Your tech career depends on preparing for the cloud

BCXtreme said:

No, actually a truly right-wing administration wouldn't change that law to begin with. A left-wing administration's excuse would be something along the lines of Apple's "to ensure an experience of equal quality for all users" (slightly paraphrased).

By that definition, when was the last time the US had a "truly right-wing administration"?

Ordinary people have to justify their existence (in the Economy) by how productive they are.
Politicians justify their existence by causing chaos (or indulging in dubious behaviour).
Many politicians point to how many pages of legislation they have introduced, as proof that they are necessary to society.

BCXtreme said:

And incidentally, this behavior is currently illegal in the United States, because it falls under antitrust laws. Intentionally limiting compatibility of your products so that they will only work with your (or your "preferred partners'") other products is considered anti-competitive behavior.
...
Microsoft, however, got in big trouble in the U.S. for doing stuff much less overt than this in the 1990s.

There is a difference. In the 1990s people owned their own infrastructure (PC and storage).

Once people swap to "dumb" terminals and sign "Cloud" provider agreements, they will be screwed.
The "Cloud" providers own the infrastructure and therefore can dictate what service(s) will be provided.
You can't go to Taco Bell(?) and demand a "Big Mac".

BCXtreme said:

A right-wing administration would not change those laws simply because they have no need to (in case you haven't noticed, increased government control is not currently on right-wing politicians' wish lists).

That's not correct (that is their stated position).
DMCA
(Bill Clinton (D) - Republican House & Senate Majorities)
Patriot Act
(George Bush (R) - Republican House Majority, Alternating Senate Majorities)

ALL politicians want more power.

BCXtreme said:

A left-wing administration would probably like the idea, but they would never want "Big Business" to have that kind of power, they'd want it for themselves.

Agreed. :)
One last point in this rant, politicians of BOTH parties are funded by corporations.

BCXtreme said:

But now we're getting a little off-topic. Regardless of any political situations, laws, regulations, courts, or anything else, entirely cloud-based computing is a bad idea. Local storage is cheaper and faster than cloud storage, and it's also much more secure. If my data is stored locally, then I know I have pretty much 100% control over both the data itself and what parties are allowed to access it.

Agreed. :)
The "Cloud" (if successful) will lead to the end of "Personal Computing".

BCXtreme said:

On the other hand, on the cloud, with my data stored on servers right along with the data of everyone else and their mothers, any of whom could have anyone else and their mothers out to get them, with security software and protocols controlled by the cloud company (probably via various "financial agreements" with Norton, McAfee, or whoever) rather than hand-picked and hand-configured by me, not to mention the ever-present and cloud-champion-to-be advertising company Google (and others) determined to present me with "tailored advertisements" by using my data to learn "what I want to see" ... well, would you be eager to put every scrap of data you possess, no matter how sensitive, into that environment?!

Agreed. :)
"Minority Report" syndrome anyone?

"You can have my PC and Data when you prise it from my cold dead hands."
Apologies to Charlton Heston.

There is an on-line backup service that I hear advertised called Carbonite. I'm sure it's legitimate and reputable. But isn't that something close to Cloud Computing?

lehnerus2000 said:

By that definition, when was the last time the US had a "truly right-wing administration"?

Ordinary people have to justify their existence (in the Economy) by how productive they are.
Politicians justify their existence by causing chaos (or indulging in dubious behaviour).
Many politicians point to how many pages of legislation they have introduced, as proof that they are necessary to society.

To be honest, we haven't had a real right-wing administration in a long time. We've had a couple of mostly right-wing administrations.

lehnerus2000 said:

There is a difference. In the 1990s people owned their own infrastructure (PC and storage).

Once people swap to "dumb" terminals and sign "Cloud" provider agreements, they will be screwed.
The "Cloud" providers own the infrastructure and therefore can dictate what service(s) will be provided.
You can't go to Taco Bell(?) and demand a "Big Mac".

That's true, but you can go to McDonalds and demand a Big Mac. For the entire industry to move over to entirely cloud computing would be better described as "You can only go to Taco Bell, regardless of what food you really want."

lehnerus2000 said:

That's not correct (that is their stated position)
DMCA
(Bill Clinton (D) - Republican House & Senate Majorities)
Patriot Act
(George Bush (R) - Republican House Majority, Alternating Senate Majorities)

ALL politicians want more power.

I take serious issue with the comparison of those two laws to each other, let alone to your claim that either is about government power. But since political discussions are not allowed on this forum, I'm not going to lecture you on it.

lehnerus2000 said:

Agreed. :)
One last point in this rant, politicians of BOTH parties are funded by corporations.

That's true. As I said before, this discussion can't become political, but I will say this: the difference is that one party openly acknowledges and defends corporate support, and the other is hypocritically deflecting attention from it while taking the money anyway.

lehnerus2000 said:

Agreed. :)
The "Cloud" (if successful) will lead to the end of "Personal Computing".

And this is why I think the cloud as a universal concept will inevitably fail, because it's not a step forward, it's a very large and heavy step backward.

lehnerus2000 said:

Agreed. :)
"Minority Report" syndrome anyone?

"You can have my PC and Data when you prise it from my cold dead hands."
Apologies to Charlton Heston.

Yes, exactly. Once again, "pleasant connotations." I really don't think anyone out there is going to go for an entirely cloud-based IT world once they realize what that actually means (right now it's such an unexplored and nebulous concept that it's not really concerning anyone).

Colonel Travis said:

mr pc said:

Will someone be able to use FF in Chrome considering Chrome IS the Browser/OS?

No. You can't do doodly squat unless Google says you can. If George Orwell were alive today he'd be making fun of that company in a book.

I'm not sure how you reconcile that statement with the open platform Android.

BCXtreme said:

That's true, but you can go to McDonalds and demand a Big Mac. For the entire industry to move over to entirely cloud computing would be better described as "You can only go to Taco Bell, regardless of what food you really want."

You'll be able to go to:

• Microsoft's "Cloud" and demand an office package and they'll supply MS Office (for a nominal subscription fee).
• Google's "Cloud" and demand an office package and they'll supply Google Docs (for a nominal subscription fee).
• Apple's "Cloud" and demand an office package and they'll supply iWorks (for a nominal subscription fee).

You probably won't be able to demand Open Office from any of them.

As long as their contracts don't specify that you can't also sign up to a competitor's service, they aren't infringing on your freedom of choice.
When you buy a Ford, you don't sign a contract saying that you can't also buy a GM (that would be illegal).

BCXtreme said:

I take serious issue with the comparison of those two laws to each other, let alone to your claim that either is about government power.

My bad explanation/phrasing (one benefits corporations, the other increases the scope of enforcement).
All laws have to be enforced by the Government.

My apologies to anyone offended by my ranting.
Shutting up now.

BCXtreme said:

And this is why I think the cloud as a universal concept will inevitably fail, because it's not a step forward, it's a very large and heavy step backward.

Agreed.
However, it's success won't be based on the opinions of rational people (such as SevenForums members).

It will be determined by the success of the slick advertising campaigns.
Can they convince enough ignorant consumers to buy in?

This section will cover most of the screen (with pictures of smiling consumers to make everyone feel comfortable).
"It's so convenient."
"You can store all of your personal data on our servers and access it from anywhere for a small monthly fee."
"Don't worry about security we'll take care of it for you."

ThIs section will appear on the bottom of the screen in 4pt font (for maybe 1 or 2 seconds).
Fine Print:
"We are not responsible for the security of your data."
"We reserve the right to share your data with whomever we see fit."

BCXtreme said:

Yes, exactly. Once again, "pleasant connotations." I really don't think anyone out there is going to go for an entirely cloud-based IT world once they realize what that actually means (right now it's such an unexplored and nebulous concept that it's not really concerning anyone).

Various companies are betting $M that there are enough naive (or stupid) consumers, to make the concept a success.

If that doesn't work they will lobby Congress (and/or clog up the courts) claiming piracy or illegal/unfair trade practices by their non-"Cloud"-based competitors.
Hardly a week goes by without some technology company suing another (IMO, on very tenuous grounds in most cases).

smarteyeball said:

It's not dishonest. It's called 'marketing'

agreed, they will try to get the target consumer to buy, it not rely dishonest if the target consumer knows what he/she wants. In other words it good to not be ignorant, eg. you get pulled over for a speeding ticket, the cop asks you do you know what the speed limit was, you say no. He tells you ignorance is not an excuse.