You see, in the Sun Tzu method of war, you've already lost because you engaged them in the first place, instead of doing something better. Whether lock-in or not (customer lock is a venerated action in the computer industry since its beginning, not that's a wise idea), just the fact you're busy with them sucks your time away from more useful things. Microsoft is not a market leader, they're a market follower. Sometimes it takes them ten revisions and more to establish a beachhead, then they get marketshare because their money making machine is very good.
I don't think that Google is evil, rather to point to TFA, they're immeshed in fighting Microsoft instead of evolving their own marketplaces. It's been proven that operating systems, 'office applications', server platforms, even databases can be done better than Microsoft-- but they've made themselves the target to beat and people get sucked into that psychosis. Google is now in a reality distortion field.... one that Stallman and even Steve Jobs shook off. Maybe it was a 12-step program. No matter: if you accept Microsoft as the one to beat then you've already been defeated as Microsoft isn't a pillar of success to fight with. Their only high mark is an ocean of undeserved cash from bad business practices.
Work is never done. There's always a bug to fix, something needs to added to connect to another API, new features must be added because of feature creep disease, and so on.
Someone must maintain, document, update, and so on.
Free isn't really free. It's donated asset development time. It didn't appear spontaneously-- it was made. That's not to say that 'free' is evil, indeed I like it. But Google is by no means free! The ads you see underwrite what you use. It's like roadside advertising paying for streets. The signs are pretty damn ugly if you ask me.... and indeed they don't pay for the road, our taxes do.
There is no benevolence there-- make no mistake about this fact. We get to pick our charities. Google isn't one of them, nor are we charities of Google-- or Microsoft for that matter.
This is why the Stallman model of 'free' has to be used as a reference because he's talking about a world that doesn't exist and is only a work in progress, the progress fueled by those that are happy with the stricture and ecosystems of the 'free' model. Google has some benevolence, but only as it potentially rewards its stockholders. All pretentiousness to the contrary ought to be investigated by stockholders of Google.
Knocking Microsoft down a few more pegs is a useless sort of endeavor. Little good comes of that.
Instead, growing the industry means applications and services that people want to use because they understand them and they have high value. Free is great, but even free comes with a price tag, as in TANSTAAFL. Someone has to do the work, support the problems, upgrade to meet new OS or API needs, fix bugs, and grow the stuff at a reasonable pace.
For all of Google's cleverness, it's run by a guy taught at the feet of Novell, where he was CEO and fought Microsoft on other levels. Some of the litigation, like the Novell/Caldera/Microsoft litigation still isn't over, and the problems was, get this: DOS.
There's some truth, therefore, to Lyon's assertions. Schmidt really is after Microsoft, and he's a long student of their weaknesses. This, in and of itself, doesn't make a better industry, but it does make Google ostensibly grow by making Microsoft look stupid.
In the case of Vista, Windows Mobile, XBox, Zune, and a dozen more forehead-slappers of unrealized success, Microsoft is stupid. I won't even go over to the business practices problem, as it's a dead horse. Google does have a few bright ideas, and buys more of them. Their centrist model comes from Search business, and ChromeOS is one more Sun-like (oh, right, Schmidt worked *there*, too) centrist offering.
So Lyons isn't all wet, and this clash of the titans crap will get old, soon.
Each element that you speak of, right down to the packaging and external box labels, are manufactured.
The problem is that most of these pieces don't happen in the USA, they're individually made mostly in China and the ASEAN countries. We've exported the labor component, as have many US companies.
The 'shareholder' value is corporate speak for being enslaved to Wall Street for the task of producing excellent quarter after excellent quarter. No regard is made for US labor at all, and the fact that the labor is exported is lauded.
Yes, innovation and IP from Apple are rewarded handsomely. And the US labor market keeps looking uglier and uglier because US manufacturers can't deal with manufacturing processes that utilize cost-effective US labor in its products. What do Chinese laborers get? Not very much. OSHA and pollution controls? Not very many. People hungry for work? Plenty.
As to what the evidence means, the scientific community of which I'm a nominal member has put together some pretty cogent correlations between what man has done, and how-- oddly?-- the glaciers and ice have melted, how the weather's gone a bit freakish, El Nino's and other bizarre metrics point towards the likely fact that:
We did it.
