yes but it would also be better if a financially funded company with a real interest in moving it forward was in control. So how would be a way to effectively kill it or greatly limit it.... get it in control of a company, pay them or make them a deal they can't refuse, and have them sit on it and do very little with it while all the time saying in a blog or two that things are happening.
Seriously, it's still not too difficult to keep it from growing outside of the free/open source side of things and without some financial backing to keep things rolling it'll fade while still sticking around..Net their baby? I thought they were backing off on both Silverlight and.Net for whatever they are calling the Windows 8 metro stuff.
decades of building great phone hardware which then had to be scaled back because the OS didn't support current hardware and then 2 years after the deal a new version is forced on them which is incompatible. That's great for the hardware designers, great for their global logistics network, great for their operator and sales channels. They are becoming great at shrinking lots of great resources.
FYI, it was a poor choice because the OS sucked, was outdated and already had a shrinking market share after many years on the market. It just so happens that it was such a great technology company like Microsoft who built and owns that product and I happen to know them too well.
and had to have their blessing. Not to mention that they took over an existing business of managing existing licensees so that is no proof they are not here and have not been contracted to shut it down orderly. Is there proof anywhere that they are growing that business by growing customers?
Since the late 1980s, I've never seen Microsoft not want to shut down a cross platform development platform of any appreciable size. I doubt very much the Nokia deals were the first and especially not with Elop at the helm of Nokia. IMO
Microsoft controlled what hardware vendors could do and started that with Windows 95( 1995 ). Did anyone notice the constraints they put on what was a Netbook and what OS they could put on it? Controlling the forcing of putting Internet Explorer on shipped systems etc? I agree, it is all Microsofts fault for not allowing the market to 'innovate' by dictating what the hardware was and what software could be on the hardware. In an open market, they would have sold the OS and let vendors define what the software on top of the OS was for their customers. Dictatorships eventually fall.
and from what I saw on the videos, Ubuntu for Android is pretty impressive. It's an Android phone and then it's a Ubuntu desktop with access to the Android parts. Add in Google Voice and you have a phone which when connected to the office network is a VOIP system. It would be a stepping stone for those vendors with phone hardware now and just maybe a way for other OEMs to get away from Microsoft some.
or maybe they can look for a company( IBM, Google, Canonical, etc ) who have enough software engineering staff to customize a GNU/Linux distro for an OEM and even other OEMs. They also bring along an online app store needed to get people to understand you only get apps from the store, and don't run Windows apps on it. Remember, people don't think they can run Windows apps on the iPad or iPhone, they use iTunes to get apps.
If the writing is on the wall, spray painted for them to see in big letters that Microsoft wants to become an Apple and own the software and hardware, most will know it's jump ship or be the last rat on a broken raft just a year or so down the road.
I think Microsoft is pulling this forced migration at break neck speed to make sure Google does not get Android or Chrome OS to a point where it is an easier jumping point. They also have to know that without a phone platform with a market controllable share, the Windows desktop and OS market is in danger. Because they still make most of their (over 60%) profits from the Windows OS or ties directly to it, they have no choice but hammer everyone into their idea of their future. IMO.
it doesn't even cover marketing costs and if the Apple vs Samsung case opens up what they are licensing and what patents they are claiming, most if not all will get work-arounds and end of licensing.
that's what I was thinking. Back in 1995 Microsoft spend a few hundred million on Windows 95 and word was going around that they were spending over $500 million on Windows Phone 7 marketing.
I guess it's interesting what they did and how they did it but it only that, interesting.
Ok, so will there really be much of a market when most fanbois will be getting x86 Windows 8 devices and skipping on Metro? Without any support on the desktop/laptop side what does Windows Phone 8 have going for it to attract developers? Single digit market share for many years should be expected with WP8 while Android and iOS split the market and continue to grow.
