03.08.13
Posted in Microsoft, Vista 8, Windows at 12:14 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft desperately tries to lower the price of Windows because OEMs walk away; Microsoft’s co-founder “not happy” with Microsoft, no longer thinks it is a worthwhile investment
Windows 8, or Vista 8 as we commonly call it, is doing much worse than Vista, on which it is based. It continues to fail pretty badly. Even a pro-Micorsoft news site had asked, “Is Windows 8 In Trouble?“
This question was brought up in light of news about price drops (after price hikes), which means that OEMs are walking away. As Pogson put it:
M$ are at the edge of a cliff. They raised prices to milk the usual cash-flow from the truly locked-in and now even they aren’t buying it. There is either going to be a dramatic fall in prices or a dramatic fall in share of the market. Even at $0, I think the price/performance of that other OS is poor so expect prices M$ charges OEMs to fall to $10-$20 over the next year. This will affect “7″ as well because they can’t sell “7″ at too much higher a price than “8″.
It is being reported that Microsoft’s Vista 8 tablets fail to sell (Samsung even cancels such products) and Android is a notable cause for it:
There are reports coming in that Microsoft’s Surface tablets, which the company has made a very big effort to promote, are not selling well. Pacific Crest analyst Brendan Barnicle is quoted in Forbes predicting sales of only 600,000 Surface units in the quarter, which is down from an original forecast of 1.4 million units. For the full year this year, his sales forecast drops to 3 million, from 4 million. He also predicts that the shortfall will impact Microsoft’s bottom line.
Microsoft must move quickly to create a brighter future for Surface devices if it wants to be a player in the tablet race, otherwise the company’s tablet prospects could resemble Microsoft’s phone prospects over the past few years. Ironically, the key for making Surface a success may be embracing open source platforms, and Android in particular.
No, not really. Microsoft has been busy trying to use patent extortion against Android as means of making up for the loss of income incurred by the emergence of Android as de facto mobile platform.
Here is a recent Ballmer interview where he spoke about Vista 8:
Q: Then question number 2 is, I guess: How will you manage things more carefully? Put another way: How will a Win8 ecosystem differ from the Win95?
Ballmer: First of all, applications written to the new Win8 APIs have to be written in a much better-behaved manner. And we’ve prescribed how OEMs add their value into the experience. I think both of those things go a long way to ensuring that no matter what the business model or the price point of the device, they are higher quality. We’re taking more steps to be careful and limited in what people can do on our processors….
Artificial limitations. Let this remind people why Microsoft is so harmful to so many. Notice how Bill Gates expresses disappointment at Microsoft’s efforts in such devices; he no longer thinks that Microsoft is a good investment and IBM has in fact just leaped past Microsoft (again) in terms of market value. Here is part of the sobering reality:
Steve Ballmer has never claimed to be a visionary like Steve Jobs, or a brilliant engineer, like Yahoo! (YHOO) CEO Marissa Mayer. Steve Ballmer is a marketing man, top to bottom. He’s just not a successful one.
The decision to split Windows 8 into two operating systems in an attempt to replicate the Windows Home/NT division was a train wreck. The decision to price the Surface RT to compete with the iPad was a train wreck.
The greater competition is actually Android. It’s not a “Mac versus PC” world.
The articles about Gates speaking against Microsoft really say it all. The company is a lost cause. All those articles about Gates are damaging and revealing; no wonder many executives left the company. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Google, Patents at 11:53 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The latest attack by proxy on free platforms comes from the patents proxy of several proprietary software vendors and software patents proponents
The attack on Android is not always visible; some patent trolls are equipped with ammunition whose purpose it to tax everything. This helps raise the price of products, harming in particular everything which was free and thus permissive in the distribution sense. Microsoft, more than any other company, has been fighting hard against Linux and GNU.
Eric Brown, writing about storage systems the other weeks, pointed out that:
NAS vendors are drawn to Linux for its stability, security, and low cost. Linux rarely requires patching, is relatively immune to virus attacks, and can usually run in flash memory for even greater security. Lack of licensing fees is also a draw of course, although at least one NAS vendor — Buffalo — pays Microsoft via a patent covenant for the privilege of using Linux.
Pamela Jones responded with: “Microsoft is doing with patents what SCO tried but failed to do with copyrights, to Microsoft’s shame. So if you buy from them, this is the behavior you are enabling. And when you read about Microsoft “donating” to Open Source blah blah, remember what they are doing with patents, please.”