And we are obligated to our future generations to fix it. It's not necessary for everyone to be involved in the process, only that the process of examination is open and truthful. Much of the points of the alarmists is that there's lots of evidence to be worried... indeed very worried.
Musta been a helluva bus to pump that much through.... or there were TOE cards on board.
You're not going to get that with wireless, I don't care if it's 802.11n or some kind of time/space dispersion.... but that's a lotta data you're pumping. Seems unrealistic somehow.
One would hope that there might be equilibrium, as though this were an algebraic equation to be balanced. It might not be such an equation. What may turn out is something completely different.
Any of the search engines is likely to 'respect' robots.txt. Not doing so has a grey area of possible penalties. The newspapers have had a formula that's been around for centuries. It boils down to global, regional, and local news, coupled to features and driven by copy sales and ads. Classified ads are now eaten by Craigslist and others. Display ads and special sections/'custom media" are what remain for many newspapers. That's dwindling, too.
So is there an added value beyond comics and coupons? Perhaps not very much. Not enough to fund traditional printing presses. The equilibrium you cite may be that electronic sources dominate, with their funding ecosystems-- primitive as they are. Excluding one's publication from search engines might be fatal. There is no equilibrium with fatality.
Lots of people voted for Obama that didn't care the color of his skin. Your bottom line is plainly counter to the actual outcome of the vote. Get your fingers out of your ears and listen to the people vote: Not McCain.
I don't think I'm missing your point, I'm categorically criticizing it.
1) We have a junk disposal problem with computers anyway; clogging it further with cheap machines isn't an answer.
2) The decent machines cost money. Face it: quality costs, and subsidies by carriers/telcos/etc are false economy
3) You certainly jest when you reply, 'Maybe. Maybe not.' Who do you think you're kidding? Tethered broadband costs lots of $$ in the US, and the carriers are having trouble dishing up what they have (no fights regarding Verizon vs AT&T, etc.). Subsidized cell phones are the same scam.
4) Netbooks fill a need, and I see that need. It also means that the cloud/SaaS apps that are required to be used to do something real are probably going to be tethered to a provider. ChromeOS means you better love Google.... or it will be difficult (probably not impossible) to move to someone else's meager offerings. Google's service levels aren't guaranteed, and if they're offline for whatever reason, go fish.
5) The average consumer REELS at having to dump their $500 machine every three years. They would (and so would I) prefer to invest every five or even more years in new hardware. But the stuff breaks, and is subject to the madness of Moore's Law, keeping up with the joneses, and so on. Six months? Ye Gawds, Man.
6) A good tool is a good tool. In my cabinet are lots of tools that are older than I am, and I'm a half-century-plus. These tools stand the test of time because they're quality devices. The concept of a disposable machine is as abhorent as disposable razors. If they can't built it well enough to withstand average use over a decent lifecycle, then they shouldn't build it at all. Look at the fate of General Motors for questions.
Finally, Google's revenues be damned. We owe them nothing, and they're not my knight in shining armor to fight Microsoft, Apple, or anyone else. They must live in the market by producing products that customers want and being good citizens like the rest of us. Should they make something I like and it meets the criteria of a strong value and life, I'll get it. Otherwise, just because they build a centrist model ecosystem doesn't mean everyone's going to flock there. They have to do better than that.
It would be a freaking toy. You'd end up using your main computer because at that price, the darn thing is almost disposable.
And if it had a cell modem in it, it would end up costing you a lot more than free, $150/whatever.
Plastic tinker-toy tools are for those that just play around. Buying something with quality helps-- despite the fact that today's quad-core notebook has a half-life of only three years if we're lucky.
But there is no joke here. Litigation will ensue over supposedly innovative process control. Their honest attempts at doing things will be thwarted by an organization that pulled this out of their very butt, called it their own, and now want to nick you for their share of what's plainly obvious.
Plainly obvious you say? When you RTFA and go to uspto.gov and look it up, read it, and go WTF?????!!!???? then you can have a sense of outrage and indignation rather than the indentured servitude you jokingly offer yourself up as.
You have the spine of wet spaghetti. If principles can be easily sacrificed for a few bucks here and there, you tacitly approve of the evil you describe.
Be it ever so crumble, there's no plate like Chrome.
Remember when Microsoft was going to converge the native Win32 (post OS/2) code base with the DOS version of Windows 3X/9X/ME? There were some very odd problems that built huge compromises to make each code tree continue to run apps. Google is getting lost in this same trap.
Android is cute, and it's controlled as though it were a MacOS. ChromeOS isn't really an operating system, it's a semi-autonomous browser app scheme.... a bot-like appliance.
But please think differently, as Google is trying to use the world to shape it into something usable that will Kill Microsoft. I'm reminded of the bad aphorisms regarding building things, and people will buy them because they're cool. This whole mess stinks of intellectual narcissism.
I'd like to think we're going to become corpsickles, and become cured at sometime in the future, then zip around the galactic core, and come back to find machines that can make you young again. Thank you, Larry Niven.
Or perhaps we'll enforce Azimov's laws of robotics, finally. Already we have Spacers-- they live in gated communities and must have anxiety disorder.
Or maybe we'll have lots of nudity and sex and strange teleknesis like Heinlein suggested.
My point is that it takes imaginative writers, and with the pace of technology change we have (with SciFi as an inspiration), it takes some Hollywood visionaries to fund SciFi. Right now, it's expensive to do because of the enormous out-do-each-other budgets that funded movies and TV shows in the early 2000's. That and the fact that the book publishers prefer funding cheap Star Trek books rather than really original fiction.
There's already huge numbers of VDI constructs to do what you describe and they're all fairly lightweight. But a browser/application instance to do work is also mature. I like that ChromeOS is fast, lightweight, etc. Fast boot is good. Speed is good, both of which are stated goals.
The ChromeOS then becomes network latency-constrained. Blame speed on the network, or on the host. It's a shift of resources, not unlike mirrors. SaaS we have. Fine. Browsers we have. Fine. Open source we have. Fine. Sandboxing we have. Fine. Netbooks and kiosking constructs we have. Fine. There's not much new here. The wheel's being reinvented, but it's still round.
Tho I'll agree about Enderle and O'Gara, there's not much to ChromeOS at all. Apps? Look to the web.
I already have browsers coming out my ears. I like doing some of my own processing on the fat multicores in my notebook.
Google still hasn't shown a real 1) educational 2) business case 3) entertainment or 4) porn case for ChromeOS. Any of those could drive it. Right now, it's just a lightweight ROM-able appliance and a Microsoft/MacOS/Linux killer looking for a spot marked X.
This is centrist computing at best, and a goofy attempt at targeting the bloat in all of the aforementioend operating systems. Snooze.
Userspace object/API access is a difficult problem for everybody. This is part of the beauty of XP SP2, as user is demoted from admin/root and the access only (hopefully) as an affect on userspace.
The problem is too many interface points, and no parsing between and among objects that pipe to these access points. Nowadays these local controls are vastly more limited and the damage that can be done is much smaller.
And it seems ludicrous to me to expect Microsoft not to favor its own platform; after all, it not only invented but develops it. Silverlight on a Mac is an afterthought, as it will be on all non-Microsoft platform. This is the reality of Microsoft. Third parties might try to lift all boats, but Microsoft hasn't, doesn't, and won't. To expect Microsoft not to have an interproduct bias is just silly.
The citation of hotair as a credible site is similar to the mistake of quoting wikipedia-- the sources may or may not be informed or unbiased in a journalistic or even scientific context.
While you replied to someone that's a bit over the top, hotair isn't known for their objectivity-- indeed they're known for their bias. Nonetheless, you might have found supportive data from a more credible source, and I don't necessarily mean the US Gov at all.
Slashdot Mirror
You see, in the Sun Tzu method of war, you've already lost because you engaged them in the first place, instead of doing something better. Whether lock-in or not (customer lock is a venerated action in the computer industry since its beginning, not that's a wise idea), just the fact you're busy with them sucks your time away from more useful things. Microsoft is not a market leader, they're a market follower. Sometimes it takes them ten revisions and more to establish a beachhead, then they get marketshare because their money making machine is very good.
