You've convinced me to start my new independent movie, "The Blair Witch Project". I doubt it will ever see the light of day, but in the meantime I will work on my new invention, a "Laser".
It's not just M$ that's interested in "Hosted Everything". Our friends @ Google want to do that too in a sense.
For now it's free...what happens if we're all using these lovely AJAX apps, they become indespensible, and someone at Google says, okay, if you want to continue using your gmail, your GoogleOffice, your GoogleScheduler... Same thing with Yahoo...what happens when that is no-longer-free?
For Microsoft, (if you believe them) one of the biggest problems concerning all the factors of software distribution these days is that their CD distributed apps are subject to piracy, especially to the corporate marketplace. If it's hosted, it isn't nearly as subject to piracy (hacking yes, piracy no.) and of course that's only one of the reasons. The other reasons, marketing, targeting, all the goodies...they're all so much easier to control when the app is hosted. Microsoft isn't alone in this. In some respects it's probably only a matter of time when nearly everything is hosted if it's of any serious quality. I'm suprised the Open Source movement hasn't tried to set up servers somewhere that host AJAX apps at the OpenOffice level of application and encourage companies to use it all the time just to encourage use in the apps. Either way it's the next big thing in that respect, at least if you want to keep your work open and free and not be subject to targeted ads and content.
Now the only real question is, will Civ4 for the Mac be able to play the Mac and PC World in a multiplayer/networked fashion and will it have all the same features.
Re:Ma Bell? Yo no entiendo - SHORT VERSION
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
Agreed. It sort of helped things along the non-working path when essentially the baby bells were unable to compete with each other in each other's zones.
I am all for Google's "Library" even if it's illegal some how by today's current standards. In my view, Google is creating a library for a community, our community, the net community. At least someone's taking the responsibility for preparing the ultimate catalog, and doing it for apparently little "renumeration". I think there is hardly any grounds for stopping Google for doing this. The simple fact is that they are protecting (or willing to protect) copyrighted works on behalf of the copyright holders.
Consider the primary use case: I'm a library. I purchase a book. I make a copy of that book so the original does not get damaged, and I put that book on loan. I assist the copyright holder by protecting that book if they don't want it seen by my audience, but I let people know the book exists in my card catalog and the library itself. Someday, I might decide to let people view my private library in exchange for a membership fee, perhaps even doing what a Movie Rental place might do, where books/movies of all kinds can be kept, preserved, catalogued and checked out for a period of time. Considering how long it would take to create a library as large (or larger) as the Library of Congress, I'm glad Google's starting now. If public libraries want to eventually charge admission (i.e. New York Public Library) then this only validates that intention. Heck, in a sense they already charge admission in order to check out books, it's called a library card, and the library system where I live charges $15 for your first card. Again, something that is akin to what Google may yet do.
Personally I don't care what google does as long as they A) Give their community access at the community's convenience, even if it's a paid community. and B) Continue to make their "card catalog" and "public domain" documents open and published. They are not laying claim to currently copyrighted works, so that's a good thing and perfectly acceptable. If I find out they're going to one day try and lay claim to an open book by saying "Well, we're the only ones making it available so therefore it's ours", then we'll have words. Until then, keep doing what you're doing Google. It's nice to see a corporation at least practicing a mostly open policy and they will get my business more than anyone trying to derail that process.
Given that we are now all questioning the inner-workings of all things, let us question the inner workings of the Diebold machines. Any machine that mystically counts my vote and the vote of many other real and imaginary people deserves to be questioned and investigated right away.
So let me get this straight... you want people to actually flood the FBI switchboard with calls, right after they worked so hard to get on the Do-Not-Call-List, and spam them with so many thank yous that they request you send email, at which point they bust you for spamming?
Excellent points, Now that's some discourse! Actually, I'm not so sure I'm missing the point. You argue convincingly for legislation and I've never disagreed with the need for it. However this is also about commerce that is net based. Do you really think every single state will be knowledgeable enough to write a fair law that effects the right people in the right way? Some of the laws being discussed along these lines have some real problems and the topic article that spawned this convo is a great example. I do see this matter as something that the feds must regulate at every level if they have to do so at all. If only because states are for the most part unable to cooperate reasonably on matters of taxation. Add to that the need for the net to be considered a state or country itself (imo)...
>>So are you resigned to the fact that Michael Griffin's successor >> is going to do another mea-culpa in 20 years? The space >>elevator will be flying on by, and NASA will be stuck with their >> tiny little rockets and lunar landers.
