but - in five years when the deal expires and microsoft has locked everything in as much as possible - what is the cost to switch out of it? i will bet that microsoft will draw up a new contract - paid this time - which will be less than the cost of full migration. then, in another five years, when - presumably - everyone is really locked in like they are with office - what will that contract cost?
fifteen years (or so) and they have a new strangle-hold, no? (at least in their minds; i think things innovate too fast these days for this style to effectively work - it was a great 1980s move for them, obviously.)
externalcontact@domainwithexchange.com > you@yours.com. as in: automatically. as in: client doesn't need to be open (as it would with a rule). it is a basic feature of exchange. and if you don't want to pay the "microsoft tax" for exchange to forward your email then... don't. use something else.
you either really don't know exchange or you are being childish. it is confusing, either way, because the issue here isn't about exchange it's about live which does not offer the most basic automatic forwarding -- which, as you say, forces you onto their platform either via the desktop client or, ultimately I would suspect, via some activex/msft ajax "feature" that will require a "genuine" version of windows/IE.
microsoft is less interested in winning via innovation and more interested in winning via lock-in. most people in it know this. but pick your points - there certainly are enough of them.
you make an interesting point. to answer it directly: no, i don't care.
irrespective of the almost-supernatural organization that microsoft has been made into, they are just a company. nothing more. maybe they are a great company, maybe they are crap. it's up to them.
if they were to somehow become the top search engine & they then were to somehow use that to destroy competitors, i would use another search engine. if i couldn't do that within their operating system, i would use another operating system. isn't that what a lot of this site is about? they are just a private company making products which we can choose to use or not. i would submit that if they did this (used their search engine strictly for their own benefit) they would tank the whole thing. google itself became great because they provided something valuable to the user.
where i think you are correct is if they started to use tactics like harming other search engines so that one could not even use them on an alternative operating system & an alternative search engine. then we would have to ask the government for help as a last resort. as it stands now, i think this suit is without merit. if google does indeed start to become abusive & power-drunk then i honestly think they will lose their position. i have no loyalty to them per se. if i can't get the info i want, then i will use yahoo or whomever pops up.
I have to agree with the OP on this. While I was not on-line back in the day, was it really such a dangerous shift?
Look at what this could mean: Right now, the whole beauty of the internet is the egalitarian nature of it. I, being just one fellow in a world of billions, can start a site -- any site I choose to really -- and have it seen by the world. If there is a commercial element to my site (ads or products) I then have the potential to compete with some of the biggest names out there. Blogs compete with newspapers worth billions of dollars. Small eCommerce shops compete with retailers who tower over them. You really can say that never has an opportunity existed.
This is what makes me nervous about this new idea. Wouldn't the AMZNs & NY Times of the world back this for no other reason as they have the money to pay for this while Joe Upstart doesn't. Wouldn't that put everyone back in their place? Wouldn't that undo so much of what has happened over the last 10 years? That seems to be the largest threat that the Internet has seen.
I am very doubtful it will happen, however. I have already read some comments that the FCC has made to the effect that this may violate some of the provisions that were put in place during many of the telcomm mergers. I have also read a few newspaper columnists already start to hit on this which could translate into politicians seeing this as something adverse to their constituents.
In a certain sense, I feel like this is something that has to be decided. Ever since VOIP started to go mainstream, I wondered when the bandwidth providers would start to get pissy that people were actually using what they were selling.
I don't know if it has to do with audiophile quality as much as for people who store music at home in FLAC, maintaing a seperate MP3 (or whatever) collection for portables is a pain in the ass. With storage as cheap as it is, is it really that crazy to say "I just want to go with FLAC on everything"?
Same thing with this phone really. Converting to WMA is just a pain in the ass. I first thought they had a good idea with this (that is, if you like the idea of a MP3 plyaer/phone combo, which many here do not) but adding the WMA conversion makes it just another product to sigh at.
I think most people find he's got his head screwed on right.
Well, the kind of depends on the person, no? As you said, he has been around for a long time but his writing has always struck me as distinctly consumer oriented. So, I'm not sure if most IT people would think so. Which was the case with the parent.
Aside from that, I can't argue with the direction you suggest. I'm not sure if I would go so far as to indict the enterprise for Microsoft's programming techniques, but given that they (Microsoft) have separate home and pro lines, why not at least start moving in the direction of shipping XP/Longhorn Home more locked up. If the end-user needs the extra power, then it follows that he or she would be able to follow the instruction to turn off the safeties.
It's informative due to the fact that the memory market is a "best of breed" situation. A lot of times people reading about memory (or whatever) just want to know one name. The OP is implying that you can't just say "VIKING IS GRRRREAT!" but rather different firms seem to lead in different segments of the memory market.
It's been reverse-engineered enough that we can use it anyway.
Well, "We" can use it sure... but a major corp. can't. Not without fear of some legal reprisals.
I don't really understand what Google is up to with all this but if one part of it is to unify the IM market, I think there is a lot of potential in it. Wouldn't this be a pretty big deal then - The first step towards real interoperability?
For as much as IM is used, I think the market pales in comparison to what you could do with a system where everything interoperates like email.
Yahoo! is big enough that they should take a stand when they know what the issue is
I agree that they could take a stand, but in my experience organizations take less of a "stand" the bigger they are.
most people don't know what is on thier computer. adding some clearly defined tools in a clean interface has lots of potential in the context of "most people".
Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down.
on
LokiTorrent Shut Down
·
· Score: 1
If I tied down Brittney Spears and allowed people to rape her (free & clear) I suspect that it would be popular as well.
Do you really think that laws should be based 100% on what people want?
Not that copyright infringement is the same thing as rape (by any means) but I can't get behind the idea that laws should change just because it's popular. The will of the people can be just as nasty as the will of a dictator.
You're not going to have ideals nor contact when no one can understand each other.
That's the point of spelling & grammar. Already it has gotten to the point on this site & others that I cannot understand what someone is saying because of their spelling errors.
Slashdot Mirror
fifteen years (or so) and they have a new strangle-hold, no? (at least in their minds; i think things innovate too fast these days for this style to effectively work - it was a great 1980s move for them, obviously.)
you either really don't know exchange or you are being childish. it is confusing, either way, because the issue here isn't about exchange it's about live which does not offer the most basic automatic forwarding -- which, as you say, forces you onto their platform either via the desktop client or, ultimately I would suspect, via some activex/msft ajax "feature" that will require a "genuine" version of windows/IE.
microsoft is less interested in winning via innovation and more interested in winning via lock-in. most people in it know this. but pick your points - there certainly are enough of them.
irrespective of the almost-supernatural organization that microsoft has been made into, they are just a company. nothing more. maybe they are a great company, maybe they are crap. it's up to them.
if they were to somehow become the top search engine & they then were to somehow use that to destroy competitors, i would use another search engine. if i couldn't do that within their operating system, i would use another operating system. isn't that what a lot of this site is about? they are just a private company making products which we can choose to use or not. i would submit that if they did this (used their search engine strictly for their own benefit) they would tank the whole thing. google itself became great because they provided something valuable to the user.
where i think you are correct is if they started to use tactics like harming other search engines so that one could not even use them on an alternative operating system & an alternative search engine. then we would have to ask the government for help as a last resort. as it stands now, i think this suit is without merit. if google does indeed start to become abusive & power-drunk then i honestly think they will lose their position. i have no loyalty to them per se. if i can't get the info i want, then i will use yahoo or whomever pops up.
Look at what this could mean: Right now, the whole beauty of the internet is the egalitarian nature of it. I, being just one fellow in a world of billions, can start a site -- any site I choose to really -- and have it seen by the world. If there is a commercial element to my site (ads or products) I then have the potential to compete with some of the biggest names out there. Blogs compete with newspapers worth billions of dollars. Small eCommerce shops compete with retailers who tower over them. You really can say that never has an opportunity existed.
This is what makes me nervous about this new idea. Wouldn't the AMZNs & NY Times of the world back this for no other reason as they have the money to pay for this while Joe Upstart doesn't. Wouldn't that put everyone back in their place? Wouldn't that undo so much of what has happened over the last 10 years? That seems to be the largest threat that the Internet has seen.
I am very doubtful it will happen, however. I have already read some comments that the FCC has made to the effect that this may violate some of the provisions that were put in place during many of the telcomm mergers. I have also read a few newspaper columnists already start to hit on this which could translate into politicians seeing this as something adverse to their constituents.
In a certain sense, I feel like this is something that has to be decided. Ever since VOIP started to go mainstream, I wondered when the bandwidth providers would start to get pissy that people were actually using what they were selling.
I don't know if it has to do with audiophile quality as much as for people who store music at home in FLAC, maintaing a seperate MP3 (or whatever) collection for portables is a pain in the ass. With storage as cheap as it is, is it really that crazy to say "I just want to go with FLAC on everything"? Same thing with this phone really. Converting to WMA is just a pain in the ass. I first thought they had a good idea with this (that is, if you like the idea of a MP3 plyaer/phone combo, which many here do not) but adding the WMA conversion makes it just another product to sigh at.
Well, the kind of depends on the person, no? As you said, he has been around for a long time but his writing has always struck me as distinctly consumer oriented. So, I'm not sure if most IT people would think so. Which was the case with the parent.
Aside from that, I can't argue with the direction you suggest. I'm not sure if I would go so far as to indict the enterprise for Microsoft's programming techniques, but given that they (Microsoft) have separate home and pro lines, why not at least start moving in the direction of shipping XP/Longhorn Home more locked up. If the end-user needs the extra power, then it follows that he or she would be able to follow the instruction to turn off the safeties.
It's informative due to the fact that the memory market is a "best of breed" situation. A lot of times people reading about memory (or whatever) just want to know one name. The OP is implying that you can't just say "VIKING IS GRRRREAT!" but rather different firms seem to lead in different segments of the memory market.
Well, "We" can use it sure ... but a major corp. can't. Not without fear of some legal reprisals.
I don't really understand what Google is up to with all this but if one part of it is to unify the IM market, I think there is a lot of potential in it. Wouldn't this be a pretty big deal then - The first step towards real interoperability?
For as much as IM is used, I think the market pales in comparison to what you could do with a system where everything interoperates like email.
Yahoo! is big enough that they should take a stand when they know what the issue is
I agree that they could take a stand, but in my experience organizations take less of a "stand" the bigger they are.
most people don't know what is on thier computer.
adding some clearly defined tools in a clean interface has lots of potential in the context of "most people".
Do you really think that laws should be based 100% on what people want?
Not that copyright infringement is the same thing as rape (by any means) but I can't get behind the idea that laws should change just because it's popular. The will of the people can be just as nasty as the will of a dictator.
That's the point of spelling & grammar. Already it has gotten to the point on this site & others that I cannot understand what someone is saying because of their spelling errors.