Posts by Lewis Mettler 1

don't for the 30% Apple cut

And do not forget Apple's demand that it take 30% of subscriptions off the top.

Google has suggested only 10%.

It is going to cost you more to do business through Apple. A lot more. Or, at it is turning out, many subscriptions are blocked from Apple users. So you do not get it at all with Apple.

you bought IE

You did not have a choice.

It is illegally commingled and bundled with the Microsoft OS.

So why wouldn't 50% still use it?

Now if Microsoft offered consumes a choice or allowed customers to download and install a browser of their choice like just about all other applications, then the comparison of use might make sense.

If you are forced to buy a burger each day for lunch (whether you eat it or not), it makes sense that most people would eat it. 90% are forced to buy it. Only 50% use it. That means that 45% toss the burger away.

Seems like those idiots should be complaining about the requirement to purchase that burger.

Being forced to buy a country mandated uniform is the same thing. Your opinion does not count. Every time you shop for clothes you have to buy the governments uniform. They your opinion on clothes would matter the same as browsers.

Both the US DOJ and the EU Commission have agreed to force the sale of IE.

Just remember, if you have a copy of IE, your opinion does not matter. Not to Microsoft, that is for sure. They get your money every time.

just like Netscape

Gates knows that killing off a competitor is easy. Just bundled and commingle IE with the OS.

So it is not surprising that Gates would anticipate Egypt turning off the Internet. And the reasons were similar.

Gates did not want Netscape to be running on Microsoft systems. So just bundled IE.

The jerkhead still thinks that is a good idea even though users only use IE about 50% of the time. It is the forced sale that is important. Just like the removal of the Internet.

Screw the people.

Just remember, if you have a copy of IE, your opinion does not count. That is not my doing. That is what Microsoft does to eliminate your opinion on the matter.

use Google, Bing does

Great statement.

Even Microsoft thinks its own search capability can be enhanced by what other engines do. And then claiming it is Bing all along. Not true.

Just go to Google and get it done.

not using IE

The choice not to use IE is a good one.

But, the better choice is not to purchase IE in the first place.

Oh, I forgot, that choice is illegally precluded for any and all Microsoft customers. You have to purchase IE.

It is also commingled illegally. So consumers are harmed deliberately by Microsoft.

What if you could not purchase IE so as to protect your children from such attacks. No choice for you either. You must purchase IE for your kids.

What if you could not purchase it for your mom? You know, proptecting her from such attachs? Again, that choice is refused. You must purchase IE no matter what. As a consumer you do not have the right NOT TO PURCHASE IE. Period.

Remember, if you have a copy of IE, your opinion does not matter. Not one bit. It is required by Microsoft that your opinion can not influence what you purchase from them.

Talk about being evit. Proven in a court of law that commingling code with the OS is in fact illegal and yet Microsoft continues the illegal practice. Why? Because that eliminates your opinion from having any impact on the marketplace.

a wish of good health

Aside from the fact that I personally do not agree with Apple policies (and no I do not own any Apple products), I very much appreciate what Apple has done.

Apple has shown the world that if you develop good products you can be successful without paying money to Microsoft. And that is very important.

As a consumer you always want choices. Those idiots working for Microsoft that claim otherwise are just Microsoft employees afraid to identify themselves for fear of being disbelieved. Besides they know fraud works better for Microsoft than anything. Force everyone to buy Internet Explorer and just lie to them about why. Consumers are idiots anyway. They believe anything. Fraud does work. There is no doubt about that. Even incompetient managers know that.

But, as for Steve Jobs personally, I wish him good health. Besides the industry needs more people who will take the initiative to satisfy consumer's needs as opposed to ignore them and try to force the consumer. Apple does that too by the way. So the name Jesus phone does not really fit the company. But, Apple has been necessary for the industry.

Who are those idiots that buy inferior products simply because Microosoft is trying to sell them? Or, not trying to sell them because they know the consumer is forced to buy them? Do you remember any advertisement for Internet Explorer? You do not see them for other browsers either but they are all either free or bundled with the OS. (Even Apple bundles Safari.) Yet, no one in the industry will dispute that the browser is a key product.

Why is the choice of a key product outside the choice of any and all consumers? First you must buy the illegally bundled one. And only then can you get a second car free.

You have to be idiot to not know that illegal activity is prevelent and controlling YOU.

But, Apple has shown that you can develop any number of products in the industry and be successful. And that after all is what is important about Apple.

what patents do

Patents do not let you make things. Neither do they assure that the things you make will sell.

Patents PREVENT others from making the item. And maybe in this case that is a good thing. Putting together a corrupt reviewing system would be bad news. And in this case it might turn all reviews of Apple products into advertisements only. And that would be of little help to anyone. Except the advertiser of course. But, consumers would soon figure out that a review of an Apple product is only an advertisement. So just ignore it.

Putting a patent on it means that no one could use the process without paying Apple royalties. And that alone could assure it won't happen. And interestingly enough those organizations that review products could refuse to deal with Apple products at all because it would cost them money to comply.

It would seem that Apple wants to patent something that most or all organizations would not want. They would lose any credability with consumers. Giving organizations the incentive to refuse to do things that way is a good thing.

phones, pads, tablets and ???

Phones, pads, tablets and just about any mobile type device is going to be useless without a connection. So what?

It would appear the Chrome OS may provide multiple devices that could be useful on a daily basis without having to port them all around the place. Borrow one at Starbucks? That should work fine. Borrow one at a motel? Sure, why not? Have one at work and at home but not be required to port it back and forth everyday. Even corporations could have a few spare ones laying around that could be borrowed by visitors.

There are a lot of advantages to not having your personal data on the machine you carry around. Like not having to carry it at all.

The mindset may need changing. But, many companies may find that it is much easier to do that for the employees. Give them all a device that gives them remote access to their data but not be subject to being ripped off in transit. No local personal data means a lot fewer headaches.

Would I want one? Not as my main machine. No way. But, if I knew I had access elsewhere and did not have to port around all my stuff and risk losing it in transit, I could be very interested.

How many employees carry their laptop to and from work on a daily basis? How much fun is that? How many have arranged for means to avoid that port?

A light client can be quite useful on a daily basis. One that you do not have to worry about. One that you could lend to a friend? Safely? One that you could borrow from a friend?

Mobile devices just are not the same as a big fat and fast desktop system. And they never will be.

Do you really carry your favorite movies back and forth to work every day?

offline online

Being able to operate offline is useful if limited.

And it makes a whole lot more sense than selling a $300 to $500 desktop application and then advertising the cloud capabilities. Microsoft spends a lot of money doing that. As opposed to what?

As opposed to building a cloud app (with offline capabilities) that does not require a $300 to $500 investment in an office suite for local use.

Strange that the Gates foundations spends half a billion to advise low income individuals how to save money but never mention Google apps. Or, Microsoft not providing a cloud based service that does not require hundreds of dollars in investments in desktop crap first.

To Microsoft cloud apps doe not exist until after you pay them hundreds of dollars. Then they advertise their options in the cloud. How stupid do they think consumers are? If they are Microsoft customers, pretty stupid.

stop forcing the sale then

If Microsoft is at all concerned about consumers they would stop forcing the sale of IE upon everyone.

Funny that Microsoft thinks about stopping the tracking but not stopping the forced sale. IE costs real money. Cash money. Yet, the idiots at Microsoft claim to think that all consumers want to spend more money for their crap.

Give individual consumers the choice or go home.

what is a virus?

What is a virus anyway?

I have not depended upon any antivirus software or seen one in 15 years. I have not wasted hours screwing around with that crap either. It has been nice.

Oh, but I switched to Linux in 95. I guess that explains it. Just think of all of the hours I have not had to waste.

uncommingle IE first

Microsoft is in no position to suggest anyone else be investigated for antitrust.

First, Microsoft should at least cease illegal acts it is committing. In antitrust to be sure.

Uncommingle IE first. Unbundle IE.

if Yahoo is concerned

If Yahoo is concerned about antitrust maybe they should insist that illegal antitrust activity from Microsoft (as determined by the federal courts) should actually cease before they do business with Microsoft.

Yes, the federal courts did decide that commingling the code between IE and the OS was in fact illegal. Microsoft appealed that decision to the US Supreme Court and they refused to hear the case. So it is a legal certainty that Microsoft continues to violate the federal antitrust laws.

Yet, the US DOJ says that illegal antitrust activity is okay if Microsoft is doing it. They approved it. They condoned it.

And now Yahoo (and Microsoft) speak of antitrust? They really should clean their own kitchen before they invite guests over for dinner.

mistakes bite hard

There is no doubt that Novell made a number of mistakes.

One such mistake was not suing Microsoft for antitrust when it first began to bundle networking technology with the Microsoft OS.

Number one Networking technology should never be bundled with a given OS. In fact it can not be. Technically networking technology is use to communicate bwteen multiple systems and no where does that suggest that both system should be the same OS. In reality, lan communications should be just like the Internet. Simply put, no assumptions can be made about the OS running at the server or even on the client. As soon as you do that, you restrict the utility.