>Well, NASA will continue to do what they've always done, >which is to provide employment.
Time to buy stock! The pillow sales industry should skyrocket! Studies like this will significantly raise pillow sales. My wife read this an has already demanded going out to and purchasing a brand new horde of pillows.
RE: 1) Bottom line is if a large number of states are attempting to go after something like taxes and registration over something like an online auction which by definition has a high probability of being "out of state" or interstate commerce activity, the federal governement should be the ones regulating it. And normally are. I want congress to get involved and I want congress to set the standards. States either don't know enough to handle the situaiton, or can't manage to negotiate it fairly enough with their own populations (not to mention cooperation with all the other states concerned) to not warrant bringing the federal governement in to govern interstate commerce in this instance. That calls for a federal commission and a federal advisory board with knowledge of internet commerce that is independent enough to not get bogged down by details of taxes. They'll need to face reality that if the business is done here in the US between people who live in the US and states want the transactions taxed, someone has to negotiate that process. Feds are the best choice right now, sadly enough.
2) True in a sense. The individual state is harassing everyone down the line from eBay to the Seller to the Purchaser. a) As eBay, I don't want people registered to have to use my service. It hurts my business and creates a barrier to normal everyday people from selling their junk and keeps me from earning my commissions. b) As a Seller, I might as well not use eBay anymore, or any other online auction because of the need to register for something (in some states) as simple as a selling a $10 flour scoop for $5. c) As a Buyer, I'll drastically see either the quality of the merchandise or the effort I have to go through to find a real deal increase, and I'll probably have to stick to local, Meatspace actions where plenty of auctions across the US are held without individuals ever being registered or regulated in any significant way, since as you said, it's regulated by the individual states, many of which have no clue how to even handle Meatspace auctions correctly. So it's not so much more complex than noticing which laws for which states you're talking about. Meatwise.
>In summary, check your facts first, please. I did, thanks for "asking", you're so kind. You might consider asking if I read the article and checked my facts, and after that even considered what I was saying before I said it. Not everyone thinks along the same patterns you do. You should respect that. "Please". Have a nice day.
That depends. What's the bigger crime? Selling this kind of software so nobody will know about killing and death in countries inside and outside the US?
I would argue the software and it's importance goes both ways. This filter probably stops info from coming in as much as it stops info from coming out.
The less you know, the more likely that government can have a hold over you, or even to give you the impression the US is taking care of business in that country because no or very little net info is getting out of the country to contradict that.
This software is completely unnecessary and absolutely something that shouldn't be sold or used.
I'd like Congress to consider using an actual advisory panel of random internet business owners (not those appointed by the executive branch) and let them advise congress on what kinds of laws would be reasonable and acceptable by the internet business public.
Taxing and Regulating EBay or other auction businesses like it is absolutely unacceptable, not just to the potential seller but for the entire business of auctioning.
You don't do it to live, in-person auctions, you don't do it online. It's just that simple. Get your taxes somewhere else, like oh the real businesses in your own damn states that you're giving tax breaks to. They don't need it and they don't deserve them. Don't make Auctioneers suffer for it.
No sane business operator enters a contract in which one party has the right to disregard its terms at will, but that's what HR-1201 permits.
Isn't it about time that the consumer took back what corporations are taking from him? I believe that is what this bill is designed to do, at least in part. I do agree that the bill requires some revision, but this is a good starting point. No bill makes it's way through congress without modification, add-ons and negotiation. None of them. At least not in this day of Pork and other political wrangling/crap.
Bottom line is, you can subscribe to receive a service. As long as I subscribe I receive that service. It's logical and acceptable that I can not re-sell or duplicate that service without special consent/arrangements to do so. However we're talking about assets here.
But when we add things like assets into the mix, such as an electronic device, application or content asset, it is unacceptable for me to not own what I have purchased, 100%. It is unacceptable that I am told that I can not duplicate it again, modifiy it, or utilize it for my use. To be forced to act otherwise means I am actually subscribing to the asset. When I go to the music store and buy a CD, a song, etc., it's an asset, regardless of it's form. It's something I take away with me. It's mine. It's not "served" to me. It's mine. How anyone can act, presume or define otherwise really seems insane to me.
A) We're "paying for it" by not simulating our own right away and experiencing it ourselves. B) We're sitting by while someone else gets experienced hardened professionals out of it while we sit and watch. C) We're hoping they'll share information with us about the attacks and precautions taken. Do you really think they'll share everything? Hell no.
