If they hadn't been given the opportunity to become a monopoly and damage the industry as they have then they most likely would not have won the war. But as they have been found guilty of criminal monopolistic predatory practices they won the position they are in by committing crimes.
I can't see how you could even remotely consider them a winner when they did much of this through criminal activities.
It will do what it stated it would do all along. It will remove the.exe file for the browser but still keep the underlying functionality at the OS level, which itself can be used to browse the web. They'd need a complete overhaul of their GUI to rid themselves of IE.
The problem is that you already had to pay the service. And ETFs in some states are not legal. The point is that they won't sell it to you unless you are near the end of your 24 month contract or a new customer where you can sign another 24 month contract.
I don't have a contract yet I still would be required to pay the full price. I use the go phone plan. I've kept my phone active for nearly every month the phone has been available. This is nearly 24 months. At $100.00 a month that's $2400 for the service and $400 for the phone. That's almost $3,000.
At that price NO ONE should be supporting AT&T nor Apple.
It is crazy to think that AT&T (and Apple) would limit the people that can purchase the phones. The only reason is to get you to pay for another 24 month contract.
Where's the support from the lawmakers when it comes to companies such as AT&T ripping off customers so badly?
In the past 2 decades we gave Microsoft the keys to the whole software universe. This was the absolute wrong thing to do. We did this by supporting their technologies blindly. We didn't look forward enough into the future, and Microsoft's own eye toward the future wasn't disclosed to us. As a result we end up with a company that has become a criminal monopolist in no less than 3 continents and 4 nations.
I know, personally, that the use of embrace, extend, extinguish is a very bad thing for our industry and it has killed more competition and closed more markets in favor of Microsoft than anything else. Lock in technologies are a bad thing. Trade journals are trying to sweeten it up by calling them lock in of defacto standards. This shows a skewer in Microsoft's favor. Why? Because trade journals rely on advertising and through advertising they make their money to pay salaries, and Microsoft has the money to make that a little easier on the trade journals.
The problem lies in that we the consumer gave them the keys by giving them the ideas that they could implement within the scope of their embrace, extend, extinguish--and in the end cost us dearly in the area of competition, which is supposed to bring innovation along with it.
To watch Microsoft's bing give biased results skewered in their favor is not a positive thing. It is a very harmful thing.
For this reason, and for their past indiscretions, we should not be giving them the formula to solve their problems. Let their products fail without us telling them how to succeed at destroying more competition. Bing is not important. We've been finding what we need on google just fine for a long time. We don't need to have another product concocted by a criminal monopolist which is showing straight out of the gate that they are baised.
Microsoft has demonstrated a bias in the past. They are skewering in their favor. I did a search for Linux vs Microsoft and it comes up with Microsoft's own website first which is full of almost blatant outright lies about the position and performance of Linux.
Now now, you have the wrong idea. He never said, (no one ever said, not a soul on the planet said) that win32 is easier. In fact, I've programmed with it and it is a far far cry from being easy.
There are hundreds of thousands of programs and millions of programmers world-wide programming in Linux.
The guy at Google was crying for more programmers. Someone to do the job for him. Seriously, that's all he was saying. He's saying he's a wimp and can't figure the stuff out on his own and he's having problems leading his programming team, and he is essentially complaining to get help.
Seriously, Linux is open source. It means he can add what he wants, he can change virtually anything. He can go in and fork and create what is necessary to accomplish his work. Yet, rather than do that he just complains.
The diversity of toolkits brings competition for features.
He's not an open source programmer, one can tell or he'd understand those two points.
That's the worst thing that could happen to open source. Open source allows fast evolution and forcing standards done by someone else isn't a solid solution.
His solution, the google employee, is to rise above it and get it working. He's a complainer. He can't do hard work without complaining first, in the middle, and at the end.
There are enough standards that he can do everything he needs and to make it a real Linux program. Sounds to me like they really messed up the internals and the interface that they can only prove they have little to no knowledge of how to write a real program under linux. You know, like the 100s of thousands of programs already available.
The guy though well experienced sounds like a crybaby. I can't imagine how a programmer can't learn to make it work. Come on, he's got the tools, they are free.
Is this weak abled programmer not capable of making programs for various platforms? Is he telling us that they haven't *ever* done a real program under Linux? He's telling us this is new? He's telling the hundreds of thousands of programmers world-wide that they are doing what he can't because they are less experienced and know no better?
Come on. This guy is under pressure and he's caving. He's making excuses and pulling a henny penny.
Get with it and make it happen. We are tired of your excuses. This isn't rocket science. Use your brain you google employee.
What you say about the greatest philanthropists is actually quite factually incorrect. If you look at the history of his company he's using his money to make more money even off his non-profit by investing in 3rd world enterprises. There's a great web write up of what he's invested in and how many lives he's cost by investing in dirty technologies that kill the 3rd world citizens that work for them or live near their plants. You really need to be more in touch yourself with how this man does his biz.
