Technology Microsoft outlines pay-per-use PC vision

[w/e]

Of course not. Given you have trouble imagining this system, just pretend it'd be Steam.

You should know how that one works: it's not Valve that does all the work for all the games, but gives a framework the software makers and they guarantee that the software is kept up to date and available through the store.

When I said that people will have to use the implemented software, I meant that unless the software had some kind of counting system embedded into it so it knows how much to charge, it won't work on Microsoft's system. Microsoft will be forcing developers to add meters to their programs. If the developers don't like it, they'll lose a platform.

Steam can pick and choose what it sells. Exactly like microsoft. It can deny developers to sell their program on their platform, which is potentially bad because it weeds out competition. You say that there are already a bunch of monopolies. So what? Does that make it ok? People should be given options less severe than "use our system or go somewhere else."

The analogy is correct, because in both cases, I own the phone (or not at all for the computer). Your comparison is not, because once, you own the computer and the other time not. You're comparing apples to oranges and completely ignoring hidden and long-term costs when buying something.

Your phone analogy states that you buy the phone, and then the service to use it. In some cases, you can get the phone free with the service, but you never specified that, and that would make your analogy much more accurate. If you buy the phone and the service individually (Like you stated) It is the same as buying a computer and the internet service individually. (You can replace the internet service with a software subscription or whatever helps you understand this better). The phone is only partially functional without the service. The computer is only partially functional without internet. But in this case, you buy the phone. Your analogy never said that you make a small payment and then subscribe to the service. It stated that you would buy the phone, and then the service. In Microsoft's system, you would lay down a little money for the setup, and then subscribe, using the services over time. You would not buy the computer (phone), and then subscribe to the contract (service) as stated by your analogy.

Very simple counter-example: mind pointing me to an open-source DVD player? There's no such legal thing, as the playback is subject to license payments. It's only one example among many others.

An open source DVD player? We're talking about software, not hardware. There is no necessary down payment for open source software. And there is no such thing as open source hardware.

So, you're also paying for repairs on a rental car if it breaks down due to a hardware issue (let's say electrical problem)? Of course not. You'd get a new one for "free", where free again depends on your subscription (next business day, or rather on-site repairs).

When you're using this plan, why would you get a new computer whenever yours breaks? You would send it in to the shop. They would attempt to repair it, and if that fails, they would give you a new computer. You can get a new, "free computer with a warranty.

Easy: car or computer hardware, it's the exact same thing in the subscription. You can install and customize software on the computer or add CDs to the in-car stereo, change the FM radio stations or seat positions.

The car customization that you mentioned is the equivalent of changing your desktop wallpaper, or adding a USB drive to your computer. It is not the equivalent of installing new software/hardware. That would be like changing the stereo system, or changing the tires.

Nobody's being forced to switch. You're generalizing your own view and call it "forced", while you actually decide for yourself to switch to another platform because you don't like the terms of the contract. There's a huge difference here.

When I said that microsoft will "force me to switch," I meant that they will make me use the system, or switch platforms. In which case, I would switch platforms.

No, they don't. Just like Windows, Macs come preloaded with software. If you don't like the default ones, you can install other products, like Firefox, MS Office, ...

It's:

* Movie Maker <-> iLife (but it does other things too)
* Internet Explorer <-> Safari
* Media Player <-> iTunes
* Windows Mail (Outlook Express) <-> Mail

Macs basically have a monopoly on their system because almost no software is made for them. If you don't like iLife, you have very little options. In windows, however, if you don't like movie maker you can use any one of these.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but matches the Apple philosophy "It just works". No driver issues or hardware incompatibilities. Someone else does the thinking nasty work for you, so you send over the money don't have to worry. Not necessarily to the taste of everyone, but the Apple afficiandos seem to like it. I wouldn't, which is why I'd never buy such a thing, my personal dislike of any Apple stuff set aside.

I know it's not a bad thing, I'm saying that this is how it will be for Microsoft. "It just works" because there's no variety and virtually nothing can go wrong.

It wouldn't be any different from the current Microsoft topic, except that the Apple worshippers would readily pay.

Eactly. Would windows users readily pay? Do you know how overpriced macs are? It's painful to look at the price tags. 50% money for the product. 50% money for the brand.

 

[Rapmaster]

An open source DVD player? We're talking about software, not hardware. There is no necessary down payment for open source software. And there is no such thing as open source hardware.

Officially, DVD playback software must be licensed. Microsoft covers this cost for you as part of the price of Vista Home Premium and Ultimate editions for example. For Linux, some commercial distributions might also license it but most users of freely downloaded Linux just ignore the law: see http://ossguy.com/?p=86 Whether it's open source or not isn't really the issue but it's hard to make it both legal and free. Similar issues used to be there with MP3 codecs but I think something changed on that front a while back.

 

[enouwee]

The car customization that you mentioned is the equivalent of changing your desktop wallpaper, or adding a USB drive to your computer. It is not the equivalent of installing new software/hardware. That would be like changing the stereo system, or changing the tires.

Rapmaster already pointed out where the problem lies for DVD playback. Changing tires would be a hardware modification, just like switching a harddrive.

You have some little problems telling apart what is software and what is hardware, so we'll end it here. Come back when you know what you're talking about.

 

[w/e]

Apperently, you did not actually read my post.
If you want an open source DVD playback software player so badly, try VLC media player. Also, when you asked about a dvd player, I thought you were referring to an actual dvd player. As in the thing that sits on your TV. You might see where that might have been confusing.

The article is concerning linux, and if that is still unsatisfactory, then WMP is a free software, licensed, and capable of DVD playback.

The car customization that you mentioned is the equivalent of changing your desktop wallpaper, or adding a USB drive to your computer. It is not the equivalent of installing new software/hardware. That would be like changing the stereo system, or changing the tires.

Did you not read what I said? Software doesn't really apply to a car. I tried to make this as clear as possible, for your sake. It didn't work. I said, as you repeated, that adding CD's to the player is not the equivalent of changing tires (which constitutes as a hardware change) Adding Cd's to the player is the equivalent of changing your wallpaper.

I do not have a problem distinguishing software from hardware, and you might want to read my post before replying.

 

[Rapmaster]

Apperently, you did not actually read my post.
If you want an open source DVD playback software player so badly, try VLC media player. Also, when you asked about a dvd player, I thought you were referring to an actual dvd player. As in the thing that sits on your TV. You might see where that might have been confusing.

The article is concerning linux, and if that is still unsatisfactory, then WMP is a free software, licensed, and capable of DVD playback.

This is all a bit off topic now, but Windows Media Player cannot play DVDs unless you have the Home Premium or Ultimate editions of Vista... or I think the Media Centre edition of XP. It's not free... you pay for it with those editions of Windows. Many computers and DVD ROM drives include a commercial DVD playback decoder like PowerDVD, and Media Player can then make use of it. The fact that VLC is available doesn't make it legal. See #3.3 at http://www.videolan.org/doc/faq/en/index.html#id508173

 

[w/e]

Then why aren't the illegal players taken down?
Right now, I'm using XP Professional, btw.
Also, why would the software need to be licensed? I thought that once you buy the dvd, it's yours.

 

[enouwee]

Then why aren't the illegal players taken down?
Right now, I'm using XP Professional, btw.
Also, why would the software need to be licensed? I thought that once you buy the dvd, it's yours.

It's not the software by itself, as it plays many file formats, but you have to license the MPEG-2 patents, which are managed by the MPEG-LA. The same is true for any other commercial decoder. Unlike Thompson's MP3, MPEG isn't freely available for private use.

Why should this organization kill a potential market? A player license costs $2.50 - $4.00 per MPEG-2 compliant device (i.e. WinDVD). But DVD sales also generate income, so there's a trade-off to make: prevent spreading player software and lose DVD license income or tolerate open-source players and still collect some money.

Furthermore, whom are you going to sue? Every individual developer: the one writing the MPEG-2 decoding library or the one writing the player (the player would be a bad choice, as DVD-playback is optional)? Both are merely distributing the source code, not a ready-to-use player, so it's a legal gray zone. DeCSS is easier: it isn't exactly DMCA-compliant, which is why many Linux distributions don't bundle it with their releases, you have to install it on your own.

To sum up: no clear target, no money lost (there should be exactly one Linux-based DVD playback software, if it still exists and is compatible with recent releases) but legal costs. Not everyone uses MAFIAA tactics and sues its customers.

 

[The Helper]

Hall of Fame!