The difference is that they've started charging for subscriptions too, not just apps. Unlike apps, Apple provides no server hosting, vetting etc. except for payment processing. Would you be okay with CC merchants charging 30%? Readability charges for providing a service.
I guess no company is exempt from extreme corporate greed... sad to see other companies(especially little startups like Readability) get trampled on the way.
1. High margin sales of iDevices to iUsers 2. 30% of all app sales on all the iDevices by iUsers 3. 30% of all subscription revenue that all iUsers pay on all iDevices (will be implemented soon) 4. ??? 5. Overtake oil baron Exxon Mobil as the world's largest publicly traded company with most market capitalization (well, gas prices are going up too.. will be interesting to see who wins this one)
Again, see his posting history and the other stories where he had long comments under a minute of posting the article... I guess you're just biased because it's MS.
No shit, 1 minute after the story is posted no less. Saw something similar happen around the end of last year too, but it probably happens more often than that and I just have missed it.
If it wasn't for the "best possible tools" crack then it wouldn't have been quite so obvious, but the rest of it is just another "part of a campaign by Microsoft to keep Nokia from choosing Google's Android operating system" as the summary says. Interesting that they'd rather see people buy iPhones than Android. And that they think that they can change our opinions just from some noob saying how great MS is. Slashdot does have a lot of groupthink, but it doesn't quite work like that.
I haven't seen WP7 though I gather from the responses to the parent that it's not so great.
If you gather things from Slashdot's responses to MS's products... well there you go. Check it out yourself with an open mind, it's actually pretty good.
To put it another way, for a lot of Nokia engineers it's not like, "Wow, Microsoft is giving our company a billion dollars. I will get to do a lot of cool things." But more like, "Wow, a billion dollars of Nokia R&D is going to be done by Microsoft instead for free -- my job is doomed."
Those Nokia engineers sure seem be getting a lot done. Nokia seems to spend more than their competitor's combined on R&D with nothing to show except delays.
that it could be the single best operating system on the planet that is superior to every other system in every possible way, but...
It's still A Trap(tm).
Microsoft has a very long history of blatantly destructive behaviour. They have a lot to make up for before they should be considered trustworthy enough to rely on.
Anyone who willingly buys microsoft products should be pitied, because clearly they're trapped in an abusive relationship. "Oh! He's not like that anymore! He's changed! Oh no, I got that black eye from falling down the stairs!"
Unlike the iPhone/iTouch/iPad which now require that all subscriptions(eg. Kindle, Netflix) be taxed 30%? Yeah right.
The OS was made available only on AT&T and Tmobile, leaving out half the market (CDMA Spring and Verizon). The CDMA support is coming this month. The numbers are not that bad for a nascent platform.
Since it's a brand new framework, apps are just ramping to 10,000, these things take their time. It's not even 5 months since launch.
>..then why would they buy a Nokia one when there are phones from LG and HTC that are just as good.
Same reason people bought a lot of Motorola Droids and Samsung Galaxy S, better hardware and looks.
And the path that they were taking earlier was going to be super successful right?
Why do you trolls have to phrase it as an either/or situation? Windows Phone 7 is a flop and Nokia hitched their wagon to it. There were other options.
Like HP, Dell, Asus, Acer, Sony ?
Yeah, their Windows lap dogs are doing reasonably well fighting over the scraps.
Umm, if Android was chosen, won't Nokia be fighting for the 'scraps' with Motorola, HTC, Samsung, Sony, etc. as you put it? Be consistent!
Atleast MS was offering them a better deal because it's a nascent platform, Google's wouldn't even care much at this point. And I thought Goldman Sachs analysts were riled on here? Unless it's to suit you I guess. Anyway, Nokia jumping on might make it
With religion, the deities involved either exist or they don't.
As a Christian I disagree. (Actually, I spend a lot of time disagreeing. Perhaps I am a disagreeable person;-])
The definition of Deity is a significant issue. I personally do not believe that God is an elderly Jewish gentleman sitting in an armchair, played by Orson Wells. YMMV. I do, however, believe in evolution. A combination of study of biology, and the world around me, and a study of who to trust, as well as a good working knowledge of boolean algebra, enables me to have confidence in my beliefs.
As a European, I suspect a lot of Americans, Christian or otherwise, are completely deranged. A visit to Utah did nothing to disuade me of this suspicion.
As a hard agnostic, I also disagree. Because if there is something in people's heads, it's a form of existence in itself. Like Santa Claus.
Keep them out? So can the religious get a tax refund proportional to the amount of government money spent on science?
Get off your high horse, douchebag. People like you piss me off because you don't want discourse, you want to be smarter than everybody else and just do what you want because your side is right. How are you any better than relgious zealots? Oh, you aren't, since I'm quite sure you can't really understand or have verified any evolutionary science findings.
For example, the fossil record is quite consistent with evolution and not with any religious text or conjecture. http://www.bobainsworth.com/fossil/timeline.htm No one has been able to find fossils inconsistent with the chart above. Maybe you need start digging?
I would like you discourse on that, or we could move over to IRC or any other discussion medium if that is more convenient.
Well, evolution is just a theory, just like general relativity. You're doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. Science isn't really about true or false; Newtonian physics is an accurate description/model of reality, up to a certain point.
Theories are tools for making sense of the world. Equating the theory with reality is probably a bad thing to do, given the process. Theories tend to be simplified models - which by definition aren't reality.
"The theory of evolution is true" is a statement of belief. "The theory of evolution seems to account for the different variations of life" is probably a more accurate (or maybe a more careful and precise) way of presenting it.
The problem is the agenda of the people discounting evolution. It is not about just finding loopholes in evolutionary theory (scientists welcome that, it makes the theory stronger or just kills it if it's wrong), it's about pushing a completely different agenda to non-scientific folks with no basis in science or those with agendas themselves(politicians). Intelligent design is not even a theory, it's like someone claiming that we're living under the Matrix, there's really no way to find out if we are. Science does not even come into the picture, and even theories from scientists like the 'String theory' have been called out for making wild claims with no evidence.
Because of the only two available explanation -- evolutions and divine intervention
And why do you assume there are only two available explanations? What if neither is correct, but some alternative is? And the two are not necessarily in complete conflict... so, what if parts of both are correct?
Sigh... (not directed at parent post) this is one of the subjects on Slashdot where people can completely lose their claimed open-mindedness. From the other side, it probably seems as though the people here are just as ignorant and closed-minded because they believe anything from a person labeled "scientist" as true and inerrant. So it's like faith, but it's faith in the works and claims of people.
Woo! That's what I keep telling people, but no one believes me. You will be a good fit to join our society, the dues are only $100/month for you (reduced from $500/month for regular members).
Because of the only two available explanation -- evolutions and divine intervention
And why do you assume there are only two available explanations? What if neither is correct, but some alternative is? And the two are not necessarily in complete conflict... so, what if parts of both are correct?
Sigh... (not directed at parent post) this is one of the subjects on Slashdot where people can completely lose their claimed open-mindedness. From the other side, it probably seems as though the people here are just as ignorant and closed-minded because they believe anything from a person labeled "scientist" as true and inerrant. So it's like faith, but it's faith in the works and claims of people.
The main problem is that there are lots of people who just read a couple of deceiving websites and regurgitate the same BS over and over, making people lose their patience.
As it comes to evolution, the fossil record is totally consistent with it, so either evolution happened or God planted evidence to make it appear so.
The other thing is agenda. Sure, scientists might have an agenda to push for more funding, but the 'other side' sure has a lot of agenda dating back to denying Galileo's claims.
Why do you think the board hired him in the first place in place of the local talent and VPs ? They obviously knew by that time that Meego was a failed project and they had to go in the new direction. They probably decided by then that WP7 or Android was the way to go and hired the new boss accordingly.
And the path that they were taking earlier was going to be super successful right? They failed bigtime at Meego with multiyear delays and instead of slipping into irrelevance are making a good try.
> It doesn't matter that history has shown over and over that Microsoft are consistent and excellent at assassinating their bedfellows
Like HP, Dell, Asus, Acer, Sony ? Even in the software space, they have "assassinated" companies by making better software(if they don't they fail, see Microsoft Money vs. Quicken), not banning them like Apple does on their 'Post-PC' iDevices.
Slashdot Mirror
Netflix, Kindle pay for hosting, not Apple.
> It pays for hosting and bandwidth for paid and free apps.
Oh yes, they're so hurting for money that people like you must shill for them being the middle man.
How many people would buy the iDevices today if there were no devs or apps?
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/03/20110302-10093662--img4470.jpg
What does any of this have to do with a phone firmware update?
What does any of this have to do with a phone firmware update? :)
Atleast his comment was more on topic.
The difference is that they've started charging for subscriptions too, not just apps. Unlike apps, Apple provides no server hosting, vetting etc. except for payment processing. Would you be okay with CC merchants charging 30%? Readability charges for providing a service.
A feature I wish it didn't come with... 30% of subscription revenues from "publishers" like Netflix, Amazon Kindle etc.
See http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2011/02/apple_30_percent_subscription_tax.html
An app was already pulled for not paying up: http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/
Ironically it's the same app's OSS code that Apple used to implement the Readability function in Safari...
http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2010/06/08/think-safari-reader-looks-familiar-thats-because-apple-used-op/
I guess no company is exempt from extreme corporate greed... sad to see other companies(especially little startups like Readability) get trampled on the way.
1. High margin sales of iDevices to iUsers
2. 30% of all app sales on all the iDevices by iUsers
3. 30% of all subscription revenue that all iUsers pay on all iDevices (will be implemented soon)
4. ???
5. Overtake oil baron Exxon Mobil as the world's largest publicly traded company with most market capitalization (well, gas prices are going up too.. will be interesting to see who wins this one)
What's the use of using open source and open standards if things are Tivoized and toll booths are set up for apps and services?
Again, see his posting history and the other stories where he had long comments under a minute of posting the article... I guess you're just biased because it's MS.
No shit, 1 minute after the story is posted no less. Saw something similar happen around the end of last year too, but it probably happens more often than that and I just have missed it.
If it wasn't for the "best possible tools" crack then it wouldn't have been quite so obvious, but the rest of it is just another "part of a campaign by Microsoft to keep Nokia from choosing Google's Android operating system" as the summary says. Interesting that they'd rather see people buy iPhones than Android. And that they think that they can change our opinions just from some noob saying how great MS is. Slashdot does have a lot of groupthink, but it doesn't quite work like that.
See http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/03/08/1424243/Why-Do-Videogames-Struggle-With-Sex
See his/her first comment and the time and the time of posting the article. I guess you're just paranoid.
Compare to Apple? Apple already has total control and is squeezing it now.
I haven't seen WP7 though I gather from the responses to the parent that it's not so great.
If you gather things from Slashdot's responses to MS's products... well there you go. Check it out yourself with an open mind, it's actually pretty good.
To put it another way, for a lot of Nokia engineers it's not like, "Wow, Microsoft is giving our company a billion dollars. I will get to do a lot of cool things." But more like, "Wow, a billion dollars of Nokia R&D is going to be done by Microsoft instead for free -- my job is doomed."
Those Nokia engineers sure seem be getting a lot done. Nokia seems to spend more than their competitor's combined on R&D with nothing to show except delays.
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20110203/not-seeing-much-return-on-that-massive-rd-spend-are-you-nokia/
that it could be the single best operating system on the planet that is superior to every other system in every possible way, but...
It's still A Trap(tm).
Microsoft has a very long history of blatantly destructive behaviour. They have a lot to make up for before they should be considered trustworthy enough to rely on.
Anyone who willingly buys microsoft products should be pitied, because clearly they're trapped in an abusive relationship. "Oh! He's not like that anymore! He's changed! Oh no, I got that black eye from falling down the stairs!"
Unlike the iPhone/iTouch/iPad which now require that all subscriptions(eg. Kindle, Netflix) be taxed 30%? Yeah right.
The OS was made available only on AT&T and Tmobile, leaving out half the market (CDMA Spring and Verizon). The CDMA support is coming this month. The numbers are not that bad for a nascent platform.
Since it's a brand new framework, apps are just ramping to 10,000, these things take their time. It's not even 5 months since launch.
>..then why would they buy a Nokia one when there are phones from LG and HTC that are just as good.
Same reason people bought a lot of Motorola Droids and Samsung Galaxy S, better hardware and looks.
>And i agree, i challange anyone finding such a pile of crap as Visual Studio in use today. Nothing compares to it.
Why is it a pile of crap? Seriously.
And the path that they were taking earlier was going to be super successful right?
Why do you trolls have to phrase it as an either/or situation? Windows Phone 7 is a flop and Nokia hitched their wagon to it. There were other options.
Like HP, Dell, Asus, Acer, Sony ?
Yeah, their Windows lap dogs are doing reasonably well fighting over the scraps.
Umm, if Android was chosen, won't Nokia be fighting for the 'scraps' with Motorola, HTC, Samsung, Sony, etc. as you put it? Be consistent!
Atleast MS was offering them a better deal because it's a nascent platform, Google's wouldn't even care much at this point. And I thought Goldman Sachs analysts were riled on here? Unless it's to suit you I guess. Anyway, Nokia jumping on might make it
With religion, the deities involved either exist or they don't.
As a Christian I disagree. (Actually, I spend a lot of time disagreeing. Perhaps I am a disagreeable person ;-])
The definition of Deity is a significant issue. I personally do not believe that God is an elderly Jewish gentleman sitting in an armchair, played by Orson Wells. YMMV. I do, however, believe in evolution. A combination of study of biology, and the world around me, and a study of who to trust, as well as a good working knowledge of boolean algebra, enables me to have confidence in my beliefs.
As a European, I suspect a lot of Americans, Christian or otherwise, are completely deranged. A visit to Utah did nothing to disuade me of this suspicion.
As a hard agnostic, I also disagree. Because if there is something in people's heads, it's a form of existence in itself. Like Santa Claus.
Maybe tell us what do you believe God is?
Keep them out? So can the religious get a tax refund proportional to the amount of government money spent on science?
Get off your high horse, douchebag. People like you piss me off because you don't want discourse, you want to be smarter than everybody else and just do what you want because your side is right. How are you any better than relgious zealots? Oh, you aren't, since I'm quite sure you can't really understand or have verified any evolutionary science findings.
For example, the fossil record is quite consistent with evolution and not with any religious text or conjecture. http://www.bobainsworth.com/fossil/timeline.htm
No one has been able to find fossils inconsistent with the chart above. Maybe you need start digging?
I would like you discourse on that, or we could move over to IRC or any other discussion medium if that is more convenient.
Well, evolution is just a theory, just like general relativity. You're doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. Science isn't really about true or false; Newtonian physics is an accurate description/model of reality, up to a certain point.
Theories are tools for making sense of the world. Equating the theory with reality is probably a bad thing to do, given the process. Theories tend to be simplified models - which by definition aren't reality.
"The theory of evolution is true" is a statement of belief. "The theory of evolution seems to account for the different variations of life" is probably a more accurate (or maybe a more careful and precise) way of presenting it.
The problem is the agenda of the people discounting evolution. It is not about just finding loopholes in evolutionary theory (scientists welcome that, it makes the theory stronger or just kills it if it's wrong), it's about pushing a completely different agenda to non-scientific folks with no basis in science or those with agendas themselves(politicians). Intelligent design is not even a theory, it's like someone claiming that we're living under the Matrix, there's really no way to find out if we are. Science does not even come into the picture, and even theories from scientists like the 'String theory' have been called out for making wild claims with no evidence.
The Bible is full of references to a flat earth.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/1flat90.html
Face it women know the dangers of having sex before engaging. Don't let them about face when shit gets real. /flame
Really? Then why do the same general group of pro-lifers insist on not having proper sex education?
http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/24/abstinence/index.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jul/20/george-bush-teen-pregnancy-abstinence
http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-02-11/news/17229994_1_abstinence-comprehensive-sex-education-sexual-and-reproductive-health
Face it, the issue is religious and political and not about what's good for society.
Because of the only two available explanation -- evolutions and divine intervention
And why do you assume there are only two available explanations? What if neither is correct, but some alternative is? And the two are not necessarily in complete conflict... so, what if parts of both are correct?
Sigh... (not directed at parent post) this is one of the subjects on Slashdot where people can completely lose their claimed open-mindedness. From the other side, it probably seems as though the people here are just as ignorant and closed-minded because they believe anything from a person labeled "scientist" as true and inerrant. So it's like faith, but it's faith in the works and claims of people.
Woo! That's what I keep telling people, but no one believes me. You will be a good fit to join our society, the dues are only $100/month for you (reduced from $500/month for regular members).
--Member, Flat Earth Society.
Because of the only two available explanation -- evolutions and divine intervention
And why do you assume there are only two available explanations? What if neither is correct, but some alternative is? And the two are not necessarily in complete conflict... so, what if parts of both are correct?
Sigh... (not directed at parent post) this is one of the subjects on Slashdot where people can completely lose their claimed open-mindedness. From the other side, it probably seems as though the people here are just as ignorant and closed-minded because they believe anything from a person labeled "scientist" as true and inerrant. So it's like faith, but it's faith in the works and claims of people.
The main problem is that there are lots of people who just read a couple of deceiving websites and regurgitate the same BS over and over, making people lose their patience.
As it comes to evolution, the fossil record is totally consistent with it, so either evolution happened or God planted evidence to make it appear so.
The other thing is agenda. Sure, scientists might have an agenda to push for more funding, but the 'other side' sure has a lot of agenda dating back to denying Galileo's claims.
>Assign more developers and resource so MeeGo.
Yes, adding more resources to a project makes it go faster and smoother. /sarcasm
Why do you think the board hired him in the first place in place of the local talent and VPs ? They obviously knew by that time that Meego was a failed project and they had to go in the new direction. They probably decided by then that WP7 or Android was the way to go and hired the new boss accordingly.
And the path that they were taking earlier was going to be super successful right? They failed bigtime at Meego with multiyear delays and instead of slipping into irrelevance are making a good try.
> It doesn't matter that history has shown over and over that Microsoft are consistent and excellent at assassinating their bedfellows
Like HP, Dell, Asus, Acer, Sony ? Even in the software space, they have "assassinated" companies by making better software(if they don't they fail, see Microsoft Money vs. Quicken), not banning them like Apple does on their 'Post-PC' iDevices.
they're not very open source and they fundamentally don't care.
You mean like this, or are you talking about something else?
A single site link means it's open source friendly? What about this then http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/ ?
OSS software isn't even allowed to run in Apple's "Post-PC Era" devices.