I don't get it -- the technology will be used initially only on the front page? It's electronic and writable - why is there more than 1 page? And if there's only 1 page, why does it need to be paper-thin?
If this is just like paper, there is no UI. That means there is no way to STOP the stupid flash animation from looping? That would be torture - imagine trying to read an article with a never-ending animated dancing monkey in your (not so peripheral) field of view.
I agree completely. I remember what it was like "in the dark days" before Windows came along. Hardware vendors supplying operating systems for their systems. No two systems even remotely alike. Yes, Apple was the first with a GUI for the masses (copying from Xerox PARC), but Apple was just another hardware vendor that also did software - they just did a much better job than the others because they considered "the rest of us" when they designed their systems.
Anyhow, I think Microsoft is almost singularly responsible for the incredibly cheap and powerful machines we all enjoy today. And yes, they made Linux possible by forcing all the hardware vendors to adhere to common standards.
Check out this article for Lloyd Case's view of what the world would have been like had Microsoft not emerged:
In some ways, Microsoft's history reminds me of AT&T. Perhaps the benefits of having a monopoly while a new technology is "growing up" might outweigh the disadvantages. They can bring order to a chaotic marketplace. Of course this then makes me wonder if we have reached the tipping point where the benefits are no longer greater than the drawbacks?
That's interesting. So by your logic I must not be able to run FireFox? Actually I am and I didn't have to replace my machine - I just installed it. Perhaps I should be annoyed that IE is still "lurking in the background" even though FireFox is my "default" browser? In my experience it is pretty easy to add new features to Windows; not necessarily as easy to remove the old ones.
In fact I have never in my life seen a product more extensible than a PC running Windows. Virtually every new thing that comes down the pike is available for Windows, and usually it's available there first. Contrast that with Macs and the many Linux distros, where my choices are more limited (and in the case of Macs, more expensive). No, quite to the contrary, if I want the newest shiniest thing I don't have to throw away my machine and start over. At home I have 5 year old machines running Windows 2000 with WiFi connections, USB 2.0, firewire, high-performance 3D video boards, 5.1 audio, DVD writers,... none of these things even existed when that system was first built. I know, those are hardware things. Let's talk software -- I run Nero for burning (not Windows builtins), FireFox for browsing, WinZip for archiving (not Windows builtins), Cisco VPN clients (not Windows builtins), Google's browser toolbar, Winamp for mp3 playing,... the list goes on and on. How is this possible with Windows' monolithic architecture? Now, could Microsoft make it easier to extend Windows? Of course! But to make the simplistic statement that because they provide you with a broad selection of workable, non-removable utilities built into the operating system does not mean it is not extensible.
This is great news! Now even people without huge piles of cash can use RUP to screw up their product development process. It won't just be the big well-healed companies that can afford to build mediocre products at a snail's pace - now everyone can do it!
I have had experience with the RUP in several companies and the results were the same in both places. Analysis-Paralysis... write no line of code before its' time... round and round and round we went. In both cases (pun intended) we spent a fortune on tools, months on training and then about half a year wrestling with the tools and the process, until we ended up dumping it all, and writing it off as a learning experience.
I had to weigh in on this one. In my first day of "engineering 101" my instructor tried to explain to us the difference between an engineer and a scientist. Stop me if you've heard this... You are in one corner of the room and a highly desireable person is in the opposite corner. You are allowed to go half the distance each hour. The scientist will throw up his hands and say "it's hopeless, you can never get there." The engineer will say "ahhh, but you can get close enough for all practical purposes!" When you say that "most of the dreamers tend to choose the wrong algorithms and data structures because they know nothing of the theory" I reflect on that little example. Sometimes the algorithm/data structure is "good enough" and a wonderful product/service is born.
Regarding MS OS being a higher percentage of the overall cost of a PC - hardware costs have fallen dramatically. The cost to develop software is higher than ever before. No big surprise here. By your logic, since the cost of the physical CD media has dropped from $2 to $0.20, software titles should have dropped by that same factor of 10. You know it doesn't work that way. The fact that the media is 10 times cheaper does not mean you can pay your army of games developers 1/10th of their former salary. If anything, as software complexity rises, costs rise as well. To assert that software costs should track hardware costs is simply silly and you should know better.
And regarding my missing the whole point, I think the shoe is squarely on the other foot. As products evolve the list of standard features expands. Things that were add-on options become built-in. This is done for many reasons - cost savings, reliabiltiy and better integration being among them. As an application developer I can really appreciate knowing that if I build an application that requires audio playback, or web-page viewing, I can use built-in facilities in the platform. I don't have to design, code and test for every possible combination. Or worse, arrange for installing these utilities with my application. This leads to a dramatically better end-user experience, and a more robust product. Now, there may be many reasons why Microsoft chooses to integrate those facilities, and one of them may have to do with locking in users, but you cannot deny the obvious, tangible and substantial benefits to application developers, who are then able to pass those benefits on to their end users.