When Microsoft bundled their networking technology with the OS, Novell should have sued Microsoft to make certain the products remain separate. Everyone today still suffers from that lack of a decision on their part. Sure you can put Samba on Linux. And Microsoft puts their SMB on their OS. But, it would be a much better solution if consumers could pick and choose between several networking technologies that are readily available on all platforms. Networking by its very nature should be completely cross platform. And it is not because of Microsoft. And Novell for that matter.

Instead of suing Microsoft Novell just got Microsoft in include its client licenses on Microsoft platforms. But, that was not enough. It permitted Novell's Netware to work with Microsoft clients but it did nothing to allow Novell technology to replace Microsoft technology. And you only find real competition if products can substitute for each other. Without substitutes one technology will fade away.

The result is Microsoft's domination in server/client technology. Microsoft could do without Novell. But, Novell could never do without Microsoft. So Novell goes away. Slowly but surely. No substitution was possible.

The browser market went away due to illegal Microsoft practices. So too has the networking marketplace. No alternatives exist for networking on a group of Microsoft systems. None. And the EU Commission wonders how they can break up the monopoly on business servers. It won't break until networking technology is unbundled from the OS and consumers have a choice of Samba, Microsoft or NFS. And there is no way SAMBA or NFS can replace Microsoft networking technology as long as all consumers have to buy the Microsoft crap. It is the same as the browser market. As long as Microsoft illegally bundles separate products no alternative products will ever have a fair and open marketplace. And they do not. No browsers. No alternative networking. And that is true even though the entrie industry including all consumers would benefit from fair and open markets in those two technologies.

If you want fair and open markets you have to prevent illegal product bundling. Microsoft knows for certain that their monopoly is safe for as long as the so called authorities fail to figure that out.

Just because you think you need networking or you think you need a browser is absolutely no reason you should have to buy that technology from the OS vendor. Of course, Microsoft thinks otherwise because they do not want any competition and they do not want to have to sell or market their crap. That costs money. It is much easier to just violate the law and lie to consumers. So far the US DOJ and the EU Commission have been bought off. Either that or they can not think straight. Maybe they do not understand how Microsoft controls markets illegally. It might be they are that dumb. Or, they are just controlled policially or by money. But, neither one represents consumers or the industry.

just bundle it

Bill Gates was right. Just bundled it with the OS unless Apple, Google and Blackberry leave the market.

It worked with Netscape.

By the way, when Microsoft first started illegally bundling IE I suggested that they just bundle a cell phone with the OS. It is the same thing as a browser. Just another product Microsoft wants to force sell to everyone.

There is no difference between a cell phone and a browser. Bundling either one is illegal. Although I will admit it is hard to commingle the code bwtween a cell phone and an OS on a personal computer. Okay, so Microsoft can not illegally commingle the code. Scotch tape works too.

Then we can listen to Microsoft employees posing as consumers saying how much they like their MS phone.

sender and recipient

Generally both the sender and receiver of a letter is priviledged to do with the content as they desire.

Simply put that means that when you receive a letter or email you can republish the contents if you so desire. Or, to put it another way, the sender does not have exclusive control over the contents of the letter. If you do not trust the other person then do not share your thoughts with them. It is pretty simply.

In the case of GMail it is unlikely that the sender has any indication at all about what Google has or has not done with the email. Unless it was canned completely and the receipient said the email was never received.

As always check the law in your own jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the recipient if you are concerned about this. But, as a sender, you are not in control. You share that with the recipient.

why review it if you have to purchase it?

What purpose can possibly be served if you are required to purchase it?

There is no decision to be made until after Microsoft gets your money.

If you work for Microsoft there is nothing to be gained by any review of the product. Everyone must purchase it anyway. Regardless of what it does.

If you were forced to buy my handburgers each lunch day, would you want it reviewed here? Or, anywhere?

If you were forced to buy a uniform for daily wear, why have it reviewed?

If you have a copy of IE, your opinion simply does not count. Microsoft illegally prevents it. So why even talk about it?

If you are raped do you really care hoqw good the sex was? Apparently some Microsoft supporters think so. But, then they are just paid to comment as if they were a consumer.

You do not think so?

Why discuss anything for which no decision can be made?

those on record

Those on record as objecting to the illegal bundling of IE with the OS from Microsoft can complain about what Google is doing.

Those Microsoft salesmen never did that. Yet, now they jump up and call the antitrust card?

Either you are for the correct enforcement of the law or you are not. If you only try to force the sale of IE yet complain about Google, then, well, you are only a salesman from Microsoft.