Just like WP6.5 and WP7, it won't matter how many hundreds of millions or even billions in marketing Microsoft spends, without the ability to eliminate Android from the market WP8 gets no love outside of Redmond WA. IMO
I saw this in the 1990s with US car designs. They all started to take the same aerodynamic shape and then it was like a switch was thrown. They then all started adding square corners here and there. To the front( Cadillac ), the rear( Taurus ) and even down the sides of the car. Certain design goals will lead you to a common shape and design and in the car industry it was aerodynamics. Apple did this when the iPhone used a huge display screen on the front with next to nothing else but the screen.
good to see someone else remembers that. So many here are still claiming this is all about the money and the B&N case really showed that to what lengths they'll go to just to keep the dealings hidden from public view.
Too bad you're post is still only rated 2 and I have no mod points.
yes but it's more likely it is not about how much was paid but what tactics were used, what patents are claimed and how those discussions played out and what Microsoft's internal motives really are. Barnes and Nobel showed Microsoft was very extremely insistent upon keeping even the patent list under NDA. Yes the use of "very" and "extremely" was on purpose because I doubt it has anything to do with the money. The few hundreds of millions they've pulled in from these contracts is a drop in the bucket for Microsoft and they have probably spent more on marketing the fact that they've signed these deals than they've got from them.
So it is very doubtful it is about the money. The Windows franchise is the bread winner for MS and any threat to that, as Android and Linux are, is worthy of them spending billions to derail. Getting a couple hundred mil is nothing to them in that light. IMO
"scared" or concerned it's the same thing and yes they must be very concerned. Did you read what Barnes and Nobel had released on how Microsoft first insisted on them signing an NDA to see the patents and then tried to trick B&N into thinking there was an old NDA which covered the issue? Forcing companies to keep secret the list of patents they are claiming Linux infringes upon has been shown to be very important to Microsoft in these tactics to get something signed and called a cross licensing agreement.
This judge has added lots of excitement to this case by opening up the documents. Heck, the Comes vs Microsoft case still adding lots of insights into Microsoft and how they've operated for 20 something years.
And if the courts start to expose software patent deals as these software patent court cases proliferate we might just see a decrease in these cases. There is a new cost to those filing these cases and that is the exposure of their practices and tactics.
Sounds like we'll be reading lots of good stuff from Groklaw very soon.
and for some reason I heard a familiar voice, a very vocal GW denier(Ben Stein), saying "Bueller. Bueller. Bueller." when reading that last sentence. ie there would have to be lots of money to be made by making such an admittance so it's easier to just ignore.
by the time it gets to the point of really doing anything to require relocation, those yahoos in Congress denying it will be long gone from those positions and living on easy street someplace. And we will likely have to pay to have THEM moved before anyone on the coast gets a dime for relocation.
And nothing about rising seas means the coastal trade stopping. We will still have coastlines there will just be less land between the coasts. Look at the bright side, transporting goods from the coasts will require less distance to travel so less fuel will be needed.
Just look for the court docs regarding Microsoft's Java dealings to see where developers would get kicked in the mouth for trying to be the best software. These were the days where Bill Gates was in command and the desktop OS was king and they owned the King's throne.
IMHO, they have been stagnating because they used the desktop OS market position to kill off the competition by bloating that OS time and time again. Look at how they were willing to spread the IE code throughout the OS DLLs just to show in court it was part of the OS. So they really have not been able to take a bloated mess of an OS with a monopoly position and take that to other sectors like PDAs, media players, phones, and tablets. Without a mains power connection that kind of software can't compete with those who are willing, and have the know how, to build efficient software for the sake of competition. Using the word "competition" in the sense of an open market where faster, better, cheaper is what customers get and become long term customers. I've been seeing many desktop Windows users purchasing Mac hardware after experiencing the iPod, iPhone, etc hardware and getting sick of the issues common to Microsoft software.
