I like how the record execs always try to position themselves are being pro-artists whenever they speak out on these types of issues. Yet, as is very evident here, the artists do not necessarily approve of what the record execs are doing.
It's probably time that we recognize the record execs for what they are: leeches that live by sucking their wages out of the revenue stream that should really belong to the artists.
There are too many times I want to use Yahoo, and I get server error messages instead of the intended screens, or I get dog-slow response (sometimes so slow that the browser times out).
There is more to providing a mail service than a providing a pretty interface.
I have a record from around 1915. Caruso on shellac, 78rpm (give or take a couple rpm). It still plays as well as it ever did. You can hear every note.
Microsoft just needs to acquire a company that can mount a challenge against Google.
There is more to it than just Microsoft acquiring a company and all of its problems melt away. Microsoft has a severe perception problem nowadays. You cannot turn around perception problems with the purchase of a company. As Microsoft's "passion" commercials have shown, you cannot turn around a perception problem with the purchase of TV air time. (I won't even go near Microsoft's commercials where Microsoft calls its customers 'dinosaurs'.)
Google has the buzz nowadays. There's an energy in the air at google's HQ. Microsoft will not recapture that type of energy with the mere purchase of a company. Any product that the new company brings to Microsoft will have to work with (and therefore, be pulled down by) Microsoft Office products.
For as much as the monopoly has helped Microsoft's laughable innovation in the past, that same monopoly is what is holding back Microsoft now.
Microsoft has forgotten how to be inventive, forgotten how to innovate. Why? Simply because their monopoly has made it so that they did not need to.
Microsoft needs a whole new mindset if they want to compete in this market, and it's not going to happen.
And one of the big reasons why it will never happen is that Microsoft is too focused upon monopoly maintenance, and not upon the end users of their software. Plain and simple, Microsoft's business model will not work unless Microsoft holds a monopoly position in the marketspace. It is too late for Microsoft to gain the requisite monopoly in the web because, as other have mentioned, Google (and others) have all the current "buzz".
The recent reorg shows that Ballmer's duties are being reduced. Eric Rudder is reporting to Gates, not Ballmer, a signal that the next leader of Microsoft won't be Ballmer.
Microsoft is clearly in a funk, a funk that appeared since Ballmer was at the helm. Since throwing chairs and dancing around on a stage are not usually in the job requirements of a corporate leader, Ballmer is not what is considered to be a corporate leader. He may be a friend of Gates, but as we are seeing, that will only carry you so far.
If you reread my comment, I was careful to say "bugs" and "annoyances" that Opera allows to fester, and not "security problems".
But the essence of your comment is correct, Opera is very quick to fix security issues.
I used to work at Microsoft and they have so much disorganized legacy strategy floating around that effectively keeps them from doing anything threating.
There have been a lot of reports out of Redmond to the effect that Microsoft is being strangled by internal politics and endless meetings. The most recent report, and a very significant one, is a cover story article in next week's Business Week magazine.
In that article, Ballmer comes across as being out of touch and in denial of the problems. It is no wonder why Microsoft is unable to put forth a coherent and consistent strategy on anything.
But you can't do that. That is true. Currently you cannot do that. Emphasis on currently. Once the record companies and the wireless companies work out who gets what piece of whose pie, you will be able to do that.
AAC/MP3 are large compared to ringtones, not all cell areas have the required digital coverage and specs to deliver at high speed. The question is not whether all areas support the wireless high-speed data rates, but whether enough areas support the high-speed data rates. I note that Verizon has just lowered the price on their EV-DO product. While it's not DSL or cable-modem speed, it is fast enough to download a song.
Each function of a multi-purpose device is never as good as that function provided by a single-purpose device.
If you by a cell-phone with the iPod software in it, don't expect the iPod experience to rival that of a regular iPod.
However, what you can expect is some cross-functional benefits, such as downloading songs via the cell network and storing them into the iPod portion of the phone.
It doesn't really sound like the so-called Ultimate Edition has that much extra to offer.
It doesn't. However you can be sure that it will be significantly more expensive than the version below it for the home user.
Microsoft needs the really crippled low-end version to sell to countries that threaten to move to Linux, and Microsoft needs the Ultimate version to keep its profits at a level where Wall Street does not punish Microsoft.
Since the word 2000 format isn't encumbered by copyright or patent, every other companie that does word processing has found a way to output to.doc. It is effectively an open standard.
There is a difference between open standard format, proprietary format, and popular format.
An open standard format has specifications that are widely available, and also have a process that allows changes to the standard.
A popular format can be an open standard format, but it can also be a proprietary format.
Windows 2000 format is a popular, and proprietary, format.
Faster back and forward means better performance reading messageboards
It's about time. When I tried FireFox after Opera's recent 8.00 fiasco, the re-rendering of pages when I pressed the back button was the most frustrating part of using that browser. I really couldn't understand how FireFox was getting so much "buzz" with that design flaw so prominent.
Seriously. If high availability systems is not your company's core competency, call IBM, Red Hat, Sun, Oracle, Novell. Tell them you have a million users. Tell them you have a very fat checkbook and that you want them to provide you with a complete solution. Tell them that nothing but 5 nines of uptime will do.
Finally, a sane recommendation. If for no other reason, but to get the requirements for this very large project documented into a usable form. Without the latter, this project is a disaster waiting to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
It's probably time that we recognize the record execs for what they are: leeches that live by sucking their wages out of the revenue stream that should really belong to the artists.
with too much time on their hands....
There is more to providing a mail service than a providing a pretty interface.
That's what I thought. Thanks.
I have a record from around 1915. Caruso on shellac, 78rpm (give or take a couple rpm). It still plays as well as it ever did. You can hear every note.
What's the lifespan of punch cards?
There is more to it than just Microsoft acquiring a company and all of its problems melt away. Microsoft has a severe perception problem nowadays. You cannot turn around perception problems with the purchase of a company. As Microsoft's "passion" commercials have shown, you cannot turn around a perception problem with the purchase of TV air time. (I won't even go near Microsoft's commercials where Microsoft calls its customers 'dinosaurs'.)
Google has the buzz nowadays. There's an energy in the air at google's HQ. Microsoft will not recapture that type of energy with the mere purchase of a company. Any product that the new company brings to Microsoft will have to work with (and therefore, be pulled down by) Microsoft Office products.
For as much as the monopoly has helped Microsoft's laughable innovation in the past, that same monopoly is what is holding back Microsoft now.
Microsoft has forgotten how to be inventive, forgotten how to innovate. Why? Simply because their monopoly has made it so that they did not need to.
Not really a valid comparison as both of those had to play inside of Microsoft's monopoly. Google does not.
And one of the big reasons why it will never happen is that Microsoft is too focused upon monopoly maintenance, and not upon the end users of their software. Plain and simple, Microsoft's business model will not work unless Microsoft holds a monopoly position in the marketspace. It is too late for Microsoft to gain the requisite monopoly in the web because, as other have mentioned, Google (and others) have all the current "buzz".
Microsoft is clearly in a funk, a funk that appeared since Ballmer was at the helm. Since throwing chairs and dancing around on a stage are not usually in the job requirements of a corporate leader, Ballmer is not what is considered to be a corporate leader. He may be a friend of Gates, but as we are seeing, that will only carry you so far.
If you reread my comment, I was careful to say "bugs" and "annoyances" that Opera allows to fester, and not "security problems". But the essence of your comment is correct, Opera is very quick to fix security issues.
Exactly.
Now Opera needs to fix the bugs as quickly as FireFox does, and not let annoyances fester for months and months.
I wonder if the BCS is trying to do little more than draw attention to itself in order to prop up its sagging relevance.
There have been a lot of reports out of Redmond to the effect that Microsoft is being strangled by internal politics and endless meetings. The most recent report, and a very significant one, is a cover story article in next week's Business Week magazine.
In that article, Ballmer comes across as being out of touch and in denial of the problems. It is no wonder why Microsoft is unable to put forth a coherent and consistent strategy on anything.
I see that you are the master of understatement. :-)
You've just hit upon the #1 reason why it has taken this long to get this far in a cell phone-based iPod.
But you can't do that. That is true. Currently you cannot do that. Emphasis on currently. Once the record companies and the wireless companies work out who gets what piece of whose pie, you will be able to do that.
AAC/MP3 are large compared to ringtones, not all cell areas have the required digital coverage and specs to deliver at high speed. The question is not whether all areas support the wireless high-speed data rates, but whether enough areas support the high-speed data rates. I note that Verizon has just lowered the price on their EV-DO product. While it's not DSL or cable-modem speed, it is fast enough to download a song.
If you by a cell-phone with the iPod software in it, don't expect the iPod experience to rival that of a regular iPod.
However, what you can expect is some cross-functional benefits, such as downloading songs via the cell network and storing them into the iPod portion of the phone.
It doesn't. However you can be sure that it will be significantly more expensive than the version below it for the home user.
Microsoft needs the really crippled low-end version to sell to countries that threaten to move to Linux, and Microsoft needs the Ultimate version to keep its profits at a level where Wall Street does not punish Microsoft.
Wait for us, we're the leader!
Why, oh why, would I want to allow Microsoft to be that close to my family jewels?
There is a difference between open standard format, proprietary format, and popular format. An open standard format has specifications that are widely available, and also have a process that allows changes to the standard. A popular format can be an open standard format, but it can also be a proprietary format.
Windows 2000 format is a popular, and proprietary, format.
It's about time. When I tried FireFox after Opera's recent 8.00 fiasco, the re-rendering of pages when I pressed the back button was the most frustrating part of using that browser. I really couldn't understand how FireFox was getting so much "buzz" with that design flaw so prominent.
Finally, a sane recommendation. If for no other reason, but to get the requirements for this very large project documented into a usable form. Without the latter, this project is a disaster waiting to happen.
Yup, that's a big problem with Microsoft Exchange's proprietary datastore.
Like the roach motel, data goes in, but you can't get it out.
I get no response from server....
Because it is standards-challenged?