Over at a lawyers’ blog that Jones likes to cite [1, 2], some FRAND battles over Android and codec patents are described. Here is what Jones learned about the MPEG-LA assault:
In the Seattle litigation between Microsoft and Motorola over how much Microsoft should pay for Motorola’s FRAND patents, the presiding judge, Hon. James L. Robart, asked the parties to file short letter briefs by March 1st on how to interpret one section of the Google-MPEG LA license agreement, and they have now done so. As you will see, things have changed since Motorola revealed the terms of the Google-MPEG LA license. The judge now has questions about the language, after the January 28th hearing.
Does it cover Motorola as an affiliate of Google? Are all affiliates covered? Or only those specified by a licensee? And is the royalty cap provision in one section a stand-alone provision? Is there, in other words, a cap on how much Microsoft has to pay?
His request is related to his decision to reopen the trial that ended in November, now that Motorola has presented new evidence that didn’t present at that trial. It didn’t have to, by the way. The trial was to be held in parts, and November was part one. Now that the new arguments are on the table in connection with the next phase about exactly what the rate should be, however, the judge sees a need to go back and take another look, and I think you’ll agree with him that what Motorola has presented changes the picture, and not in a way that favors Microsoft as much as before, which was trying for a low-ball figure. And that is now in question.
MPEG-LA is a patent troll spearheaded by Larry Horn and backed by the likes of Microsoft, Nokia, and of course Apple. It seems like this troll took a bite just now. It’s a somewhat Google-hostile article:
Google enters into licensing agreement with MPEG LA to protect the WebM video format
When the WebM project was announced back in 2010, one its selling points was that it was open and free of the licensing needs imposed by competitors like H.264. That may have been slightly overstated, however, as Google and MPEG LA have just entered into a licensing agreement covering the video codec at the heart of the format. The codec is known as VP8, and while no financial figures are disclosed the agreement covers various patents from 11 different parties. Google also gains the ability to sublicense those technologies out to VP8 users, clearing the way for the company to push adoption of VP8 — and by extension, WebM — with impunity. “This is a significant milestone in Google’s efforts to establish VP8 as a widely-deployed web video format,” said Allen Lo, Google’s deputy general counsel for patents.
Here is another take on it. It is a Google-friendly article, unlike the previous one:
Google has agreed to pay a licence fee to MPEG LA, LLC for techniques which they say may be essential to VP8 and earlier-generation VPx video compression technologies under patents owned by 11 patent holders.
This is a shame, but we don’t know what happened behind the scenes, possibly threats of massive litigation. The solution is to abolish software patents.
Watch who else is hounding Google over patents:
There are more comments filed with the FTC in response to its request for input on the proposed agreement in In the Matter of Motorola Mobility LLC, a limited liability company, and Google Inc., a corporation; FTC File No. 121 0120. As I mentioned earlier, not everyone is jumping on the currently fashionable bandwagon holding that if you donate a patent to a standards body, you give up all rights to injunctions. In fact, it’s easier to find opposition than support.
Notice Sony in there. Recently enough (for many of us to remember it) Sony attacked other Android players using patents, so here again we see Sony as a malicious antagonist of those whose work it relies on. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Microsoft, Patents at 11:36 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A look at some of the more disturbing patent news of the week and their effect on civil liberties
THE filing of patents often indicates what companies are planning to do. Red Hat’s Jan Wildeboer says that
Haliburton tries to patent trolling…
It has been a while since we lost wrote about Haliburton patents. It seems like this notoriously unethical company, known for its killing of many innocent people, is planning to become a patent troll. Haliburton is of course working closely with the military and the secret services.
There is something rather spooky going on with Microsoft getting many streams of video and audio around the world, with reports such as this coming through former Microsoft staff:
One U.S. researcher has deconstructed a constantly updated file in the China-only version of Skype that contains a list of more than 1,100 words used to censor and monitor its users.
Microsoft, to its ‘credit’, is not only spying on people in their homes with Skype but also with Kinect if this patent is any indication. To quote:
Microsoft’s new Kinect patent goes Big Brother, will spy on you for the MPAA
Microsoft has filed for a Kinect-related patent, and it’s a doozy of an application. The abstract describes a camera-based system that would monitor the number of viewers in a room and check to see if the number of occupants exceeded a certain threshold set by the content provider. If there are too many warm bodies present, the device owner would be prompted to purchase a license for a greater number of viewers.
In other disturbing patent news, a “military industrial patent troll” is
said to be going after Cisco, which is known for aiding Chinese censorship and surveillance:
Emboldened by a win against Apple that was upheld last February, VirnetX – inventor of key VPN technologies or a patent troll, depending on your point of view and understanding of its patents – has now taken up cudgels against Cisco.
In a hearing in front of a Federal jury over a complaint first filed in 2010, VirnetX has said that Cisco owes it $US258 million for selling VPN capabilities in practically any Cisco product.
The battle against Cisco began as part of a sue-everybody suit filed in 2010. Apple, one of the many defendants in the original complaint, was ordered to pay $US368.2 million last year, a decision upheld in February. Apple was found to have infringed US Patents 6,502,135, 7,418,504, 7,921,211 and 7,490,151.
Virnetx got money from Microsoft VirnetX [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15] after a high-profile trial. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in BSD, Microsoft at 11:18 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: UEFI is gaining support from FreeBSD, where Microsoft’s control over it makes this an error
MICROSOFT-controlled UEFI is a real problem. It’s about control; not control by the user but remote control by corporations. UEFI in general has been embraced by Apple, which also closed BSD to make its proprietary operating system that mistreats the users for ‘their convenience’.
The head of the OpenBSD project chastised Red Hat over UEFI restricted (by Microsoft) boot work (so did Torvalds), but FreeBSD seems to go down the wrong path by legitimising Microsoft’s anticompetitive tactics:
According to Rice, “UEFI support is critical for FreeBSD’s future on the amd64 platform and I’m really pleased to be able to ensure that FreeBSD gains support for it”. The Foundation expects the work to be completed in March 2013. Details of the work already done by Rice and what is still to be done is on the FreeBSD wiki’s UEFI page. Rice is also working on Secure Boot support for FreeBSD, but that project is still in its planning stages.
This is bad news. Ideally, complaints would have been filed against what Microsoft is doing. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in FUD, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Red Hat, Security at 11:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Wave of GNU/Linux scare-mongering
Summary: Percoco chooses to chastise Linux over security issues, even though upon pressure he admits that he is not aware of any particular issues
Recently we saw some remarkable GNU/Linux FUD coming from Trustwave [1, 2, 3], which is a Microsoft pal. Watch this new article which says: “eSecurity Planet met up with Nicholas Percoco, senior VP at Trustwave SpiderlLabs, during the RSA conference last week to discuss the state of PaaS security. Percoco specifically took aim at the Red Hat OpenShift PaaS in his demo, though he cautioned that OpenShift is not necessarily vulnerable.”
Why did he pick Red hat as his target? Sounds like deliberate FUD. The author is the article is a Linux proponent, so with the above interview he helped show what we consider to be selective criticism. Trustwave works with Microsoft, so it would not be smart for it to say negative things about Windows. THis is not a sole example of such FUD patterns. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Antitrust, Europe, Microsoft at 10:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
J. P. Morgan assaulting photographers
Summary: Rebuttal to Microsoft spin which can be found embedded in many articles about the EU fine; reason for the fine is breaking the law and failing to obey penalties, not an attempt to increase competition in the Web browsers market
The fines which Microsoft is required to pay will hardly do much damage to Microsoft, which can always just take some more loans. Yes, the company has had some debt and not too long ago it publicly reported losses. Here is the news from yet another source:
The European Commission has fined Microsoft €561 million (£484 million/$732 million) for dropping the Browser Choice Screen in a Windows 7 update. This is the first time ever that the Commission has had to fine a company for non-compliance with an anti-trust commitment.
Well, a former Microsoft employee who keeps covering this saga with some Microsoft talking points embedded inside, does it yet again. Others who are soft on Microsoft say:
Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past few years, you know that open source browsers–especially Firefox and Google Chrome–have been leading browser innovation for a long time. That’s why it may seem unbelievable to some that Microsoft has just been hit with a whopping $731 million fine by European officials for allegedly not playing fair in the browser races. Microsoft agreed to terms with Europe on making browser choices available in Windows years ago….
As a little bit of background:
In December 2009, the Commission made Microsoft commit to address competition concerns in the browser market by ensuring that for the next five years it would offer users a choice screen of browsers so that they could make an “informed and unbiased” selection for their web browser. In March 2010, the Browser Choice Screen went live in Windows and users who had Internet Explorer set as their default, and users performing new installs, were presented with it. Between March and November 2010, 84 million browsers were downloaded.
As the OSI President explains:
EU punished Microsoft for its history, not its crime
The real reason the EU fined Microsoft (a relatively small sum) at all: Because the company is a scofflaw
A pro-Linux site added its views:
The EU Competition Commission, which levied a fine on Microsoft, had indicated long before the announcement what was in store, so “EU fines Microsoft” was expected. What we did not know was how much the fine was going to be.
[...]
Knowing Microsoft, you know that there was no glitch or technical error. It was just business as usual. In late 2012, Microsoft was notified by the EU Commission about the possibility of a fine, which based on agreement, could be as high as 10% of a year’s revenue. Based on Microsoft’s revenue in 2012, that could have been about $7.4bn USD. Instead, the commission settled for $731m USD, or 561m euros.
[...]
By the way, over here in our America, it’s still business as usual.
The main reason for writing this article is to highlight what effect, if any, Microsoft’s “technical error” has had on its Web browser’s market share in Europe and elsewhere. Did the “glitch” enable Internet Explorer to remain the dominant Web browser? And was it necessary to make Microsoft pay?
No, but this is irrelevant. As we explained repeatedly in prior years, this is punishment for crimes, not an attempt at corrective market intervention. Microsoft has PR talking points, and it is important to resist portraying the criminal as a victim. The victims here are many people/families who lost their jobs so that criminals high up in Microsoft can amass more billions of dollars (personal wealth) and plenty of power over the Internet, the broadest communications hub. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, GNOME, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents at 10:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Now that Microsoft controls Nokia and its patents portfolio there is more direct hostility towards Android, this time with action rather than just words and directly rather than through Microsoft/Nokia-armed trolls like MOSAID
Apple recently suffered a bit of a blow in the anti-Android litigation war, which a US judge too is eager to put constraints on. Android is growing very rapidly even in China; a vast place like Africa, where Nokia has long enjoyed some low-end devices domination, is now being penetrated by Android. Samsung Rex series is poised to take on Nokia in low-end segments according to this recent report, so we are hardly surprised to see Nokia joining Apple in the war against Samsung. Here is one article about it and another about Nokia, now led by one of Gates’ cronies (Gates is disappointed by Microsoft’s “mistake” and lack of innovation in mobile) making not a rational decision but an idealogical one, made by a mole who surrounded himself with more moles after he had infiltrated the company. Having, together with Microsoft’s involvement, armed patent trolls like MOSAID (we should boycott Nokia for this), Nokia is now showing yet more malice. To quote: “Nokia and Apple are competitors when it comes to moving hardware off the shelves, and the two companies even opposed each other in a patent trial in 2009 (ending in Apple settling with Nokia for an undisclosed sum). But Nokia has been vocal about supporting its patent rights recently, even discussing its decision to sell some of its intellectual property to patent-holding company Mosaid at the Federal Trade Commission in December.”
Here is an earlier report about it:
Apple vs. Samsung initially ended with a billion-dollar verdict in favor of Apple, but there have been plenty of wrinkles since. This week brought about another, as Nokia filed an amicus brief on behalf of Apple, Inc. in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the brief filed Monday, Nokia asked the court to permit permanent injunctions on the sale of Samsung phones that were found to infringe Apple’s patents.
Post-trial proceedings haven’t been as kind to Apple after the company was awarded $1.05 billion in damages in August. US District Judge Lucy Koh nearly halved those damages in a ruling on Friday, and in December she denied Apple a permanent injunction against Samsung which would have barred the sale of Samsung phones found to be infringing.
We have long argued that Nokia, Apple, and Microsoft are very much aligned against Android. They engage in patent-stacking. According to this new report, Microsoft seems to have pretty much taken over the whole of Nokia already:
Nokia announced that it expects to receive more in support payments from Microsoft this year than it pays the software company for licensing its Windows Phone operating system. Nokia provided more details on the terms of the long-term cooperation in its SEC filing on 2012 results. The Finnish company said the support payments, which amounted to USD 250 million per quarter last year, will “slightly exceed” the minimum software royalties it pays Microsoft in 2013.
The matter of fact is, Microsoft pretty much abducted Nokia without ever paying for a takeover. And there has been massive regulatory failure to spot and counter that. What we have now is a patent cartel determined to destroy Android. Everyone should be concerned about it because everyone loses from it, except perhaps managers of the cartel. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA