And frankly, letting the EU play it (and Google, now) simply because *we* don't like IE is ridiculous. Next thing we know, they'll have to start bundling Notepad++, too, because Notepad has the market cornered;)
That may seem like a sensible argument, but it doesn't hold up. The web browser has a much bigger and more direct impact on communications and commerce than something like Notepad. Also, Microsoft has never been accused of specifically targeting Notepad competitors and running them out of business by leveraging their OS monopoly.
If the EU does this, then will they also force Apple to open the iPhone to other browsers?
I hope so. I generally don't have problem with laws that give consumers more choice. In fact, I hope that sooner or later Apple gives up on this notion of controlling all application distribution for the iPhone.
But even if they don't address those issues, two wrongs don't make a right. I have no objection to Microsoft being forced to support removal of IE and bundling of other browsers.
Lots of your responses to your first question are focused on the fact that Google is marketing their own browser. While that's true, I would go farther than that: Google's entire business relies on web browsers. If lots of people are using a web browser that doesn't function properly, then it's a big headache for Google. If one of the most powerful companies in tech is pushing people to use a browser that doesn't work properly, then I'm sure Google will take an interest.
And beyond that, Google has been very interested in pushing web standards forward so that they can improve their products. There are things like improved javascript support, client-side caching of web applications, and improved CSS+HTML support that would allow them to build more advanced web applications. That's why they've invested money in both Firefox and Chrome. They can't continue to build their business if Microsoft is going to stonewall browser improvements.
I guess you're trying to bait people, but I think you're right on both counts. Google has a number of projects that they've been working on that depend on moving web standards forward. Microsoft's inclusion of IE as the default browser in the most dominant desktop OS, paired with Microsoft's refusal to implement web standards, have clearly made it difficult for Google to build the sort of business they'd like to build.
It seems to me that Google has valid grounds for complaint that they can't increase the merits of their own products, due largely to IE's weakness, so I can't imagine how they could have the confidence to compete "on merits alone"? That's why they need to push anything that might encourage people to use a real web browser that works properly.
Yeah, isn't Dollhouse the second Joss Whedon show that Fox has started out in a Friday night time slot? I mean, really, if you're going to start a new show on Friday night, you may as well just title it "Cancel me".
I don't know... maybe. But I think either way they're going to have to start embracing open standards and compete based on features and quality rather than vendor lock-in.
They were released that way. They were made to be cut up into 6 episodes each (or was it 4?) to be aired a few months later on Comedy Central.
Well that's what I read they were going to do, but whenever I've seen it aired on Comedy central, They're all played back-to-back. On the on-screen guide, it even shows up as a single 2 hour (or however long) block. And they aren't intermixing those episodes with their normal weekly episodes, either.
If they had waited until all the movies were released and then aired them as normal 30 minute episodes, a new one each week, over a few months as though it were a normal TV season, then I think I would have watched them differently.
Well I've seen two of the movies, and I disagree a little. They weren't amazing or anything, but I would wonder if some of your disappointment was because you were expecting them to be spectacular by virtue of them being "movies". You know, when something is released as a movie, even if it's straight to DVD, you might have higher expectations than if it's just a normal show.
I watched "Bender's Big Score" and "The Beast with a Billion Backs", and I think if they had been released on TV as a bunch of "to be continued" episodes, they would have been fine-- at least passible. But even if not so, I think it may still be worth cutting them some slack. Shows like Futurama can require that the writers (and everyone else) gets into a groove, and then can build off of prior episodes in funny ways. They didn't have much time to do that.
Anyway, if they put it on the air again, I'll definitely watch it. At the very least, those people have earned another season's worth of my attention.
This is what I came in here to say. Microsoft is primarily a software company, so really the biggest threat to them isn't going to be another competing software company, but rather the commodification of software in general. Whenever your product becomes a commodity, your profit margin is going to shrink. So though Apple offering a better operating system for a couple hundred less would be a big worry for Microsoft, it's much scarier to think that anyone can download Linux for free and not have to pay anyone anything for it.
