MS just illegally use others work without paying royalties, then wonder why their xboxes are banned from sale.Originally Posted by jamesfed
The android manufacturers are only paying MS under threat of being sued. The only people who stood up to them were Barnes and Noble, who then got a mysterious $600M deal to keep them quiet.
Microsoft is paid around $35 (I believe) per Android device sold by Google, due to patent licensing.
They're saying it's equivalent to an ultrabook; expect it to be around £800.
To be fair, on paper at least, it is in a class above the iPad and aiming at a different market.
They don't actually license any patents to them. they just promise not to sue them.
Proof? That's not generally how it works...
It's not generally how it works because it's bullying tactics.
The details are all on groklaw; see MS - Barnes and Noble
Groklaw - Archives
Bully tatics or the way the world of IP works
At least Microsoft doesn’t go around suing everyone like Apple has been.
Thought they are adding it back in the final release.from the traditional desktop users who are not happy with the start menu removal to name just one of a few gripes.
Very much the opposite - they're removing any code that would even let you hack one back in
The Pro edition will probably be in the £800-£900 range with RT being £400-£600 I would think to remain competitive.
One thing to consider is unlike the iOS based devices there will be others out there selling for more/less of each edition, the surface does look brilliant but it will be interesting to see what the cheapest RT and Pro tablets cost as I think the surface could be the best of the bunch for design/features but probably not the cheapest.
Ironically its google/motorola doing the FRAND abuse in that case btw and we all know what apple can be like. Cyber you must have some job ensuring you dont buy google/apple/rim/ms stuff as all have had things in the past which are better left in the past. Enjoy sitting in the dark with no tech trying to avoid all these companies that are evil as none are clean.
Of those companies I do have to pay Microsoft and I do get a very dirty feeling when I sign of an order requisition.
ROFL, I have images of a shaking hand while trying to sign....
Its pretty much like that. I usually go home, bathe then drink beer to forget about it.ROFL, I have images of a shaking hand while trying to sign....
At least when MS release some of their more ubiquitous technologies under Non-Discriminatory licensing I'll be able to do it all with opensource
Is this animosity based on ethics or elements of the technologies? Interested that all
Since you asked...Is this animosity based on ethics or elements of the technologies? Interested that all
I suppose ethics. I quite like new technologies, and most of the tech I'm interested in has its roots in opensource way before MS get their hands on it.
In my surreal head it goes like this: MS just annoy me, they have never been a particularly ethical company. Despite giving discount to schools they still charge WAY too much considering we are helping them maintain their monosystem for future generations. If I can run something on linux for free I will. I don't like that any company restrict the use of its products, esp making tablets throwaway devices by preventing you from installing X on them. Capita and RM are probably the most evil companies because they specifically target the educational sector to fleece vast amounts of cash away from schools. Whats worse is their MS partnerships that artificially increase schools costs (RM less so than Capita). Exam boards are pretty high up on the list for much the same reason. Apple are pretty evil, but they are targeting the consumer market rather than fleecing the educational/government sector per se. Companies like smoothwall that target educational but give sizable proportions of their research to projects like dansguardian get a thumbs up, plus I pay for support. It's extra with MS.
Google don't charge us for support or for their products, and they allegedly don't use our data (infact they actively fight for users rights in the courts) they give a lot back to OSS projects and that makes them good in my eyes. Redhat only charge us for support and give everything back to the 'community'.
The thing is - schools don't actually need to pay for software to get the kids qualifications enough of an understanding of technology. I know this has been debated to death its just my weird idea of ethics. I'm striving for an ideal world where all software is free but people make money from it too.
So generally my 'evil' list works like this:
Capita>RM>Pearson>Microsoft>Apple>other hardware vendors> Google > Redhat
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks