I have no idea why people who wouldn't buy a television that was designed, built, or sold by an advertizing company so commonly choose to use a web browser that was designed, built, and given away for free by an advertizing company.
He's got a point. Building computers is simply not a terrifically difficult business.
I was in St. Petersburg (Putin's hometown) a few months ago visiting in-laws, and I helped them pick out their first computer from a local vendor. What they got was a pretty nice machine for the money. The selection was good. A fine consumer experience, overall.
Do they need a foreign corporation in that market locally? Would they benefit immensely from that? Not really.
I suspect it's probably more about TV than music.
Gyms often have the audio for their TVs pumped out over short-range radio. Zunes have radio. Ipods don't.
Advertizing-based company undermines user privacy to make money. Film at 11.
Seriously... this is why I'm staying away from Chrome. If Google gets big enough in the browser to start dictating de-facto standards, my privacy will suffer.
Yeah. Exactly. I don't trust chrome, because Google is a company that makes all of its money off of advertizing. Advertizing revenue is inversly proportional to user privacy. We rely on our browsers to protect our privacy via mechanisms like the same origin policy. In the future, as the web evolves, we can expect to need new browser features to protect our privacy.
MS also wants to be heavy into ad revenue, but for now, MS makes its money off of other things, so there isn't as big a conflict for the team picking which featuers make it into IE. In fact, MS is so focused on crushing Google, I could see them championing user privacy and hurting their own ad revenue numbes just to undermine Google.
But of course, Firefox has the least financial interest in undermining privacy. In that department: Firefox > IE >> Chrome.
"It is better to have tried and failed than to have failed to try, but the result's the same." - Mike Dennison