What I always find incredible is that there's absolutely massive industry that isn't doing any experimentation. I think almost all other big companies experiment with different ways of doing things so that they can find what works best and do that. How come the record companies are not doing any market research to figure out how they could maximise their profits? They should experiment with a few albums and see how different techniques might affect sales. Sure, no two albums have the same sales signature, but there are ways of managing that for such experimentation.
Microsoft are not getting busted for merely including these programs with Windows. That's only one half of it.
The other half is that the web browser bundled with Windows does not follow "fundamental and open" standards for how web browsers render pages. Essentially, Microsoft is getting busted for trying to subvert the commonly accepted web standards and replace them with proprietary IE-style web standards.
Same goes for the Office file interoperability, although that seems to not be mentioned in the ars technia article, but is mentioned in this one.
When I say "bad enough" I mean such that I can't actually work with it. So I think my "bad enough" is quite different from yours.
I'd be willing to give up the Unix aspect of my OS as long as it was Free Software. In fact, if Windows was Free Software I'd possibly it and try to improve its flaws.
I use it because it is free and suits my needs. I agree that there are other factors to be considered, and maybe if all of the "free" options were bad enough, I'd even be forced into using something proprietary. But that isn't the case. Since Linux suits my needs and is free (as in freedom), I would never replace it with something proprietary like OSX.
I bet you could find a lot of Linux users who don't understand the freedom aspect, and I bet I could find a lot who do. Keep in mind that there's also a lot who only understand some of the freedoms that the GPL grants them. For example, I bet the majority of Linux users understand that they have the right to share the software. Maybe not all of them realise they have the right to the source code, but I think a lot of them understand from the vibe of the community that they are free to use the software for any purpose, and that they're generally not restricted by EULAs telling them they can't run it in a virtual machine or use it for some other purpose that Microsoft/Apple might not approve of.
So there is in fact three groups of Linux users: those that don't understand any parts of the freedom aspect, those that understand some parts of the freedom aspect, and those that understand all of the freedoms they get with GPL'ed software. I reckon you'd be hard pressed to find very many in the first group.
I think the technical aspects of why changing firmware on iPhones might brick them is well understood. The problem people have is that Apple is pitting themselves against the people who pay them (aka customers).
Sometimes trade-offs are necessary because of physical or technical limitations. The iPhone is not such a case. Apple should not be fighting developers who want to make the iPhone a more valuable product by writing software for it. Nor should they be fighting their customers who want their iPhone to be more useful by running extra software on it.
Other devices have managed to allow users the freedom to install software on them without breaking upon firmware updates. The only reason the iPhone can't is because Apple is determined to fight their customers and would-be developers.
You are right in saying that people should not buy the iPhone and should buy something else, though. That's definitely the most effective solution.
It's the reason I use Linux, and I bet there's a lot of people around here who use Linux for the same reason. Otherwise everyone would just use Windows or OSX.
Note that I didn't say it was the reason everyone uses Linux or even the reason the majority of Linux users use Linux. Just that a lot of Linux users really do care about the freedom aspect.
GMail versus Hotmail. Live Search versus Google Search. Google Earth versus Virtual Earth. Windows Mobile versus Google Android. Google Docs and Google Pack (contains StarOffice) versus Microsoft Office. Google pumping money into Free Software (Summer of Code, employment of key developers) versus pretty much any proprietary software (Windows, Office, IE) that Microsoft tries to sell.
The main way in which they're not competing is where their primary profit lies. Google doesn't make much money off software distribution yet, and Microsoft's primary source of revenue isn't advertising yet. There are certain areas (eg. document applications, mobile phone operating systems) where they plan to make money in different ways. Google wants to display ads alongside your documents, whereas Microsoft wants you to buy their office suite. Google is developing Android to get as many phones as they can internet-enabled so that people use the internet more and are exposed to more of their ads, whereas Microsoft wants mobile phone manufacturers to pay them a license fee for each mobile phone running Windows Mobile.
I think we're all familiar with Microsoft's business strategy. It's fairly simple: they sell software. It works well. (or at least it has until now)
Google's strategy makes it look like they're diversifying because of all the products they're launching, but I think they're actually just trying to put their ad network in as many different places as possible. They've done it for search, documents, emails, and videos. They're looking at putting internet onto phones across a wider audience, and they're surely hoping that some new types of services will emerge that are compatible with their advertising model.
