It's just my cynical self. Hitting RC at Microsoft doesn't mean much anymore. Lately, either they release horribly buggy crap with or without years of feedback or it ships three (four) years late - and it's still buggy crap. I say Good Luck with Windows 7 and better luck with Windows 8. I've switched all my clients to OS X and they love it. Some are even angry for years of believing Microsoft was the world's only source of software. Now I'm working on trotting out Ubuntu for the thinner client stuff so they can use that mountain of old PCs.
Thanks for that insight. I've always suspected that to be the case and I'd prefer to have phone contact all the way up 9W to Poughkeepsie if I need it. I ask everyone I know with an iPhone how their coverage is and they always say "it's not bad... but look at this cool app". So, you've hit the nail on the head. They love their iPhone so much they'll put up with sketchy coverage. I'll probably get one anyway.
HAH! That's why I detest Verizon and wouldn't mind trying AT&T. Verizon expects you to buy your own pictures back from them. I've [still] got one of those LG phones where Verizon forgot to turn off OBEX/OPP and I declined their generous offer for a free firmware upgrade.
I just re-read your post for some reason. They were right - it's flamebait if you knew what a monopoly was, but I don't think you do so I'm going to give you a pass. There's a difference between monopoly and success.
OS X and Apple manufactured products are not a monopoly. You can load other operating systems on Apple hardware and Apple even gives you the tools to do it. They don't choose to support OS X on every random hardware combination so they try to limit where you can install it, but they don't completely disable it like they could. They can disable it, you know, but probably figure if you're smart enough to make OS X work on random hardware, you're smart enough to support it.
Logic Audio and Final Cut is not a monopoly. It's just software. In fact, they bought both from somewhere else. Apple said "nice software, wrong platform". Feel free to compete against it. Lots of people and companies do.
Flamebait? I think it's a fair question. Here's the difference - take the iPod/iTunes ecosystem. Apple doesn't have the monopoly power to force the music industry to only use their technologies.
To accomplish that monopoly, here's what Apple could do: give the entire music industry the tools to create music using Apple's technology for several years. Keep upgrading these tools to gradually only work with Apple products and technical advances. Promise the music industry members a place on iPod/iTunes which can't be removed by the user. In exchange, the entire music industry must agree to not release any other music without Apple's technology. If they do, there will be severe penalties and loss of access to the only viable music outlet available.
Within a few years, anyone trying to listen to music without the complete Apple chain of technology will hear total silence, save for some glitches and noise.
The difference today is that the iPod is first and foremost an MP3 player and always has been. The iTunes store was locked down by DRM at the insistence of the music industry. Apple is under no obligation to license their Fairplay DRM. If they had, every other music player manufacturer would have jumped on it and Apple would have been faced with a real monopoly issue. This way, Apple is competing on merits and public acceptance more than forcing one outcome or another through contracts. They allowed all the other manufacturers and Microsoft the opportunity to make something better, which failed.
Many argue that Fairplay DRM locked people into buying only iPods. The main truth on the street is that the vast majority of users liked the iPods better than other players and had no idea what DRM was. The users knew they could only play music on their own equipment and couldn't "share". Everyone gets that, even if they don't respect it. There was also an exit from DRM by burning CDs anyway, something not as freely available elsewhere and then you could share whatever you wanted. There is no monopoly, just a really successful ecosystem that anyone else is welcome to compete with.
Microsoft's plans for the entire computer industry were similar to the monopoly scenario above. They wanted the world to see a blank screen on the internet unless the entire technology chain came from Microsoft - and they almost did it. Now, those inside the Microsoft castle walls never saw a problem with that. The weren't aware of, nor care, about all the other technical advances outside the castle. That's the great harm to the consumer - better technologies rarely made it to the users and, at the same time, the platform stagnated. It took many years, but consumers started to notice that many Microsoft products were crudely inferior to other options and some users are migrating away - running as fast as they can.
The "older style" white MacBook has the updated guts, almost equal to the Aluminum (no LED backlight) - for $999, $950 if you go through a dealer and ask nice.
That's a very good answer but ordering Microsoft to do anything rarely works. The Courts ordered Microsoft to stop producing tools which used Sun's Java. Instead of walking away from Java as the order intended, Microsoft continued with their own dialect (J++) which essentially was Java with all the cross platform functionality stripped away and Windows-only system calls. Microsoft had so many developers using Visual Studio that it instantly put a knife in Java's back and they knew that would happen - write once, run anywhere was dead for a long long time. It's not really that simple, but if I had to condense the story, that would be my take.
In that regard, I'd say "Thank You" to all the Java developers who carried out the spirit of the Court order and went against the tide of Microsoft.
in the 90s and early 00s the laws were used to prevent microsoft from using its dominance in one market (Operating Systems) to unfairly crush other businesses
Slashdot Mirror
Er.. rather bad timing on the joke...
It's just my cynical self. Hitting RC at Microsoft doesn't mean much anymore. Lately, either they release horribly buggy crap with or without years of feedback or it ships three (four) years late - and it's still buggy crap. I say Good Luck with Windows 7 and better luck with Windows 8. I've switched all my clients to OS X and they love it. Some are even angry for years of believing Microsoft was the world's only source of software. Now I'm working on trotting out Ubuntu for the thinner client stuff so they can use that mountain of old PCs.
So much for web applications.
Shouldn't the headline read "R.I.P. MS-DEBUG 1981 - 2010" or " - 2011"? ( ...do I hear 2012?)