They've rode their monopoly for a long time but their inability to really create something which can compete in an open market is showing how long a ride that's been. Too long a ride without anything to fund the beast into the future. Their management has been pointing them as an anti-competition company for decades instead of a super tech innovator through the 1990s so it's really not just the past decade. IMO
but you can't say "no thanks" because the NDA you were forced to sign to be part of this game/PR stunt would state you must accept the position should you be picked. I might also say all your trackable movements, blinks, finger and hand waves belong as Microsoft IP and may be patented and they could be required to license them.
it's really an IQ test to see if the workers are really intelligent enough to be working at such a location. Slip your radiation detector badge into the shielded sleeve and you get reassigned to digging utility trenches using a shovel.
I didn't look at the context of the "magic number" but figured it was a mask or something relevant. As a random magic number in a header file I can see it getting looked over. It really isn't too hard to see the slightly hidden leetspeak in it though.
that seems to be a foreign subject at Microsoft or maybe their attitude goes like this, 'it's just open source, they them review our code since that is what they claim open source is all about.'
I doubt that attitude of the "engineer" who put that in the code is unique at Microsoft. As they say, sh:t rolls down hill and we know what's producing it at the top of that hill.
might be wrong. I recall word getting out that IBM had OS/2 running 32bit Windows 95 apps but the next beta release stopped that. Microsoft for some "unknown" reason decided to change their resource compiler such that an applications resources(menus, icons, etc ) were stored in the upper memory of the virtual address space while the rest continued to be loaded in the lower space.
You can't say that given all of the documentation released in public court cases there is any doubt Microsoft would pull stunts like last minute code changes just to make sure a competitor in the application side had to adjust for the code change, retest their software, and then send it to manufacturing which all means a big delay in release to the public. All the while, Microsoft's applications people knew well in advance of this and had their software applications read when the OS was released. Naw, that would never happen.
Slashdot Mirror
yes but it would also be better if a financially funded company with a real interest in moving it forward was in control. So how would be a way to effectively kill it or greatly limit it.... get it in control of a company, pay them or make them a deal they can't refuse, and have them sit on it and do very little with it while all the time saying in a blog or two that things are happening.
.Net their baby? I thought they were backing off on both Silverlight and .Net for whatever they are calling the Windows 8 metro stuff.
Seriously, it's still not too difficult to keep it from growing outside of the free/open source side of things and without some financial backing to keep things rolling it'll fade while still sticking around.
LoB
decades of building great phone hardware which then had to be scaled back because the OS didn't support current hardware and then 2 years after the deal a new version is forced on them which is incompatible. That's great for the hardware designers, great for their global logistics network, great for their operator and sales channels. They are becoming great at shrinking lots of great resources.
FYI, it was a poor choice because the OS sucked, was outdated and already had a shrinking market share after many years on the market. It just so happens that it was such a great technology company like Microsoft who built and owns that product and I happen to know them too well.
LoB
and had to have their blessing. Not to mention that they took over an existing business of managing existing licensees so that is no proof they are not here and have not been contracted to shut it down orderly. Is there proof anywhere that they are growing that business by growing customers?
Since the late 1980s, I've never seen Microsoft not want to shut down a cross platform development platform of any appreciable size. I doubt very much the Nokia deals were the first and especially not with Elop at the helm of Nokia. IMO
LoB
Microsoft controlled what hardware vendors could do and started that with Windows 95( 1995 ). Did anyone notice the constraints they put on what was a Netbook and what OS they could put on it? Controlling the forcing of putting Internet Explorer on shipped systems etc? I agree, it is all Microsofts fault for not allowing the market to 'innovate' by dictating what the hardware was and what software could be on the hardware. In an open market, they would have sold the OS and let vendors define what the software on top of the OS was for their customers. Dictatorships eventually fall.
