I think you'd call me an Apple fan boy, but even I agree that this was a very bad move on Apple's part. It's indeed obvious that Apple just did this to block Adobe.
I can see the reasons behind their older rules, both technical, because with an interpreter running on the phone you loose control over CPU usage, and as a business, because then sales don't have to go though the iTunes store.
Sure, some of Steve's points are true, like touch interfaces and the hover effect, but those are also true for CSS/HTML sites that use it.
The new rules don't make a difference to either, so there must be something else going on. I'm not sure if the writer of the article is right and all of this is about video. I think that would be a very dangerous move for Apple, as they are a hardware company and should focus on selling their devices, even if they do make a lot of money from the iTunes store too. I think the iPad would sell a lot more if it had Flash support. There is definitely some reason why this is going on, Steve is one of the smartest players in the industry. I still think Apple would do better to work with Adobe instead. Together they would be able to accomplish much more. Maybe Apple just got fed up with Adobe dragging it's feet in supporting OSX and cocoa, but this is not the way to go about that, and I don't think Steve would do such a thing.
It will be very interesting to see if at some point it becomes clear why Apple is doing this. The whole current argument is a smoke screen that much is clear.
If you just want functionality, the iPhone is exactly what you should get. If Apple is good at anything, it is as designing something that's good at what it has to do.
The only problem with them is that they're paranoid about bad press, because the brand is the most important thing they have. Nearly all of their lockdown is based on this fear.
Sure, even my ten year old PocketPc could do a lot of the same things. But they were a pain to use. The iPhone makes using things and adding functionality easy.
What makes it so powerful is that it doesn't think in traditional OS terms. So if I use my phone as a metronome, it becomes one, it's not a metronome application in the traditional sense.
It's also why it only needs one button: to switch between functions.
Only once you understand that the iPhone is not to be seen as a device running an OS with certain applications, but as multiple devices with the ability to switch between them. It's of course somewhat limited to the 2D screen and size, but it's a fundamentally different concept and the reason why people like it.
I had an intern-ship at Philips Natlab in 1997, working on electrowetting for displays in x-ray in their micromechanics department. We worked closely together with the guys investigating organic semiconductors for display technology. I worked on organic semiconductors during my Master Thesis at the University of Groningen.
My point is that from what I've seen, these things take a long time to get anywhere near market ready even if you have a working prototype. I hope they succeed.
I also think it's typical of Philips Natlab, that they started their own company and that this is not a new Philips venture. Philips wouldn't know what to do with a real innovation the company is to rigid. They only see the Natlab as a source of Patents to fill their war chest for patent negotiations. I found it an environment that wasn't very conductive to real product innovation. I know one specific example of a guy who went to the walkman department in early 1996 to pitch them the idea of an mp3 player, a few months before the player by Audio Highway that never even made it to the Netherlands. He was laughed at, the idea was beyond silly. If they had wanted they could maybe not have been the first to have one in the market, but they could certainly have beaten Creative's Rio to market, and might have been a big player today. The first time I heard of mp3 was from this guy in January 1997, and it was immediately clear to me that his idea was brilliant.
I wouldn't be surprised that some of those I worked with can now be found at Liquivista, looking over their "Leadership Team" page, I know two of the guys on that page, Mick Evans and Johan Feenstra, although they were not the people I closely worked with.
I think you're a troll, but I'll reply anyway. Some games I really enjoyed on the iPhone: Civilization, SimCity, RedAlert, TapDefense, Lux, (Settlers of) Catan, Fingerzilla, Bridges, Strongholds and Cat Piano.
That's 10 good funny games from the top of my head that I can name without even consulting what I actually have installed. I just remember these because they are fun.
AS well as a bunch of features the iPhone is just now getting, and a bunch it doesn't have.
Your comment tell me that you don't understand Apple. It doesn't care so much about having a long feature list. It cares about having the things it does work well and be easy to use.
Even if it means not having a floppy drive or RS232 port, but just USB.
It's something geeks often don't understand. I can however highly recommend to stop buying devices based on features, but use usability as measure instead. And I don't specifically mean Apple with that but any device in general.
I think the problem with a lot of website design is, that either people hire designers with experience in paper media to do the design, or the PHBs want their website to look like a glossy.
To many websites have hard to use navigation controls and such because people failed to realise that if you make your website look like a glossy magazine, it stops being something that's easy to navigate in a browser.
