Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Vista Ripoff  (Read 14662 times)
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2007, 03:36:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
On appeal of United States vs Microsoft, the US Court of Appeals did sustain in part Judge Jackson's finding that Microsoft was a monopoly. The US Supreme Court declined to review the case and the case was subsequently settled. These are the facts as determined by the Court and Microsoft did settle--Gates did not win the case.

Not so, according to the article you cite. While the Supreme Court did not hear the appeal, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals did, which "unanimously overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft on browser tying and attempted monopolization", except for a small part of the monopolization ruling, which led to the settlement thet required Microsoft to share their browser-related APIs with third-party software companies. Microsoft was not broken up into two separate entities, and was not required to alter their marketing practices regarding Windows, or to stop bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. The only effect the settlement had on most consumers was the inclusion of the "set program access and defaults" utility in Windows Update. Microsoft spent more money fighting the case in court than settling it once litigation was complete. If I was Bill Gates, I would certainly consider that a "win". Not necessarily total victory, but certainly nothing near what the prosecution (and Microsoft's detractors) wanted.

Stating that your arguments are specious is not name-calling, it is reality. Windows is not more expensive to own than MacOS. It may cost more for the initial purchase, but is less expensive over the life cycle of the product, in the same way digital is much cheaper than film in the long run for a busy pro who shoots 50,000 frames per year. And if every feature of Windows really showed up in MacOS and then found its way into Windows, Apple would have sued Microsoft out of existence years ago.

As to your GamutVision plots, I'm reserving judgment until I can get the RAW to work with instead of a badly-processed JPEG, and see where things go from there regarding making a decent Costco print out of it.
Logged

bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2756



« Reply #21 on: February 02, 2007, 04:56:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not so, according to the article you cite. While the Supreme Court did not hear the appeal, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals did, which "unanimously overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft on browser tying and attempted monopolization", except for a small part of the monopolization ruling, which led to the settlement thet required Microsoft to share their browser-related APIs with third-party software companies.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are confusing the overturning of the remedies with the appeals court's confirmation that the Sherman Antitrust Act was violated in the ways that Microsoft maintained its monopoly. Judge Jackson became so outraged at Microsoft's outrageous behavior that his judgment was compromised and most of his remedies were thrown out.
 
The following is quoted from the [a href=\"http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f204400/204468.htm]US Court of Appeals[/url] ruling:

"We upheld the district court's ruling that Microsoft violated 2 of the Sherman Act by the ways in which it maintained its monopoly, but we reversed the district court's finding of liability for attempted monopolization, and we remanded the tying claim to the district court to apply the rule of reason rather than the rule of per se illegality."

The whole case is reported on the DOJ Web Site. Some of the testimony does not put Microsoft in a very good light and I'm not sure why you are defending some of this behavior. So far as I know, the EU anti-trust actions are still pending.

Quote
As to your GamutVision plots, I'm reserving judgment until I can get the RAW to work with instead of a badly-processed JPEG, and see where things go from there regarding making a decent Costco print out of it.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would be interested in your analysis and hopefully some forum members and I will learn from this exchange of ideas.

I did do a couple more GamutVision plots using the Costco Eureka profile showing the input pixel value (expressed as log [pixel value/255]) for with black point compensation turned on and off as related to the output density of the print. Since many readers may not be familiar with these expressions I have supplied two tables showing conversion values to the more familiar input and output expressed in 8-bit pixel values.

Here is the plot with BPC on:

[attachment=1721:attachment]

and with it off:

[attachment=1722:attachment]

Log pixel value to 8 bit pixel value:

[attachment=1723:attachment]

Output density expressed as percent reflectance, CIE L*, and 8-bit gamma 2.2 pixel values according to [a href=\"http://www.brucelindbloom.com/]Bruce Lindbloom's[/url] companding calculator:

[attachment=1724:attachment]

Readers should note that log plots can't contain zero and that the dynamic range of a file with maximum and minimum pixel values of 255 and 0 would be infinite. An 8 bit integer value of zero would occur when the 8 bit value underflows and is rounded to zero. A 16 bit file could express greater densities and I think processing the raw file as 16 bits would be a good idea. White paper has a reflectance of about 90% and a density of about 0.05. According to the plot, the Costco printer has a Dmax of about 1.7 with the luster paper.