Did you even read my post? I acknowledge that this type of service is offered via Xbox Live, but I don't think anyone will really use it.
I doubt that casual gamers connect their Xbox to the Internet/Xbox Live. I doubt that many people would be willing to wait whilst a movie they have "rented" downloads, only to delete itself 24 hours later. I doubt that many people would feel good about entering their credit card number into a game console. I know that points cards exist, but I doubt that many people (other than hardcore gamers) would bother to purchase those.
You reckon that people actually use Xbox Live to rent movies? Well, I'm curious, do you regularly rent movies via Xbox Live?
I don't think you're being fair on AMD. It wasn't too long ago that they announced that they would be releasing documentation for some of their GPUs, and people (understandably) didn't believe them. But then they actually did it a couple of weeks later!
As they came good on their last promise, I'm willing to believe them on this one.
In the end it doesn't really matter whether we believe them or not, though. What matters is whether they end up doing it, and no one should rush to buy their GPUs until they have actually done this.
Probably, because only hardcore gamers are likely to hook it up to the internet. Even if that barrier is overcome, I still can't picture my parents entering their credit card number into a game console so that they can wait several hours for a "rental" movie to download. Even I wouldn't bother doing that if I didn't have any problem with the Digital Restrictions Management.
Okay, so perhaps no device is required for newer hardware, but the point still stands. Normal people do not have their PCs connected to their televisions.
I have to wonder whether any company using this business model has actually done any market research into whether the target audience exists. It seems about as feasible as selling dog food for cats.
Geeks are into watching TV shows on their computers. Normal people (aka "non-geeks") are not. Normal people don't want to sit at a computer and watch a show, and they want it immediately rather than waiting for it to download. Normal people tend not to even have internet connections good enough to enable a "rent movies by downloading them" type of behaviour. Normal people don't have devices that allow them to watch TV shows on their computer on normal televisions, either.
So you would think that this is a service that will be targeting geeks, but...
Geeks tend to know what DRM is, and tend to oppose it. The idea of having a file on your computer that deletes itself after a period of time does not appeal to geeks. We can easily enough find and download TV shows and movies illegally anyway, so why would we choose to pay for something that is inferior and isn't free of cost?
So who is the target audience? The only people I know who will actually use this are hardcore Apple fanboys, and I don't think there's enough of them for this type of service to be worthwhile.
It comes with an Android emulator, and a few of the Google applications. Included is an address book, a dummy dialling application, a working Google Maps application, a working browser... and any other applications that Android developers decide to write for it.
The only thing that is missing is the phone hardware, but we've seen pictures and videos of phone hardware running this. I'm surprised the release is so far away considering the resources available and how complete everything seems to be.
Why don't you mean PayPal? It seems to be the most logical choice. The only problem I can see with PayPal is that it sucks for small payments since there is a flat fee even for amounts close to $0.
"The whole concept of the GPL" is that it is a LICENSE to use work already done. When it comes to what people refer to as "violations" they are not being entirely accurate. What they mean is that the party "violating the GPL" is not abiding by that license. So which license are they abiding by? Unless the party has permission to distribute the software under another license, they are distributing the software WITHOUT any license. It is plain and simple copyright infringement.
So when you refer to "the whole concept of the GPL" becoming a "jumbled mess," I think you actually mean that enforcing copyright internationally is actually the "jumbled mess." This problem is not GPL-specific, and many companies and organisations deal with it all the time.
The difference between Android and other, similar projects is that Android has huge backing from Google and 33 other companies. That means that it is guaranteed to be the most widespread operating system for mobile phones.
That Google has released the SDK early and is running a "competition" for applications that ends before the first phone will even be released guarantees that there will be cool and interesting software available for these devices as soon as they are released.
One open platform on almost every phone within the next few years is a huge advancement.
Slashdot Mirror
What I always find incredible is that there's absolutely massive industry that isn't doing any experimentation. I think almost all other big companies experiment with different ways of doing things so that they can find what works best and do that. How come the record companies are not doing any market research to figure out how they could maximise their profits? They should experiment with a few albums and see how different techniques might affect sales. Sure, no two albums have the same sales signature, but there are ways of managing that for such experimentation.
It makes sense on web hosts, though. The machine isn't used solely by you, and the resources are limited.
It doesn't make sense for desktop computers with one user at a time.
Microsoft are not getting busted for merely including these programs with Windows. That's only one half of it.
The other half is that the web browser bundled with Windows does not follow "fundamental and open" standards for how web browsers render pages. Essentially, Microsoft is getting busted for trying to subvert the commonly accepted web standards and replace them with proprietary IE-style web standards.
Same goes for the Office file interoperability, although that seems to not be mentioned in the ars technia article, but is mentioned in this one.
Linux is an operating system kernel, not an operating system.
When I say "bad enough" I mean such that I can't actually work with it. So I think my "bad enough" is quite different from yours.
I'd be willing to give up the Unix aspect of my OS as long as it was Free Software. In fact, if Windows was Free Software I'd possibly it and try to improve its flaws.
I use it because it is free and suits my needs. I agree that there are other factors to be considered, and maybe if all of the "free" options were bad enough, I'd even be forced into using something proprietary. But that isn't the case. Since Linux suits my needs and is free (as in freedom), I would never replace it with something proprietary like OSX.
I bet you could find a lot of Linux users who don't understand the freedom aspect, and I bet I could find a lot who do. Keep in mind that there's also a lot who only understand some of the freedoms that the GPL grants them. For example, I bet the majority of Linux users understand that they have the right to share the software. Maybe not all of them realise they have the right to the source code, but I think a lot of them understand from the vibe of the community that they are free to use the software for any purpose, and that they're generally not restricted by EULAs telling them they can't run it in a virtual machine or use it for some other purpose that Microsoft/Apple might not approve of.
So there is in fact three groups of Linux users: those that don't understand any parts of the freedom aspect, those that understand some parts of the freedom aspect, and those that understand all of the freedoms they get with GPL'ed software. I reckon you'd be hard pressed to find very many in the first group.
I think the technical aspects of why changing firmware on iPhones might brick them is well understood. The problem people have is that Apple is pitting themselves against the people who pay them (aka customers).
Sometimes trade-offs are necessary because of physical or technical limitations. The iPhone is not such a case. Apple should not be fighting developers who want to make the iPhone a more valuable product by writing software for it. Nor should they be fighting their customers who want their iPhone to be more useful by running extra software on it.
Other devices have managed to allow users the freedom to install software on them without breaking upon firmware updates. The only reason the iPhone can't is because Apple is determined to fight their customers and would-be developers.
You are right in saying that people should not buy the iPhone and should buy something else, though. That's definitely the most effective solution.
It's the reason I use Linux, and I bet there's a lot of people around here who use Linux for the same reason. Otherwise everyone would just use Windows or OSX.
Note that I didn't say it was the reason everyone uses Linux or even the reason the majority of Linux users use Linux. Just that a lot of Linux users really do care about the freedom aspect.
Freedom is the main reason a lot of people use Linux.
I agree completely. I only said that their business strategy has worked for them, at least until now. I didn't say it was ethically or morally sound.
GMail versus Hotmail.
Live Search versus Google Search.
Google Earth versus Virtual Earth.
Windows Mobile versus Google Android.
Google Docs and Google Pack (contains StarOffice) versus Microsoft Office.
Google pumping money into Free Software (Summer of Code, employment of key developers) versus pretty much any proprietary software (Windows, Office, IE) that Microsoft tries to sell.
The main way in which they're not competing is where their primary profit lies. Google doesn't make much money off software distribution yet, and Microsoft's primary source of revenue isn't advertising yet. There are certain areas (eg. document applications, mobile phone operating systems) where they plan to make money in different ways. Google wants to display ads alongside your documents, whereas Microsoft wants you to buy their office suite. Google is developing Android to get as many phones as they can internet-enabled so that people use the internet more and are exposed to more of their ads, whereas Microsoft wants mobile phone manufacturers to pay them a license fee for each mobile phone running Windows Mobile.
I think we're all familiar with Microsoft's business strategy. It's fairly simple: they sell software. It works well. (or at least it has until now)
Google's strategy makes it look like they're diversifying because of all the products they're launching, but I think they're actually just trying to put their ad network in as many different places as possible. They've done it for search, documents, emails, and videos. They're looking at putting internet onto phones across a wider audience, and they're surely hoping that some new types of services will emerge that are compatible with their advertising model.