It had non intrusive ads. There used to be a few ads per show about 15-30 seconds at the most, but now, just watching a show like Stargate and every few minutes it seems like there's an ad. And they are getting longer.
And as far as movies go they were pretty much non-existent.
The issue is that they weren't blocking other ways to view Hulu such as alternative browsers and they weren't limiting the viewing to just Mac and Windows. They limited boxee and of course XBMC, then they claim a client run locally (the way Joost did it to start) and that client won't operate on the second largest OS on the market.
Personally it doesn't matter to me whether it is flash based or not. I'd rather have it flash based than tied into a criminal monopolist's products. And, frankly I'm impressed with flash as it supports many OSes rather than just a couple.
Early on with few ads and with little delay in streaming and without the aggressive anti-boxee actions I watched Hulu (albeit not on boxee). The occasional ads of 15 to 30 seconds weren't bad. But watching anything now you have to put up with ads quite frequently, at least for the popular shows.
Forget about movies, they always sucked and probably always will. They relist the same movie web page after web page to make them look more complete, but they aren't, they are just relisting.
And now with them giving this farce of a client and expecting us to make the connection to it as to why they dumped boxee is just about enough. I'm not going to buy into their client, I'm not going to use their client, I'm not going to restrict myself to Windows or the Mac to watch this content as I am a Linux user.
That's total bullshit. Microsoft copied that technology from many other products, including one where a guy used that technology to play Starcraft. It was pretty cool. But no, you think Microsoft created it. How pathetic.
Nothing said it outputs in HD. It says that you can display a HD 720p file on a TV (which has an HDMI port) via a docking station. I'm not saying it doesn't output, just that nothing said it actually outputs. The docking station could be doing all the work.
It says that it can hold a 720p file in the file system but that when it is played back it is played back (downsized) on it's screen at 480x272.
Output is a relative term. It can mean many things. Feeding a 720p file to the docking station can be considered output. Unless the device itself is doing the output directly to the display device it isn't really outputting anything. It really makes no sense to output at 720p when you can only view it at 480x272.
Either way the points stand. Requiring a pricey docking station to output to an HDMI device is just like saying the device doesn't output to 720p; the docking stations does it.
That platform is based on a Microsoft product. I'm sure many don't like it just for that reason. We need competition. And, as far as the implementation goes it was never that elegant and was quite quirky. There are also limits on the SD capacity due to the chipset used in the device. So, no you can't just keep adding higher density SD cards. It also appear that it is a windows solution and everyone should know we are talking cross platform here, even if it is just Windows and the Mac.
And, we aren't talking about competing hardware. This is an evaluation of the current crop offered by Microsoft and how it stands up to the second most popular. So, even tho there are other choices they haven't stacked up.
No, those conned by the zune are the zombies. Microsoft is the brain bug, than we hauled out of bug city of the bug planet one can sense it is "afraid".
The bright OLED touch screen interface allows users to flip through music, movies and other content with ease, and the 16:9 widescreen format display (480x272 resolution) offers a premium viewing experience on the go.
That's the OLED resolution they implemented. You need a docking station to output 720p HD. Meaning you need to pay for something that will likely be pretty pricey. Most likely the device itself doesn't actually output HDMI instead it feeds the video through the docking station which outputs to the HDMI. Will be pretty worthless overall as it doesn't actually implement it--the videos stored, even if they are 720p, probably won't play at that resolution on the Zune itself, instead they'll be downsized (hehe, good guess as I just noticed the footnote about downsizing --guess MS is just too predicatable.)
Notice the "premium viewing experience on the go"? One has to wonder which wonderful marketing folk thought that up to "cover up" the fact that the resolution just sucks. Though, it will allegedly be bright and consume less power.
Also the HD radio is actually Hybrid Digital not High Definition.
WiFi is just a feature of most all devices like that so them tossing in the fact that it has WiFi is a sucker punch. And, that they have 5 million tracks means nothing as I believe last.FM has between 10 and 30 million tracks, and you don't have to deal with DRM nor with a company like Microsoft violating your privacy by reporting information to the RIAA (legit or otherwise). And, Last.fm music is free to listen to.
Slashdot Mirror
It won't be that many more billion years before our sun becomes a red giant. At that point planetary collisions are irrelevant.
If they hadn't been given the opportunity to become a monopoly and damage the industry as they have then they most likely would not have won the war. But as they have been found guilty of criminal monopolistic predatory practices they won the position they are in by committing crimes.
I can't see how you could even remotely consider them a winner when they did much of this through criminal activities.
