It just amazes me that a small, never-before-heard-of-company offers a solution to a problem that Intel, IBM, and AMD have been trying to solve for over a decade, each of which have 10 times the budget, expertise, and personel. Did I mention a headstart of a minimum of 10 years of R&D tossed at this problem? I hate to be a pessimistic troll-like poster, but without even a working proof of concept, I can only call this vaporware until they show me a working product. This article says nothing except "we have technology every computer in the world will need in the next ten years... please invest in us and we'll get you a demo soon."
Sounds like it will be used primarily for Xbox Live to make sure 9 year olds don't get cussed out by some pissed off gamers. Sounds like it'll be a feature most consumers will welcome.
This sounds a lot more novel than most of the other patents they get that tend to get highlighted on Slashdot. Is it totally novel? Well, I can't speak for any of the experts out there, but at least it's not blaringly obvious, commoditized technology.
Too bad the consumers will still blame Microsoft. Why do you think IE gets blamed for identity theft when (dumb) people click on emails from "the bank" asking for their PIN?
If a simple plugin can allow MSOffice to use ODF, there is then no argument whatsoever for MA to use Microsoft's proprietary formats, which really do shut out all non-Microsoft users.
This argument has never been about *now*. Lots of people might be shut out of this "crazy new format" currently, but in *10 years* those same people will be very happy to see that their free version of Open Office 5.0 can still read those documents. Or say the state budget gets slashed and the departments can no longer afford licenses of Office... big deal, no problem-o.
But today? Yes. There is probably an issue with reading and writing ODF documents in TODAY's market, especially Office users. But that's short-sighted.
...which would prove to all the non-techies, once and for all, just how dangerous it is to put your data in a proprietary format owned by a corporation.
Will we see a re-emergence of news related to the Massachusetts switch to ODF? Will this trigger more government branches to start considering other Office apps?
Microsoft is starting to look lost because it is focusing so much attention at so many businesses that are not its core: software development. Things like MSN, search, xbox are cash sinkholes that are not what makes Microsoft the powerful and respected (well, maybe not at Slashdot) company that it is. Up to here, everybody is getting.
But what Dvorak and most of everybody here on Slashdot is missing is that this is not a choice Microsoft has. Microsoft sees 5, 10, 15 years ahead and knows that the days of its packaged software dominance are going to end. With computers reaching the power and speed of "good enough for daily tasks," consumers are less and less likely to want to pay to upgrade to a new operating system. With the emergence of browser applications and the gradual (albiet not full) maturation of free open source alternatives to Office and Windows, Microsoft has serious looming threats in the near future.
Microsoft is smart. It is trying to reinvent itself BEFORE the trends of technology FORCE it to. By finding a new cash cow to rely on, it can sit comfortable the day a new version of Windows *doesn't* gain wide adoption (thinking - of course - two or three versions from now). Traditionally, that cash cow was and is Office. Let's not forget many people are perfectly content with Office 97 and see no need to upgrade to the newest version. This will only become more common as the Office product matures further. And as I stated above, and with the news that ODF is now an ISO standard, even Office is no longer a safe bet *in the long term.* Microsoft execs realize this threat is not yet mature as everybody here on Slashdot wishes, but DOES realize that given enough time, their Office revenue stream will dwindle as well.
So what happens? Microsoft looks at the current fastest growing technical market and tries to enter that race: search (Google), online ads (Google), online content deliver (iTunes). Microsoft is banking on online content distribution and services. If they're smart, they will tie their Office products with various online services to create the next generation online desktop Office applications. They will then charge a subscription fee and serve ads. THAT is where Microsoft is going. And they've got 40 billion dollars to ensure it happens.
And what about the xbox? It's got NOTHING to do with anything. It is Bill Gate's life long dream to make Microsoft an entertainment hub. But if all the threats mentioned above come around in full force as they probably will in 10 years, this dream will probably never fully materialize. It's just the world's richest man making his company invest in his pet project.
Prof Milton's team calculated that when certain objects are placed next to superlenses, the light bouncing off them is essentially erased by light reflecting off the superlens, making the object invisible.
Wouldn't that make the cloak appear like a big black void of light?? Making things "invisible" requires light from the objects behind the cloak to pass through it.
Basically, it's Google against everyone. In such cases, everyone usually wins.
"Everybody usually wins" huh? Well, everybody is fighting MS and they're still turning profits in the billions a year. Sure, it doesn't HAVE to last forever, but just because everybody sets their sights on the top player doesn't mean the top player is screwed. In fact, in business, many times lower companies are trying to achieve market dominance.
Congratulations, you just observed the basic motivational drive behind businesses trying to further improve their already profitable bottom line.
I thought the point of standardizing something is to keep there from being 100 "official" ways to do it. What's the point of having fifteen approved "standard" document formats? I'd say this getting approved is the nail in the coffin for Microsoft's precious standard. There can only one standard and ODF is now it.
In our industry, it's not always easy to tell what's a fad and what's not. There was a time when things like Javascript, SQL, or Python could be seen as a fad. They clearly have staying power and are highly used in their domain. And just because a technology is proprietary doesn't make it a fad. Knowing the development framework for the world's top operating system is hard to write off. Microsoft might abandon it in a year, they might not. But if they decide to keep it for the next decade, which they may, it would be stupid for any Windows developer not to at least take a look at the.NET framework.
Fads are popular notions that don't have staying power. But staying power can only be assessed in retrospect.
In the scope of this discussion, the moral of the story is not to put all your eggs in one basket and to carefully diversify your skills because you never know when your skillset will become obsolete.
If he's doing this BECAUSE it is election year, all the more power to our system. Having regular elections is a vital part of a working democracy. This would be a great example of that.
If they plan to go to war, it's already started. Just look at MS Live, xbox, origami, etc.
On the other hand, I imagine marketing, shipping, supporting, and even patching a new OS that will be installed on the majority of the world's newest computers will increase costs quite a bit for a company. Let's not forget IE7 and Office Live either.
If you want your stuff encrypted away and hidden from your other OS, keep it on the Windows partition. If you want to be able to share your data, make a third partition with a compatible file system and dump your files there. Problem solved.
Google 1.0 was a search engine that crawled the Web but generated little revenue; which led to Google 2.0, a company that sold its search capacity to AOL/Netscape, Yahoo and other major portals; which gave way to Google 3.0, an Internet contrarian that rejected banner ads and instead sold simple text ads linked to search results; which spawned Google 4.0, an increasingly global entity that found a way to insert relevant ads into any and all Web content, dramatically enlarging the online ad business; which mutated into Google 5.0, an innovation factory that produces a torrent of new Web-based services, including Gmail, Google Desktop, and Google Base. More than likely, 6.0 is around the corner.
It should be: Google 1.0: A nobody search engine Google 2.0: Outsourcing search engine Google 3.0: Contextual ads in searches Google 4.0: Adsense network Google 4.1: Information hoarding of users
My version 4.1 highlights Google's recent overt interest in aggregating data on its users through services like the personalized homepage, Gmail, Gcal, Gchat, and the Google Desktop. Why is it not 5.0? Because these enhance the previously established revenue streams without changing the way they make money. It is not an evolution in Google's financial model, just new ways to better target their contextual ads (3.0 and 4.0).
In order for a 5.0 to happen, Google has to redefine its primary revenue stream or add a new one that pulls in revenue from a seperate audience. My point is made most clear by highlighting the benefiting party of each evolutionary step:
Google 1.0: A nobody search engine - You and me Google 2.0: Outsourcing search engine - Yahoo/AOL/portals Google 3.0: Contextual ads in searches - Web advertisers Google 4.0: Adsense network - Web masters Google 4.1: Information hoarding of users
Likely candidates for a 5.0 would be: Television or radio advertisement domination Online music store, or other type of goods for cash type of business Online payment system (clone paypal) A novel online service as a subscription service (seems least likely with Google's history)
Thinking about "xbox", "playstation", "dreamcast", "gamecube", etc., it strikes is incredibly odd that this is a major console name with absolutely no attached meaning. "Wii" simply has no real meaning AND its pronunciation is ambiguous.
Slashdot Mirror
It just amazes me that a small, never-before-heard-of-company offers a solution to a problem that Intel, IBM, and AMD have been trying to solve for over a decade, each of which have 10 times the budget, expertise, and personel. Did I mention a headstart of a minimum of 10 years of R&D tossed at this problem? I hate to be a pessimistic troll-like poster, but without even a working proof of concept, I can only call this vaporware until they show me a working product. This article says nothing except "we have technology every computer in the world will need in the next ten years... please invest in us and we'll get you a demo soon."
[this message has been filtered by your ISP's anti-spam software]
Sounds like it will be used primarily for Xbox Live to make sure 9 year olds don't get cussed out by some pissed off gamers. Sounds like it'll be a feature most consumers will welcome.
This sounds a lot more novel than most of the other patents they get that tend to get highlighted on Slashdot. Is it totally novel? Well, I can't speak for any of the experts out there, but at least it's not blaringly obvious, commoditized technology.
Too bad the consumers will still blame Microsoft. Why do you think IE gets blamed for identity theft when (dumb) people click on emails from "the bank" asking for their PIN?
It's web 2.0 in action!
(Click Next to Continue)
We've successfully ported an upcoming feature in Vista
(Click Next to Continue)
to the web!
So to summarize, if you try out two things and find one is better than the other you are a "lemming."
Whereas if you NEVER BOTHERED to actually try the competing product (OS X), you become the tech expert that is the editor-in-chief of PC Magazine.
Talk about flamebait.
If a simple plugin can allow MSOffice to use ODF, there is then no argument whatsoever for MA to use Microsoft's proprietary formats, which really do shut out all non-Microsoft users.
This argument has never been about *now*. Lots of people might be shut out of this "crazy new format" currently, but in *10 years* those same people will be very happy to see that their free version of Open Office 5.0 can still read those documents. Or say the state budget gets slashed and the departments can no longer afford licenses of Office... big deal, no problem-o.
But today? Yes. There is probably an issue with reading and writing ODF documents in TODAY's market, especially Office users. But that's short-sighted.
As an advertiser I would be concerned my ads might not be getting shown to non-IE browers. Talk about a bad way to start a business relationship.
...which would prove to all the non-techies, once and for all, just how dangerous it is to put your data in a proprietary format owned by a corporation.
After they spend $100 million to make movies like Stealth or $130 million to make The Island, I'm a little surprised. Oh? Their study didn't take those kind of "costs" into account? Well no wonder it's only 6 billion.
Will we see a re-emergence of news related to the Massachusetts switch to ODF? Will this trigger more government branches to start considering other Office apps?
Dvorak almost had it. People here almost had it.
Microsoft is starting to look lost because it is focusing so much attention at so many businesses that are not its core: software development. Things like MSN, search, xbox are cash sinkholes that are not what makes Microsoft the powerful and respected (well, maybe not at Slashdot) company that it is. Up to here, everybody is getting.
But what Dvorak and most of everybody here on Slashdot is missing is that this is not a choice Microsoft has. Microsoft sees 5, 10, 15 years ahead and knows that the days of its packaged software dominance are going to end. With computers reaching the power and speed of "good enough for daily tasks," consumers are less and less likely to want to pay to upgrade to a new operating system. With the emergence of browser applications and the gradual (albiet not full) maturation of free open source alternatives to Office and Windows, Microsoft has serious looming threats in the near future.
Microsoft is smart. It is trying to reinvent itself BEFORE the trends of technology FORCE it to. By finding a new cash cow to rely on, it can sit comfortable the day a new version of Windows *doesn't* gain wide adoption (thinking - of course - two or three versions from now). Traditionally, that cash cow was and is Office. Let's not forget many people are perfectly content with Office 97 and see no need to upgrade to the newest version. This will only become more common as the Office product matures further. And as I stated above, and with the news that ODF is now an ISO standard, even Office is no longer a safe bet *in the long term.* Microsoft execs realize this threat is not yet mature as everybody here on Slashdot wishes, but DOES realize that given enough time, their Office revenue stream will dwindle as well.
So what happens? Microsoft looks at the current fastest growing technical market and tries to enter that race: search (Google), online ads (Google), online content deliver (iTunes). Microsoft is banking on online content distribution and services. If they're smart, they will tie their Office products with various online services to create the next generation online desktop Office applications. They will then charge a subscription fee and serve ads. THAT is where Microsoft is going. And they've got 40 billion dollars to ensure it happens.
And what about the xbox? It's got NOTHING to do with anything. It is Bill Gate's life long dream to make Microsoft an entertainment hub. But if all the threats mentioned above come around in full force as they probably will in 10 years, this dream will probably never fully materialize. It's just the world's richest man making his company invest in his pet project.
Prof Milton's team calculated that when certain objects are placed next to superlenses, the light bouncing off them is essentially erased by light reflecting off the superlens, making the object invisible.
Wouldn't that make the cloak appear like a big black void of light?? Making things "invisible" requires light from the objects behind the cloak to pass through it.
I assume it sounds wrong because he's talking about eating a mathematical constant right? ;D
Basically, it's Google against everyone. In such cases, everyone usually wins.
"Everybody usually wins" huh? Well, everybody is fighting MS and they're still turning profits in the billions a year. Sure, it doesn't HAVE to last forever, but just because everybody sets their sights on the top player doesn't mean the top player is screwed. In fact, in business, many times lower companies are trying to achieve market dominance.
Congratulations, you just observed the basic motivational drive behind businesses trying to further improve their already profitable bottom line.
And then the CEO replies:
"ISO? But I think my Nero program can burn MS Word documents into ISOs..."
I thought the point of standardizing something is to keep there from being 100 "official" ways to do it. What's the point of having fifteen approved "standard" document formats? I'd say this getting approved is the nail in the coffin for Microsoft's precious standard. There can only one standard and ODF is now it.
In our industry, it's not always easy to tell what's a fad and what's not. There was a time when things like Javascript, SQL, or Python could be seen as a fad. They clearly have staying power and are highly used in their domain. And just because a technology is proprietary doesn't make it a fad. Knowing the development framework for the world's top operating system is hard to write off. Microsoft might abandon it in a year, they might not. But if they decide to keep it for the next decade, which they may, it would be stupid for any Windows developer not to at least take a look at the .NET framework.
Fads are popular notions that don't have staying power. But staying power can only be assessed in retrospect.
In the scope of this discussion, the moral of the story is not to put all your eggs in one basket and to carefully diversify your skills because you never know when your skillset will become obsolete.
Skills and experience probably get you in the door a lot more often.
If he's doing this BECAUSE it is election year, all the more power to our system. Having regular elections is a vital part of a working democracy. This would be a great example of that.
If they plan to go to war, it's already started. Just look at MS Live, xbox, origami, etc.
On the other hand, I imagine marketing, shipping, supporting, and even patching a new OS that will be installed on the majority of the world's newest computers will increase costs quite a bit for a company. Let's not forget IE7 and Office Live either.
If you want your stuff encrypted away and hidden from your other OS, keep it on the Windows partition. If you want to be able to share your data, make a third partition with a compatible file system and dump your files there. Problem solved.
Google 1.0 was a search engine that crawled the Web but generated little revenue; which led to Google 2.0, a company that sold its search capacity to AOL/Netscape, Yahoo and other major portals; which gave way to Google 3.0, an Internet contrarian that rejected banner ads and instead sold simple text ads linked to search results; which spawned Google 4.0, an increasingly global entity that found a way to insert relevant ads into any and all Web content, dramatically enlarging the online ad business; which mutated into Google 5.0, an innovation factory that produces a torrent of new Web-based services, including Gmail, Google Desktop, and Google Base. More than likely, 6.0 is around the corner.
It should be:
Google 1.0: A nobody search engine
Google 2.0: Outsourcing search engine
Google 3.0: Contextual ads in searches
Google 4.0: Adsense network
Google 4.1: Information hoarding of users
My version 4.1 highlights Google's recent overt interest in aggregating data on its users through services like the personalized homepage, Gmail, Gcal, Gchat, and the Google Desktop. Why is it not 5.0? Because these enhance the previously established revenue streams without changing the way they make money. It is not an evolution in Google's financial model, just new ways to better target their contextual ads (3.0 and 4.0).
In order for a 5.0 to happen, Google has to redefine its primary revenue stream or add a new one that pulls in revenue from a seperate audience. My point is made most clear by highlighting the benefiting party of each evolutionary step:
Google 1.0: A nobody search engine - You and me
Google 2.0: Outsourcing search engine - Yahoo/AOL/portals
Google 3.0: Contextual ads in searches - Web advertisers
Google 4.0: Adsense network - Web masters
Google 4.1: Information hoarding of users
Likely candidates for a 5.0 would be:
Television or radio advertisement domination
Online music store, or other type of goods for cash type of business
Online payment system (clone paypal)
A novel online service as a subscription service (seems least likely with Google's history)
Those would be Google 5.0.
Thinking about "xbox", "playstation", "dreamcast", "gamecube", etc., it strikes is incredibly odd that this is a major console name with absolutely no attached meaning. "Wii" simply has no real meaning AND its pronunciation is ambiguous.
There's a mythical thirteenth spinoff.