LoB
and from what I saw on the videos, Ubuntu for Android is pretty impressive. It's an Android phone and then it's a Ubuntu desktop with access to the Android parts. Add in Google Voice and you have a phone which when connected to the office network is a VOIP system. It would be a stepping stone for those vendors with phone hardware now and just maybe a way for other OEMs to get away from Microsoft some.
http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/android
or maybe they can look for a company( IBM, Google, Canonical, etc ) who have enough software engineering staff to customize a GNU/Linux distro for an OEM and even other OEMs. They also bring along an online app store needed to get people to understand you only get apps from the store, and don't run Windows apps on it. Remember, people don't think they can run Windows apps on the iPad or iPhone, they use iTunes to get apps.
If the writing is on the wall, spray painted for them to see in big letters that Microsoft wants to become an Apple and own the software and hardware, most will know it's jump ship or be the last rat on a broken raft just a year or so down the road.
I think Microsoft is pulling this forced migration at break neck speed to make sure Google does not get Android or Chrome OS to a point where it is an easier jumping point. They also have to know that without a phone platform with a market controllable share, the Windows desktop and OS market is in danger. Because they still make most of their (over 60%) profits from the Windows OS or ties directly to it, they have no choice but hammer everyone into their idea of their future. IMO.
LoB
only heard it was a cheap product copy of the famed CP/M and hence the name Quick and Dirty Operating System.
If they want marketing time, they should run versions of NT or Windows against open source code bases like GNU/Linux and BSD or better yet UNIX. IMO
LoB
it doesn't even cover marketing costs and if the Apple vs Samsung case opens up what they are licensing and what patents they are claiming, most if not all will get work-arounds and end of licensing.
LoB
that's what I was thinking. Back in 1995 Microsoft spend a few hundred million on Windows 95 and word was going around that they were spending over $500 million on Windows Phone 7 marketing.
I guess it's interesting what they did and how they did it but it only that, interesting.
LoB
will anyone hear it?
Ok, so will there really be much of a market when most fanbois will be getting x86 Windows 8 devices and skipping on Metro? Without any support on the desktop/laptop side what does Windows Phone 8 have going for it to attract developers? Single digit market share for many years should be expected with WP8 while Android and iOS split the market and continue to grow.
Just like WP6.5 and WP7, it won't matter how many hundreds of millions or even billions in marketing Microsoft spends, without the ability to eliminate Android from the market WP8 gets no love outside of Redmond WA. IMO
LoB
I saw this in the 1990s with US car designs. They all started to take the same aerodynamic shape and then it was like a switch was thrown. They then all started adding square corners here and there. To the front( Cadillac ), the rear( Taurus ) and even down the sides of the car. Certain design goals will lead you to a common shape and design and in the car industry it was aerodynamics. Apple did this when the iPhone used a huge display screen on the front with next to nothing else but the screen.
LoB
good to see someone else remembers that. So many here are still claiming this is all about the money and the B&N case really showed that to what lengths they'll go to just to keep the dealings hidden from public view.
Too bad you're post is still only rated 2 and I have no mod points.
LoB
yes but it's more likely it is not about how much was paid but what tactics were used, what patents are claimed and how those discussions played out and what Microsoft's internal motives really are. Barnes and Nobel showed Microsoft was very extremely insistent upon keeping even the patent list under NDA. Yes the use of "very" and "extremely" was on purpose because I doubt it has anything to do with the money. The few hundreds of millions they've pulled in from these contracts is a drop in the bucket for Microsoft and they have probably spent more on marketing the fact that they've signed these deals than they've got from them.
So it is very doubtful it is about the money. The Windows franchise is the bread winner for MS and any threat to that, as Android and Linux are, is worthy of them spending billions to derail. Getting a couple hundred mil is nothing to them in that light. IMO
LoB
"scared" or concerned it's the same thing and yes they must be very concerned. Did you read what Barnes and Nobel had released on how Microsoft first insisted on them signing an NDA to see the patents and then tried to trick B&N into thinking there was an old NDA which covered the issue? Forcing companies to keep secret the list of patents they are claiming Linux infringes upon has been shown to be very important to Microsoft in these tactics to get something signed and called a cross licensing agreement.
This judge has added lots of excitement to this case by opening up the documents. Heck, the Comes vs Microsoft case still adding lots of insights into Microsoft and how they've operated for 20 something years.