This discussion goes on for a while, about this feature comparison.
It totally misses the point of why people choose OSX: usability.
In some cases certain features were first available in Windows, in other cases OSX was earlier. I think only at the end of XP's life, before Vista appeared, did OSX have a significant feature lead on Windows.
But the point is that in my experience, since switching to OSX 2.5 years ago, I just spend much less time fighting the OS to have it do what I want. It just doesn't nag me with confirmation boxes, pop-ups and warnings as much as either Linux or Windows does. Many more things just work out of the box.
And besides that, the very consistent look and feel of many of the applications makes it just easier to use.
It's like the difference between the iPod and a player like the iRiver. the iRiver has more features, like digital out, but it's not popular because it's hard to use.
Part of what makes OSX easy to use, is it's close relation with the hardware. If I want to change the resolution of my display it just goes and does it. No message boxes poping up if I'm sure, no 15 second count down, if I'm happy with the new settings, etc. Everything is just a few steps simpler.
But usability is hard to put into a list, so it's not easy to compare between different systems, without actually working with them for a prolonged period. It's also where Linux often does even much worse than Windows and why it has never taken off as a desktop OS. (I have used Linux 4 years full time as a Desktop OS before switching to OSX).
As to the price, it depends what you compare. Upgrade versions, OEM prices, Home/Professional/Ultimate, family pack options and other such choices make it hard to do a straight comparison. I'd argue that prices for Windows have come down since 2001, partially because of OSX' pricing schemes, at least the retail versions. I don't think you could buy a Windows upgrade before for 29 euros.
It's all anecdotal evidence, not facts, but usability where the real difference lies.
If you want to see anything, go now or after they've done filming.
I was at the Hobbiton set about two months ago, and they are in the process of putting in the hobbit holes, hedges and such. At some point the set will be closed to tourists and the guided tours will probably stop until after filming is done. Nothing of it is visible from public roads. The owners of the land hope to negotiate a deal with the film studio that this time more of the set is left to be enjoyed by tourist than the last time.
Still it was fun to walk around something knowing that in a few months it would be a movie set, even though it only looked 10% the part yet, it was more than it had been in the years since.
On another note, it might have as a side effect that we get to see the Raising of the Shire yet, in an ultimate extended edition of LotR?
It has much to do with late-roman church fathers, influenced by mainly greek philosophers, creating dogma's that survive in Christianity to this day. Guys like Saint Augustin, who defined "sin" as currently interpreted by nearly all of the church. He basically argued that libido is the "the root of evil" (radix mali).
When Christianity started, a large part was against sex altogether*. For some odd reason, the sects that said celibacy for the priesthood was all that was needed became the foundations of the religion as it is today. *Just study Saint Augustine and related writers.
Yyes, I'd actually prefer that. Then if I'd installed PNG support in my OS, all of a sudden each and every image manipulation program I have would support it. I can think of other areas where such an approach would help, say word processors,...
I agree. It would also mean that I don't have to install the same codec for each application that I use. Once I've installed support for Theora, I'd like it if everything that can play video's can now play those as well. It would be a pain to wait for each application implementing it's own patch or plug-in.
Or buy a distribution that gets you (nearly) everything on a couple of handy DVDs. That's what I used to do before I had a fast internet connection: Buy SuSE every now and then, I think they still sell those.
I'm not going to comment on your review of the iPod, as it has gone though many interface changes and I'm not sure which version and model you are refering too.
The iPhone UI tries to solve this problem by replacing the buttons.
Yeah, my telephone did that, too. Now I have to push a couple buttons about 40 times each to navigate through menus, when a dedicated button for each function would have been far, far more intuitive. But, hey, all those buttons look scary and cost money, too. There's no such thing as false simplicity, of course.
You entirely misunderstand the iPhone UI. In essence the the iPhone has exactly the interface you want: A separate button for each function. Even better, if it needs to be a slider or text input or a map, the UI will show you a control appropriate for that kind of input.
The only thing that the iPhone does right and everyone else does wrong, is that it only shows you the relevant "buttons" and hides all the others. Most user interfaces either try to make a separate button for everything, leading to what another poster calls the "God Panel", or so many buttons that your brain can no longer handle it. Otherwise they use buttons for multiple functions, leaving you with an interface where you have to push a button 40 times to get it to do what you want, or have buttons change meaning depending on what you selected before.
