Setting aside the default "screw M$" spinal chord reaction, can't we concede that they do have a point here? The fact that they are guilty of being monopolists themselves doesn't mean they have nothing that's worth saying. Google's latest acquisitions have definitely set them on a monopolistic path as they expand ownership over content providers and now methods of advertising through those providers.
Sure, Google conspiracy theories may be a bit of an exaggeration, but I think few people would disagree that an internet largely dominated by Google and Google-backed products, generating more Google revenue (positive feedback, anyone?) would entail the typical monopoly shortcomings (less innovation once the market is consolidated, arbitrariness, a bigger buffer zone for failed services, etc.). Right now I can't help but feel that Google is almost administering a utility, like water or electricity. Half of what I do online is powered (or directly coded) by Google -- ensuring a major share of the advertising revenue wouldn't be so different to ensuring they get most of their rightful toll/tax money for providing those basic services. Sure, there's nothing wrong with these services so far, but do we really want one guy centralizing all the cool net stuff? I for one, have to hand this one to our traditional Microsoft overlords.
I mean, come on, it was going to happen sooner or later. It would take more than just ingenuity to think that eventually a ruling might show up saying that it's "ok", or that they'd turn a blind eye to it forever.
In my opinion, this ruling might even be beneficial to stir up discussion about how the world of file-sharing will be addressed in the future. It's equally silly to think that they can just keep banning things forever and a well-defined separation line might give a boost to formalizing the legality of certain file-types and encouraging the widespread acknowledgement and proliferation of systems such as GPL.
Of course you won't be able to watch movies for free while someone else is paying for them, but maybe you'll be able to protect the things you can do for free in a much more solid, institutionalized way. Use your legal system wisely. It's there to help you, not as some dark, mindlessly antagonic villain.
I see a bloodthirsty battle unfolding between MS and Mandrakelinux/Conectiva. Conectiva has the government on its side, though, and will probably continue to cater for medium/small businesses even if Starter hooks the middle class desktop users.
Starter hasn't got a leg to stand on for serious businesses, of course, but most brazilians are still Linux-illiterate.
It seems to me that the whole scheme is pretty much doomed from the beginning for MS; your average brazilian desktop user buys pirate versions of windows -- and pretty much everything else -- while companies will be justifiably skeptical towards what Starter can actually do. The lower classes depend on government programmes for computer access, and Minister Gilberto Gil is unlikely to be persuaded to give up all his sympathies for open source for a cheaper version of Windows.
Not that MS is having trouble making ends meet for financing marketing campaigns...
Slashdot Mirror
Setting aside the default "screw M$" spinal chord reaction, can't we concede that they do have a point here? The fact that they are guilty of being monopolists themselves doesn't mean they have nothing that's worth saying. Google's latest acquisitions have definitely set them on a monopolistic path as they expand ownership over content providers and now methods of advertising through those providers.
Sure, Google conspiracy theories may be a bit of an exaggeration, but I think few people would disagree that an internet largely dominated by Google and Google-backed products, generating more Google revenue (positive feedback, anyone?) would entail the typical monopoly shortcomings (less innovation once the market is consolidated, arbitrariness, a bigger buffer zone for failed services, etc.). Right now I can't help but feel that Google is almost administering a utility, like water or electricity. Half of what I do online is powered (or directly coded) by Google -- ensuring a major share of the advertising revenue wouldn't be so different to ensuring they get most of their rightful toll/tax money for providing those basic services. Sure, there's nothing wrong with these services so far, but do we really want one guy centralizing all the cool net stuff? I for one, have to hand this one to our traditional Microsoft overlords.
oh noes, checking for piracy? great scott, i'm sure no-one will ever find their way around that. cunning move, gates.
it might even be a full week until the street vendors have "Longhorn + anti-detection patch" selling for 10 bucks here in Rio.
Iraq is still not too great and Kim Jong Il just pressed some red button. Now back to the marines who are trying to recover the leaked book copies.'
I mean, come on, it was going to happen sooner or later. It would take more than just ingenuity to think that eventually a ruling might show up saying that it's "ok", or that they'd turn a blind eye to it forever.
In my opinion, this ruling might even be beneficial to stir up discussion about how the world of file-sharing will be addressed in the future. It's equally silly to think that they can just keep banning things forever and a well-defined separation line might give a boost to formalizing the legality of certain file-types and encouraging the widespread acknowledgement and proliferation of systems such as GPL.
Of course you won't be able to watch movies for free while someone else is paying for them, but maybe you'll be able to protect the things you can do for free in a much more solid, institutionalized way. Use your legal system wisely. It's there to help you, not as some dark, mindlessly antagonic villain.
Next: NYTimes advises that zombie-spammers can be dealt with by "removing the head or destroying the brain".
some might beg to differ.
I see a bloodthirsty battle unfolding between MS and Mandrakelinux/Conectiva. Conectiva has the government on its side, though, and will probably continue to cater for medium/small businesses even if Starter hooks the middle class desktop users. Starter hasn't got a leg to stand on for serious businesses, of course, but most brazilians are still Linux-illiterate. It seems to me that the whole scheme is pretty much doomed from the beginning for MS; your average brazilian desktop user buys pirate versions of windows -- and pretty much everything else -- while companies will be justifiably skeptical towards what Starter can actually do. The lower classes depend on government programmes for computer access, and Minister Gilberto Gil is unlikely to be persuaded to give up all his sympathies for open source for a cheaper version of Windows. Not that MS is having trouble making ends meet for financing marketing campaigns...