My presumption is that we've been invited, but you never really know how much the US will be permitted to see or to participate.
I've actually seen couples around the DC area at dinner using a portable DVD player to watch movies or their favorite tv shows. Sure beats sitting on the couch I suppose. They're out of the house!
>>Many countries, particularly developing ones, have become >>increasingly concerned about the U.S. control >Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? What do developing countries have to do with >jack? They're small and tend to have very poor Internet >infrastructures. Does this mean that we're now supposed to >turn over control to them so they can screw it up?
No, we're supposed to turn control over to them so: * THEY can tax the internet if they wish as opposed to the US requiring a Tarrif to participate, sell, etc. (Or alternatively keep it free, or distribute net maintenence and growth taxes among all U.N. countries which is probably more likely) * THEY can control I-Net growth in a manner better suited to everyone getting it.
I think the primary concern the US should have is what if the U.N. convinces other countries to set up their own UN-based global net, with their own addressing and DNS structure? Considering how the EU got together, it would not be impossible for the entire EU to form their own and force the US to join just to remain in-the-loop. Something tells me while the US shouldn't turn control over the UN, assistance should be provided to the UN so they can get more involved in the US side of things.
This is exactly my argument regarding TiVo's lifetime service. In my opinion if I buy a lifetime service agreement it should be for access to the service for the lifetime of the service itself. As part of that service, TiVo agrees to upload new service software that will guarantee bug fixes and new features within the limits of the machine as purchased or the service. TiVo says the lifetime service only applies to the machine you've purchased and no farther. I don't "subscribe" to a machine. I subscribe to a service.
The machine and the software to run it is another matter.
Zimbra doesn't really push the envelope at first glance, but I was impressed by the conversation controls and the tags.
For me tags are incredibly useful and I am often annoyed at Outlook's search tools and how I handle getting to the mail I really need. So for me, Zimbra doesn't innovate as much as it provides a few interesting gadgets.
Palm Dominance to Palm Insignificance
on
Palm's Mistakes
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Palm's biggest problem now is that they went to Win Mobile. What made Palm unique for years was their innovative operating system.
What made Palm truly suck was their unwillingness to upgrade the OS and to make it easy to upgrade as it went along. There are no decent controls over the quality of products out there and everything you could even consider adding to the OS costs too much money for what we've already spent on the device.
There are two versions now of the PalmOS that have yet to really see the light of day, and now they probably never will. Sad. They restricted the OS, when they could have made it free to download and even easier for people to get rid of their old palms, recycle them and get into the newer models. Moving from old to new was a pain in the ass.
Last year I bought a Palm 650. Now I'm sad I did, despite using everything from the Contact Book, getting an instant messenging client (Agile's an ok client when it's not crashing), Web browsing all the time (why is it so difficult to find a new browser for palm? the one they have onboard stinks!) for a variety of important tasks, and Versamail for email checking.
The thing is, the power users DO want Video and Music on our handheld. We want to be able to customise it. We want to be able to use it as a checkbook register AND to track our finances when we're not in front of the computer (thank you PocketQuicken!).... But no matter what you do, the applications are painfully outdated and as the UI gets more and more frustrating to use...Why spend $500 to get into a PDA that just doesn't expand and doesn't really allow innovation?
For Palm, going to Windows is an easy out for them. Their phone/pda (which isn't that great. It's just a shell to most folks, they just want it to work) at least has a solid if not innovative platform for what will amount to serious inflexibility.
No amount of Windows goodness (blech, I hate saying that) will change the hardware limits, and let's face it, we're entering a time when the Sony PSP is a step away from becoming a phone, when Apple's iPod is a step away from becoming a PDA, and basically everything handheld wants to really be a Phone/PDA/Media Device combination. It's use and adapt the technology time or lose the battle, and instead of releasing what was going to be a really innovative new operating system (Cobalt's next generation) out into the wild as open source for people to work with, Palm sidles up to this to keep the hardware sold. Again, Sad.
Within the next few months, I'm going to go buy a new PDA, and it's going to be a Linux or Windows box, since the Palm Hardware with Windows on it is crippled at best and horrid at worst.
Slashdot Mirror
You've convinced me to start my new independent movie, "The Blair Witch Project". I doubt it will ever see the light of day, but in the meantime I will work on my new invention, a "Laser".
I have no problem with that. I just need them to add a beginner mode with lots of free credits.
It's not just M$ that's interested in "Hosted Everything". Our friends @ Google want to do that too in a sense.
For now it's free...what happens if we're all using these lovely AJAX apps, they become indespensible, and someone at Google says, okay, if you want to continue using your gmail, your GoogleOffice, your GoogleScheduler... Same thing with Yahoo...what happens when that is no-longer-free?
For Microsoft, (if you believe them) one of the biggest problems concerning all the factors of software distribution these days is that their CD distributed apps are subject to piracy, especially to the corporate marketplace. If it's hosted, it isn't nearly as subject to piracy (hacking yes, piracy no.) and of course that's only one of the reasons. The other reasons, marketing, targeting, all the goodies...they're all so much easier to control when the app is hosted. Microsoft isn't alone in this. In some respects it's probably only a matter of time when nearly everything is hosted if it's of any serious quality. I'm suprised the Open Source movement hasn't tried to set up servers somewhere that host AJAX apps at the OpenOffice level of application and encourage companies to use it all the time just to encourage use in the apps. Either way it's the next big thing in that respect, at least if you want to keep your work open and free and not be subject to targeted ads and content.
Must...Figure...out...why.... desktop...search...not....working...must...call... .i...b....m.....
Actually, I'm more inclined to believe he did optimize the species. There's probably a good reason why people aren't mating with fruit flies.
Now the only real question is, will Civ4 for the Mac be able to play the Mac and PC World in a multiplayer/networked fashion and will it have all the same features.
Agreed. It sort of helped things along the non-working path when essentially the baby bells were unable to compete with each other in each other's zones.
Sorta defeats the possiblity of real competition.
I am all for Google's "Library" even if it's illegal some how by today's current standards.
In my view, Google is creating a library for a community, our community, the net community.
At least someone's taking the responsibility for preparing the ultimate catalog, and doing it for apparently little "renumeration". I think there is hardly any grounds for stopping Google for doing this. The simple fact is that they are protecting (or willing to protect) copyrighted works on behalf of the copyright holders.
Consider the primary use case: I'm a library. I purchase a book. I make a copy of that book so the original does not get damaged, and I put that book on loan. I assist the copyright holder by protecting that book if they don't want it seen by my audience, but I let people know the book exists in my card catalog and the library itself. Someday, I might decide to let people view my private library in exchange for a membership fee, perhaps even doing what a Movie Rental place might do, where books/movies of all kinds can be kept, preserved, catalogued and checked out for a period of time. Considering how long it would take to create a library as large (or larger) as the Library of Congress, I'm glad Google's starting now. If public libraries want to eventually charge admission (i.e. New York Public Library) then this only validates that intention. Heck, in a sense they already charge admission in order to check out books, it's called a library card, and the library system where I live charges $15 for your first card. Again, something that is akin to what Google may yet do.
Personally I don't care what google does as long as they A) Give their community access at the community's convenience, even if it's a paid community. and B) Continue to make their "card catalog" and "public domain" documents open and published. They are not laying claim to currently copyrighted works, so that's a good thing and perfectly acceptable. If I find out they're going to one day try and lay claim to an open book by saying "Well, we're the only ones making it available so therefore it's ours", then we'll have words.
Until then, keep doing what you're doing Google. It's nice to see a corporation at least practicing a mostly open policy and they will get my business more than anyone trying to derail that process.
Given that we are now all questioning the inner-workings of all things, let us question the inner workings of the Diebold machines. Any machine that mystically counts my vote and the vote of many other real and imaginary people deserves to be questioned and investigated right away.
So let me get this straight... you want people to actually flood the FBI switchboard with calls, right after they worked so hard to get on the Do-Not-Call-List, and spam them with so many thank yous that they request you send email, at which point they bust you for spamming?
Have fun, good luck to ya!
Excellent points, Now that's some discourse! Actually, I'm not so sure I'm missing the point. You argue convincingly for legislation and I've never disagreed with the need for it. However this is also about commerce that is net based. Do you really think every single state will be knowledgeable enough to write a fair law that effects the right people in the right way? Some of the laws being discussed along these lines have some real problems and the topic article that spawned this convo is a great example. I do see this matter as something that the feds must regulate at every level if they have to do so at all. If only because states are for the most part unable to cooperate reasonably on matters of taxation. Add to that the need for the net to be considered a state or country itself (imo)...
>>So are you resigned to the fact that Michael Griffin's successor
>> is going to do another mea-culpa in 20 years? The space
>>elevator will be flying on by, and NASA will be stuck with their
>> tiny little rockets and lunar landers.
>Well, NASA will continue to do what they've always done,
>which is to provide employment.
According to the Associated Press as reported by the Washington Post, at least 300 jobs will be lost at NASA's Jet Propulsion Labratory. So apparently they haven't always done that. But hey, positive spin eh?
Time to buy stock! The pillow sales industry should skyrocket!
:-/
Studies like this will significantly raise pillow sales.
My wife read this an has already demanded going out to and purchasing a brand new horde of pillows.
Thanks alot for sharing!
RE: 1) Bottom line is if a large number of states are attempting to go after something like taxes and registration over something like an online auction which by definition has a high probability of being "out of state" or interstate commerce activity, the federal governement should be the ones regulating it. And normally are. I want congress to get involved and I want congress to set the standards. States either don't know enough to handle the situaiton, or can't manage to negotiate it fairly enough with their own populations (not to mention cooperation with all the other states concerned) to not warrant bringing the federal governement in to govern interstate commerce in this instance. That calls for a federal commission and a federal advisory board with knowledge of internet commerce that is independent enough to not get bogged down by details of taxes. They'll need to face reality that if the business is done here in the US between people who live in the US and states want the transactions taxed, someone has to negotiate that process. Feds are the best choice right now, sadly enough.
2) True in a sense. The individual state is harassing everyone down the line from eBay to the Seller to the Purchaser.
a) As eBay, I don't want people registered to have to use my service. It hurts my business and creates a barrier to normal everyday people from selling their junk and keeps me from earning my commissions.
b) As a Seller, I might as well not use eBay anymore, or any other online auction because of the need to register for something (in some states) as simple as a selling a $10 flour scoop for $5.
c) As a Buyer, I'll drastically see either the quality of the merchandise or the effort I have to go through to find a real deal increase, and I'll probably have to stick to local, Meatspace actions where plenty of auctions across the US are held without individuals ever being registered or regulated in any significant way, since as you said, it's regulated by the individual states, many of which have no clue how to even handle Meatspace auctions correctly. So it's not so much more complex than noticing which laws for which states you're talking about. Meatwise.
>In summary, check your facts first, please.
I did, thanks for "asking", you're so kind. You might consider asking if I read the article and checked my facts, and after that even considered what I was saying before I said it. Not everyone thinks along the same patterns you do. You should respect that. "Please". Have a nice day.
That depends. What's the bigger crime? Selling this kind of software so nobody will know about killing and death in countries inside and outside the US?
I would argue the software and it's importance goes both ways. This filter probably stops info from coming in as much as it stops info from coming out.
The less you know, the more likely that government can have a hold over you, or even to give you the impression the US is taking care of business in that country because no or very little net info is getting out of the country to contradict that.
This software is completely unnecessary and absolutely something that shouldn't be sold or used.
I'd like Congress to consider using an actual advisory panel of random internet business owners (not those appointed by the executive branch) and let them advise congress on what kinds of laws would be reasonable and acceptable by the internet business public.
Taxing and Regulating EBay or other auction businesses like it is absolutely unacceptable, not just to the potential seller but for the entire business of auctioning.
You don't do it to live, in-person auctions, you don't do it online. It's just that simple. Get your taxes somewhere else, like oh the real businesses in your own damn states that you're giving tax breaks to. They don't need it and they don't deserve them. Don't make Auctioneers suffer for it.
Isn't it about time that the consumer took back what corporations are taking from him? I believe that is what this bill is designed to do, at least in part. I do agree that the bill requires some revision, but this is a good starting point. No bill makes it's way through congress without modification, add-ons and negotiation. None of them. At least not in this day of Pork and other political wrangling/crap.
Bottom line is, you can subscribe to receive a service. As long as I subscribe I receive that service. It's logical and acceptable that I can not re-sell or duplicate that service without special consent/arrangements to do so. However we're talking about assets here.
But when we add things like assets into the mix, such as an electronic device, application or content asset, it is unacceptable for me to not own what I have purchased, 100%. It is unacceptable that I am told that I can not duplicate it again, modifiy it, or utilize it for my use. To be forced to act otherwise means I am actually subscribing to the asset. When I go to the music store and buy a CD, a song, etc., it's an asset, regardless of it's form. It's something I take away with me. It's mine. It's not "served" to me. It's mine. How anyone can act, presume or define otherwise really seems insane to me.
Who says we're not paying for it?
A) We're "paying for it" by not simulating our own right away and experiencing it ourselves.
B) We're sitting by while someone else gets experienced hardened professionals out of it while we sit and watch.
C) We're hoping they'll share information with us about the attacks and precautions taken. Do you really think they'll share everything? Hell no.
My presumption is that we've been invited, but you never really know how much the US will be permitted to see or to participate.
I've actually seen couples around the DC area at dinner using a portable DVD player to watch movies or their favorite tv shows. Sure beats sitting on the couch I suppose. They're out of the house!
>>Many countries, particularly developing ones, have become
>>increasingly concerned about the U.S. control
>Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? What do developing countries have to do with
>jack? They're small and tend to have very poor Internet
>infrastructures. Does this mean that we're now supposed to
>turn over control to them so they can screw it up?
No, we're supposed to turn control over to them so:
* THEY can tax the internet if they wish as opposed to the US requiring a Tarrif to participate, sell, etc. (Or alternatively keep it free, or distribute net maintenence and growth taxes among all U.N. countries which is probably more likely)
* THEY can control I-Net growth in a manner better suited to everyone getting it.
I think the primary concern the US should have is what if the U.N. convinces other countries to set up their own UN-based global net, with their own addressing and DNS structure? Considering how the EU got together, it would not be impossible for the entire EU to form their own and force the US to join just to remain in-the-loop. Something tells me while the US shouldn't turn control over the UN, assistance should be provided to the UN so they can get more involved in the US side of things.
This is exactly my argument regarding TiVo's lifetime service. In my opinion if I buy a lifetime service agreement it should be for access to the service for the lifetime of the service itself. As part of that service, TiVo agrees to upload new service software that will guarantee bug fixes and new features within the limits of the machine as purchased or the service. TiVo says the lifetime service only applies to the machine you've purchased and no farther. I don't "subscribe" to a machine. I subscribe to a service.
The machine and the software to run it is another matter.
Just enter the part of the universe you'd like to search and click "I Feel Lucky!"
Zimbra doesn't really push the envelope at first glance, but I was impressed by the conversation controls and the tags.
For me tags are incredibly useful and I am often annoyed at Outlook's search tools and how I handle getting to the mail I really need. So for me, Zimbra doesn't innovate as much as it provides a few interesting gadgets.
Palm's biggest problem now is that they went to Win Mobile. What made Palm unique for years was their innovative operating system.
What made Palm truly suck was their unwillingness to upgrade the OS and to make it easy to upgrade as it went along. There are no decent controls over the quality of products out there and everything you could even consider adding to the OS costs too much money for what we've already spent on the device.
There are two versions now of the PalmOS that have yet to really see the light of day, and now they probably never will. Sad. They restricted the OS, when they could have made it free to download and even easier for people to get rid of their old palms, recycle them and get into the newer models. Moving from old to new was a pain in the ass.
Last year I bought a Palm 650. Now I'm sad I did, despite using everything from the Contact Book, getting an instant messenging client (Agile's an ok client when it's not crashing), Web browsing all the time (why is it so difficult to find a new browser for palm? the one they have onboard stinks!) for a variety of important tasks, and Versamail for email checking.
The thing is, the power users DO want Video and Music on our handheld. We want to be able to customise it. We want to be able to use it as a checkbook register AND to track our finances when we're not in front of the computer (thank you PocketQuicken!).... But no matter what you do, the applications are painfully outdated and as the UI gets more and more frustrating to use...Why spend $500 to get into a PDA that just doesn't expand and doesn't really allow innovation?
For Palm, going to Windows is an easy out for them. Their phone/pda (which isn't that great. It's just a shell to most folks, they just want it to work) at least has a solid if not innovative platform for what will amount to serious inflexibility.
No amount of Windows goodness (blech, I hate saying that) will change the hardware limits, and let's face it, we're entering a time when the Sony PSP is a step away from becoming a phone, when Apple's iPod is a step away from becoming a PDA, and basically everything handheld wants to really be a Phone/PDA/Media Device combination. It's use and adapt the technology time or lose the battle, and instead of releasing what was going to be a really innovative new operating system (Cobalt's next generation) out into the wild as open source for people to work with, Palm sidles up to this to keep the hardware sold. Again, Sad.
Within the next few months, I'm going to go buy a new PDA, and it's going to be a Linux or Windows box, since the Palm Hardware with Windows on it is crippled at best and horrid at worst.
I dunno. I'll uh...look it up on google.