The power of the iPhone is that it avoids both pitfalls by making the entire UI reconfigurable. The interface constantly morphs into a different device showing you new UI elements relevant to the current context and hiding everything else.
It's why people who don't get it, ask for multitasking on the machine. Multitasking is completely counter intuitive to the concept. The concept is that the entire device becomes what you want to use it for, it morphs from music player to guitar tuner to map to telephone to address book to gaming console to browser to notepad to sketchbook, etc. It's only limit on what devices it can mimic is it's size and the two dimensionality of the display.
It's a totally different metaphore than the desktop on traditional PCs, and apparently one that's easier to grasp for non-technical people.
Until you understand what a powerful UI concept that is, I'm afraid you better give up your dreams of being a UI designer.
What will be interesting, is if Google follows though, what the response from Microsoft will be.
We might find out how much spin you can put on: "We have no problem with censorship and accessing people's private mail"
It would be even better if Google had some dirt on for example Hotmail or MSN, showing that there are backdoors for the US government in them.
Not that I trust Google, I'm just saying that I think Google will try to spin this in a way that will make it hard for competitors to be in China without getting a lot of flak.
I think this is about four things: - Sergei Brin being old enough to have lived in the Soviet Union. I think he just really doesn't like communist dictatorships.
- With this move they generate a lot of attention. It will make China look bad, which is a thing China cares about, see for example why they got the Olympics there. I think this gives the more liberal voices in the Chineese goverment a bit more air even if it might take a decade before we see any effects.
- If Microsoft or another competitor would move into China, they would get a lot of bad PR. Google has taken the initiative in an interesting PR war here, we'll see what the responses are.
- Google wants to be seen as an ethical company, just because they know so much about so many people. Part of this move is about showing that you're willing to protect your users' data. This will make people trust Google.
I think religion started as a way to explain phenomena that were not understood. To give the feeling of control over things that were random. People see patterns where there are none, and really like their world to be structured and safe.
It was then used by those in power to control the population.
I've made a translation based upon your link of the page I link to:
Position of XS4ALL on (il)legal downloading:
Now everyone has access to a broadband Internet connection, consumers changed how they interact with entertainment, music and movies because they themselves can now download and watch whenever and wherever they want. Because the entertainment industry still has not sufficiently adapted to the changes that the Internet brings, many consumers download without paying. To prevent this, there are people calling for ISPs to enforce automatic tracking software to inspect and filter al the contents of Internet and email traffic of their customers. Every citizen on the Internet would get permanent control of a police-type robot and to who is not compliant, the Internet would be closed.
Artists have a natural right to compensation for their work, but it is highly undesirable to require ISPs to take on a role of law enforcement and investigate any e-mail, search, or travel picture sent to their Internet customers. That would be a severe breach of fundamental rights to privacy and confidentiality of communications, information and freedom of speech.
XS4ALL therefore urges all parties in their election program to take a stand for the protection of civilians, and to force the entertainment industry to a new business model that fits the current time, instead of criminalizing citizens massively by siding with an industry who refuses to meet a real - but new - consumer demand.
To help all parties to carry the debate wisely, XS4ALL has sent information to the Houses of Parliament, the Ministries of Justice and Economic Affairs and the program committees of political parties to clarify the legal and technical risks of the current plans. The report and accompanying letter can be downloaded here. Report accompanying letter
While a valiant effort, Google translate gets a little lost in the translation, especially of the 32 page detailed PDF.
I wish I had time to do a proper translation myself, but it's such an extensive document, with very intricately language, trying to explain details of law and technology to politicians, that the automatic translation makes a bit of a mess of it. Some of it might still be understandable, but other parts are pure gibberish.
I believe it when I see it. MS has been hyping the "next version" since forever. Always promising it would deliver what their current version lacks. Having heard it for most of the last 15 years, some promises going back to when Windows 95 was called "Chicago", I am a non believer until I actually see it.
That goes for Apple or Linux or whatever else too. I just find that Apple usually delivers.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you'd call me an Apple fan boy, but even I agree that this was a very bad move on Apple's part. It's indeed obvious that Apple just did this to block Adobe.
I can see the reasons behind their older rules, both technical, because with an interpreter running on the phone you loose control over CPU usage, and as a business, because then sales don't have to go though the iTunes store.
Sure, some of Steve's points are true, like touch interfaces and the hover effect, but those are also true for CSS/HTML sites that use it.