I don't think that Google is evil, rather to point to TFA, they're immeshed in fighting Microsoft instead of evolving their own marketplaces. It's been proven that operating systems, 'office applications', server platforms, even databases can be done better than Microsoft-- but they've made themselves the target to beat and people get sucked into that psychosis. Google is now in a reality distortion field.... one that Stallman and even Steve Jobs shook off. Maybe it was a 12-step program. No matter: if you accept Microsoft as the one to beat then you've already been defeated as Microsoft isn't a pillar of success to fight with. Their only high mark is an ocean of undeserved cash from bad business practices.
Work is never done. There's always a bug to fix, something needs to added to connect to another API, new features must be added because of feature creep disease, and so on.
Someone must maintain, document, update, and so on.
Free isn't really free. It's donated asset development time. It didn't appear spontaneously-- it was made. That's not to say that 'free' is evil, indeed I like it. But Google is by no means free! The ads you see underwrite what you use. It's like roadside advertising paying for streets. The signs are pretty damn ugly if you ask me.... and indeed they don't pay for the road, our taxes do.
There is no benevolence there-- make no mistake about this fact. We get to pick our charities. Google isn't one of them, nor are we charities of Google-- or Microsoft for that matter.
This is why the Stallman model of 'free' has to be used as a reference because he's talking about a world that doesn't exist and is only a work in progress, the progress fueled by those that are happy with the stricture and ecosystems of the 'free' model. Google has some benevolence, but only as it potentially rewards its stockholders. All pretentiousness to the contrary ought to be investigated by stockholders of Google.
Knocking Microsoft down a few more pegs is a useless sort of endeavor. Little good comes of that.
Instead, growing the industry means applications and services that people want to use because they understand them and they have high value. Free is great, but even free comes with a price tag, as in TANSTAAFL. Someone has to do the work, support the problems, upgrade to meet new OS or API needs, fix bugs, and grow the stuff at a reasonable pace.
For all of Google's cleverness, it's run by a guy taught at the feet of Novell, where he was CEO and fought Microsoft on other levels. Some of the litigation, like the Novell/Caldera/Microsoft litigation still isn't over, and the problems was, get this: DOS.
There's some truth, therefore, to Lyon's assertions. Schmidt really is after Microsoft, and he's a long student of their weaknesses. This, in and of itself, doesn't make a better industry, but it does make Google ostensibly grow by making Microsoft look stupid.
In the case of Vista, Windows Mobile, XBox, Zune, and a dozen more forehead-slappers of unrealized success, Microsoft is stupid. I won't even go over to the business practices problem, as it's a dead horse. Google does have a few bright ideas, and buys more of them. Their centrist model comes from Search business, and ChromeOS is one more Sun-like (oh, right, Schmidt worked *there*, too) centrist offering.
So Lyons isn't all wet, and this clash of the titans crap will get old, soon.
Each element that you speak of, right down to the packaging and external box labels, are manufactured.
The problem is that most of these pieces don't happen in the USA, they're individually made mostly in China and the ASEAN countries. We've exported the labor component, as have many US companies.
The 'shareholder' value is corporate speak for being enslaved to Wall Street for the task of producing excellent quarter after excellent quarter. No regard is made for US labor at all, and the fact that the labor is exported is lauded.
Yes, innovation and IP from Apple are rewarded handsomely. And the US labor market keeps looking uglier and uglier because US manufacturers can't deal with manufacturing processes that utilize cost-effective US labor in its products. What do Chinese laborers get? Not very much. OSHA and pollution controls? Not very many. People hungry for work? Plenty.
I'm glad for your god.
As to what the evidence means, the scientific community of which I'm a nominal member has put together some pretty cogent correlations between what man has done, and how-- oddly?-- the glaciers and ice have melted, how the weather's gone a bit freakish, El Nino's and other bizarre metrics point towards the likely fact that:
We did it.
And we are obligated to our future generations to fix it. It's not necessary for everyone to be involved in the process, only that the process of examination is open and truthful. Much of the points of the alarmists is that there's lots of evidence to be worried... indeed very worried.
Musta been a helluva bus to pump that much through.... or there were TOE cards on board.
You're not going to get that with wireless, I don't care if it's 802.11n or some kind of time/space dispersion.... but that's a lotta data you're pumping. Seems unrealistic somehow.
