'Sending timing data over cell network - what could go wrong?' This was the week when Microsoft buffed and polished its ancient spam-handy Hotmail service into the new Outlook.com, just seven years after Google gave us Gmail. Apparently the planets had not yet aligned in Redmond's favour, because according to the firm's Chris Jones: We think the time is right to reimagine email. Given …
"Thereby inadvertently echoing the thoughts of millions of people worldwide who wish the pair of them would just get the f*** over it and cross-license."
I don't want to live in a world where rounded corners have to be cross-licensed to avoid having some moron judge waste millions of dollars on trials like this. Sack her and tell the two companies to piss off and stop wasting everyone's time with this trivial crap.
Why are technology companies so addicted to suing each other. I used to work in a university where the lecturers in the law department got off on suing each other until they appointed the head of modern languages to be their HoD. She took them all down the pub and told them to stop fucking about. After some beers they sorted themselves out.
could we apply this model to the likes of Oracle/Google, Apple/Samsung and god knows who else.
Obvious icon and it is Friday. Good sailing in Weymouth to watch as well.
Also being a Microsoft service and being named Outlook.com it seems like an important address to have.
I confess this baffles me. Are email domains now status symbols? Does this reader think an "outlook.com" email address will help land a job, or attract members of the same and/or opposite sex? True, there's a certain stigma attached by some to a handful of email domains like "aol.com", but who's impressed by a domain?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
