New
#50
Is that question rhetorical? Because last time it checked, it supports cross-platform just as well as Windows or Linux. From what I've heard it's a very simple matter to compile an existing Java or Flash program into an Android format. Any platform, including Windows and Linux, usually requires some small amount of modification to make it compatible, although frameworks like Java and Flash offer some simpler solutions.
This is what the problem would be. This is why I said it would be like only being allowed to go to Taco Bell. Maybe a better description would be "You can only go to places that sell tacos." This shift would be in effect saying, "You can't develop or deploy any software for any platform without making a special financial arrangement with the platform creator." It would also create an oligopoly in any software markets (such as office packages) that the platform creators maintain products in. If you recall, Microsoft got in trouble because (among other reasons) it was suspected that they were intentionally making it difficult to install alternative programs (other media players, browsers, etc) on Windows PCs; it didn't matter to the courts that you could simply buy another OS like Mac and get different options.
If you've ever studied American government, you know that the part of our government that is in charge of that enforcement is the executive branch (the White House and the bureaucracy). In that entire branch, the only two people that can really be considered politicians are the President and Vice President, and they don't make the laws (at least they're not supposed to). Congress makes the laws, and if the only people getting more power from the law is the bureaucracy, then the politicians who made the law (Congress) isn't really gaining any power. Basically, enforcement != power. Decision-making authority = power. Neither the DMCA nor the Patriot Act gave the government more decision-making authority. The DMCA has to be enforced mainly by corporations through civil suits, and the Patriot Act increased the ability of the government to collect intelligence (it doesn't really change or increase what they can do with that intelligence).
Disclaimer: The above was not written as any kind of political statement and should not be considered as such. It's a factual analysis of the workings of a legal system, no different that what any school would teach.
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."
What you're saying is very true. However, as time goes on, I think we're beginning to talk about different things. I'm not talking about a situation where the line is "You can store all of your personal data on our servers..." I'm talking about a situation where the line is "You have to store all of your personal data on our servers...", because every available OS has gone completely cloud-based and dropped support for local storage. One says "the cloud will be a part of the future", and I agree, it will be probably for a short time. Another says "the cloud will BE the future", and I disagree.
Either way, I think the whole thing is going to fall apart as soon as one hacker or a team of hackers cracks one of the servers and steals 150,000 identities at once, or secretly swipes data to pass on to potential stalkers (for a fee of course).
I think it's the non-cloud-based companies that will sue the cloud-based companies first, especially if the cloud-based companies are the ones that Microsoft and Apple that will have the ability to completely close the entire platform with a light switch.
First of all, dishonesty is dishonesty regardless of what anyone else knows. Either way, in this particular case, we are talking about the target consumer not really knowing what he/she wants because the company is not telling the truth. It's like ... buying an iPad because Apple told you (or strongly implied) that it was a microwave, and you needed a microwave. I guarantee you the iPad's impressive sales are not due to a pleasant-sounding name. It's selling well because "large-screen, easy-to-use tablet" (or "giant iPhone" if you're a critic) happens to be something that people want. Using "cloud" in a way that means "hosted services" is fine. Using "cloud" in a way that totally disassociates it with "hosted services", because the public didn't go for "hosted services" and you're just giving it a new name, is false advertising as far as I'm concerned. How would you feel if Microsoft took Windows XP SP1 on stage at CES and said "So today we're going to show this to you, and this is Windows 8, it's an entirely new OS like nothing we've done before"??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.
Quote
