I get it. You're one of those cool "cynics" who think everything is a "buzzword", just like I'm one of those cool guys who mockingly puts everything in "quotes".
Umm.. Yes. Microsoft is not a monopoly by any rational measure. There are countless alternatives. People seem to be convinced that "suffering some discomfort by using an alternative" alone can make a product a monopoly. It's internally inconsistent - if you define some ridiculous "Microsoft Windows OS Market", then sure they're the only player. But only stupid people would define a market as such. Apple, Linux, and a host of niche OS's provide plenty of alternatives and plenty of competition.
Re:Where do you draw the line?
on
Less Than Free
·
· Score: 1
This is patently false. You're comparing two separate business models. Moving to an ad-driven model is not anti-competitive. It's a different business model. Just like the buggy-whip manufacturers were steamed about the automobile, I'm sure someone will be pissed off about Google but there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.
Re:Where do you draw the line?
on
Less Than Free
·
· Score: 1
Good luck getting this classified as dumping. It's like claiming yahoo is "dumping" free email, or Travelocity is "dumping" free web based travel searches, or any advertising driven product is "dumping".
Google has no control over any product, ergo not a monopoly. There are other search engines, other advertising avenues, and other mobile OS's. These are simple facts. By this "logic" every strong market leader has a "monopoly".
Ahh, another demand-created "monopoly". I find that concept just fascinating. Apparently in this day and age you can have a monopoly in something even when there are 50 alternatives just because the consumers overwhelmingly choose your product.
I find this concept baffling. There's a low barrier to entry, and if Google raised prices enough advertisers would go elsewhere. If customers didn't like the search engine, they'll go elsewhere.
This isn't what the antitrust laws were designed for, they were designed to prevent abuse of government granted monopolies or monopolies over physically limited (supply side) resources. There's no ethical or rational reason to define a monopoly as "being too successful in your field despite numerous competitors".
When one power company or phone company uses anti-competitive tactics to drive out their competition I'm all for going after their asses, but most applications of antitrust law nowadays are just bullshit crybabyism by competitors.
Untrue. You're thinking of video decoding. You'd be hard pressed to find a video card that can't drive a 1920x1080 display at 60Hz playing e.g. raw video. Furthermore, if you've got enough CPU power you could certainly play 1080p60 bluray video on any old video display, even crappy integrated graphics.
Re:Its the Intel Lawsuit - Google Style
on
Less Than Free
·
· Score: 1
It's not anti-competitive. You just don't understand that the business model has changed. What if the new business model is what's described above? Suddenly they're being "anti-competitive" for making that business switch while others are going with the dinosaur model?
Changing the rules and evolving the business model is not anti-competitive. None of those companies will be taking them to court for this, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
You all think it's great that the music distribution model has been turned on its head and that traditional CD sales are going the way of the dinosaur, but can't accept that the same thing can happen in different markets for different reasons.
Can you explain what monopoly they have? It's a rhetorical question, they have none of course.
With all you "true capitalists" running around babbling about how _you_ are the real capitalist because you want the government to "protect" the market, I'm sure that pretty much everybody will have a "monopoly" over something eventually.
It's not about displaying video, it's about rendering 3D scenes. Any old suck card can do 1080p24 (or 1080p60 for that matter). It takes a lot of horsepower to handle realtime rendering at high resolution.
As for why the higher resolution, it's because you're sitting closer and the more details the better. Even in the video domain 3840x2160, if shot natively, would look better on a 60"+ TV than 1080p. Not amazingly better, and of course there is a point of diminishing returns, but...
Wow, you mean a multinational corporation with a fiduciary duty to return shareholder value thinks there might be some "angle" in this? Slashdot seriously needs a -1 (Durr) mod.
Your logic is...staggering. Apparently so as to avoid breeding a "better crowd of cheaters" MS should just lower the bar to such a low level that any old suck can cheat, thereby preventing people from getting really good at it.
I think you should suggest this giant leap of understanding on behalf of mankind to prison administrators. If they keep making it harder and harder to escape from prison, it'll only breed, by "darwinism", a better grade of prison escapees.
This is only Insightful if you think the cell phone "sounds for all the world like a walkie talkie ripoff". They both send messages over radio, but that's about the extent of it. OR, they both allow motion to be projected to the game, but that's about the extent of it.
Yeah.. and what's the attach rate? I have a Wii and an Xbox. I have bought maybe 3 games for the Wii since I got it and rarely play it. I buy like 5 games a year for the 360. And I'm not the only one, look at the numbers.
Face it - people are getting bored with the Wii and the sales trends for it demonstrate this.
Right... or they are being smart, pulling the tool, and investigating whether they are violating the GPL. Like they said.
It was a "Jump to Conclusions" mat. You see, it would be this mat that you would put on the floor... and would have different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO.
Yeah, bunch of linux droids around here who think MySQL and Oracle are the Big Boys. Funny they forget Microsoft. If anybody's going to eat Oracle's lunch in the database market it's MS. Frankly SQL 2005 was better by a lot of metrics than Oracle, 2008 has just extended that. But most around here live in some kind of reality distortion field (i.e. don't know what the fuck they're talking about).
Bullshit, utter bullshit. American companies are not under EU legal jurisdiction. All the EU could do is ban sale of the product in the EU. If a company exists entirely in the US EU laws mean jack shit beyond import/export laws.
'course this doesn't apply in this case, both companies are multinational with tendrils everywhere. So the EU has jurisdiction. I think US companies should start pulling out all manufacturing, development, research, etc... employees and sites from the EU. Sell the product, and let the tinpot bureaucrats make your life hell with their ridiculous socialism but don't contribute to their economy other than selling your product there.
This is laughable. They wouldn't be supporting a failing company, they would be forcing a company to fail by preventing a sale between consenting entities which involves nothing even approximating a monopoly. Too bad Sun is a public company, it would be cool if they are forced into liquidation if they could just literally destroy the MySQL IP as a petty revenge on that bureaucratic scum in the EU.
How this is possible? I don't understand the whole rental world. How does the studio have any control over it? Sure, they own the copyright on the material on the disk but I own the disk. I can sell it, why can't I rent it out to someone?
What legal principle prevents me from loaning out, selling, or renting any (physical) CD/DVD/Book that I have purchased? Do these companies seriously have to buy special versions that they rent out? They have copyright which let's them dictate copying or performance, giving out the physical item I bought doesn't seem to fall in that category.
Uhh, why do you need a wifi card? You probably brought the cheapest no-name brand you can find. And probably the company that sells it has crappy closed-source or non-existent drivers. Buy a better wifi card or just use wired Ethernet. Or why can't you use a USB wifi card? You probably just didn't get the right version of the module.
As for your GPU, it should work. You _do_ know that we Linux people don't have that shitty DirectX stuff, but you should be able to run OpenGL apps. Again, the drivers from the vendors are shitty but if you know what you're doing you can get it to work.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. Probably nothing similar out there doing buttloads of automated searches on Google. Probably.
I get it. You're one of those cool "cynics" who think everything is a "buzzword", just like I'm one of those cool guys who mockingly puts everything in "quotes".
Umm.. Yes. Microsoft is not a monopoly by any rational measure. There are countless alternatives. People seem to be convinced that "suffering some discomfort by using an alternative" alone can make a product a monopoly. It's internally inconsistent - if you define some ridiculous "Microsoft Windows OS Market", then sure they're the only player. But only stupid people would define a market as such. Apple, Linux, and a host of niche OS's provide plenty of alternatives and plenty of competition.
This is patently false. You're comparing two separate business models. Moving to an ad-driven model is not anti-competitive. It's a different business model. Just like the buggy-whip manufacturers were steamed about the automobile, I'm sure someone will be pissed off about Google but there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.
Good luck getting this classified as dumping. It's like claiming yahoo is "dumping" free email, or Travelocity is "dumping" free web based travel searches, or any advertising driven product is "dumping".
Google has no control over any product, ergo not a monopoly. There are other search engines, other advertising avenues, and other mobile OS's. These are simple facts. By this "logic" every strong market leader has a "monopoly".
Ahh, another demand-created "monopoly". I find that concept just fascinating. Apparently in this day and age you can have a monopoly in something even when there are 50 alternatives just because the consumers overwhelmingly choose your product.
I find this concept baffling. There's a low barrier to entry, and if Google raised prices enough advertisers would go elsewhere. If customers didn't like the search engine, they'll go elsewhere.
This isn't what the antitrust laws were designed for, they were designed to prevent abuse of government granted monopolies or monopolies over physically limited (supply side) resources. There's no ethical or rational reason to define a monopoly as "being too successful in your field despite numerous competitors".
When one power company or phone company uses anti-competitive tactics to drive out their competition I'm all for going after their asses, but most applications of antitrust law nowadays are just bullshit crybabyism by competitors.
Untrue. You're thinking of video decoding. You'd be hard pressed to find a video card that can't drive a 1920x1080 display at 60Hz playing e.g. raw video. Furthermore, if you've got enough CPU power you could certainly play 1080p60 bluray video on any old video display, even crappy integrated graphics.
It's not anti-competitive. You just don't understand that the business model has changed. What if the new business model is what's described above? Suddenly they're being "anti-competitive" for making that business switch while others are going with the dinosaur model?
Changing the rules and evolving the business model is not anti-competitive. None of those companies will be taking them to court for this, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
You all think it's great that the music distribution model has been turned on its head and that traditional CD sales are going the way of the dinosaur, but can't accept that the same thing can happen in different markets for different reasons.
Can you explain what monopoly they have? It's a rhetorical question, they have none of course.
With all you "true capitalists" running around babbling about how _you_ are the real capitalist because you want the government to "protect" the market, I'm sure that pretty much everybody will have a "monopoly" over something eventually.
It's not about displaying video, it's about rendering 3D scenes. Any old suck card can do 1080p24 (or 1080p60 for that matter). It takes a lot of horsepower to handle realtime rendering at high resolution.
As for why the higher resolution, it's because you're sitting closer and the more details the better. Even in the video domain 3840x2160, if shot natively, would look better on a 60"+ TV than 1080p. Not amazingly better, and of course there is a point of diminishing returns, but...
Wow, you mean a multinational corporation with a fiduciary duty to return shareholder value thinks there might be some "angle" in this? Slashdot seriously needs a -1 (Durr) mod.
This meaningless, baseless bit of drivel is "Insightful"? It literally has no objective content of any kind.
I love the Dallas Cowboys!
Oooh, that's insightful!
You mean the ones that allow it? Those laws?
Your logic is...staggering. Apparently so as to avoid breeding a "better crowd of cheaters" MS should just lower the bar to such a low level that any old suck can cheat, thereby preventing people from getting really good at it.
I think you should suggest this giant leap of understanding on behalf of mankind to prison administrators. If they keep making it harder and harder to escape from prison, it'll only breed, by "darwinism", a better grade of prison escapees.
Kudos, sir. Kudos.
This is only Insightful if you think the cell phone "sounds for all the world like a walkie talkie ripoff". They both send messages over radio, but that's about the extent of it. OR, they both allow motion to be projected to the game, but that's about the extent of it.
Yeah.. and what's the attach rate? I have a Wii and an Xbox. I have bought maybe 3 games for the Wii since I got it and rarely play it. I buy like 5 games a year for the 360. And I'm not the only one, look at the numbers.
Face it - people are getting bored with the Wii and the sales trends for it demonstrate this.
Right... or they are being smart, pulling the tool, and investigating whether they are violating the GPL. Like they said.
It was a "Jump to Conclusions" mat. You see, it would be this mat that you would put on the floor... and would have different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO.
Yeah, bunch of linux droids around here who think MySQL and Oracle are the Big Boys. Funny they forget Microsoft. If anybody's going to eat Oracle's lunch in the database market it's MS. Frankly SQL 2005 was better by a lot of metrics than Oracle, 2008 has just extended that. But most around here live in some kind of reality distortion field (i.e. don't know what the fuck they're talking about).
Bullshit, utter bullshit. American companies are not under EU legal jurisdiction. All the EU could do is ban sale of the product in the EU. If a company exists entirely in the US EU laws mean jack shit beyond import/export laws.
'course this doesn't apply in this case, both companies are multinational with tendrils everywhere. So the EU has jurisdiction. I think US companies should start pulling out all manufacturing, development, research, etc... employees and sites from the EU. Sell the product, and let the tinpot bureaucrats make your life hell with their ridiculous socialism but don't contribute to their economy other than selling your product there.
This is laughable. They wouldn't be supporting a failing company, they would be forcing a company to fail by preventing a sale between consenting entities which involves nothing even approximating a monopoly. Too bad Sun is a public company, it would be cool if they are forced into liquidation if they could just literally destroy the MySQL IP as a petty revenge on that bureaucratic scum in the EU.
They can't. This is just more typical EU bullshit.
Yeah, and if they did that people would only have 937 different database systems to choose from instead of 938. Oh noes!
How this is possible? I don't understand the whole rental world. How does the studio have any control over it? Sure, they own the copyright on the material on the disk but I own the disk. I can sell it, why can't I rent it out to someone?
What legal principle prevents me from loaning out, selling, or renting any (physical) CD/DVD/Book that I have purchased? Do these companies seriously have to buy special versions that they rent out? They have copyright which let's them dictate copying or performance, giving out the physical item I bought doesn't seem to fall in that category.
Uhh, why do you need a wifi card? You probably brought the cheapest no-name brand you can find. And probably the company that sells it has crappy closed-source or non-existent drivers. Buy a better wifi card or just use wired Ethernet. Or why can't you use a USB wifi card? You probably just didn't get the right version of the module.
As for your GPU, it should work. You _do_ know that we Linux people don't have that shitty DirectX stuff, but you should be able to run OpenGL apps. Again, the drivers from the vendors are shitty but if you know what you're doing you can get it to work.
Haha. Yes, I'm joking.