Ballmer's kids had to buy their own.
The side buttons can be frustrating sometimes.
So, turn them off in the control panel.
Why don't we list other things that didn't work for Microsoft.
Who has that kind of time? An even bigger challenge is to figure out why people bought it anyway.
He was talking about the web site.
If you want to make a phone call, get Verizon.
Thanks for that insight. I've always suspected that to be the case and I'd prefer to have phone contact all the way up 9W to Poughkeepsie if I need it. I ask everyone I know with an iPhone how their coverage is and they always say "it's not bad... but look at this cool app". So, you've hit the nail on the head. They love their iPhone so much they'll put up with sketchy coverage. I'll probably get one anyway.
HAH! That's why I detest Verizon and wouldn't mind trying AT&T. Verizon expects you to buy your own pictures back from them. I've [still] got one of those LG phones where Verizon forgot to turn off OBEX/OPP and I declined their generous offer for a free firmware upgrade.
A smaller Microsoft would have the same effect, allow more competitors to survive and prosper.
Maybe even themselves... if they ever find something they're good at again.
...because... DUH!
Now can we stop using Windows?
I just re-read your post for some reason. They were right - it's flamebait if you knew what a monopoly was, but I don't think you do so I'm going to give you a pass. There's a difference between monopoly and success.
OS X and Apple manufactured products are not a monopoly. You can load other operating systems on Apple hardware and Apple even gives you the tools to do it. They don't choose to support OS X on every random hardware combination so they try to limit where you can install it, but they don't completely disable it like they could. They can disable it, you know, but probably figure if you're smart enough to make OS X work on random hardware, you're smart enough to support it.
Logic Audio and Final Cut is not a monopoly. It's just software. In fact, they bought both from somewhere else. Apple said "nice software, wrong platform". Feel free to compete against it. Lots of people and companies do.
Flamebait? I think it's a fair question. Here's the difference - take the iPod/iTunes ecosystem. Apple doesn't have the monopoly power to force the music industry to only use their technologies.
To accomplish that monopoly, here's what Apple could do: give the entire music industry the tools to create music using Apple's technology for several years. Keep upgrading these tools to gradually only work with Apple products and technical advances. Promise the music industry members a place on iPod/iTunes which can't be removed by the user. In exchange, the entire music industry must agree to not release any other music without Apple's technology. If they do, there will be severe penalties and loss of access to the only viable music outlet available.
Within a few years, anyone trying to listen to music without the complete Apple chain of technology will hear total silence, save for some glitches and noise.
The difference today is that the iPod is first and foremost an MP3 player and always has been. The iTunes store was locked down by DRM at the insistence of the music industry. Apple is under no obligation to license their Fairplay DRM. If they had, every other music player manufacturer would have jumped on it and Apple would have been faced with a real monopoly issue. This way, Apple is competing on merits and public acceptance more than forcing one outcome or another through contracts. They allowed all the other manufacturers and Microsoft the opportunity to make something better, which failed.
Many argue that Fairplay DRM locked people into buying only iPods. The main truth on the street is that the vast majority of users liked the iPods better than other players and had no idea what DRM was. The users knew they could only play music on their own equipment and couldn't "share". Everyone gets that, even if they don't respect it. There was also an exit from DRM by burning CDs anyway, something not as freely available elsewhere and then you could share whatever you wanted. There is no monopoly, just a really successful ecosystem that anyone else is welcome to compete with.
Microsoft's plans for the entire computer industry were similar to the monopoly scenario above. They wanted the world to see a blank screen on the internet unless the entire technology chain came from Microsoft - and they almost did it. Now, those inside the Microsoft castle walls never saw a problem with that. The weren't aware of, nor care, about all the other technical advances outside the castle. That's the great harm to the consumer - better technologies rarely made it to the users and, at the same time, the platform stagnated. It took many years, but consumers started to notice that many Microsoft products were crudely inferior to other options and some users are migrating away - running as fast as they can.
The "older style" white MacBook has the updated guts, almost equal to the Aluminum (no LED backlight) - for $999, $950 if you go through a dealer and ask nice.
Looks like a good place for TPB to set up and lock the door.
<stupidity>
I'm glad they finally caught the guy. Maybe now the global economy can heal.
</stupidity>
That's a very good answer but ordering Microsoft to do anything rarely works. The Courts ordered Microsoft to stop producing tools which used Sun's Java. Instead of walking away from Java as the order intended, Microsoft continued with their own dialect (J++) which essentially was Java with all the cross platform functionality stripped away and Windows-only system calls. Microsoft had so many developers using Visual Studio that it instantly put a knife in Java's back and they knew that would happen - write once, run anywhere was dead for a long long time. It's not really that simple, but if I had to condense the story, that would be my take.
In that regard, I'd say "Thank You" to all the Java developers who carried out the spirit of the Court order and went against the tide of Microsoft.
in the 90s and early 00s the laws were used to prevent microsoft from using its dominance in one market (Operating Systems) to unfairly crush other businesses
Yeah... how did that turn out?
Death to the Apple geeks! America will stand free!
Ballmer? Is that you?
NanoTouch? Can Microsoft at least come up with their OWN names for this thing? Why not iPhoneWannabe if they're going to be that blatant?
That means that 4% of netbook owners have wiped off XP and installed Ubuntu. C'mon, people, you can do better than that!
Are L.A. cops THAT crooked?
They'll send Ballmer to throw chairs at the Legislature.
Time for someone to invent earphones for horses. Problem solved.