And in that sense, Linux isn't as big of a threat to Apple as it is to Microsoft, since Apple is primarily a hardware company. Their software and services are, to some degree, value-added. Even if operating systems in general become a commodity, Apple can continue to sell hardware and can even continue to offer value-added features to sell their hardware.
However, none of this is to say that Apple hasn't done damage to Microsoft. Apple has helped raise awareness of the idea that you can use something other than Windows, and I would maintain that iTunes and the iPod have severely damaged Microsoft's long-term media plans-- but I won't go into too much detail here.
Correction: When I say "everything but the kernel", I should have also excluded the GUI and stuff. That stuff is developed by Apple. I was only thinking of the Unix userland tools and stuff.
AFAIK it's a Unix-like environment running on top of the Mach microkernel with a BSD-ish userland.
Not to argue too much, but that might be understating it a slightly. According to everything I've ever read on the subject, it's certified Unix running on the Mach microkernel, with everything but the kernel derived largely from FreeBSD or NetBSD.
Mostly I'm rejecting something that you seem to be arguing, which is "imbalances in power are automatically null in cases where the weaker party has an alternative." I think that's patently false. There are always alternatives, but imbalances in power often matter.
The other issues are regarding things like group dynamics and organizational psychology. Those are interesting and complex topics, but they aren't very central to what I'm talking about. If you get into a conflict with a large company, i.e. people within that company who discretionary access to company resources, then you are probably not on equal footing in that conflict. There are ways to handle it, but those things aren't the same things you'd do if you were acting from a position of power.
It's nothing at all like saying that. Are you seriously comparing getting a job at a different employer or purchasing goods from a different store to moving to another country?!
Yes, they're similar, at least, in the way that I'm comparing them: both are cases where you might theoretically "have alternatives" and yet those alternatives may range from "inconvenient" to "seriously damaging to my life". In fact, the comparison isn't really that outlandish when you consider that both scenarios may require that you completely uproot your life and set up life someplace else.
I know you think you're being very clever and serious, but this has nothing to do with "taking responsibility for your own situation." I mean, sure, a slave can "take responsibility for his own situation" in that he can revolt against his masters, but that doesn't mean that there's a disparity of power in that relationship.
And yes, I'm also comparing slavery to employment. Not because they aren't different, but because there are similarities. Both are systems under which a person solicits work from someone in a weaker socioeconomic position. They're different in the sorts of rights that are given to the workers, but different models of employment can also grant different rights to workers too.
If you think it's silly to compare things that are similar but not identical, then might I suggest that there's no point in continuing this conversation?
Sometimes there aren't many employers in a field, and a single employer can be capable of blackballing you across an industry.
But even that isn't really my point. Of course it's a matter of a degree, but a big enough company can have millions of dollars on-hand and an army of lawyers. If it really turns into a battle, you aren't on equal footing. So even when you have other options, it's still the case that the relationship is not between two entities of equal power. Simply saying that you have alternative options doesn't make that disparity of power disappear.
It's kind of like saying, "Well the police don't have any power over citizens, since citizens can always choose to live in another country."
But I don't want my choices imposed on anyone else. To healthy competition!
I agree with this. I may be in the minority here, but I don't want Windows to die. I just want Microsoft to be in a position where they have to fight fair because they don't have the influence to rig the entire market.
Global software monoculture wouldn't be such a good thing. It's always good to have valid competitors, so long as there's actually a level playing field.
I can't really blame them for altering their version of Linux, at least not as an abstract rule. At the very least, they're going to want to re-theme it for branding purposes, to give it a distinctive look, or at least to get rid of the Ubuntu brown. The probably should make sure that it has any fixes relevant to their hardware, assuming the distro doesn't accept their patches or just hasn't accepted the patches into the "stable" version yet. On top of that, of course they're going to want to add value if they can think of a way to do that.
Of course, that assumes that they have people at their company who are qualified to do this. The theme has to be good. The value-adds have to actually add value. That's not as easy as it seems. And then, these companies will unfortunately also try to protect their additions by trying to make it so their competitors can't use them. That's going to run afoul of the open source community even if not violating the GPL.
Here's something I'd love for Dell to do: create their own apt repositories (and repositories for any other package managers are used by distros they support) that provides drivers and any other software (e.g. openmanage) for all of their hardware. Servers, desktops, netbooks, everything.
That's great in theory, but it's not really true. Often you're talking about a relationship between an organization of thousands of people vs. 1 person. You're talking about an organization with millions of dollars vs someone with maybe a few hundred dollars in the bank. The heads of these organizations are often rich, powerful, and well-connected people. Oh, and for any given job, there are tons of applicants.
Now if there are labor shortages the balance of power can change in the employee's favor. Also, if you have particular expertise or skills or something then you can get a certain level of power for yourself. However, most of the time, the balance of power is in favor of the company.
On the other hand, some of the new features could (possibly) reduce the use of Flash and Javascript in the first place, since you'll be able to create some nice effects without them.
I'm not talking about Microsoft Word particularly. I'm talking about Microsoft, Cisco, Oracle, EMC, and the like that make some fairly complex products, and just pointing out that reducing complexity can run contrary to their business interests.
Yeah, I had a boss once who used to pretty much ignore any resume that had the letters "MCSE" featured prominently. He said, "if that's the best thing they have to tell me, then it's not worth my trouble to read much beyond that."
If someone chooses to be a prick and that is outside of policy (granted it may not be) then that person can be symbolically caned for their inappropriate actions.
Maybe if that person's superiors are actually good, decent people who are paying enough attention to care.
Or maybe if you have proof that what happened was blatantly inappropriate, in violation of some law, and you're willing to sue or otherwise make life uncomfortable for that person's superiors. And even then, if they're in a position of power, they may well make your life uncomfortable too. If you make too much noise, you'll get labelled as "trouble" and maybe have a hard time finding work in the future.
Completely off-topic: am I the only one who has ever had the thought that companies selling products and then also selling training/certifications for use of those products is a weird conflict of interest?
On one level, of course, it makes a lot of sense. Who better to provide training than those who make the product? On the other hand, how much of a motive do you have to make your product truly easy to use if you're also making tons of money selling training and certificates? If anything, it's all the more incentive to make your products confusing to laymen, and change things up every now and then so that people have to "stay current", even if the old way was perfectly fine.
Yeah, I know, it's probably a paranoid thought. But it seems strange to me sometimes, that the incentive might be going the wrong way.
Microsoft is just grabbing the opportunity to train more devs and IT in advanced Microsoft products.
Yeah, my first thought when I read the summary was, "So Microsoft is teaching 'the skills needed to succeed in the field of technology,' huh? Does that include Linux administration?" Because seriously, that's a pretty important skill.
No, I'm not just being snarky or karma whoring. That's a really useful skill.
It's not about "negotiation between equals" -- simply don't work (or buy from) there if you don't like the terms.
So you're saying that it's not "negotiation between equals", and that I can either take it or leave it. Isn't that what my post said?
My whole point was that, when you're dealing with a large business, you have to agree to their terms or else not deal with them. That bespeaks an enormous disparity of power in the relationship that you have with that company.
It is always the decision of someone within the company. There is no self-aware corporate overlord wailing on its human drones.
No, but sometimes decisions happen within groups in weird ways. Sometimes lots of different people can contribute to an event happening even though none of them actually want it to happen. There's also such a thing as a corporate culture, and it can influence individual actions/decisions.
The correct question is "Is the action in accord with established corporate policy and if not who decided on the exception?"
Yeah, that doesn't always get you as far as you think. Often enough, a manager will interpret policy and follow it more or less depending on what he wants to do anyway. Sometimes the policy is there specifically so people can do what they want, and then point to the policy and say, "It's not my fault. That's just our policy." I'm not making this up. Policies are often overtly for the purpose of CYA, not fairness.