Continuing with the car analogy. My car has built-in sunroof, built-in tinted windows, built-in heated seats, built-in security system, built-in halogen headlights, a built-in stereo, etc etc. All of those things started out as add-ons. That is simply the way products evolve. Designers build in more and more features to differentiate themselves. Just because Microsoft is way better at it than most is no reason to pretend this is a bad thing.
And by the way, if you want to talk predatory, let's talk Redhat Linux - Standard Enterprise Edition - $1499 ($2499 for the Premium Edition). That's up quite a bit from free.
Actually I'm completely correct, as my statement was that I was not aware of any examples of Microsoft giving stuff away, then squashing the competition, and then charging us for it. The one example offered, HotMail, is hardly an instance where MS has eliminated the competition. (And I suspect the POP charges came about when HotMail was no longer beta). Anyhow, that statement was what I objected to in the original post, and that was what I refuted.
As regards your point about the OS license costs, methinks you are mistaken. Windows XP Home is an $89 item at my local Best Buy. Windows 95 was $99 10 years ago. And MSDOS 3.3 was around $100 20 years ago. And let's not forget that XP comes "bundled" with IE, WMP, ZIP, Picture Viewers, Movie Makers, etc... so arguably, value-wise they have dramatically reduced their prices.
The Office product hovers around $250 these days, from the $500 range in the hey-day of integrated office suites. Now I would not attribute that price drop to Microsoft being generous. Nor would I think it is due to the minimal competition offered by Open Office and Star Office. I think, as you inferred, it is more likely Office prices have dropped to lure existing customers to upgrade.
You made one statement that made me think for a moment. You pointed out that Microsoft is fond of charging for a product, then giving it away free, then bundling it (which is the same as free only there is no additional effort to obtain it). You described this as a predatory practice. Interesting. So if your car company calls you up and says "we have this new computer module for your car that improves gas mileage by 25%, and it's only $100", and then a year later the module is free (just stop by the dealer) and then a year after that it's inside every car they build -- this is predatory? I call that evolution.
Re:gaim works for me, but loses ground from here
on
Linux Instant Messengers
·
· Score: 3, Informative
But, a cautionary note, if history serves, what Microsoft is doing has the petina of old tricks. Should they manage to climb to the top and snuff out other IM services the way they've snuffed out other competitors I predict they once again will begin charging for what once was free.
Please help me out here. I am wracking my brain trying to think of a case where Microsoft started charging for something that was once free after they snuffed the competition. Let's see...
Operating Systems, nope, they never were free (though the service packs and updates have always been free)
IE, nope, free (at least until the government intercedes on our behalf and makes us buy it)
Media Player, nope, free (at least until the government intercedes on our behalf and makes us buy it)
Outlook Express, always free, still free
Office, nope, never was free - though the price has DROPPED significantly as competition has disappeared (remember Lotus, WordPerfect, Ashton Tate, CorelOffice,...)
PhotoStory, nope, was $29 as part of media pack, but now it's free
Media Encoding tools, nope, was $100 as part of Video For Windows SDK, but now it's free
How about games?
I can't think of a single game Microsoft charges for that was formerly available for free.
How about developer tools?
MSDN, nope, still a pay-for service, though now there is a very nice alternative for free online
SDKs, nope, some used to be pay-fors but now they are all free
Visual Studio, nope, still a pay-for, always was (bundled with MSDN subscriptions though)
SourceSafe, nope, always was a pay-for (bundled with MSDN subscriptions though)
Let's go back further in time...
Disk Compression, nope, used to be a pay-for but now Microsoft bundles it for free in all OSes
Disk Defragger, nope, used to be a pay-for but now Microsoft bundles it for free in all OSes
Paint, Calculator, Notepad, HyperTerm, etc. etc. always free (and worth every penny;-)
Please help me out here. There MUST BE at least one example! I mean, after all, it's "common knowledge" that this is a predatory Microsoft practice.
Ummm, I was completely aware the post was a joke. I was responding to the post because, sadly, many on these boards are so blinded by their hatred of all things Microsoft and so devoted to all things Linux, they wouldn't know it was a joke. And for the record, it is my 3 teenage sons who are the big-time gamers, not me (though I will admit to enjoying an occassional Warcraft III network game with them).
On this you have a point. As it happens, many games will play well on a $299 PC (rule of thumb, if the game is more than 2 years old, you can't buy a machine it won't play well on), but the really demanding ones need a beefier PC. And nowhere on the "box" will it warn you about this. The average person is lost in a sea of Semprons and Celerons and Pentium 4s and Centrinos and Athlons with no real way to figure out which is best... nevermind the embedded graphics and the various flavors of graphics boards. All of that said, this is not a Windows deficiency (in fact it's sort of a Windows strength since it will *work* with virtually any combination), and Linux does not enjoy any advantages in this area. The technology is simply too complex for non-techies to understand (even us techies get confused - how often are you asked to recommend a machine... I find myself asking about 20 questions before I can give them an intelligent answer).
