Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Finally (Score 1) 139

by walternate (#37072542) Attached to: FTC Probes Android and Google Search

barrier to entry,

cross-funding of services to extend dominant position,

What is the case though, is that at some point lack of competition, barrier to entry, cross-funding of services to extend dominant position, etc. becomes a regulatory issue in many markets and a job for the government agencies charged with securing healthy competition in the marketplace.

Then you have the gall to say

I am not and have never said anything about if I think they are right or not.

Fucking liar.

Thanks again for resorting to personal attacks again. What I said above is that these are reasons government agencies charged with this task are interested in looking into and might take issue with. I am not prenteding to be a antitrust laywer and know the outcome of their probe vs. the law. And can't see that I said that "Google is guilty". If I was clumsy and led you to believe that I apologize, I didn't expect this anger approach to a discussion.

Comment: Re:Finally (Score 1) 139

by walternate (#37072332) Attached to: FTC Probes Android and Google Search

Bing, Yahoo, AOL and Ask.com, are all alternatives. And that's not even counting engines like Baidu and whatever they have in Russia that is kicking everybody else's ass. Just because Google makes a better product and people prefer it doesn't make it anti-competitive. Sounds like a case of sour grapes more than anything else.

Yahoo gave up and is using Bing. AOL is using Google. About Ask.com, Wikipedia says "In late 2010, facing insurmountable competition from Google, the company outsourced its web search technology to an unspecified third party and returned to its roots as a question and answer site.["

There is no lack of competition as I mentioned above

You mentioned Bing and Google.

Running with the best of the best in search will never be cheap. I'll bet building aircraft carriers isn't cheap too. What would you suggest we do to "fix" that? Oh, nothing? Hypocrite much?

Not sure where the personal attack came from. You keep arguing against strawmans. I didn't say what you are attacking here.

cross-funding of services to extend dominant position,

This is not even close to against the law. Google has a dominant position not a monopoly. You are confusing the two. Apple dominates the iDevice ecosystem but it isn't illegal because they have competition just like Google does.

You are very very sure of your evaluation of this. The people actually running this for the government doesn't seem as sure as you.

You have made no legitimate argument that suggests this makes sense in Google's case.

I don't have to, the authorities that have opened up a probe into this thinks the situation warrants a closer look. I am not and have never said anything about if I think they are right or not.

Comment: Re:Finally (Score 1) 139

by walternate (#37071850) Attached to: FTC Probes Android and Google Search

It is not Google's job to make web search any cheaper to get into. Should GM help out every tom dick and harry trying to build a car in their garage? How about Intel? Should they start leasing out their fabs to all various and sundry to appear "competitive"? Get real.

I didn't say or think this is Googles job. I was just pointing out that the " it is so easy to switch search provider" argument is a bit naive as it is dependent on there actually being alternatives.

What is the case though, is that at some point lack of competition, barrier to entry, cross-funding of services to extend dominant position, etc. becomes a regulatory issue in many markets and a job for the government agencies charged with securing healthy competition in the marketplace. And the rules are different (and might even seem unfair) for companies that are deemed to be in such position. Which is exactly what we are seeing here.

Comment: Re:And the winner is (Score 1) 154

by walternate (#37071440) Attached to: Review of IBM's Original Personal Computer

The original PC was terrible too and a joke that never should have monopolized the market. The Mac and Amiga had graphics, mice, icons, multimedia, while the greenscreen IBM's had beeps, 640k ram limit, with an OS with a simple braindead command.com interpretter. This was not just in 1982, but stayed taht way until 1992 10 years later. I never used these platforms and I am not a zealot. I just hated my PC and felt ripped off. I guess people who used typewritters thought greenscreens and errors were awesome and did not know any better back in the 1980s. If they did the PC never would have become popular.

Many people on Slashdot often mention Amiga in connection with the first IBM PC. Just remember that the first Amiga was launched 4 years after the IBM PC. The Commodore 64, which I had when it came out, was launched the year after the IBM PC.

That said I don't disagree with Amiga being good for it's time, or C64 being much more of a runaway home PC success than IBM PC in the beginning, or Apple II deserving lots of credit for its role in introducing personal computers. The IBM PC was not first, and had limitations. But it won because of the way it built a compatible industry standard that many companies could compete on.

Comment: Re:Finally (Score 1) 139

by walternate (#37071146) Attached to: FTC Probes Android and Google Search

Your screed is only relevant if they are actually doing this whole "tying" thing.

Otherwise, it's all just a lot of hot air.

Web Search is the ultimate commodity free from vendor lock. It doesn't get much better than that in computing.

It's only free from vendor lock in as long as there isn't a prohibitive barrier to compete with alternatives. The investments necessary to be competitive with Google in search now is in the range of several billion dollars yearly (which Microsoft is the only ones left able and willing to do after Yahoo throwing in the tovel). You can't come out of the basement with a more clever search algorithm anymore, because so much of what we take for granted of speed and features are dependent on enormous infrastructure and data deal investments (like Google buying ITA for 700m$ just to secure flight data into their search). Or giving away mobile OS for free to secure mobile search dominance and revenue. This is the game Google is playing.

Comment: It's not a virus, and require user approval (Score 0) 60

by walternate (#37009822) Attached to: Black Hat Talk Demonstrates New Document Exploits
First: What is described is not a virus but a trojan. And as noted in the article, in IE8 and IE9 the user will get an access prompt and specifically would have to approve it to run.

Will some click ok and run the trojan? Most probably, but that is a different kind of problem for all platforms. If I open a Word document and suddenly IE9 pop ups with an access request to run something, the answer would be no thanks.

Comment: Re:This is why we can't have anything nice (Score 1) 364

by walternate (#36994794) Attached to: Finding Fault With the Low, Low Price of Android

Google Search is a much, much less dangerous monopoly than Windows is or ever was, because they don't really have a way of locking you in. The cost of switching search engines is close to zero, while the same can't be said for OSs, especially since they have exclusive and widely used applications like MS Office.

Google's dominance in the online advertisement market seems way more dangerous to me.

For the user it might look like that. But you need to have an alternative to switch to. And the barrier to entry for a competitor is much much higher in search than in OS. It requires insanse investments in technology and server farms to compete with Google on search now. This is no longer a garage startup game. Only Microsoft are really left to compete, and are spending billions of dollars on it. Very few others have the resources to challenge Google at this point. And their dominance in the online advertisement market is an integral part of it. The way this ad model works, the bigger you are the more effective you are, so you get all the ad money and continue to outspend and bleed any attempts at competition.

Comment: Re:Does it now? (Score 3, Insightful) 284

by walternate (#36991244) Attached to: OS X Lion Ships With Faulty NVidia Drivers

Apple OS X Lion shipped with new NVidia video drivers that are causing anyone with a mid 2010 Macbook Pro to get a kernel panic every 5-10 minutes.

Oh, yeah? I'm posting this on a mid-2010 17-inch MacBook Pro with an Nvidia card. I've been running Lion developer previews for months, and the only time I've ever have graphics problems is when I'm playing a game and the system gets too hot because my room isn't well-ventilated. In fact, Lion could be the most stable first release of any OS X operating system. I regularly play World of Warcraft, Starcraft II, Borderlands, Left 4 Dead 2, and Team Fortress 2 without issue.

Nvidia isn't saying that nothing will get fixed. Apple works with Nvidia on their drivers. What Nvidia is saying is simply that they can't provide technical support. Removing posts about goofy boycotts and petitions is just clearing out nonsense posts in what is supposed to be a support forum. Apple's support forums are some of the silliest, whiniest forums on the web, and you'll rarely find useful information from the users there.

I also question the claim that "Apple knew about the issue before shipping Lion," as if there's some big conspiracy that Apple knew it was going to cause your machine to black-screen but didn't care. Give me a break.

How a major hardware manufacturer can ship such a faulty product without getting much press about it is completely beyond me.

Because the issue only affects a tiny segment of customers. If, as you claim, every single person with a mid-2010 MBP was getting kernel panics every 5-10 minutes, that would be major news. Like most customers with technical problems, you're acting like it's a bigger deal than it is and that it's affecting more people than it is. Installing a new operating system is a major procedure that can uncover previously invisible problems lurking on a person's computer. That's why, every time there's a console firmware update, you'll see a bunch of posts from people claiming the updates ruined their machines.

Everything you said could have been repeated for most similar reports at about Windows stability problems. People who have problems will of course complain, and get unfair attention vs all the users that don't have problems. If anything, welcome Apple to the reality of having more than a few users and system variations to care for.

Google

+ - Did Google wilfully deceive about Nortel patents?->

Submitted by walternate
walternate (2210674) writes "Google recently complained that their competitors "banded together" in an anticompetitive strategy against Google when a coalition of Apple, Microsoft, etc. bought the 6000 Nortel patents.

Now Microsoft is countering that Google was invited to join this consortium, but they declined. And they have email from Google to prove it. It seems Google were only interested in winning the bid alone."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Just the facial recognition component? (Score 1) 278

by walternate (#36983026) Attached to: Germany Says Facebook's Facial Recognition Is Illegal

The problem isn't so much the existence of the photo, more that it has become trivial to link a person's name to it.

Trying to find someone specific using the mentioned services is like searching for the needle in the haystack. It becomes a completely different matter if it's done for you by some search engine.

Have you verified that Google is mining this data? Because on Facebook you are not searchable even if tagged by friends if you yourself do not have FB profile or have disabled recognition/tagging.

Comment: Re:IBM/Microsoft set back IT 20 years at least. (Score 1) 433

by walternate (#36900376) Attached to: MS-DOS Is 30 Years Old Today

We had "32 bit machines with GUI, preemptive multitasking and hardware-accelerated 3D graphics" prior to August 1981? Any links/info?

Yes, stupid. Take a look at Sun, Apollo, and SGI.

All had bitmapped graphics (no window system, programs took over the screen), mice, and the SGI machines at least had hardware-accelerated 3D graphics (the hardware did matrix mulitplications and polygon fills).

Thanks for calling me stupid, and then refer to companies and computers that didn't even exist when the IBM PC was launched. SGI was founded the year after and launched their first machine 3 years after the IBM PC. Sun was founded and launched their first machine the year after the IBM PC.

Apollo Computer was the only one of the companies you mention that even existed when the IBM PC was launched. It was founded the year before, and launched their first machine same year as the IBM PC. It did have a 16/32 bit Motorola 68000, not hardware accellerated 3D graphics.

Comment: Re:IBM/Microsoft set back IT 20 years at least. (Score 1) 433

by walternate (#36899736) Attached to: MS-DOS Is 30 Years Old Today

This comment is not to be understated. I was very young, but my first-hand experience comparison of what Apple and Amiga had at the time to what a Windows+DOS system could do makes it clear that half-assed triumphed over quality. People didn't know how to evaluate a computer when making a purchase, so they just bought something cheap that looked like a computer, even if it was inferior in regards to hardware and or software.

The first Amiga was launched 4 years after the IBM PC. The Commodore 64, which I had when it came out, was launched the year after the IBM PC.

"The greatest warriors are the ones who fight for peace." -- Holly Near

Working...