LoB
And if the courts start to expose software patent deals as these software patent court cases proliferate we might just see a decrease in these cases. There is a new cost to those filing these cases and that is the exposure of their practices and tactics.
Sounds like we'll be reading lots of good stuff from Groklaw very soon.
LoB
and for some reason I heard a familiar voice, a very vocal GW denier(Ben Stein), saying "Bueller. Bueller. Bueller." when reading that last sentence. ie there would have to be lots of money to be made by making such an admittance so it's easier to just ignore.
LoB
by the time it gets to the point of really doing anything to require relocation, those yahoos in Congress denying it will be long gone from those positions and living on easy street someplace. And we will likely have to pay to have THEM moved before anyone on the coast gets a dime for relocation.
And nothing about rising seas means the coastal trade stopping. We will still have coastlines there will just be less land between the coasts. Look at the bright side, transporting goods from the coasts will require less distance to travel so less fuel will be needed.
LoB
Just look for the court docs regarding Microsoft's Java dealings to see where developers would get kicked in the mouth for trying to be the best software. These were the days where Bill Gates was in command and the desktop OS was king and they owned the King's throne.
IMHO, they have been stagnating because they used the desktop OS market position to kill off the competition by bloating that OS time and time again. Look at how they were willing to spread the IE code throughout the OS DLLs just to show in court it was part of the OS. So they really have not been able to take a bloated mess of an OS with a monopoly position and take that to other sectors like PDAs, media players, phones, and tablets. Without a mains power connection that kind of software can't compete with those who are willing, and have the know how, to build efficient software for the sake of competition. Using the word "competition" in the sense of an open market where faster, better, cheaper is what customers get and become long term customers. I've been seeing many desktop Windows users purchasing Mac hardware after experiencing the iPod, iPhone, etc hardware and getting sick of the issues common to Microsoft software.
They've rode their monopoly for a long time but their inability to really create something which can compete in an open market is showing how long a ride that's been. Too long a ride without anything to fund the beast into the future. Their management has been pointing them as an anti-competition company for decades instead of a super tech innovator through the 1990s so it's really not just the past decade. IMO
LoB
but you can't say "no thanks" because the NDA you were forced to sign to be part of this game/PR stunt would state you must accept the position should you be picked. I might also say all your trackable movements, blinks, finger and hand waves belong as Microsoft IP and may be patented and they could be required to license them.
LoB
it's really an IQ test to see if the workers are really intelligent enough to be working at such a location. Slip your radiation detector badge into the shielded sleeve and you get reassigned to digging utility trenches using a shovel.
LoB
and they kept aQuantive out of the hands of Google. So they have that going for them.
LoB
I didn't look at the context of the "magic number" but figured it was a mask or something relevant. As a random magic number in a header file I can see it getting looked over. It really isn't too hard to see the slightly hidden leetspeak in it though.
LoB
that seems to be a foreign subject at Microsoft or maybe their attitude goes like this, 'it's just open source, they them review our code since that is what they claim open source is all about.'
I doubt that attitude of the "engineer" who put that in the code is unique at Microsoft. As they say, sh:t rolls down hill and we know what's producing it at the top of that hill.
LoB
how about a toilet bowl instead?
LoB
might be wrong. I recall word getting out that IBM had OS/2 running 32bit Windows 95 apps but the next beta release stopped that. Microsoft for some "unknown" reason decided to change their resource compiler such that an applications resources(menus, icons, etc ) were stored in the upper memory of the virtual address space while the rest continued to be loaded in the lower space.
You can't say that given all of the documentation released in public court cases there is any doubt Microsoft would pull stunts like last minute code changes just to make sure a competitor in the application side had to adjust for the code change, retest their software, and then send it to manufacturing which all means a big delay in release to the public. All the while, Microsoft's applications people knew well in advance of this and had their software applications read when the OS was released. Naw, that would never happen.
LoB