Bill
« Last Edit: February 02, 2007, 05:16:52 PM by bjanes » Logged
Raw shooter
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


« Reply #22 on: February 02, 2007, 06:50:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Bill, You are most likely wrong on Windows Vista.  The price is irrevelant if it  brings as much promise as this huge upgrade may provide. (2008)
IMHO, it will become the OS that changes how we photographers work. The WCS and the Iview may make how we manage our images -  separate from how we now use Adobe products.  I love PSCS2 (ACR), but look forward to another option in color management - if only for the fact that Adobe may alter its 'old school' approach.  Adobe seems to have Apple and Aperture so tightly in it's sights - that Microsoft may finally use all that money and brains to push another workable system in place.
We will all benefit from real competion.  The other guy may be Microsoft, not Apple!
Just an opinion, I may be wrong.
Logged
JBillings
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #23 on: February 02, 2007, 09:02:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Who is pointing a gun to anyone's head to demand a Vista upgrade? XP is currently available, stable, and runs Photoshop just fine. It will likely be supported for several years; Microsoft still supports Windows 2000 with security updates and such. The next version of MacOS will likely cost more than the current one, and isn't even in beta yet. And if history is any clue, OS prices drop some after they have been out for a while.

This pointless anti-Microsoft/PC carping gets so tiresome...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98523\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not in beta yet?  Define that.  Developer's have had the beta version for some time now.  Not in public beta is typically Apple's policy.  And it is on schedule to be released before summer.

What crystal ball have you been using that tell's you that Apple is going to charge more than their $129 that they've always charged for OS X upgrades?
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 03, 2007, 02:29:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not in beta yet?  Define that.  Developer's have had the beta version for some time now.  Not in public beta is typically Apple's policy.  And it is on schedule to be released before summer.

What crystal ball have you been using that tell's you that Apple is going to charge more than their $129 that they've always charged for OS X upgrades?

I was referring to public beta. If Apple doesn't do them, perhaps that would explain why MacOS had 237 security advisories between February 04 and February 06, while Windows had 92. I hadn't heard anything about a new release in the works. As to the initial pricing, I stand corrected.

Quote
You are confusing the overturning of the remedies with the appeals court's confirmation that the Sherman Antitrust Act was violated in the ways that Microsoft maintained its monopoly. Judge Jackson became so outraged at Microsoft's outrageous behavior that his judgment was compromised and most of his remedies were thrown out.

Please keep in mind here I'm not basing my argument on torturous and easily disputable legal grounds, but rather on common sense and the actual definition of a monopoly, and how well Microsoft fits the definition. The legal ruling agasinst Microsoft is not relevant, really; the penalties imposed were a slap on the wrist at best, and Microsoft was not forced to change its behavior in any meaningful way. If Microsoft had been a pedophile, the settlement would have made it disclose how it selects its victims to certain interested third parties, but would not have made it stop molesting children.

Let's look at the actual definition of a monopoly, from Wikipedia:

Primary characteristics of a monopoly
Single Seller: In this type of market, there is only one seller producing a particular commodity. 'Mono' means single & 'Poly' means seller. Thus, Monopoly means a single seller.
No close substitutes: Monopoly not only implies a single seller but it also means a single seller producing a commodity having no close substitutes. if the substitutes are available, there will be a competition among the firms. Monopoly means a complete absence of competition. so under monopoly, the commodity has no close substitutes.
Price maker: In a pure monopoly, a single firm controls the total supply of the whole industry and is able to exert a significant degree of control over the price by changing the quantity supplied. An example of this would be the situation of Viagra before competing drugs emerged. In subtotal monopolies (for example, diamonds or petroleum at present), a single organization controls enough of the supply that even if it limits the quantity or raises its prices, the other suppliers will be unable to make up the difference and take significant amounts of market share. However, if a monopoly is not protected from competition by law (if it is not a legal monopoly), it may still be subject to competitive forces that pressure it to keep prices low in order to dissuade competition from arising.


Microsoft is not a single seller, nor can it be said that there are no close substitutes. Apple's MacOS duplicates most of Windows' feature set, and many would argue that it is easier to use and has other advantages over Windows. MacOS is also readily available in most stores selling computer software, as well as numerous online retailers, worldwide. Microsoft does not qualify as a price maker, either. While its initial retail purchase cost is higher than that of MacOS, Microsoft's upgrade policy is such that Windows users get free upgrades (service packs with additional features, etc.) while Apple charges for incremental OS updates, causing MacOS to be somewhat more expensive over time, but not excessively so. While Microsoft is certainly a dominant player in the operating system market, it does not meet any of the criteria of a monopoly.
Logged

plugsnpixels
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292



WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 03, 2007, 02:48:50 AM »
ReplyReply

This thread reminds me of the comments posted in response to a Newsweek article about Bill Gates, Vista and Apple. But it's way more nasty than we have here!

I used to get into the OS fray often but it never goes over well ;-). Now I run both OS-X and WinXP on my Intel Macs as needed, and the flexibility is great.
Logged

Free digital imaging ezine
http://www.plugsandpixels.com
plugsnpixels
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292



WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 03, 2007, 02:54:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Jonathan said, "Apple's MacOS duplicates most of Windows' feature set..." Actually, it's the other way around (mostly), so perhaps you meant "mirrors" or "offers" ;-).

(See how easy it is to get sucked in?)
Logged

Free digital imaging ezine
http://www.plugsandpixels.com
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2007, 06:33:44 AM »
ReplyReply

That wasn't intended as a commentary on who had what first, merely a statement that both operating systems' feature sets are fairly similar.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2007, 07:00:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Oddly enough, I just got this in my email...

Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2642



WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2007, 07:56:23 AM »
ReplyReply

See I'm a Mac spoof....

BTW don't you agree this thread was inevitably misguided, Bill?

John
Logged

DiaAzul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 777



WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 03, 2007, 08:33:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
See I'm a Mac spoof....

BTW don't you agree this thread was inevitably misguided, Bill?

John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99008\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That so sums up the weekend that we had to wait for the Mac based agency to try and get their video editing software to work - easy to use and bug free - My Arse!

Hip, cool and trendy it may be. Reliable, boring and predictable it sure is not.
Logged

David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2756



« Reply #31 on: February 03, 2007, 08:35:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
BTW don't you agree this thread was inevitably misguided, Bill?

John
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Misguided? Possibly. Mac vs Windows or Nikon vs Canon arguments are doomed, but my point was not which operating system is best (they both get the job done) but that Microsoft uses anticompetitive practices to maintain a de facto monopoly and charge high prices. Apple is not noted for low pricing either and Steve Jobs is not generally regarded to be a nice guy.

The history of these players is well portrayed in [a href=\"http://alt.tnt.tv/movies/tntoriginals/pirates/frame_index.htm]Pirates of Silicon Valley[/url].

Bill
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2756



« Reply #32 on: February 03, 2007, 09:52:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Please keep in mind here I'm not basing my argument on torturous and easily disputable legal grounds, but rather on common sense and the actual definition of a monopoly, and how well Microsoft fits the definition. The legal ruling agasinst Microsoft is not relevant, really; the penalties imposed were a slap on the wrist at best, and Microsoft was not forced to change its behavior in any meaningful way. If Microsoft had been a pedophile, the settlement would have made it disclose how it selects its victims to certain interested third parties, but would not have made it stop molesting children.

Let's look at the actual definition of a monopoly, from Wikipedia:

Primary characteristics of a monopoly
Single Seller: In this type of market, there is only one seller producing a particular commodity. 'Mono' means single & 'Poly' means seller. Thus, Monopoly means a single seller.
No close substitutes: Monopoly not only implies a single seller but it also means a single seller producing a commodity having no close substitutes. if the substitutes are available, there will be a competition among the firms. Monopoly means a complete absence of competition. so under monopoly, the commodity has no close substitutes.
Price maker: In a pure monopoly, a single firm controls the total supply of the whole industry and is able to exert a significant degree of control over the price by changing the quantity supplied. An example of this would be the situation of Viagra before competing drugs emerged. In subtotal monopolies (for example, diamonds or petroleum at present), a single organization controls enough of the supply that even if it limits the quantity or raises its prices, the other suppliers will be unable to make up the difference and take significant amounts of market share. However, if a monopoly is not protected from competition by law (if it is not a legal monopoly), it may still be subject to competitive forces that pressure it to keep prices low in order to dissuade competition from arising.


Microsoft is not a single seller, nor can it be said that there are no close substitutes. Apple's MacOS duplicates most of Windows' feature set, and many would argue that it is easier to use and has other advantages over Windows. MacOS is also readily available in most stores selling computer software, as well as numerous online retailers, worldwide. Microsoft does not qualify as a price maker, either. While its initial retail purchase cost is higher than that of MacOS, Microsoft's upgrade policy is such that Windows users get free upgrades (service packs with additional features, etc.) while Apple charges for incremental OS updates, causing MacOS to be somewhat more expensive over time, but not excessively so. While Microsoft is certainly a dominant player in the operating system market, it does not meet any of the criteria of a monopoly.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jonathan,

Your literal and narrow definition of monopoly is naive. Perhaps we should drop use of the word monopoly and monopoly power and instead concentrate on anti-competitive behavior that is not in the public interest and is illegal under the current anti-trust laws. Do you think that with regard to the Carnegie Steel Co, Standard Oil, and De Beers cases cited in your reference on Wikipedia, users had no alternative sources for steel, gasoline, or diamonds?

That Microsoft got off with a slap on the wrist is in large part due to political considerations. With the advent of the Bush II administration, the Justice Department was staffed by pro-big business, laissez fare, and conservative people. Do you really think that Bill Gates has no influence in these circles or that the government would want to shoot itself in the foot and cripple one of our most prominent and successful companies?

