Sorry about the delay in replying.

I'm not sure I understand why software operating on abstract data makes it fundamentally different though? It seems like an assertion, and not a fact? I think that in patents, what is being valued is not what it operates on, but the process by which it is achieved. For example, if a certain industrial process operates on air, which is available abundantly and has nil material value, it's not the air we patent right? It's the process, or recipe. In the software case, the "object" it operates on, the data, by itself has no material value. But nevertheless, both the software and the industrial process are both recipes, steps for achieving something. I don't understand the difference?

So it looks to me like, either both should be patentable or neither should be.

Interesting points about crypto and patenting mathematics.

But what is your take on patenting software in general? What is the difference between an algorithm and an industrial process? Aren't they both "recipes"? If so, should both be patentable? or neither?

Following from that, why is patenting beneficial for industrial processes but not for software?

I'm not really advocating patents nor renouncing them, just trying to get a better idea.

I wasn't talking about trees, not am I interested in pedantic discussions on semantics. I'm saying that in this context, specifically that of someone creating a piece of software, music, or whatever in order to make a living out of it, it's reasonable to expect that others should pay to consume it. It's reasonable to state that if they don't get paid for it, they will have no means of earning their livelihood through their work, which essentially harms the creative process. No type of excuse can hide this bare fact.

The answer to this problem is not to deny that it is happening, which is nonsense, but to understand that the problem lies in greed and exploitation. Popular media is an essential part of culture. Denying people access to that media is essentially a way of denying people access to culture, an essential part of their social existence. Charging such high prices is a form of extortion. It is akin to charging $10 bucks for a glass of water (hyperbole, but you get the idea). Again, there's no need for extremist interpretations here, like, "oh hang on, you won't drop dead because you couldn't watch a movie" etc. Try not to miss the wood for the trees!

The solution is, make things cheap, make it accessible, and make money on sheer, staggering volume. Make people respect copyright by not making copyright a joke. They can start by abolishing the ability to hang onto copyright hundreds of years after the original author is dead.

This argument might apply to software used in the industry like photoshop, but how will it apply to something like games, intended for personal use?

That's why I think the "piracy is good" argument makes no sense. Piracy is the act of using something without giving money for it. Let's not try to kid ourselves into thinking it's a virtue.

Personally, I think that the way to stop piracy is for industries to stop being greedy. It's just not reasonable to expect the massive prices that are demanded for every song, movie, game etc. etc. on the market. People consume a lot of media. The daily bombardments of advertising is to ensure that this happens. For people to be "in" on the scene, they need to consume this stuff. But who has the money to pay $80 per game? or $20 per "3D" movie ticket? Companies need to sell items cheap and make money on volume. And they can!

High prices or high volume, pick 1. If you charge a high price, expect to cater to a niche market and for the masses to pirate. If you want high volume, charge a low price.

Instead, these guys want to charge a high price and have volume to boot. Greedy bastards.

I find it interesting though, that Sebastian Thrun gets so much attention, and Andrew Ng for example, gets no mention. I think that Ng poured in a tremendous amount of effort to teach an absolutely outstanding class with far more structured and well-developed content.

Don't get me wrong, Thrun is an enthusiastic and obviously knowledgeable individual, but having followed both AI and ML classes, I was of the opinion that Andrew Ng was the better teacher. Thrun needs to improve his teaching skills, so that he can impart his great store of knowledge better to students. Although that is my personal opinion, I think you might find that it is backed by some evidence, if you were to trawl through the comments on the respective forums of the AI and ML classes. Overall, both of them + Peter Norvig and the rest of their teams, made fantastic contributions, and that should be recognized equally, whenever possible!

This is a guy who's trying to stop the wheel of time from turning.

That's the best counter-argument I've received so far - the cost factor. Thanks! But we have to factor in the half a billion people that use MS office. As I've outlined over the course of this thread, for that sizeable population, the cost factor will be offset by the fact that you can own one single portable device, instead of two. I think the argument can be settled by analyzing how many people use a "tablet" currently as their one single personal computer. I'm guessing most people have two devices right now - one running windows. In future, when tablets are as powerful as current PCs, the situation will be even more skewed in favour of Windows. Why spend money on a toy tablet running Android?

That's why I believe Google's word processing strategy is critical, among other things. I want Google to make sure MS's monopoly is finally broken. They need to cover all their bases - and half a billion word users need to be given serious consideration.

And wrt to the keyboard. I agree the keyboard is mandatory, but what's to prevent one from being plugged in at whim? (e.g. Asus Transformer)

I agree that Office is not critical for the table market - right now. That's because tablets are mostly toy devices right now. So users don't want to run office on it, as you've pointed out. But why will that not change in future? I'm saying that the miniaturization trend will culminate in laptops becoming ultrabooks, and ultrabooks becoming tablets with detachable mouse/keyboard/monitor. In other words, tablets will become the single main personal computer for most people. It's at that point that Office will be critical, unless Google has a viable alternative. Hope I've clarified my views better over the course of this thread.

I think there's a fundamental difference in the NT/RISC case with the Win8/ARM case. Which is that ARM devices are actually popular! Therefore, vendors definitely will have incentives to retarget their applications for ARM, assuming that Windows 8 becomes popular on ARM. BeerCat's contention that users need to do this recompilation makes no sense. When did the typical windows user ever compile from source? The vendors will publish x86 and ARM binaries on their websites. I think it's reasonable to conjecture that Microsoft Office will be available for ARM. Others will follow.

So the key question is, will Win 8 become popular on tablets? If the trend of miniaturization continues (and why wouldn't it?), with laptops becoming ultrabooks, and ultrabooks becoming transformers (basically, tablet + dock), then it stands to reason that Windows 8 will be the OS by default, as it is already the defacto PC operating system. As an additional bonus, hardware manufacturers can choose either ARM or x86 for their hardware, which means it'll be Intel that's in trouble, not Microsoft.

I don't know whether Google offering a "good enough" word processor will be enough, as you've suggested. Perhaps it will be, but we should keep in mind that a vast majority of users are heavily invested in Word/Excel documents, and are pretty much locked in. They may also be locked in because of other Apps, like Photoshop, or whatever. If apps don't matter, how can we explain Microsoft's strangle-hold on the OS market? What is Google's strategy for breaking that lock-in?

See my reply to the previous poster. In summary: 94% of word processor use is MS Office. And nowhere have I said that a keyboard/mouse is not needed. But what's to prevent you from hooking your future tablet to a 30" monitor and a keyboard?

You make some interesting points. However, the Win32 API will probably remain the same. As such, it will be a simple matter of recompiling legacy apps for ARM. I don't see the big problem here? Furthermore, enabling touch support for an existing code base is a matter of tweaking the UI layer. You could argue that those apps will not be very user friendly if not designed from the ground up to be touch friendly, but being able to leverage existing code means you're already halfway there.

As for your question of - why prefer it to a netbook? Because a tablet which has a detachable mouse and keyboard makes more sense than a netbook. Would you rather spend money on and lug around 3 or 4 devices, and maintain software on all of them, or have one device which does it all? I'm saying that things will eventually head that way. That's the only way Microsoft can break the tablet market. And in the process of doing so, they will kill the desktop PC/laptop market. Stuff like the Asus Transformer and the Motorola Atrix are a portent of things to come.

As for Word, MS word is the defacto word processing standard, whether we like it or not. 94% of the market is with Office. MS word, or extremely good compatibility with it, will be critical to most users. Libre Office compatibility with MS word is very poor. I have tried it, and have experienced it first hand. A piece of software that 94% of people use has every chance to make or break Android.

What I'm saying in summary is, if a user had a chance to buy a Windows 8 Tablet, and run Word on it (and connect mouse/keyboard to it), they'd probably buy that, instead of spending another $500 on an Android tablet on which they can do less.

Thanks for that clear answer. Sounds pretty bad to me although I think non-technical users might not care, but what interested me most was the bit about the 30% cut with the Metro App Store. All of this serves to highlight why Microsoft shouldn't dominate the tablet space. But my fears that they will, are I I believe, legitimate. Android very badly needs to think of itself as a proper OS, not just a mobile OS running toy applications. It needs to rethink of itself as being able to run serious software - everything from a full fledged word processor, to Photoshop to Crysis.

What makes you think Windows 8 will be terrible?

Even if Windows 8 is terrible, personally, I think Android will end up losing the tablet war. The reason is that windows 8 will be able to leverage its existing base of "software capital", and bulldoze its way into the tablet market. Android simply does not have certain critical software (e.g. - MS Word) running on it.

Think of it this way. The mass market desktop pc will die. For the vast majority of users, a simple tablet like device, with word processing capabilities, and media/internet capabilities, is all that's needed. Bulky laptops will disappear too, turning into tablets with Asus "transformer" like capabilities. Eventually, a multitude of device will be consolidated into one single tablet device - a single personal computer. People will want to do everything they did with their desktops, on their tablets. This will include word processing.

What answer does Android have to this?

If they don't fix this, and have their software base ready to rival MS-Word etc. I believe the ending will be very unfortunate, and MS can continue unhindered with their nasty monopoly.

The one consolation might be that Android will continue to thrive in the mobile phone segment, since a tablet form factor is too bulky to replace a phone, unless tiny phones become powerful enough to run Windows 8. Then, it might be curtain's for Android's there too. Why bother with several devices, when one single "personal computer" will do?

What Dell seems to be missing is that a stationary PC no longer has a long term future in the mass market, other than in high-end applications. Laptops started stealing the mobility niche first., and tablets will be next. The TV doesn't count. It's all about being able to take your important personal data with you, where ever you go, and using your familiar Operating Environment to access it. Maybe I'm over-estimating the importance of this for the average user (and by average, I meant people who mostly do web surfing, word processing, watching videos and photos), but for me (a software dev), that's what it's all about. Judging by the number of people who buy laptops now instead of regular PCs, I'd say such an opinion is justified.

Why would one need a clunky desktop if a laptop can do the same thing and be portable to boot? I can always hook up my laptop to a large monitor when I need. And following that logic further,, why would I need an ultrabook if my tablet can do the same and be hooked up to a bigger monitor when needed?

Personally, I only need a powerful computer when "my code's compiling". Most other times, all I need is an internet connection, a good word processor, and all my docs and pictures with me. For this kind of application, having an ultra-powerful computer is irrelevant. Tablets will soon be more than powerful enough.

I can't imagine why the large majority of non-technical users would need anything more powerful. That means - the PC mass-market will eventually end up with Windows 8 tablets. Mac users will end up with iOS tablets. Personally, I think Android will end up losing the tablet war, and I suspect this will be because it has no good word processor (Basically - MS Word) running on it. (I think most other apps are easily replaceable for the average user)

The only way highly mobile personal computers won't count, is if everyone starts using the cloud exclusively, in which case, any dumb terminal will do. I think people will always have some level of personal data on their personal computers. I'm not sure a shift to storing everything on the cloud is going to come all that soon - offline access is quite often indispensable. If so, Google's online word processor strategy will not work so well (not least because the product is nowhere near MS-Word in terms of maturity), and Microsoft will win. (more's the pity)

So yeah, I too think Dell's mass market of PC users will evaporate pretty soon.

The fact of J2ME being widely available, is quite distinct from the issue of it being widely targeted. I can think of several reasons for why J2ME is irrelevant.
1. Feature phones aren't really suitable for sophisticated apps. Most power users have already migrated to the next gen touch phones (Android, IOS) or at the very least, Symbian. Those who stick on with feature phones probably don't use custom apps in the first place.
2. There is no proper marketplace for apps comparable to Android or Apple. This makes it difficult for the average user to obtain new apps, even if he/she were to actually want to use an app on their feature phone (which they probably don't).
3. Ultimately, the J2ME support may be relevant only to the phone manufacturer, in order to provide some bundled apps, like a calculator or something. Without a market place and given the hurdles (lack of user interest, severe incapability of phones) there's little incentive for developers to program for it.

Therefore, why would J2ME's wide availability be relevant?