The new rules don't make a difference to either, so there must be something else going on. I'm not sure if the writer of the article is right and all of this is about video. I think that would be a very dangerous move for Apple, as they are a hardware company and should focus on selling their devices, even if they do make a lot of money from the iTunes store too. I think the iPad would sell a lot more if it had Flash support.
There is definitely some reason why this is going on, Steve is one of the smartest players in the industry. I still think Apple would do better to work with Adobe instead. Together they would be able to accomplish much more. Maybe Apple just got fed up with Adobe dragging it's feet in supporting OSX and cocoa, but this is not the way to go about that, and I don't think Steve would do such a thing.
It will be very interesting to see if at some point it becomes clear why Apple is doing this. The whole current argument is a smoke screen that much is clear.
If you just want functionality, the iPhone is exactly what you should get. If Apple is good at anything, it is as designing something that's good at what it has to do.
The only problem with them is that they're paranoid about bad press, because the brand is the most important thing they have. Nearly all of their lockdown is based on this fear.
Sure, even my ten year old PocketPc could do a lot of the same things. But they were a pain to use. The iPhone makes using things and adding functionality easy.
What makes it so powerful is that it doesn't think in traditional OS terms. So if I use my phone as a metronome, it becomes one, it's not a metronome application in the traditional sense.
It's also why it only needs one button: to switch between functions.
Only once you understand that the iPhone is not to be seen as a device running an OS with certain applications, but as multiple devices with the ability to switch between them. It's of course somewhat limited to the 2D screen and size, but it's a fundamentally different concept and the reason why people like it.
I had an intern-ship at Philips Natlab in 1997, working on electrowetting for displays in x-ray in their micromechanics department. We worked closely together with the guys investigating organic semiconductors for display technology. I worked on organic semiconductors during my Master Thesis at the University of Groningen.
My point is that from what I've seen, these things take a long time to get anywhere near market ready even if you have a working prototype. I hope they succeed.
I also think it's typical of Philips Natlab, that they started their own company and that this is not a new Philips venture. Philips wouldn't know what to do with a real innovation the company is to rigid. They only see the Natlab as a source of Patents to fill their war chest for patent negotiations.
I found it an environment that wasn't very conductive to real product innovation. I know one specific example of a guy who went to the walkman department in early 1996 to pitch them the idea of an mp3 player, a few months before the player by Audio Highway that never even made it to the Netherlands. He was laughed at, the idea was beyond silly. If they had wanted they could maybe not have been the first to have one in the market, but they could certainly have beaten Creative's Rio to market, and might have been a big player today. The first time I heard of mp3 was from this guy in January 1997, and it was immediately clear to me that his idea was brilliant.
I wouldn't be surprised that some of those I worked with can now be found at Liquivista, looking over their "Leadership Team" page, I know two of the guys on that page, Mick Evans and Johan Feenstra, although they were not the people I closely worked with.
I think you're a troll, but I'll reply anyway. Some games I really enjoyed on the iPhone: Civilization, SimCity, RedAlert, TapDefense, Lux, (Settlers of) Catan, Fingerzilla, Bridges, Strongholds and Cat Piano.
That's 10 good funny games from the top of my head that I can name without even consulting what I actually have installed. I just remember these because they are fun.
Android has already had this since the G1
AS well as a bunch of features the iPhone is just now getting, and a bunch it doesn't have.
Your comment tell me that you don't understand Apple. It doesn't care so much about having a long feature list. It cares about having the things it does work well and be easy to use.
Even if it means not having a floppy drive or RS232 port, but just USB.
It's something geeks often don't understand. I can however highly recommend to stop buying devices based on features, but use usability as measure instead. And I don't specifically mean Apple with that but any device in general.
I think the problem with a lot of website design is, that either people hire designers with experience in paper media to do the design, or the PHBs want their website to look like a glossy.
To many websites have hard to use navigation controls and such because people failed to realise that if you make your website look like a glossy magazine, it stops being something that's easy to navigate in a browser.
This discussion goes on for a while, about this feature comparison.
It totally misses the point of why people choose OSX: usability.
In some cases certain features were first available in Windows, in other cases OSX was earlier. I think only at the end of XP's life, before Vista appeared, did OSX have a significant feature lead on Windows.
But the point is that in my experience, since switching to OSX 2.5 years ago, I just spend much less time fighting the OS to have it do what I want. It just doesn't nag me with confirmation boxes, pop-ups and warnings as much as either Linux or Windows does. Many more things just work out of the box.
And besides that, the very consistent look and feel of many of the applications makes it just easier to use.
It's like the difference between the iPod and a player like the iRiver. the iRiver has more features, like digital out, but it's not popular because it's hard to use.
Part of what makes OSX easy to use, is it's close relation with the hardware. If I want to change the resolution of my display it just goes and does it. No message boxes poping up if I'm sure, no 15 second count down, if I'm happy with the new settings, etc. Everything is just a few steps simpler.
But usability is hard to put into a list, so it's not easy to compare between different systems, without actually working with them for a prolonged period. It's also where Linux often does even much worse than Windows and why it has never taken off as a desktop OS. (I have used Linux 4 years full time as a Desktop OS before switching to OSX).
As to the price, it depends what you compare. Upgrade versions, OEM prices, Home/Professional/Ultimate, family pack options and other such choices make it hard to do a straight comparison. I'd argue that prices for Windows have come down since 2001, partially because of OSX' pricing schemes, at least the retail versions. I don't think you could buy a Windows upgrade before for 29 euros.
It's all anecdotal evidence, not facts, but usability where the real difference lies.
I was there too, about 2 months ago. I think they can do more than you think. Also they might not start with Hobbiton, leaving that to next summer.
Interesting link. I wasn't aware that they probably can't reference anything from the Silmarion or unfinished tales because of rights issues.
Still wondering what "Bilbo's changing relationship with the dwarves" might mean as a point to split the story into two films.
Probably nothing to see.
If you want to see anything, go now or after they've done filming.
I was at the Hobbiton set about two months ago, and they are in the process of putting in the hobbit holes, hedges and such. At some point the set will be closed to tourists and the guided tours will probably stop until after filming is done. Nothing of it is visible from public roads.
The owners of the land hope to negotiate a deal with the film studio that this time more of the set is left to be enjoyed by tourist than the last time.
Still it was fun to walk around something knowing that in a few months it would be a movie set, even though it only looked 10% the part yet, it was more than it had been in the years since.
On another note, it might have as a side effect that we get to see the Raising of the Shire yet, in an ultimate extended edition of LotR?
It has nothing to do with writings in the bible.
It has much to do with late-roman church fathers, influenced by mainly greek philosophers, creating dogma's that survive in Christianity to this day. Guys like Saint Augustin, who defined "sin" as currently interpreted by nearly all of the church. He basically argued that libido is the "the root of evil" (radix mali).
When Christianity started, a large part was against sex altogether*. For some odd reason, the sects that said celibacy for the priesthood was all that was needed became the foundations of the religion as it is today.
*Just study Saint Augustine and related writers.
Yyes, I'd actually prefer that. Then if I'd installed PNG support in my OS, all of a sudden each and every image manipulation program I have would support it. I can think of other areas where such an approach would help, say word processors,...
I agree. It would also mean that I don't have to install the same codec for each application that I use. Once I've installed support for Theora, I'd like it if everything that can play video's can now play those as well. It would be a pain to wait for each application implementing it's own patch or plug-in.
Agreed. This is one of the few things that would make me use Chrome or Safari instead.
I don't believe in the Bazaar model. I think most of the current successful FOSS projects don't use it.
And then there are very few FOSS projects that come close in quality to their closed source counterparts.
And there huge application areas where there are no FOSS options available because it's not a field that the typical FOSS programmer is interested in.
Or buy a distribution that gets you (nearly) everything on a couple of handy DVDs. That's what I used to do before I had a fast internet connection: Buy SuSE every now and then, I think they still sell those.
I'm not going to comment on your review of the iPod, as it has gone though many interface changes and I'm not sure which version and model you are refering too.
The iPhone UI tries to solve this problem by replacing the buttons.
Yeah, my telephone did that, too. Now I have to push a couple buttons about 40 times each to navigate through menus, when a dedicated button for each function would have been far, far more intuitive. But, hey, all those buttons look scary and cost money, too. There's no such thing as false simplicity, of course.
You entirely misunderstand the iPhone UI. In essence the the iPhone has exactly the interface you want: A separate button for each function.
Even better, if it needs to be a slider or text input or a map, the UI will show you a control appropriate for that kind of input.
The only thing that the iPhone does right and everyone else does wrong, is that it only shows you the relevant "buttons" and hides all the others.
Most user interfaces either try to make a separate button for everything, leading to what another poster calls the "God Panel", or so many buttons that your brain can no longer handle it.