In the EU the battle is not yet over as reported in the [a href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012600357.html]Washington Post[/url]. Since you are in Germany, perhaps you could comment.
Bill
Logged
tedchoi11
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #33 on: February 05, 2007, 03:30:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes it is specious. It isn't a matter of subtlety, but simple common sense. As a pro photographer, you can buy a Mac and MacOS, and run all of the same major image processing applications (Photoshop, etc), use all of the same printers (Epson, Canon, HP, etc) and most of the same hardware peripherals (spectrophotometer, scanner, etc) without spending a single cent on a Microsoft product, and get everything from major retailers at reasonable prices without having to wait any longer to receive the merchandise, and without significantly more difficulty setting it up and getting it to work. You'll pay a little more for the Apple hardware and software, but many people find the Mac hard/software to be preferable and are willing to pay a premium for it. We may not care for some of Microsoft's business practices, but they are not a "monopoly" in any rational sense of the word.

I noticed you didn't respond to my point about Adobe, either. Microsoft has less market share among graphic/imaging/photographer professionals than Adobe, and I don't see many people calling Adobe a "monopoly" or bemoaning a lack of innovation in their products.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98673\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
it's not illegal to be a monopoly, if that's what the market allows you to be. it's illegal to abuse monopolistic powers. so it's okay if you have 95% (or even 100%) of the PC OS market, if your products are so favored by the market, but you can't then use that power to keep others from developing competing products. for instance, you can't say to the 95% of buyers that want your product that they must also use only your internet browser. or, even, require OEM makers to feature your browser on the desktop and not those of other browser makers if they want to sell your (preferred) OS.

it's not monopolistic to charge whatever you think the market will bear for your product. assuming that 'computing' is an important task that deserves government protection (like driving, or emergency room treatment), so long as there are alternatives like mac and linux i don't think MS is in danger of violating the law.
Logged
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #34 on: February 05, 2007, 04:44:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
it's not illegal to be a monopoly, if that's what the market allows you to be. it's illegal to abuse monopolistic powers. so it's okay if you have 95% (or even 100%) of the PC OS market, if your products are so favored by the market, but you can't then use that power to keep others from developing competing products. for instance, you can't say to the 95% of buyers that want your product that they must also use only your internet browser. or, even, require OEM makers to feature your browser on the desktop and not those of other browser makers if they want to sell your (preferred) OS.

it's not monopolistic to charge whatever you think the market will bear for your product. assuming that 'computing' is an important task that deserves government protection (like driving, or emergency room treatment), so long as there are alternatives like mac and linux i don't think MS is in danger of violating the law.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99341\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It seems this issue has kept the US Dept of Justice, the EU and the Microsoft legal department busy for a few years.  Arguable better legal minds than found on LL.  Seems unlikely an LL forum will find a solution agreeable to all.
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2756



« Reply #35 on: February 05, 2007, 05:27:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It seems this issue has kept the US Dept of Justice, the EU and the Microsoft legal department busy for a few years.  Arguable better legal minds than found on LL.  Seems unlikely an LL forum will find a solution agreeable to all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well said  

Bill
Logged
tedchoi11
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #36 on: February 05, 2007, 10:24:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well said   

Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99362\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
yes, i agree too. no judge learned hands here, certainly not at this keyboard. but it's just entertainment and chatter. i can't design lenses but i still like the fervent pros/cons that sometimes flares up and sometimes i join in the fun. anyway, i do agree this topic's just about tapped out. at least for me. back to photo threads!
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3197



WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 06, 2007, 12:00:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jonathan said, "Apple's MacOS duplicates most of Windows' feature set..." Actually, it's the other way around (mostly), so perhaps you meant "mirrors" or "offers" ;-).

(See how easy it is to get sucked in?)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98988\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Apple sued MS over look and feel. some years back and lost as they'd nicked it from Xerox. I've noticed several MS features appear in Apple software and vice versa. Adobe + Macromedia sued each other over similar ideas and as products evolve and better ideas win out, they is going to be some natural convergence. I have placed my programme icons along botton of screen for nearly 10 years, just like the Mac Dock, but without the annoying bouncy graphics. Maybe I should sue them!
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7725



WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 07, 2007, 03:11:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And I don't see anyone complaining about Adobe's image editing software "monopoly" stifling innovation in Photoshop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98550\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Allow me to disagree, I think that we would have had 64 bits support in PS CS3 had the application had some serious competitors.

I also feel that PS CS2 is overal too expensive, even if the upgrade pricig policy of Adobe is more reasonnable that Microsoft's. On the MS side, I for one find the upgrade price of MS Office way too high. I could have bought an upgrade had the price been half, no way with the current pricing policy, but that is just me.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
plugsnpixels
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292



WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 07, 2007, 11:36:41 AM »
ReplyReply

And the rapidly maturing open source movement is nipping at the heels of them all (Linux, GIMP, Paint.net, OpenOffice, Audacity, etc.). Those dependent on Microsoft products (OS and apps) especially should be looking elsewhere for their software needs.
Logged

Free digital imaging ezine
http://www.plugsandpixels.com
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad