Re: Price war in France?
It's a Faultline piece – factual accuracy is optional.
3177 posts • joined 16 Apr 2007
It's a Faultline piece – factual accuracy is optional.
I think the problem is that there simply aren't enough companies interested in it to make it a viable proposition. It's not more for me but there's not doubt that the Surface Pro has some clever technology and solves some people's problems brilliantly. And it's probably much better as notebook replacement than an I-Pad is. But the PC market is about massive scale with significant penalties if that can't be achieved.
Microsoft has the cash to continue with the Surface Pros, after all what's 1 billion compared to amount spunked on Nokia, Skype and Minecraft? But it's not doing them any favours with the dwindling number of OEM partners that make its market. At some point Microsoft will have to choose whether it wants to do an Apple and be the sole supplier or return to doing just the software.
Nokia went off the rails LONG before iPhone, probably about 2002.
Definitely agree with that, apart from the Communicator Nokia's Symbian phones were shittier in every aspect than Ericsson's. Problems with Symbian and some woeful TI chips encouraged Ericsson to jump ship to Android and then get out of the handset business. With a unified and focussed Symbian and better chips things might well have ended up differently. At least ARM chips came out of the debacle as the standard architecture.
@Krisitan Walsh, thanks for the detail on the way you experienced things.
Any conspiracy must be Nokia's not MS's
You can be certain that some shareholders profited very handsomely from the deal, which was in cash. Microsoft was able to use some of the tons of non-US cash for the deal that would have otherwise been subject to tax if it had been repatriated and paid to shareholders as dividends. An even more egregious example of an elaborate tax avoidance scheme was the Skype purchase where Microsoft bid against itself to spunk $ 8 bn on a loss-making business with little or no IP. At least with Nokia it got some tangible assets that it could dispose of.
In these deals it's almost always customers and employees who lose out.
IAMNAL but I think the Cyrix stuff demonstrated compatibility without a licence. Sometimes companies pay to play to get more information on the specification or to be able to brand their equipment as compatible but I'm not aware of any legal impediments.
I see APIs as similar to specifications. Copyright is relevant and important in terms of the specification itself: ie. who may duplicate and amend the specification but it says nothing about implementation which are authorised by the spec.
Patents are all about implementation and not relevant to the discussion here.
Get this clarified in the US once (and hopefully) for all.
I wonder if the bean counters at nintendo have any idea how much money they could rake in if they ported a load of games iOS
Why bother porting? They can make money simply selling ROMs for the emulators.
@Frankee I think it would be cheaper, too. All they'd have to do is stop the Mozilla people from working on pet projects instead.
But I can't see anything like that happening until they start losing share in their corporate customers, many of whom still depend upon IE 6 compatibility. :-(
I think Bluetooth has been successful by not being all things to all men, eg. working cooperatively with WiFi. Like WiFi it's become so ubiquitous that it's going to be difficult to shift. There are also advantages in having different radios in a device: the Bluetooth one is owned by the device, not the network.
But the more I think about the suggestions the more I think this is a glorified spectrum grab: get LTE in the unlicensed spectrum areas.
PS. Welcome back, Bill
I'm not convinced by the sums as it seems to ignore Samsung's other businesses which might be affected. If it's the FAT32 then their TVs are also likely to be listed then there's the PC market which, while ever decreasing in size, has usually much higher unit payments.
Personally I think there's still quite a lot that Android vendors can differentiate with including: screens (I go for AMOLED, some prefer LCD), speakers, built-in memory, removable battery, SD-card support, customisation (worked great for Nokia when it was selling commodified GSM phones), waterproof, size (compact, standard, oversized), battery life, use in bright light, camera button, screen resolution, wireless charger, NFC, etc.
If you think this is trivial just look at any other commodified market and see what works there.
The agreements aren't public so we can't be sure. What is known is that Microsoft has for several years been asserting its FAT32 patent on storage media. It's coming to the end of its life, not just in terms of when the patent expires but also due to the restriction in file size: once people routinely start faffing around with HD video the 4GB file limit will be a problem.
The solution will be to use an unencumbered file system and possibly rely on something like MTP to handle this for read/write access when the device is plugged into another.
Linus' discussions with Tenenbaum were indicative of how he behaves. That said, I don't think his occasional outbursts are a real problem. Sometimes you have to tell someone what they're doing is no just wrong but total shit.
I prefer the BSD development model over the release early, release often chaos of Linux, but that hasn't excluded the odd high-profile tantrum.
It was announced that the earth revolves around the sun.
Peer review can get nasty (it did in Newton's time). Just as some people need to develop thicker skins, others can also learn to be slightly less of dick.
What reason would any streaming site have for using VP9, which would only work on Android phones (and even then it would take several years before the majority of them are on a recent enough software version to support it)
Neither VP9 nor HEVC have any chance as a software only solution: they currently bring even high-end x86 chips to their knees.
This will be a time-to-market race for hardware and content. If either solution has significant technical (faster encode or uses less power) or financial advantages (total cost to encode and distribute) then that could be decisive.
Neither HEVC nor VP9 are finalised yet. This is a big difference to h264 and VP8: h264 was finalised and in lots of silicon before Google bought OnVideo.
The Android market is now what of the biggest for video so only fools are going to ignore it.. Google gives anything running on VP9, including its own services a headstart. We'll have to see which chipmakers cough up for HEVC but I suspect Mediatek might not.
Please at least have someone proofread your stuff.
You seem completely to ignore that Google has mandated hardware support for VP9 for future Android releases. That means VP9 will definitely be in devices and Google will have content for them.
OS/2 had two big problems.
IBM's biggest mistake was letting Microsoft work on OS/2.
OS/2 was built for companies which is why it had all kinds of network and terminal emulation support that Windows never got. By making, and marketing, OS/2 as "a better DOS than DOS, a better Windows than Windows", IBM provided little incentive for users (and therefore software companies) to port to OS/2. If 1-2-3 and Wordperfect on OS/2 had significant advantages over their Windows versions then things might have been different.
You couldn't crash it but programs could quite easily cause Presentation Manager to hang, which was pretty much the same to many.
In the deliberate date bug in Excel which treats 1900 as a leap year (it wasn't) in deference to an error in 1-2-3 and lots of legacy spreadsheets.
Notes turned into a huge money spinner ant, until Windows did the dirty with NT, OS/2 was the only PC platform capable of supporting enough memory for large spreadsheets. I can't program C++ but I'm bet the OS/2 API was better than then Windows one. The switch required a complete rewrite and, this was the days before pervasive VCS and backups, I'm not sure if all the original code was still around.
OS/2 was a far better system than Windows on DOS but was hamstrung by the presentation manager and later, ironically, by virtualising DOS and Windows so well that customers didn't need to migrate their software to it, just allocate DOS boxes more memory. While we all suffered long term as Microsoft learned how to program larger systems, customers benefitted at the time.
It's quite simple: people aren't buying new PCs; companies, in general, are using Windows 7; this article ignores mobile.
Apart from the usual attempt to corroborate the reports with El Reg's own numbers?
Any attempt to take the rise in mobile devices into account. We're seeing + 20% YoY mobile traffic (Android now growing faster and larger in absolute numbers than IOS but elsewhere IOS is still the biggest). This means all other OSs must be losing market share. See Akamai's numbers (not broken down by OS
The XP to 7 migration is still going on in companies but consumers are going Windows to Android or IOS.
The critical thing is: the author of the item under review is not to be castigated or dimished for any failures, improvements etc found or he will just become defensive and uncooperative.
I think that's the key thing. I've not yet come across a one-size-fits-all methodology that actually works but I much prefer automatic static code analysis and tests (including test coverage) over code walkthrough.
Security bugs are often not picked up in code review but pen testing can be included in a CI setup.
While it was nice to get the recognition it made absolutely no difference to how an individual performed.
Just being polite enough to recognise the contribution is a start. Sure, these things are often trite and immediately devalued by corporate culture but encouraging employees in their jobs is part of the service that managers need to provide.
It's impossible to kill any open source project. The GPL is just food for lawyers.
MySQL is only fast for queries that don't involve JOINs. The optimiser seems to have a love-hate relationship with foreign keys.
What's wrong with Oracle want to segment and make money? Lots of companies are happy to pay for support.
I much prefer Postgres over MySQL but that doesn't mean I don't want to see improvements in both. I'm very pleased that companies are also seriously evaluating Postgres / Enterprise DB as a possible replacement for Oracle. This should hopefully prompt Oracle to improve their product offerings.
MariaDB on the other hand looks like the continuation of the fast, poor quality bits of MySQL. But there are obviously people who want just that.
"Frankly, when MySQL came into Oracle, MySQL was a bit of a mess,"
Absolutely. It's still got some stupid bugs but has a got a lot better since it's been at Oracle.
It's the usual marketing blurb. I'm sure most are happy that ARM is taking the lead but they get source code when then need it. More important will be reliable documentation and knowledgable support.
What? Both of them?
I'm not sure where this idea came from but it will take some work to convince me that the async patterns of the web-twiddlers will work well in the embedded world. But Erlang might see a renaissance!
No, it's for the microcontroller stuff. You can imagine some of it might for the basis of a BIOS for ARM devices which would certainly help wider adoption, but above that things will stay much as they are.
We are talking about microcontrollers here. Even with the rise of open source hardware this is still a very different area from PCs. Manufacturers are already paying to licence ARM and are quite happy to do so.
Just as the article says: ARM + specialised silicon, which in some workloads will be x86.
They have an office in Munich too…
True but the ad sales are based in Hamburg.
Hopefully. After the German elections we had the European ones and now we're working on a new Commission… The TTIP stuff will no doubt also include all kinds of exemptions…
Same thing happened to the environmental legislation that Germany had previously agreed to.
Google's German office is based in Hamburg.
It's not the EU that's the brake on this but the German government: Merkel got the update on the EU rules postponed last year which would have given more force to Data Protection Officers.
Executive summary: Mavericks DHCP client not vulnerable.
But is it vulnerable to other exploits?
Mac OS doesn't have a root user in the same way that BSD does so you run sudo -s with the same shell as your user. I agree root with the C-shell would be better but that's the way it is.
Lots of stuff in OS X is run via the shell so the exposure is there. Anyone who has web sharing enabled is in danger so Apple is responsible for protecting them.
Sure, I could write a cronjob to run as root to do this but: will my machine be on when it's due to run? Do I get to tell it not to run because I'm on a shitty or expensive network?
Anyway the main point is Apple ships a load of Posix stuff, some of which is weirdly patched and or broken and doesn't maintain it. Not everyone is familiar with the command line and even those of us who are have better things to do. Taking the Posix stuff out of the OS and treating them as third party ports would make it a lot easier for Apple to integrate (and test) upstream fixes and include it in a user friendly GUI like Software Update.
sudo port install bash
Or maybe they will grow up and bless MacPorts or Homebrew as the systems for managing their POSIX stuff and just integrate it with their software update GUI.
At the moment I have to do the following every day:
sudo port sync && port outdated
if there are any outdated packages
sudo port upgrade outdated && sudo port uninstall inactive
Don't wait for Apple: install MacPorts from http://www.macports.org
Seems to me the whole point of the moonshot. Though I'm pretty sure the idea of the TI DSP comes from an existing or prospective customer.
I'm sure the idea is to support the kind of architecture you're talking about with the standardisation of modules an attack on proprietary solutions. ARM can be a baseline for booting the rest of the kit which might be more ARM or other stuff. Good luck to them if it works.
I can see telcos buying these boxes to replace existing proprietary ones. I can't imagine anywhere is using x86 for this kind of workload as it is suited to dedicated workloads. Buyers will have to weigh the potential extra costs of patching and deploying software themselves against any savings and independence from suppliers.
Intel doesn't need to worry, yet because it's not in those markets. But, of course, if the boxes turn out to deliver the right performance with low power draw and at an acceptable price then there will be appetite for more and it will presumably be easy enough to plugin whichever modules are required whether its multimedia or cryptography. At some point someone will try them as file or web servers.
Not sure that's relevant here. In any case it might make more sense for IPv6 to get more roadtesting on devices which can update their code before it gets universal adoption.
All this means that Quark may be a strong challenger to some ARM-based embedded processors…
Where's the evidence for this assertion? Is the Quark being used anywhere in volume? And if, as the article goes on to argue, even cheaper open source hardware is starting to appear, how does Intel stack up there?
I thought Quark was supposed to be the gateway drug from Intel for embedded Its power consumption is still well above that of the M-series so it waves the x86 instruction set to attract attention. Personally, I think the ARM has an increasingly attractive argument about the same toolchain across devices.
Fuck off you UKIP numpty!
The Commission only got involved in roaming charges because the case was made that operators were hindering the free market through price-fixing that wasn't covered by the terms of the national licences.