| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
A cost analysis of Vista content protectionA cost analysis of Vista content protectionPosted Dec 23, 2006 18:18 UTC (Sat) by theraphim (subscriber, #25955)Parent article: A cost analysis of Vista content protection
I think that for all readers of this article it is obvious that we have reached a key turning point in the whole industry development.
Either hardware manufacturers will follow Microsoft and their way, thus cutting down all, any and every alternate way of using their hardware (including, but not limited to, open source operating systems), or they will ignore it (at least partially), rendering all Microsoft so-called "R&D" on this topic useless.
This situation also can be resolved in such way that we'll have 2 hardware designs - Microsoft (which is suitable for Microsoft) and Personal (to run software that works in the way users want it to).
Will hardware manufacturers consider Linux "strong" enough? Do they believe that producing open design will bring them the same sales than producing Vista-compatible stuff?
(Log in to post comments)
A cost analysis of Vista content protection Posted Dec 24, 2006 12:18 UTC (Sun) by ottavio (guest, #42268) [Link] We can still have our voice heard by recommnding not to but PC's with Vista preinstalled:http://www.pledgebank.com/boycottvista
abut the pledge Posted Dec 27, 2006 7:47 UTC (Wed) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] Hmm, I'm not sure I can sign your pledge, which says "I will not purchase any computing equipment from manufactures that recommend Windows Vista or any other Microsoft® products but only if 100,000 potential computer buyers around the world will too."As it happens, I already try not to buy from manufactures that recommend Windows Vista, whether or not 100 000 other people do likewise. What's the point of the "but only if ... " clause?
abut the pledge Posted Dec 29, 2006 18:18 UTC (Fri) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] I think the idea of that was that they were aping the [[Free State Project]] people: I promise to move to New Hampshire if 5000 other people promise, too.
about the pledge Posted Jan 5, 2007 17:04 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I think the idea of that was that they were aping the [[Free State Project]] people: I promise to move to New Hampshire if 5000 other people promise, too. Not aping it, just using the same generic concept. Another example is the movement in the US to elect the President by popular vote instead of by state vote, by agreement among the states. Each state agrees to give up its vote for President (i.e. to cast it according to the popular vote), but only if nearly all the other states agree as well. Or a stock sale where the deal is off unless a total of N shares are sold. What makes the "100,000 other people" part important is that not everyone is willing to give up the benefits of using MS software just out of righteousness. But some would be willing to give them up in return for the damage that a 100,000-person boycott would do to MS. I myself never do something individually just because it would be good if everyone did it. Marginal cost/marginal utility was a powerful lesson for me in economics class.
|
|
||||||||||||