Thankfully, the industry is addressing this, at least to some level, by offering configurations for "gaming", "web browsing/email", "office work", "audio-video editing", etc. That goes a long way towards solving this problem. And assuming I bought the appropriate box, the experience I described above is what the typical user will see.
Funny story. My experience was a little different. I went to Comp USA, and for $299 I took home a PC with 17 inch monitor, speakers, and Windows pre-installed... and they threw in a printer. I gave them another $40 and brought home my favorite game. I plugged the machine in, inserted the mouse and keyboard and speaker connectors (all color-coded), hooked up the monitor and turned it on. I had to click away a welcome message. Then I inserted my game CD, the installer started automatically. Five minutes later I was in gaming heaven. No compilers. No internet connection. No messing with drivers - the installer did have to install the latest directX version, but that was all automatic. I guess I just got lucky. It can't possibly be this easy, can it?
I have a dream; and I hope the time will come, when if one talks of a software for Linux, this software can install across all Linux based distros.
And then maybe Linux will have a fighting chance against Windows on the desktop. Face it, Microsoft has "gotten this" from the very beginning. Say what you want about them, but fighting for binary compatibility across all versions of Windows has served Microsoft well. I walk into Best Buy, grab a software title off the shelf and I have high confidence it will install and run on my Windows PC. This, IMHO, is the biggest thing blocking Linux from widespread acceptance on the desktop - binary compatibility - the install application figures out platform dependencies, not the user. OSS is nice, but the vast majority of people don't have the time nor the skill to rebuild everything so that it is compatible with their specific platform.
All this chatter is about potential abuses of RFID by nasty corporations. I imagine that their are areas in the government simply drueling over the possibilities... that bullet was purchased at KMart in Osh Kosh on October 19th at 7:22pm by...
And what about the IRS, and the state governments. I am sure the state of Massachusetts, which never leaves any revenue stream untapped, is intrigued by the possibility of being able to "capture" all those lost sales taxes from people shopping outside the state (neighboring NH has no sales tax and the parking lots in the malls are always filled with cars with Mass plates). Imagine getting a retro-active sales tax bill with an itemized list of everything you bought.
Ever since Nokia won the best design team award back in 2003 they have been cranking out crap. I was developing software for cell phones and everytime a new Nokia model would come in we would laugh at it. Not only was the UI usually braindead (3650 rotary dial comes to mind - or how about the stupid NGage "sidetalker"), but the electronics kept perpetuating the same flaws. Our company was were putting music on cell phones (over the air delivery of full tracks), and for some reason Nokia insisted on mono 16KHz audio on their high end Symbian phones. They kept coming out with new plastic, but the same old pathetic innards, model after model. Our customers were begging us to get decent sound on the Nokias and we were constantly explaining to them how Nokia was the problem, not our software (which played wonderful stereo 44KHz sound on MS Smartphone devices). Anyhow, if Nokia had put half the effort into improving the inside as they spent on "improving" the outside, they would have been much better off.
Whoa! Nowhere did I say iPod was not a great mp3 player... which is what it is. Apple excels at design and the iPod is head and shoulders above the others. No argument here. I have to chuckle that you lumped me in with the Linux-weanies - check out my other posts - BTW, I really like your description of a "loosely cobbled together pile of..." - do you mind if I use it?
My main point was that the iPod is successful because it is a great *MP3* player - not because it plays Apple's DRM'd AAC files. iTunes is (marginally) successful because it is a well-written application for ripping CDs and putting music into the *iPod*, not because it is some sort of "superior media technology". To the degree that ITMS is making any money it is entirely due to the pull of the iPod, not due to superior media technology.
I agree whole-heartedly that until somebody appreciates that it is ease of use and minimalist attractive designs that win the hearts and hard-earned dollars of the non-techie masses, iPod will continue to dominate.
As regards the ITMS market share...
I subscribe to Yahoo Music Unlimited! and I can tell you it's a pretty outstanding service. For $5/mo I have unlimited music streaming and unlimited downloading to supported devices (like my iPaq). Further, I can listen on my PC at work and at home and on the road (laptop or iPaq), since 3 computers can be used with each account. If I want to burn a track it's $0.79. And they use 192Kpbs WMA, which is better quality than the 128Kbps AAC that Apple uses. Oh, and they have a million track library.