Were they short-term, perhaps you'd have an argument. Indeed they've melted something that hadn't seen that in say, well, over twenty thousand years.
Yeah, you're right.
None of that melting ice caps, record glacial melts, and lack of ozone layer above the Antartic stuff means anything. All of it's BS.
I'll grant you that transparency hasn't been very good. But you can ignore that little passage between Thule and Vancouver that's nearly ice free now.
One would hope that there might be equilibrium, as though this were an algebraic equation to be balanced. It might not be such an equation. What may turn out is something completely different.
Any of the search engines is likely to 'respect' robots.txt. Not doing so has a grey area of possible penalties. The newspapers have had a formula that's been around for centuries. It boils down to global, regional, and local news, coupled to features and driven by copy sales and ads. Classified ads are now eaten by Craigslist and others. Display ads and special sections/'custom media" are what remain for many newspapers. That's dwindling, too.
So is there an added value beyond comics and coupons? Perhaps not very much. Not enough to fund traditional printing presses. The equilibrium you cite may be that electronic sources dominate, with their funding ecosystems-- primitive as they are. Excluding one's publication from search engines might be fatal. There is no equilibrium with fatality.
correlation != causation.
Lots of people voted for Obama that didn't care the color of his skin. Your bottom line is plainly counter to the actual outcome of the vote. Get your fingers out of your ears and listen to the people vote: Not McCain.
Your racial profiling is truly silly.
Relativity at work.
Your cited experiment seems to show entanglement by observation is FTL.
But really, what's faster than a two-year old? Therein is the true upper-end limit of c.
I don't think I'm missing your point, I'm categorically criticizing it.
1) We have a junk disposal problem with computers anyway; clogging it further with cheap machines isn't an answer.
2) The decent machines cost money. Face it: quality costs, and subsidies by carriers/telcos/etc are false economy
3) You certainly jest when you reply, 'Maybe. Maybe not.' Who do you think you're kidding? Tethered broadband costs lots of $$ in the US, and the carriers are having trouble dishing up what they have (no fights regarding Verizon vs AT&T, etc.). Subsidized cell phones are the same scam.
4) Netbooks fill a need, and I see that need. It also means that the cloud/SaaS apps that are required to be used to do something real are probably going to be tethered to a provider. ChromeOS means you better love Google.... or it will be difficult (probably not impossible) to move to someone else's meager offerings. Google's service levels aren't guaranteed, and if they're offline for whatever reason, go fish.
5) The average consumer REELS at having to dump their $500 machine every three years. They would (and so would I) prefer to invest every five or even more years in new hardware. But the stuff breaks, and is subject to the madness of Moore's Law, keeping up with the joneses, and so on. Six months? Ye Gawds, Man.
6) A good tool is a good tool. In my cabinet are lots of tools that are older than I am, and I'm a half-century-plus. These tools stand the test of time because they're quality devices. The concept of a disposable machine is as abhorent as disposable razors. If they can't built it well enough to withstand average use over a decent lifecycle, then they shouldn't build it at all. Look at the fate of General Motors for questions.
Finally, Google's revenues be damned. We owe them nothing, and they're not my knight in shining armor to fight Microsoft, Apple, or anyone else. They must live in the market by producing products that customers want and being good citizens like the rest of us. Should they make something I like and it meets the criteria of a strong value and life, I'll get it. Otherwise, just because they build a centrist model ecosystem doesn't mean everyone's going to flock there. They have to do better than that.
It would be a freaking toy. You'd end up using your main computer because at that price, the darn thing is almost disposable.
And if it had a cell modem in it, it would end up costing you a lot more than free, $150/whatever.
Plastic tinker-toy tools are for those that just play around. Buying something with quality helps-- despite the fact that today's quad-core notebook has a half-life of only three years if we're lucky.
But there is no joke here. Litigation will ensue over supposedly innovative process control. Their honest attempts at doing things will be thwarted by an organization that pulled this out of their very butt, called it their own, and now want to nick you for their share of what's plainly obvious.
Plainly obvious you say? When you RTFA and go to uspto.gov and look it up, read it, and go WTF?????!!!???? then you can have a sense of outrage and indignation rather than the indentured servitude you jokingly offer yourself up as.