Slashdot Mirror
And frankly, letting the EU play it (and Google, now) simply because *we* don't like IE is ridiculous. Next thing we know, they'll have to start bundling Notepad++, too, because Notepad has the market cornered ;)
That may seem like a sensible argument, but it doesn't hold up. The web browser has a much bigger and more direct impact on communications and commerce than something like Notepad. Also, Microsoft has never been accused of specifically targeting Notepad competitors and running them out of business by leveraging their OS monopoly.
If the EU does this, then will they also force Apple to open the iPhone to other browsers?
I hope so. I generally don't have problem with laws that give consumers more choice. In fact, I hope that sooner or later Apple gives up on this notion of controlling all application distribution for the iPhone.
But even if they don't address those issues, two wrongs don't make a right. I have no objection to Microsoft being forced to support removal of IE and bundling of other browsers.
Lots of your responses to your first question are focused on the fact that Google is marketing their own browser. While that's true, I would go farther than that: Google's entire business relies on web browsers. If lots of people are using a web browser that doesn't function properly, then it's a big headache for Google. If one of the most powerful companies in tech is pushing people to use a browser that doesn't work properly, then I'm sure Google will take an interest.
And beyond that, Google has been very interested in pushing web standards forward so that they can improve their products. There are things like improved javascript support, client-side caching of web applications, and improved CSS+HTML support that would allow them to build more advanced web applications. That's why they've invested money in both Firefox and Chrome. They can't continue to build their business if Microsoft is going to stonewall browser improvements.
I guess you're trying to bait people, but I think you're right on both counts. Google has a number of projects that they've been working on that depend on moving web standards forward. Microsoft's inclusion of IE as the default browser in the most dominant desktop OS, paired with Microsoft's refusal to implement web standards, have clearly made it difficult for Google to build the sort of business they'd like to build.
It seems to me that Google has valid grounds for complaint that they can't increase the merits of their own products, due largely to IE's weakness, so I can't imagine how they could have the confidence to compete "on merits alone"? That's why they need to push anything that might encourage people to use a real web browser that works properly.
Yeah, isn't Dollhouse the second Joss Whedon show that Fox has started out in a Friday night time slot? I mean, really, if you're going to start a new show on Friday night, you may as well just title it "Cancel me".
I don't know... maybe. But I think either way they're going to have to start embracing open standards and compete based on features and quality rather than vendor lock-in.
They were released that way. They were made to be cut up into 6 episodes each (or was it 4?) to be aired a few months later on Comedy Central.
Well that's what I read they were going to do, but whenever I've seen it aired on Comedy central, They're all played back-to-back. On the on-screen guide, it even shows up as a single 2 hour (or however long) block. And they aren't intermixing those episodes with their normal weekly episodes, either.
If they had waited until all the movies were released and then aired them as normal 30 minute episodes, a new one each week, over a few months as though it were a normal TV season, then I think I would have watched them differently.
Well I've seen two of the movies, and I disagree a little. They weren't amazing or anything, but I would wonder if some of your disappointment was because you were expecting them to be spectacular by virtue of them being "movies". You know, when something is released as a movie, even if it's straight to DVD, you might have higher expectations than if it's just a normal show.
I watched "Bender's Big Score" and "The Beast with a Billion Backs", and I think if they had been released on TV as a bunch of "to be continued" episodes, they would have been fine-- at least passible. But even if not so, I think it may still be worth cutting them some slack. Shows like Futurama can require that the writers (and everyone else) gets into a groove, and then can build off of prior episodes in funny ways. They didn't have much time to do that.
Anyway, if they put it on the air again, I'll definitely watch it. At the very least, those people have earned another season's worth of my attention.
This is what I came in here to say. Microsoft is primarily a software company, so really the biggest threat to them isn't going to be another competing software company, but rather the commodification of software in general. Whenever your product becomes a commodity, your profit margin is going to shrink. So though Apple offering a better operating system for a couple hundred less would be a big worry for Microsoft, it's much scarier to think that anyone can download Linux for free and not have to pay anyone anything for it.