Excuse me. Apple makes roughly $0 in profit on their media service (iTunes). They make alot of money on their iPod MP3 players - hardware devices. Last time I checked Microsoft doesn't compete in the portable hardware music player market. On the other hand, the following major media download services use Microsoft's media technology: Napster, Yahoo, Walmart. So far the only service using Apple's media technology is Apple iTunes. Yes, currently iTunes owns a dominant market share, but virtually all of it due to the pull generated by iPod. Mark my words, their market share will drop significantly over the next few years as competitors in the hardware player market come out with cooler devices.
BTW, here is a nice description of the big players in the digital music space:
Let me get this straight, Sun "understands" the market -- they just don't get what they do within that marketplace? So they are smart enough to know what the market wants, but too stupid to figure out how to build it? Or are they just too stupid to figure out how to make money at it? Or are you going to suggest that without Microsoft's predatory practices they would have given away enough copies of Java to be relevant again?
Then there's Microsoft. They "don't get it" yet they make as much money as Sun, IBM and Google combined (I'm talking profit, not revenue). Interesting. I think if I was running a company, based on your analysis, I would fire anybody who "understands the market" as it is most demonstrably better to "not get it".
The truest measure of who "gets it" is sustained financial performance. In short, the market decides who "gets it", not the pundits.
I *might* agree with you that Google knows how to survive (even flourish)... but Sun? There are not many companies on the planet more irrelevant than Sun these days - and they've been a non-player since the bubble popped - quite a long time in tech-years (FYI one tech year = 10 human years). Frankly I think you can make a much stronger case that MS knows how to survive than you can make for Sun.
I am going to propose a process change to the VP of Product Development at my company. I think we should insert a step between:
1) Develop product requirements
2) Develop detailed specifications
This step, which I'll call "1a" would read like this:
1a) Distribute a press release describing the upcoming product and monitor SlashDot for feedback. Use feedback to make go/no-go decision.
Think of all the bonehead projects that would get canceled;-)
Apparently I was being a bit too subtle. My point was (I thought obviously) that figuring out if the box has a hardware problem is non-trivial given the vast number of possible OSes that could be installed. I think your idea of offering hardware support separate from software support has some merit. I strongly suspect that Dell is offering this "Open PC" more for publicity and to appeal to the FOSS crowd as they clearly haven't thought things through very carefully (hence the same or nearly identical price as a Windows-equipped box).
Of course another interpretation is that the costs of the hardware and support dwarf the Windows license fee about which everyone loves to complain... and I strongly suspect that support for an OS-less PC could be pretty expensive.
Customer: "Um hello, yes I bought your Open PC and installed my favorite Linux distro and it doesn't work."
Dell: "Let me forward you to our Linux expert."
Linux Expert: "Hello, which distribution did you load?"
Customer: "Well, it was Redhat."
Dell: "Let me forward you to our Redhat Linux expert."
Redhat Linux Expert: "Hello, which version of Redhat did you install?"
Customer: "It was version 8.0"
Redhat Linux Expert: "Let me forward you to our Redhat version 8.0 expert"
Redhat 8.0 Linux Expert: "Hello, which configuration did you install?"
Customer: "It was the Professional edition."
Redhat 8.0 Linux Expert: "Let me forward you to our Redhat 8.0 Professional Edition expert."
Redhat 8.0 Professional Edition Linux Expert: "Hello, can I help you"
Customer: "My Open PC doesn't work"
Redhat 8.0 Professional Edition Linux Expert: "And you installed Redhat 8.0 Professional Edition?"
Customer: "Yes, but of course I rebuilt the kernel to improve disk performance by 0.05%"
Redhat 8.0 Professional Edition Linux Expert: "I'm sorry, we can only help you if you installed a Linux distribution from our list of supported distros."
Customer: "So how do you handle defective hardware?"
Redhat 8.0 Professional Edition Linux Expert: "Perhaps you should install Windows to verify that the machine works before putting in your distro. Or you could use one of our supported distros."
Customer: "You call that Open? I need an RMA so I can send this piece of crap back."
Speaking of which, I wonder what the support policy is. If you install incompatible or buggy drivers and call Dell, how helpful will they be? Do they have support people who are experts in the plethora of Linux distributions? If there is limited support, then there should certainly be a big price break, because support is expensive (it dwarfs the dreaded Windows license fee everyone is so worked up about).
No, let's be realistic. If they want to go to Best Buy (etc) and buy games/applications then they want Windows. Unless they were foolish enough to buy Apple, in which case they always have the option of paying twice as much for a much smaller selection. It's all about the apps (and hardware add-ons). People are not as dumb as you think.
I guess the big deal with this "announcement" is the projected battery life. The wireless charging aspect is existing technology, and makes sense when you consider their target market - implantables.
Slashdot Mirror
This is just gonna kill the scrap book industry.
What will we line our bird cages with?
I don't get it -- the technology will be used initially only on the front page? It's electronic and writable - why is there more than 1 page? And if there's only 1 page, why does it need to be paper-thin?