It will do what it stated it would do all along. It will remove the .exe file for the browser but still keep the underlying functionality at the OS level, which itself can be used to browse the web. They'd need a complete overhaul of their GUI to rid themselves of IE.
The problem is that you already had to pay the service. And ETFs in some states are not legal. The point is that they won't sell it to you unless you are near the end of your 24 month contract or a new customer where you can sign another 24 month contract.
I don't have a contract yet I still would be required to pay the full price. I use the go phone plan. I've kept my phone active for nearly every month the phone has been available. This is nearly 24 months. At $100.00 a month that's $2400 for the service and $400 for the phone. That's almost $3,000.
At that price NO ONE should be supporting AT&T nor Apple.
It is crazy to think that AT&T (and Apple) would limit the people that can purchase the phones. The only reason is to get you to pay for another 24 month contract.
Where's the support from the lawmakers when it comes to companies such as AT&T ripping off customers so badly?
For a full screen browser, with that performance, with those limitations on what can be done with it, I wouldn't pay $299. I might pay $199.
The first thing that someone will do is tear it down and install ubuntu on it.
I've already stopped watching them and have stopped using them as demos in my shop. No more recommendations.
In the past 2 decades we gave Microsoft the keys to the whole software universe. This was the absolute wrong thing to do. We did this by supporting their technologies blindly. We didn't look forward enough into the future, and Microsoft's own eye toward the future wasn't disclosed to us. As a result we end up with a company that has become a criminal monopolist in no less than 3 continents and 4 nations.
I know, personally, that the use of embrace, extend, extinguish is a very bad thing for our industry and it has killed more competition and closed more markets in favor of Microsoft than anything else. Lock in technologies are a bad thing. Trade journals are trying to sweeten it up by calling them lock in of defacto standards. This shows a skewer in Microsoft's favor. Why? Because trade journals rely on advertising and through advertising they make their money to pay salaries, and Microsoft has the money to make that a little easier on the trade journals.
The problem lies in that we the consumer gave them the keys by giving them the ideas that they could implement within the scope of their embrace, extend, extinguish--and in the end cost us dearly in the area of competition, which is supposed to bring innovation along with it.
To watch Microsoft's bing give biased results skewered in their favor is not a positive thing. It is a very harmful thing.
For this reason, and for their past indiscretions, we should not be giving them the formula to solve their problems. Let their products fail without us telling them how to succeed at destroying more competition. Bing is not important. We've been finding what we need on google just fine for a long time. We don't need to have another product concocted by a criminal monopolist which is showing straight out of the gate that they are baised.
Microsoft has demonstrated a bias in the past. They are skewering in their favor. I did a search for Linux vs Microsoft and it comes up with Microsoft's own website first which is full of almost blatant outright lies about the position and performance of Linux.
Type in Linux vs Microsoft in the search field and watch what it brings up. Just enough to laugh at if it wasn't so skewered.
Now now, you have the wrong idea. He never said, (no one ever said, not a soul on the planet said) that win32 is easier. In fact, I've programmed with it and it is a far far cry from being easy.
There are hundreds of thousands of programs and millions of programmers world-wide programming in Linux.
The guy at Google was crying for more programmers. Someone to do the job for him. Seriously, that's all he was saying. He's saying he's a wimp and can't figure the stuff out on his own and he's having problems leading his programming team, and he is essentially complaining to get help.
Seriously, Linux is open source. It means he can add what he wants, he can change virtually anything. He can go in and fork and create what is necessary to accomplish his work. Yet, rather than do that he just complains.
The diversity of toolkits brings competition for features.
He's not an open source programmer, one can tell or he'd understand those two points.
That's the worst thing that could happen to open source. Open source allows fast evolution and forcing standards done by someone else isn't a solid solution.
His solution, the google employee, is to rise above it and get it working. He's a complainer. He can't do hard work without complaining first, in the middle, and at the end.
There are enough standards that he can do everything he needs and to make it a real Linux program. Sounds to me like they really messed up the internals and the interface that they can only prove they have little to no knowledge of how to write a real program under linux. You know, like the 100s of thousands of programs already available.
The guy though well experienced sounds like a crybaby. I can't imagine how a programmer can't learn to make it work. Come on, he's got the tools, they are free.
Is this weak abled programmer not capable of making programs for various platforms? Is he telling us that they haven't *ever* done a real program under Linux? He's telling us this is new? He's telling the hundreds of thousands of programmers world-wide that they are doing what he can't because they are less experienced and know no better?
Come on. This guy is under pressure and he's caving. He's making excuses and pulling a henny penny.
Get with it and make it happen. We are tired of your excuses. This isn't rocket science. Use your brain you google employee.
What you say about the greatest philanthropists is actually quite factually incorrect. If you look at the history of his company he's using his money to make more money even off his non-profit by investing in 3rd world enterprises. There's a great web write up of what he's invested in and how many lives he's cost by investing in dirty technologies that kill the 3rd world citizens that work for them or live near their plants. You really need to be more in touch yourself with how this man does his biz.