And in that sense, Linux isn't as big of a threat to Apple as it is to Microsoft, since Apple is primarily a hardware company. Their software and services are, to some degree, value-added. Even if operating systems in general become a commodity, Apple can continue to sell hardware and can even continue to offer value-added features to sell their hardware.
However, none of this is to say that Apple hasn't done damage to Microsoft. Apple has helped raise awareness of the idea that you can use something other than Windows, and I would maintain that iTunes and the iPod have severely damaged Microsoft's long-term media plans-- but I won't go into too much detail here.
Correction: When I say "everything but the kernel", I should have also excluded the GUI and stuff. That stuff is developed by Apple. I was only thinking of the Unix userland tools and stuff.
AFAIK it's a Unix-like environment running on top of the Mach microkernel with a BSD-ish userland.
Not to argue too much, but that might be understating it a slightly. According to everything I've ever read on the subject, it's certified Unix running on the Mach microkernel, with everything but the kernel derived largely from FreeBSD or NetBSD.
Sorry if I'm being too pedantic.
Mostly I'm rejecting something that you seem to be arguing, which is "imbalances in power are automatically null in cases where the weaker party has an alternative." I think that's patently false. There are always alternatives, but imbalances in power often matter.
The other issues are regarding things like group dynamics and organizational psychology. Those are interesting and complex topics, but they aren't very central to what I'm talking about. If you get into a conflict with a large company, i.e. people within that company who discretionary access to company resources, then you are probably not on equal footing in that conflict. There are ways to handle it, but those things aren't the same things you'd do if you were acting from a position of power.
It's nothing at all like saying that. Are you seriously comparing getting a job at a different employer or purchasing goods from a different store to moving to another country?!
Yes, they're similar, at least, in the way that I'm comparing them: both are cases where you might theoretically "have alternatives" and yet those alternatives may range from "inconvenient" to "seriously damaging to my life". In fact, the comparison isn't really that outlandish when you consider that both scenarios may require that you completely uproot your life and set up life someplace else.
I know you think you're being very clever and serious, but this has nothing to do with "taking responsibility for your own situation." I mean, sure, a slave can "take responsibility for his own situation" in that he can revolt against his masters, but that doesn't mean that there's a disparity of power in that relationship.
And yes, I'm also comparing slavery to employment. Not because they aren't different, but because there are similarities. Both are systems under which a person solicits work from someone in a weaker socioeconomic position. They're different in the sorts of rights that are given to the workers, but different models of employment can also grant different rights to workers too.
If you think it's silly to compare things that are similar but not identical, then might I suggest that there's no point in continuing this conversation?
Sometimes there aren't many employers in a field, and a single employer can be capable of blackballing you across an industry.
But even that isn't really my point. Of course it's a matter of a degree, but a big enough company can have millions of dollars on-hand and an army of lawyers. If it really turns into a battle, you aren't on equal footing. So even when you have other options, it's still the case that the relationship is not between two entities of equal power. Simply saying that you have alternative options doesn't make that disparity of power disappear.
It's kind of like saying, "Well the police don't have any power over citizens, since citizens can always choose to live in another country."
But I don't want my choices imposed on anyone else. To healthy competition!
I agree with this. I may be in the minority here, but I don't want Windows to die. I just want Microsoft to be in a position where they have to fight fair because they don't have the influence to rig the entire market.
Global software monoculture wouldn't be such a good thing. It's always good to have valid competitors, so long as there's actually a level playing field.
I can't really blame them for altering their version of Linux, at least not as an abstract rule. At the very least, they're going to want to re-theme it for branding purposes, to give it a distinctive look, or at least to get rid of the Ubuntu brown. The probably should make sure that it has any fixes relevant to their hardware, assuming the distro doesn't accept their patches or just hasn't accepted the patches into the "stable" version yet. On top of that, of course they're going to want to add value if they can think of a way to do that.