You have the spine of wet spaghetti. If principles can be easily sacrificed for a few bucks here and there, you tacitly approve of the evil you describe.
Mod parent up.
This is out of control. It's time to start the boycott Amazon mission. This is plainly ridiculous and far beyond an abuse of the patent system.
Be it ever so crumble, there's no plate like Chrome.
Remember when Microsoft was going to converge the native Win32 (post OS/2) code base with the DOS version of Windows 3X/9X/ME? There were some very odd problems that built huge compromises to make each code tree continue to run apps. Google is getting lost in this same trap.
Android is cute, and it's controlled as though it were a MacOS. ChromeOS isn't really an operating system, it's a semi-autonomous browser app scheme.... a bot-like appliance.
But please think differently, as Google is trying to use the world to shape it into something usable that will Kill Microsoft. I'm reminded of the bad aphorisms regarding building things, and people will buy them because they're cool. This whole mess stinks of intellectual narcissism.
Too depressing.
I'd like to think we're going to become corpsickles, and become cured at sometime in the future, then zip around the galactic core, and come back to find machines that can make you young again. Thank you, Larry Niven.
Or perhaps we'll enforce Azimov's laws of robotics, finally. Already we have Spacers-- they live in gated communities and must have anxiety disorder.
Or maybe we'll have lots of nudity and sex and strange teleknesis like Heinlein suggested.
My point is that it takes imaginative writers, and with the pace of technology change we have (with SciFi as an inspiration), it takes some Hollywood visionaries to fund SciFi. Right now, it's expensive to do because of the enormous out-do-each-other budgets that funded movies and TV shows in the early 2000's. That and the fact that the book publishers prefer funding cheap Star Trek books rather than really original fiction.
There's already huge numbers of VDI constructs to do what you describe and they're all fairly lightweight. But a browser/application instance to do work is also mature. I like that ChromeOS is fast, lightweight, etc. Fast boot is good. Speed is good, both of which are stated goals.
The ChromeOS then becomes network latency-constrained. Blame speed on the network, or on the host. It's a shift of resources, not unlike mirrors. SaaS we have. Fine. Browsers we have. Fine. Open source we have. Fine. Sandboxing we have. Fine. Netbooks and kiosking constructs we have. Fine. There's not much new here. The wheel's being reinvented, but it's still round.
Tho I'll agree about Enderle and O'Gara, there's not much to ChromeOS at all. Apps? Look to the web.
I already have browsers coming out my ears. I like doing some of my own processing on the fat multicores in my notebook.
Google still hasn't shown a real 1) educational 2) business case 3) entertainment or 4) porn case for ChromeOS. Any of those could drive it. Right now, it's just a lightweight ROM-able appliance and a Microsoft/MacOS/Linux killer looking for a spot marked X.
This is centrist computing at best, and a goofy attempt at targeting the bloat in all of the aforementioend operating systems. Snooze.
Userspace object/API access is a difficult problem for everybody. This is part of the beauty of XP SP2, as user is demoted from admin/root and the access only (hopefully) as an affect on userspace.
The problem is too many interface points, and no parsing between and among objects that pipe to these access points. Nowadays these local controls are vastly more limited and the damage that can be done is much smaller.
And it seems ludicrous to me to expect Microsoft not to favor its own platform; after all, it not only invented but develops it. Silverlight on a Mac is an afterthought, as it will be on all non-Microsoft platform. This is the reality of Microsoft. Third parties might try to lift all boats, but Microsoft hasn't, doesn't, and won't. To expect Microsoft not to have an interproduct bias is just silly.
The citation of hotair as a credible site is similar to the mistake of quoting wikipedia-- the sources may or may not be informed or unbiased in a journalistic or even scientific context.
While you replied to someone that's a bit over the top, hotair isn't known for their objectivity-- indeed they're known for their bias. Nonetheless, you might have found supportive data from a more credible source, and I don't necessarily mean the US Gov at all.
If one was really interested in revenue, the very next version ought to have been challenged.
I favor a second approach.
Consider robots.txt
Now consider bing.txt and google.txt.
Please line up, and insert your $$ into your respective buckets, please.