It had non intrusive ads. There used to be a few ads per show about 15-30 seconds at the most, but now, just watching a show like Stargate and every few minutes it seems like there's an ad. And they are getting longer.
And as far as movies go they were pretty much non-existent.
The issue is that they weren't blocking other ways to view Hulu such as alternative browsers and they weren't limiting the viewing to just Mac and Windows. They limited boxee and of course XBMC, then they claim a client run locally (the way Joost did it to start) and that client won't operate on the second largest OS on the market.
Personally it doesn't matter to me whether it is flash based or not. I'd rather have it flash based than tied into a criminal monopolist's products. And, frankly I'm impressed with flash as it supports many OSes rather than just a couple.
Early on with few ads and with little delay in streaming and without the aggressive anti-boxee actions I watched Hulu (albeit not on boxee). The occasional ads of 15 to 30 seconds weren't bad. But watching anything now you have to put up with ads quite frequently, at least for the popular shows.
Forget about movies, they always sucked and probably always will. They relist the same movie web page after web page to make them look more complete, but they aren't, they are just relisting.
And now with them giving this farce of a client and expecting us to make the connection to it as to why they dumped boxee is just about enough. I'm not going to buy into their client, I'm not going to use their client, I'm not going to restrict myself to Windows or the Mac to watch this content as I am a Linux user.
Enough is enough, this is the end of Hulu for me.
Hey Chandler, Chandler, Chandler Bing.
I'm sorry but these guys at Microsoft just need to give up software and sell XBOXes and Zunes and leave the rest of the world to clean up their mess.
That's total bullshit. Microsoft copied that technology from many other products, including one where a guy used that technology to play Starcraft. It was pretty cool. But no, you think Microsoft created it. How pathetic.
Yummy, the Zune Marketplace covered with DRM sauce. Tasty. Add to that a few chunks of vendor lock in and mmmmmm, mmmmmm good.
Incorrect.
Nothing said it outputs in HD. It says that you can display a HD 720p file on a TV (which has an HDMI port) via a docking station. I'm not saying it doesn't output, just that nothing said it actually outputs. The docking station could be doing all the work.
It says that it can hold a 720p file in the file system but that when it is played back it is played back (downsized) on it's screen at 480x272.
Output is a relative term. It can mean many things. Feeding a 720p file to the docking station can be considered output. Unless the device itself is doing the output directly to the display device it isn't really outputting anything. It really makes no sense to output at 720p when you can only view it at 480x272.
Either way the points stand. Requiring a pricey docking station to output to an HDMI device is just like saying the device doesn't output to 720p; the docking stations does it.
That's an ignorant answer. It's obvious they are talking about software platforms.
That platform is based on a Microsoft product. I'm sure many don't like it just for that reason. We need competition. And, as far as the implementation goes it was never that elegant and was quite quirky. There are also limits on the SD capacity due to the chipset used in the device. So, no you can't just keep adding higher density SD cards. It also appear that it is a windows solution and everyone should know we are talking cross platform here, even if it is just Windows and the Mac.
And, we aren't talking about competing hardware. This is an evaluation of the current crop offered by Microsoft and how it stands up to the second most popular. So, even tho there are other choices they haven't stacked up.
No, those conned by the zune are the zombies. Microsoft is the brain bug, than we hauled out of bug city of the bug planet one can sense it is "afraid".
The bright OLED touch screen interface allows users to flip through music, movies and other content with ease, and the 16:9 widescreen format display (480x272 resolution) offers a premium viewing experience on the go.
That's the OLED resolution they implemented. You need a docking station to output 720p HD. Meaning you need to pay for something that will likely be pretty pricey. Most likely the device itself doesn't actually output HDMI instead it feeds the video through the docking station which outputs to the HDMI. Will be pretty worthless overall as it doesn't actually implement it--the videos stored, even if they are 720p, probably won't play at that resolution on the Zune itself, instead they'll be downsized (hehe, good guess as I just noticed the footnote about downsizing --guess MS is just too predicatable.)
Notice the "premium viewing experience on the go"? One has to wonder which wonderful marketing folk thought that up to "cover up" the fact that the resolution just sucks. Though, it will allegedly be bright and consume less power.
Also the HD radio is actually Hybrid Digital not High Definition.
WiFi is just a feature of most all devices like that so them tossing in the fact that it has WiFi is a sucker punch. And, that they have 5 million tracks means nothing as I believe last.FM has between 10 and 30 million tracks, and you don't have to deal with DRM nor with a company like Microsoft violating your privacy by reporting information to the RIAA (legit or otherwise). And, Last.fm music is free to listen to.