Did you even read my post? I acknowledge that this type of service is offered via Xbox Live, but I don't think anyone will really use it.
I doubt that casual gamers connect their Xbox to the Internet/Xbox Live.
I doubt that many people would be willing to wait whilst a movie they have "rented" downloads, only to delete itself 24 hours later.
I doubt that many people would feel good about entering their credit card number into a game console. I know that points cards exist, but I doubt that many people (other than hardcore gamers) would bother to purchase those.
You reckon that people actually use Xbox Live to rent movies? Well, I'm curious, do you regularly rent movies via Xbox Live?
I don't think you're being fair on AMD. It wasn't too long ago that they announced that they would be releasing documentation for some of their GPUs, and people (understandably) didn't believe them. But then they actually did it a couple of weeks later!
As they came good on their last promise, I'm willing to believe them on this one.
In the end it doesn't really matter whether we believe them or not, though. What matters is whether they end up doing it, and no one should rush to buy their GPUs until they have actually done this.
Probably, because only hardcore gamers are likely to hook it up to the internet. Even if that barrier is overcome, I still can't picture my parents entering their credit card number into a game console so that they can wait several hours for a "rental" movie to download. Even I wouldn't bother doing that if I didn't have any problem with the Digital Restrictions Management.
An antenna, a DVD player, and possibly a VCR or gaming console.
Okay, so perhaps no device is required for newer hardware, but the point still stands. Normal people do not have their PCs connected to their televisions.
I have to wonder whether any company using this business model has actually done any market research into whether the target audience exists. It seems about as feasible as selling dog food for cats.
Geeks are into watching TV shows on their computers. Normal people (aka "non-geeks") are not. Normal people don't want to sit at a computer and watch a show, and they want it immediately rather than waiting for it to download. Normal people tend not to even have internet connections good enough to enable a "rent movies by downloading them" type of behaviour. Normal people don't have devices that allow them to watch TV shows on their computer on normal televisions, either.
So you would think that this is a service that will be targeting geeks, but...
Geeks tend to know what DRM is, and tend to oppose it. The idea of having a file on your computer that deletes itself after a period of time does not appeal to geeks. We can easily enough find and download TV shows and movies illegally anyway, so why would we choose to pay for something that is inferior and isn't free of cost?
So who is the target audience? The only people I know who will actually use this are hardcore Apple fanboys, and I don't think there's enough of them for this type of service to be worthwhile.
Try the development kit.
It comes with an Android emulator, and a few of the Google applications. Included is an address book, a dummy dialling application, a working Google Maps application, a working browser... and any other applications that Android developers decide to write for it.
The only thing that is missing is the phone hardware, but we've seen pictures and videos of phone hardware running this. I'm surprised the release is so far away considering the resources available and how complete everything seems to be.
Why don't you mean PayPal? It seems to be the most logical choice. The only problem I can see with PayPal is that it sucks for small payments since there is a flat fee even for amounts close to $0.
There's a few left. Mainly the software for specialist things. CAD, graphics, audio, video.
You need to learn about the difference between copyright and patents.
You incited the "infringement" because you posted it. Good luck with that case.
If you had posted some code on your website and someone else decided to copy it and put it on their own website, you would probably have a case.
If you sign a non-compete agreement, make sure you will be paid for the duration of the non-compete period.
NDAs should also pay something for the duration of the non-disclosure period, because they also make you significantly less employable.
"The whole concept of the GPL" is that it is a LICENSE to use work already done. When it comes to what people refer to as "violations" they are not being entirely accurate. What they mean is that the party "violating the GPL" is not abiding by that license. So which license are they abiding by? Unless the party has permission to distribute the software under another license, they are distributing the software WITHOUT any license. It is plain and simple copyright infringement.
So when you refer to "the whole concept of the GPL" becoming a "jumbled mess," I think you actually mean that enforcing copyright internationally is actually the "jumbled mess." This problem is not GPL-specific, and many companies and organisations deal with it all the time.
The difference between Android and other, similar projects is that Android has huge backing from Google and 33 other companies. That means that it is guaranteed to be the most widespread operating system for mobile phones.
That Google has released the SDK early and is running a "competition" for applications that ends before the first phone will even be released guarantees that there will be cool and interesting software available for these devices as soon as they are released.
One open platform on almost every phone within the next few years is a huge advancement.