If this is just like paper, there is no UI. That means there is no way to STOP the stupid flash animation from looping? That would be torture - imagine trying to read an article with a never-ending animated dancing monkey in your (not so peripheral) field of view.
I agree completely. I remember what it was like "in the dark days" before Windows came along. Hardware vendors supplying operating systems for their systems. No two systems even remotely alike. Yes, Apple was the first with a GUI for the masses (copying from Xerox PARC), but Apple was just another hardware vendor that also did software - they just did a much better job than the others because they considered "the rest of us" when they designed their systems.
3 ,00.asp
Anyhow, I think Microsoft is almost singularly responsible for the incredibly cheap and powerful machines we all enjoy today. And yes, they made Linux possible by forcing all the hardware vendors to adhere to common standards.
Check out this article for Lloyd Case's view of what the world would have been like had Microsoft not emerged:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,186909
In some ways, Microsoft's history reminds me of AT&T. Perhaps the benefits of having a monopoly while a new technology is "growing up" might outweigh the disadvantages. They can bring order to a chaotic marketplace. Of course this then makes me wonder if we have reached the tipping point where the benefits are no longer greater than the drawbacks?
That's interesting. So by your logic I must not be able to run FireFox? Actually I am and I didn't have to replace my machine - I just installed it. Perhaps I should be annoyed that IE is still "lurking in the background" even though FireFox is my "default" browser? In my experience it is pretty easy to add new features to Windows; not necessarily as easy to remove the old ones.
... none of these things even existed when that system was first built. I know, those are hardware things. Let's talk software -- I run Nero for burning (not Windows builtins), FireFox for browsing, WinZip for archiving (not Windows builtins), Cisco VPN clients (not Windows builtins), Google's browser toolbar, Winamp for mp3 playing, ... the list goes on and on. How is this possible with Windows' monolithic architecture? Now, could Microsoft make it easier to extend Windows? Of course! But to make the simplistic statement that because they provide you with a broad selection of workable, non-removable utilities built into the operating system does not mean it is not extensible.
In fact I have never in my life seen a product more extensible than a PC running Windows. Virtually every new thing that comes down the pike is available for Windows, and usually it's available there first. Contrast that with Macs and the many Linux distros, where my choices are more limited (and in the case of Macs, more expensive). No, quite to the contrary, if I want the newest shiniest thing I don't have to throw away my machine and start over. At home I have 5 year old machines running Windows 2000 with WiFi connections, USB 2.0, firewire, high-performance 3D video boards, 5.1 audio, DVD writers,
This is great news! Now even people without huge piles of cash can use RUP to screw up their product development process. It won't just be the big well-healed companies that can afford to build mediocre products at a snail's pace - now everyone can do it!
... write no line of code before its' time ... round and round and round we went. In both cases (pun intended) we spent a fortune on tools, months on training and then about half a year wrestling with the tools and the process, until we ended up dumping it all, and writing it off as a learning experience.
I have had experience with the RUP in several companies and the results were the same in both places. Analysis-Paralysis
I had to weigh in on this one. In my first day of "engineering 101" my instructor tried to explain to us the difference between an engineer and a scientist. Stop me if you've heard this ... You are in one corner of the room and a highly desireable person is in the opposite corner. You are allowed to go half the distance each hour. The scientist will throw up his hands and say "it's hopeless, you can never get there." The engineer will say "ahhh, but you can get close enough for all practical purposes!" When you say that "most of the dreamers tend to choose the wrong algorithms and data structures because they know nothing of the theory" I reflect on that little example. Sometimes the algorithm/data structure is "good enough" and a wonderful product/service is born.
Ahem. Office Standard $333 at Amazon. Office Student $125. Average of these 2 prices: $229 .
8 734/104-5098651-8249553
r /
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/feature/-/52
Regarding MS OS being a higher percentage of the overall cost of a PC - hardware costs have fallen dramatically. The cost to develop software is higher than ever before. No big surprise here. By your logic, since the cost of the physical CD media has dropped from $2 to $0.20, software titles should have dropped by that same factor of 10. You know it doesn't work that way. The fact that the media is 10 times cheaper does not mean you can pay your army of games developers 1/10th of their former salary. If anything, as software complexity rises, costs rise as well. To assert that software costs should track hardware costs is simply silly and you should know better.
And regarding my missing the whole point, I think the shoe is squarely on the other foot. As products evolve the list of standard features expands. Things that were add-on options become built-in. This is done for many reasons - cost savings, reliabiltiy and better integration being among them. As an application developer I can really appreciate knowing that if I build an application that requires audio playback, or web-page viewing, I can use built-in facilities in the platform. I don't have to design, code and test for every possible combination. Or worse, arrange for installing these utilities with my application. This leads to a dramatically better end-user experience, and a more robust product. Now, there may be many reasons why Microsoft chooses to integrate those facilities, and one of them may have to do with locking in users, but you cannot deny the obvious, tangible and substantial benefits to application developers, who are then able to pass those benefits on to their end users.
