prefer the company play fast and loose and hope they interpret the law the way the courts will, rather than safe and solid with a decent return, and a product that benifits us all?
If you like high risk, high returns, try a casino. Otherwise, I'm left to conclude that the reason we fund investment is simply to get richer than our friends, rather than provide an environment in which we can fund civilization advancing research and development via the the pooling of financial resources.
Anybody who supports lopping off competitors at the knees instead of beating them fair and square to the finish line is an enemy of the original intents of capitalism, in my opinion. Thats not competing, thats cheating. Well, until we rewrite the laws to reflect this new goal of simply centralizing wealth and power as much as possible. Enjoy your single (but well furnished, no doubt) tree, and I'll enjoy the forest.
Incidentally, does this mean you're an opponant of all laws involving market tampering or anti-competative practices?
Well, of course nobody is going to re-deploy. Thats expensive, time consuming, etc.
Basically, MS should have been punished by market regulators and brought into compliance. They have been. Under or over punished, maybe, but thats another thread.
I don't think the amount of people who actually use it really matters; the fact that its wasted MS money in developing this version is just punishment, and I can't see anybody but corperate apologists and MS shareholders whining about that. If they do have a problem with it, maybe they can be a little more vigilent about ensuring that the company they have money in is more careful about using its might in the market place in order to sll & market in markets adjacent to the OS market.
As for me, screw a new operating system, just provide me with a patch that allows me to remove WMPlayer and IExplorer from my existing install, and I'll make the call myself, thanks.
> The implication that an industry would purposely inflate the rate of piracy and its impact to suit its political aims is ridiculous.
You're right, to propose that they inflate the rate of piracy and its impact to suit political aims is rediculous. We do it to increase profits!
Worked for MS :) /flame on
btw, your link is cool. i had a friend who once worked for a heat exchanger company around toronto. alfa-laval, i think.
Well, obviously, the 'right' tool is a subjective term to begin with, so theoretically, the 'right' tool would take vendor lock-in, political ideals, et al into account.
Agreed. This is the first time in 6 years of /. where I'll actually complain about the article summary. Its confusing as hell to read, and it looks like nobody actually proof read it before it went live.
First off, you're off the flippin' map when it comes to writing virii. Most if not all common exploits today are application level exploits and have very little to do with the processor. Those who do write virii can target any platform they damn well like .. if everyone woke up and accepted your argument about PPC being awesome, and everyone bought PPC, you'd be a prime virii target.
/hadn't fed the flamers yet today
Secondly, your friend owns a sweet machine that is no faster or slower than if this announcement hadn't been made, NOR are there any garauntees that a similar performing x86 arch would cost any less had the transition been done 2 years ago. If he's pissed off, he's not objective enough to have gotten the best bang for his buck in the first place, Intel transition announcement or not. (Incidentally, if he's mad enough to give away his sweet new dual G5, I'll take it.)
Apple is not dismissing the G5, nor is it ceasing support for it, nor will applications in the future not run on it.
> Apple is a fucking stupid company who has one goal in mind that their entire history cannot deny: pissing their customers off.
Seems to work wonders for MicroSoft.
Nonsense. Real geeks keep the 'rents out of the basement by threatening to cut the net access upstairs.
>driven customers away
.. oh wait. .. oh wait.
.. )
Oh yeah, to that other company that makes x86 consumer level operating systems.
You know, like IBM, who makes OS2/Wa
Well, okay, at least to beOS
Sorry, which OS do you suggest I use as an alternative on x86?
(Just to mitigate the legions of *nix replies, I run FreeBSD at home. I don't consider it to be a viable mainstream option until it is marketed and supported on a large scale commercial level such as OSX, etc
The point is, MS has (arguably, natch) created a playing field in which the competitors are few to non existant, and the market transparency is about as clear as cement to the average consumer. Tell me why I can buy a DVD player (a complex technological product) from many different manufacturers, and on the other hand, I can only buy one mainstream grade operating system? Is it because MS is the only company capable of producing something as stable and userfriendly as Windows? (Man, I love backhanded compliments.)
There's nothing wrong with bundling, but everything wrong with using your domination of the OS market to attempt to secure a monopoly in content distribution, encryption, tool chains, etc.
Basically, bundle all you want. But forcing a bundle of seperate vertical market platforms all from the same vendor that has an economic interest in using a loss-leader approach to securing monopolies, and you've lost my sympathy.
I don't know why this is so confusing. Using predetory pricing reduces competition. Reduced competition = un-{american,capitalist,whatever}. Reduced competition = higher prices, less innovation. The hardcore freemarket capitalists crying foul have just got a bad case of Stockholm syndrom. Apparently, MS is so wildly financially successful, that people chalk their financial awesomeness up to deservedness rather than shifty business.
It mirrors the kind of fanatical nonsense we've seen throughout history where totalitarians earn the blind trust of those who are relatively comfortable enough not to look at the situation objectively.
Unless you're prepared to state that every level of authority or power that anybody or any group has ever achieved is deserved by way of intrinsic ability, value, etc, I think its important that we have people who are prepared to wade through puddles of grey to ensure that those who participate in systems such as politics or markets are doing so in a way that befits the ultimate purpose of those systems.
Which, last time I checked, was to furthur human understanding and ability. Instead, some people seem to think the market is there to give you an opportunity to become a millionaire. It speaks volumes that some people defend various big business practices with gems along the lines of, "Well, whats wrong, at least they're not sneaking into your home at night and killing your family while you sleep." (Okay, thats hyperbole, but the "not holding a gun to your head" is a downright common defence 'round these parts.)
> Why don't collectivists accept the notion that individuals have a right to what they produce?
I dunno? Why do people assume that the "right to what they produce" is somehow codified into our DNA or laws of physics or something equally irrefutable?
Strangely enough, infinate ownership was the exact kind of fuedal bullshit copyright and patent laws were enacted to prevent. If you cared to look outside of your miopic existance, you'll find loads of social and historical examples of what happens when too much power is placed in the hands of the producer, or the consumer.
It's all about balance. Sorry, I know thats not very sexy idea from an ideological parrot point of view.
Unfortunately, by the time you've got a gun to your head, its a little late to do much about it.
I'm guessing you don't believe that a company that is sufficiently large can ask the government to hold the gun? See oil companies/clothing companies in many countries.
> Last I check Microsoft was not pointing a gun at your head, and telling you to buy their crap.
No, but they are pointing market dominance at PC manufacturers' heads, thus limiting my freedom to select my hardware supplier and OS supplier seperately.
If the invisible hand really worked that well, it'd probably be making sure monopolies didn't exist, not giving uneducated folks like you handjobs in return for drooling praise.
I was being sarcastic. I'm not an IT person, and I certainly don't power trip from being a software developer.
...
None the less, most contracts you sign for service providers of any sort these days include provisions that allow them to change the terms and and conditions of your service plans at any time.
I don't likeit as much as the next guy, but hey, until we all boycott the standard T&C boilerplate bullshit