Otherwise they use buttons for multiple functions, leaving you with an interface where you have to push a button 40 times to get it to do what you want, or have buttons change meaning depending on what you selected before.
The power of the iPhone is that it avoids both pitfalls by making the entire UI reconfigurable. The interface constantly morphs into a different device showing you new UI elements relevant to the current context and hiding everything else.
It's why people who don't get it, ask for multitasking on the machine. Multitasking is completely counter intuitive to the concept. The concept is that the entire device becomes what you want to use it for, it morphs from music player to guitar tuner to map to telephone to address book to gaming console to browser to notepad to sketchbook, etc.
It's only limit on what devices it can mimic is it's size and the two dimensionality of the display.
It's a totally different metaphore than the desktop on traditional PCs, and apparently one that's easier to grasp for non-technical people.
Until you understand what a powerful UI concept that is, I'm afraid you better give up your dreams of being a UI designer.
What will be interesting, is if Google follows though, what the response from Microsoft will be.
We might find out how much spin you can put on: "We have no problem with censorship and accessing people's private mail"
It would be even better if Google had some dirt on for example Hotmail or MSN, showing that there are backdoors for the US government in them.
Not that I trust Google, I'm just saying that I think Google will try to spin this in a way that will make it hard for competitors to be in China without getting a lot of flak.
I think this is about four things:
- Sergei Brin being old enough to have lived in the Soviet Union. I think he just really doesn't like communist dictatorships.
- With this move they generate a lot of attention. It will make China look bad, which is a thing China cares about, see for example why they got the Olympics there. I think this gives the more liberal voices in the Chineese goverment a bit more air even if it might take a decade before we see any effects.
- If Microsoft or another competitor would move into China, they would get a lot of bad PR. Google has taken the initiative in an interesting PR war here, we'll see what the responses are.
- Google wants to be seen as an ethical company, just because they know so much about so many people. Part of this move is about showing that you're willing to protect your users' data. This will make people trust Google.
I think religion started as a way to explain phenomena that were not understood. To give the feeling of control over things that were random. People see patterns where there are none, and really like their world to be structured and safe.
It was then used by those in power to control the population.
The history of the church is a prime example. I found this program very interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ntrqh
I've made a translation based upon your link of the page I link to:
Position of XS4ALL on (il)legal downloading:
Now everyone has access to a broadband Internet connection, consumers changed how they interact with entertainment, music and movies because they themselves can now download and watch whenever and wherever they want. Because the entertainment industry still has not sufficiently adapted to the changes that the Internet brings, many consumers download without paying. To prevent this, there are people calling for ISPs to enforce automatic tracking software to inspect and filter al the contents of Internet and email traffic of their customers. Every citizen on the Internet would get permanent control of a police-type robot and to who is not compliant, the Internet would be closed.
Artists have a natural right to compensation for their work, but it is highly undesirable to require ISPs to take on a role of law enforcement and investigate any e-mail, search, or travel picture sent to their Internet customers. That would be a severe breach of fundamental rights to privacy and confidentiality of communications, information and freedom of speech.
XS4ALL therefore urges all parties in their election program to take a stand for the protection of civilians, and to force the entertainment industry to a new business model that fits the current time, instead of criminalizing citizens massively by siding with an industry who refuses to meet a real - but new - consumer demand.
To help all parties to carry the debate wisely, XS4ALL has sent information to the Houses of Parliament, the Ministries of Justice and Economic Affairs and the program committees of political parties to clarify the legal and technical risks of the current plans. The report and accompanying letter can be downloaded here.
Report
accompanying letter
Your point 5 is my third point. You would have to block all encrypted traffic.
They do make this point, but I think it's not going to be the key in this discussion, or the discussion would not exist.
While a valiant effort, Google translate gets a little lost in the translation, especially of the 32 page detailed PDF.
I wish I had time to do a proper translation myself, but it's such an extensive document, with very intricately language, trying to explain details of law and technology to politicians, that the automatic translation makes a bit of a mess of it. Some of it might still be understandable, but other parts are pure gibberish.
I believe it when I see it. MS has been hyping the "next version" since forever. Always promising it would deliver what their current version lacks. Having heard it for most of the last 15 years, some promises going back to when Windows 95 was called "Chicago", I am a non believer until I actually see it.
That goes for Apple or Linux or whatever else too. I just find that Apple usually delivers.