Continuing with the car analogy. My car has built-in sunroof, built-in tinted windows, built-in heated seats, built-in security system, built-in halogen headlights, a built-in stereo, etc etc. All of those things started out as add-ons. That is simply the way products evolve. Designers build in more and more features to differentiate themselves. Just because Microsoft is way better at it than most is no reason to pretend this is a bad thing.
And by the way, if you want to talk predatory, let's talk Redhat Linux - Standard Enterprise Edition - $1499 ($2499 for the Premium Edition). That's up quite a bit from free.
http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/compare/serve
Actually I'm completely correct, as my statement was that I was not aware of any examples of Microsoft giving stuff away, then squashing the competition, and then charging us for it. The one example offered, HotMail, is hardly an instance where MS has eliminated the competition. (And I suspect the POP charges came about when HotMail was no longer beta). Anyhow, that statement was what I objected to in the original post, and that was what I refuted.
... so arguably, value-wise they have dramatically reduced their prices.
As regards your point about the OS license costs, methinks you are mistaken. Windows XP Home is an $89 item at my local Best Buy. Windows 95 was $99 10 years ago. And MSDOS 3.3 was around $100 20 years ago. And let's not forget that XP comes "bundled" with IE, WMP, ZIP, Picture Viewers, Movie Makers, etc
The Office product hovers around $250 these days, from the $500 range in the hey-day of integrated office suites. Now I would not attribute that price drop to Microsoft being generous. Nor would I think it is due to the minimal competition offered by Open Office and Star Office. I think, as you inferred, it is more likely Office prices have dropped to lure existing customers to upgrade.
You made one statement that made me think for a moment. You pointed out that Microsoft is fond of charging for a product, then giving it away free, then bundling it (which is the same as free only there is no additional effort to obtain it). You described this as a predatory practice. Interesting. So if your car company calls you up and says "we have this new computer module for your car that improves gas mileage by 25%, and it's only $100", and then a year later the module is free (just stop by the dealer) and then a year after that it's inside every car they build -- this is predatory? I call that evolution.
But, a cautionary note, if history serves, what Microsoft is doing has the petina of old tricks. Should they manage to climb to the top and snuff out other IM services the way they've snuffed out other competitors I predict they once again will begin charging for what once was free. Please help me out here. I am wracking my brain trying to think of a case where Microsoft started charging for something that was once free after they snuffed the competition. Let's see ...
Operating Systems, nope, they never were free (though the service packs and updates have always been free)
IE, nope, free (at least until the government intercedes on our behalf and makes us buy it)
Media Player, nope, free (at least until the government intercedes on our behalf and makes us buy it)
Outlook Express, always free, still free
Office, nope, never was free - though the price has DROPPED significantly as competition has disappeared (remember Lotus, WordPerfect, Ashton Tate, CorelOffice, ...)
PhotoStory, nope, was $29 as part of media pack, but now it's free
Media Encoding tools, nope, was $100 as part of Video For Windows SDK, but now it's free
How about games?
I can't think of a single game Microsoft charges for that was formerly available for free.
How about developer tools?
MSDN, nope, still a pay-for service, though now there is a very nice alternative for free online
SDKs, nope, some used to be pay-fors but now they are all free
Visual Studio, nope, still a pay-for, always was (bundled with MSDN subscriptions though)
SourceSafe, nope, always was a pay-for (bundled with MSDN subscriptions though)
Let's go back further in time ...
Disk Compression, nope, used to be a pay-for but now Microsoft bundles it for free in all OSes
Disk Defragger, nope, used to be a pay-for but now Microsoft bundles it for free in all OSes
Paint, Calculator, Notepad, HyperTerm, etc. etc. always free (and worth every penny ;-)
Please help me out here. There MUST BE at least one example! I mean, after all, it's "common knowledge" that this is a predatory Microsoft practice.
Ummm, I was completely aware the post was a joke. I was responding to the post because, sadly, many on these boards are so blinded by their hatred of all things Microsoft and so devoted to all things Linux, they wouldn't know it was a joke. And for the record, it is my 3 teenage sons who are the big-time gamers, not me (though I will admit to enjoying an occassional Warcraft III network game with them).
On this you have a point. As it happens, many games will play well on a $299 PC (rule of thumb, if the game is more than 2 years old, you can't buy a machine it won't play well on), but the really demanding ones need a beefier PC. And nowhere on the "box" will it warn you about this. The average person is lost in a sea of Semprons and Celerons and Pentium 4s and Centrinos and Athlons with no real way to figure out which is best ... nevermind the embedded graphics and the various flavors of graphics boards. All of that said, this is not a Windows deficiency (in fact it's sort of a Windows strength since it will *work* with virtually any combination), and Linux does not enjoy any advantages in this area. The technology is simply too complex for non-techies to understand (even us techies get confused - how often are you asked to recommend a machine ... I find myself asking about 20 questions before I can give them an intelligent answer).
Thankfully, the industry is addressing this, at least to some level, by offering configurations for "gaming", "web browsing/email", "office work", "audio-video editing", etc. That goes a long way towards solving this problem. And assuming I bought the appropriate box, the experience I described above is what the typical user will see.
Funny story. My experience was a little different. I went to Comp USA, and for $299 I took home a PC with 17 inch monitor, speakers, and Windows pre-installed ... and they threw in a printer. I gave them another $40 and brought home my favorite game. I plugged the machine in, inserted the mouse and keyboard and speaker connectors (all color-coded), hooked up the monitor and turned it on. I had to click away a welcome message. Then I inserted my game CD, the installer started automatically. Five minutes later I was in gaming heaven. No compilers. No internet connection. No messing with drivers - the installer did have to install the latest directX version, but that was all automatic. I guess I just got lucky. It can't possibly be this easy, can it?
And then maybe Linux will have a fighting chance against Windows on the desktop. Face it, Microsoft has "gotten this" from the very beginning. Say what you want about them, but fighting for binary compatibility across all versions of Windows has served Microsoft well. I walk into Best Buy, grab a software title off the shelf and I have high confidence it will install and run on my Windows PC. This, IMHO, is the biggest thing blocking Linux from widespread acceptance on the desktop - binary compatibility - the install application figures out platform dependencies, not the user. OSS is nice, but the vast majority of people don't have the time nor the skill to rebuild everything so that it is compatible with their specific platform.
All this chatter is about potential abuses of RFID by nasty corporations. I imagine that their are areas in the government simply drueling over the possibilities ... that bullet was purchased at KMart in Osh Kosh on October 19th at 7:22pm by ...
And what about the IRS, and the state governments. I am sure the state of Massachusetts, which never leaves any revenue stream untapped, is intrigued by the possibility of being able to "capture" all those lost sales taxes from people shopping outside the state (neighboring NH has no sales tax and the parking lots in the malls are always filled with cars with Mass plates). Imagine getting a retro-active sales tax bill with an itemized list of everything you bought.
Ever since Nokia won the best design team award back in 2003 they have been cranking out crap. I was developing software for cell phones and everytime a new Nokia model would come in we would laugh at it. Not only was the UI usually braindead (3650 rotary dial comes to mind - or how about the stupid NGage "sidetalker"), but the electronics kept perpetuating the same flaws. Our company was were putting music on cell phones (over the air delivery of full tracks), and for some reason Nokia insisted on mono 16KHz audio on their high end Symbian phones. They kept coming out with new plastic, but the same old pathetic innards, model after model. Our customers were begging us to get decent sound on the Nokias and we were constantly explaining to them how Nokia was the problem, not our software (which played wonderful stereo 44KHz sound on MS Smartphone devices). Anyhow, if Nokia had put half the effort into improving the inside as they spent on "improving" the outside, they would have been much better off.
So much hate. It's not good for you, you know.
Whoa! Nowhere did I say iPod was not a great mp3 player ... which is what it is. Apple excels at design and the iPod is head and shoulders above the others. No argument here. I have to chuckle that you lumped me in with the Linux-weanies - check out my other posts - BTW, I really like your description of a "loosely cobbled together pile of..." - do you mind if I use it?
...
My main point was that the iPod is successful because it is a great *MP3* player - not because it plays Apple's DRM'd AAC files. iTunes is (marginally) successful because it is a well-written application for ripping CDs and putting music into the *iPod*, not because it is some sort of "superior media technology". To the degree that ITMS is making any money it is entirely due to the pull of the iPod, not due to superior media technology.
I agree whole-heartedly that until somebody appreciates that it is ease of use and minimalist attractive designs that win the hearts and hard-earned dollars of the non-techie masses, iPod will continue to dominate.
As regards the ITMS market share
I subscribe to Yahoo Music Unlimited! and I can tell you it's a pretty outstanding service. For $5/mo I have unlimited music streaming and unlimited downloading to supported devices (like my iPaq). Further, I can listen on my PC at work and at home and on the road (laptop or iPaq), since 3 computers can be used with each account. If I want to burn a track it's $0.79. And they use 192Kpbs WMA, which is better quality than the 128Kbps AAC that Apple uses. Oh, and they have a million track library.
Excuse me. Apple makes roughly $0 in profit on their media service (iTunes). They make alot of money on their iPod MP3 players - hardware devices. Last time I checked Microsoft doesn't compete in the portable hardware music player market. On the other hand, the following major media download services use Microsoft's media technology: Napster, Yahoo, Walmart. So far the only service using Apple's media technology is Apple iTunes. Yes, currently iTunes owns a dominant market share, but virtually all of it due to the pull generated by iPod. Mark my words, their market share will drop significantly over the next few years as competitors in the hardware player market come out with cooler devices.
t ml
BTW, here is a nice description of the big players in the digital music space:
http://reviews.designtechnica.com/print_guide33.h
Let me get this straight, Sun "understands" the market -- they just don't get what they do within that marketplace? So they are smart enough to know what the market wants, but too stupid to figure out how to build it? Or are they just too stupid to figure out how to make money at it? Or are you going to suggest that without Microsoft's predatory practices they would have given away enough copies of Java to be relevant again?
Then there's Microsoft. They "don't get it" yet they make as much money as Sun, IBM and Google combined (I'm talking profit, not revenue). Interesting. I think if I was running a company, based on your analysis, I would fire anybody who "understands the market" as it is most demonstrably better to "not get it".
The truest measure of who "gets it" is sustained financial performance. In short, the market decides who "gets it", not the pundits.
I *might* agree with you that Google knows how to survive (even flourish) ... but Sun? There are not many companies on the planet more irrelevant than Sun these days - and they've been a non-player since the bubble popped - quite a long time in tech-years (FYI one tech year = 10 human years). Frankly I think you can make a much stronger case that MS knows how to survive than you can make for Sun.
I am going to propose a process change to the VP of Product Development at my company. I think we should insert a step between: 1) Develop product requirements 2) Develop detailed specifications This step, which I'll call "1a" would read like this: 1a) Distribute a press release describing the upcoming product and monitor SlashDot for feedback. Use feedback to make go/no-go decision. Think of all the bonehead projects that would get canceled ;-)
Apparently I was being a bit too subtle. My point was (I thought obviously) that figuring out if the box has a hardware problem is non-trivial given the vast number of possible OSes that could be installed. I think your idea of offering hardware support separate from software support has some merit. I strongly suspect that Dell is offering this "Open PC" more for publicity and to appeal to the FOSS crowd as they clearly haven't thought things through very carefully (hence the same or nearly identical price as a Windows-equipped box).
Of course another interpretation is that the costs of the hardware and support dwarf the Windows license fee about which everyone loves to complain ... and I strongly suspect that support for an OS-less PC could be pretty expensive.
Customer: "Um hello, yes I bought your Open PC and installed my favorite Linux distro and it doesn't work."
Dell: "Let me forward you to our Linux expert."
Linux Expert: "Hello, which distribution did you load?"
Customer: "Well, it was Redhat."
Dell: "Let me forward you to our Redhat Linux expert."
Redhat Linux Expert: "Hello, which version of Redhat did you install?"
Customer: "It was version 8.0"
Redhat Linux Expert: "Let me forward you to our Redhat version 8.0 expert"
Redhat 8.0 Linux Expert: "Hello, which configuration did you install?"
Customer: "It was the Professional edition."
Redhat 8.0 Linux Expert: "Let me forward you to our Redhat 8.0 Professional Edition expert."
Redhat 8.0 Professional Edition Linux Expert: "Hello, can I help you"
Customer: "My Open PC doesn't work"
Redhat 8.0 Professional Edition Linux Expert: "And you installed Redhat 8.0 Professional Edition?"
Customer: "Yes, but of course I rebuilt the kernel to improve disk performance by 0.05%"
Redhat 8.0 Professional Edition Linux Expert: "I'm sorry, we can only help you if you installed a Linux distribution from our list of supported distros."
Customer: "So how do you handle defective hardware?"
Redhat 8.0 Professional Edition Linux Expert: "Perhaps you should install Windows to verify that the machine works before putting in your distro. Or you could use one of our supported distros."
Customer: "You call that Open? I need an RMA so I can send this piece of crap back."
Speaking of which, I wonder what the support policy is. If you install incompatible or buggy drivers and call Dell, how helpful will they be? Do they have support people who are experts in the plethora of Linux distributions? If there is limited support, then there should certainly be a big price break, because support is expensive (it dwarfs the dreaded Windows license fee everyone is so worked up about).
No, let's be realistic. If they want to go to Best Buy (etc) and buy games/applications then they want Windows. Unless they were foolish enough to buy Apple, in which case they always have the option of paying twice as much for a much smaller selection. It's all about the apps (and hardware add-ons). People are not as dumb as you think.
There have been several products that allow you to recharge things like cell phones and iPods wirelessly. Here is one I just saw yesterday:
0 /2/1401
http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2005/1
I guess the big deal with this "announcement" is the projected battery life. The wireless charging aspect is existing technology, and makes sense when you consider their target market - implantables.