Of course, that assumes that they have people at their company who are qualified to do this. The theme has to be good. The value-adds have to actually add value. That's not as easy as it seems. And then, these companies will unfortunately also try to protect their additions by trying to make it so their competitors can't use them. That's going to run afoul of the open source community even if not violating the GPL.
Here's something I'd love for Dell to do: create their own apt repositories (and repositories for any other package managers are used by distros they support) that provides drivers and any other software (e.g. openmanage) for all of their hardware. Servers, desktops, netbooks, everything.
They need you as much as you need them.
That's great in theory, but it's not really true. Often you're talking about a relationship between an organization of thousands of people vs. 1 person. You're talking about an organization with millions of dollars vs someone with maybe a few hundred dollars in the bank. The heads of these organizations are often rich, powerful, and well-connected people. Oh, and for any given job, there are tons of applicants.
Now if there are labor shortages the balance of power can change in the employee's favor. Also, if you have particular expertise or skills or something then you can get a certain level of power for yourself. However, most of the time, the balance of power is in favor of the company.
On the other hand, some of the new features could (possibly) reduce the use of Flash and Javascript in the first place, since you'll be able to create some nice effects without them.
I'm not talking about Microsoft Word particularly. I'm talking about Microsoft, Cisco, Oracle, EMC, and the like that make some fairly complex products, and just pointing out that reducing complexity can run contrary to their business interests.
Yeah, I had a boss once who used to pretty much ignore any resume that had the letters "MCSE" featured prominently. He said, "if that's the best thing they have to tell me, then it's not worth my trouble to read much beyond that."
If someone chooses to be a prick and that is outside of policy (granted it may not be) then that person can be symbolically caned for their inappropriate actions.
Maybe if that person's superiors are actually good, decent people who are paying enough attention to care.
Or maybe if you have proof that what happened was blatantly inappropriate, in violation of some law, and you're willing to sue or otherwise make life uncomfortable for that person's superiors. And even then, if they're in a position of power, they may well make your life uncomfortable too. If you make too much noise, you'll get labelled as "trouble" and maybe have a hard time finding work in the future.
Completely off-topic: am I the only one who has ever had the thought that companies selling products and then also selling training/certifications for use of those products is a weird conflict of interest?
On one level, of course, it makes a lot of sense. Who better to provide training than those who make the product? On the other hand, how much of a motive do you have to make your product truly easy to use if you're also making tons of money selling training and certificates? If anything, it's all the more incentive to make your products confusing to laymen, and change things up every now and then so that people have to "stay current", even if the old way was perfectly fine.
Yeah, I know, it's probably a paranoid thought. But it seems strange to me sometimes, that the incentive might be going the wrong way.
Microsoft is just grabbing the opportunity to train more devs and IT in advanced Microsoft products.
Yeah, my first thought when I read the summary was, "So Microsoft is teaching 'the skills needed to succeed in the field of technology,' huh? Does that include Linux administration?" Because seriously, that's a pretty important skill.
No, I'm not just being snarky or karma whoring. That's a really useful skill.
It's not about "negotiation between equals" -- simply don't work (or buy from) there if you don't like the terms.
So you're saying that it's not "negotiation between equals", and that I can either take it or leave it. Isn't that what my post said?
My whole point was that, when you're dealing with a large business, you have to agree to their terms or else not deal with them. That bespeaks an enormous disparity of power in the relationship that you have with that company.
It is always the decision of someone within the company. There is no self-aware corporate overlord wailing on its human drones.
No, but sometimes decisions happen within groups in weird ways. Sometimes lots of different people can contribute to an event happening even though none of them actually want it to happen. There's also such a thing as a corporate culture, and it can influence individual actions/decisions.
The correct question is "Is the action in accord with established corporate policy and if not who decided on the exception?"
Yeah, that doesn't always get you as far as you think. Often enough, a manager will interpret policy and follow it more or less depending on what he wants to do anyway. Sometimes the policy is there specifically so people can do what they want, and then point to the policy and say, "It's not my fault. That's just our policy." I'm not making this up. Policies are often overtly for the purpose of CYA, not fairness.