And now we see the reply. Truth: I've known this was coming for a while, so long that I thought they had given up on it (vaporware, who'd have thunk it...). But it's a good way to hit back at Google. You give away a free OS and leverage your web-based tools to get there? Okay, we'll give away a web-based version of our industry-leading tools in return.
Unlike Google's OS I can see the incentive here. If you're a company of any size you probably won't want to run your entire business off web-based tools. Instead you'll want desktop versions of Office. But your employees might work from home, etc., and you'll want to have them have access to the same kinds of tools that they use at work. So you don't cannibalize yourself by doing this. The only sales you "cannibalize" are the people using pirated versions who now can just use your free version, but that's not a sale you're costing yourself.
7.13.2009
7.12.2009
Remo Williams: the adventure begins... again
It's official, anything that's a remake can get financing. For those of you who never saw the Fred Ward - Joel Grey - Kate Mulgrew star vehicle that was Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins, you missed out on one of the finer bad 80s movies/set of over 100 pulp novels. I think I had about 50 of them that I stole from my old man who thought they were awesome. They were horrible. And the movie was, if possible, worse. Joel Grey played a Korean martial arts expert with a Chinese accent. He could dodge bullets without having to be Keanu Reeves.
I can't wait for this movie.
Note also that the linked article suggests a remake of Robocop. What exactly was wrong with Paul Verhoeven's classic? But I will let that pass because there's also a remake coming of... Red Dawn!
WOLVERINES!
I can't wait for this movie.
Note also that the linked article suggests a remake of Robocop. What exactly was wrong with Paul Verhoeven's classic? But I will let that pass because there's also a remake coming of... Red Dawn!
WOLVERINES!
7.10.2009
A Farewell to Harms
Stealing Peggy Noonan's title for her piece today on Sarah Palin. The money quote: "In television interviews she was out of her depth in a shallow pool."
As those of you who were around during the election know, I thought Palin might be an authentic contender for the future. She's shown herself not to be. I think she still thinks she is, but she's not. Noonan gives numerous reasons why she shouldn't be. Worth a read.
As those of you who were around during the election know, I thought Palin might be an authentic contender for the future. She's shown herself not to be. I think she still thinks she is, but she's not. Noonan gives numerous reasons why she shouldn't be. Worth a read.
7.09.2009
Cemetery Junction trailer
Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant are working on a new movie called Cemetery Junction. It's a comedy starring Ralph Fiennes. Maybe not the first name you'd think of. Not Ricky's first choice either, apparently. See trailer below.
7.08.2009
Thunderdome or hubris? Either way, it's on
[Long post, I had a lot to say. Also EDIT: I accidentally linked to my wife's alumni magazine for some reason before, so fixed by pointing to Slashdot]
Google has just announced plans for an open-source computer operating system based on the Linux kernel and its Chrome browser for personal netbook computers.
Two men enter, one man leaves... Google has decided to take the fight to Microsoft's house.
This is the stupidest thing they could ever do. Short the stock.
I won't comment on the business sense here, although there are plenty of people who have noted that Google's Chrome browser and Android mobile operating system aren't exactly taking off (including the linked WSJ story). I'll keep to the legal stuff because that's not something you'll see everywhere.
I know a thing or two about law and computer operating systems. If they were easy to make there would be more of them. I've always believed that one aspect of Linux's much-vaunted security is that it doesn't run on many target-rich environments. Yes, the many eyeballs of the open-source community allow for faster bug triaging. But that doesn't mean that grandma will be able to figure out how to patch. Microsoft has patching the consumer computer down to a fine art. And don't get me started on Apple. If more consumers used the Mac, Apple wouldn't be making fun of those security alerts in Vista because the Mac would have them too.
Now Google isn't bad at making software. In particular, they've done very well with search engines. And their own computers run on Linux. Which makes this interesting. Because an interesting thing about Linux is that large parts of it these days are developed by for-profit corporations who then give away the code. That raises a very interesting and to-date unexplored question about dumping.
By definition, giving something away for free implies that you're selling it below cost. And sales below cost are indicative of anticompetitive behavior - they're not proof positive of it, but they definitely show something interesting. The General Public License (GPL) would prohibit Google from doing the most traditional aspect of anticompetitive behavior, which would be to drive Microsoft out of business by giving away free what Microsoft charges for only to start charging later once the competitor is gone, because it's a violation of the GPL to refuse to distribute source that is derived from GPL-licensed code. Unless Google's end game is making its own kernel to replace the Linux one once they have killed off Microsoft.
That would raise some interesting IP questions: if Google writes code that integrates with GPL-licensed code and is open-source, but then replaces the GPL-licensed parts, can it change the license for the parts it wrote? I'd say yes. But the second Google does that, its anticompetitive actions would be clear.
By integrating the Chrome browser Google is raising other interesting issues of tying and bundling also. Microsoft keeps getting in trouble for having an OS with integrated browser. In the USA this is illegal if its effect is to drive a competitor out of business (Microsft made the law on this point). In Europe it's just illegal in and of itself - if there's a company out there that sells a product that you give away for free, you're breaking competition law (Microsoft made the law on this point too). It turns out that Microsoft does sell an operating system that comes with a free browser and search tools. And it turns out that the EU is trying to make Microsoft stop leveraging its OS strength by forcing them to allow users to choose their own browser and search tool. Will the EU force Google to do the reverse?
From a government affairs perspctive it's also interesting in Europe. Just like Microsoft, Google isn't European. And that's one of the biggest reasons the EU hates Microsoft. Little-known fact: one of the biggest funders for the development of open-source software throughout the early years of this millennium was the EU. Mostly-forgotten fact: the French government is funding a "European" search engine called Project Quaero (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2921407/Chirac-backs-eurocentric-search-engine.html). And the EU is constantly going after Google for perceived privacy violations. Imagine how they'd feel about another American company they can't control taking over the world of computing. It doesn't take Nostradamus to think they might go the way of Microsoft and Intel and bring very expensive complaints.
But the difference is, you don't need creative antitrust theories to get Google into court in Europe. Google is actually breaking the law in Europe right now. Google's practice of selling AdWords that are company trademarks keeps being the cause of litigation in Europe, and Google keeps losing. I don't know if they've lost every single suit, but they sure did lose most of them when last I checked. So if they integrate their search tools into the OS, they are one injunction away from not being able to sell the computers bearing their operating system in the EU.
So let's review. We have: a company that is definitely bundling a browser and an operating system (illegal in the USA if you're doing it to kill a competitor, and illegal in Europe in and of itself). This company is going to give away the product that competes with a product that's sold by its competitor. And this company is already the target of investigations for anticompetitive behavior in the USA (remember the books settlement?) and Europe, as well as breaking national laws throughout Europe.
Oh yeah, this is a smart move. How do you short stocks on Fidelity again?
Google has just announced plans for an open-source computer operating system based on the Linux kernel and its Chrome browser for personal netbook computers.
Two men enter, one man leaves... Google has decided to take the fight to Microsoft's house.
This is the stupidest thing they could ever do. Short the stock.
I won't comment on the business sense here, although there are plenty of people who have noted that Google's Chrome browser and Android mobile operating system aren't exactly taking off (including the linked WSJ story). I'll keep to the legal stuff because that's not something you'll see everywhere.
I know a thing or two about law and computer operating systems. If they were easy to make there would be more of them. I've always believed that one aspect of Linux's much-vaunted security is that it doesn't run on many target-rich environments. Yes, the many eyeballs of the open-source community allow for faster bug triaging. But that doesn't mean that grandma will be able to figure out how to patch. Microsoft has patching the consumer computer down to a fine art. And don't get me started on Apple. If more consumers used the Mac, Apple wouldn't be making fun of those security alerts in Vista because the Mac would have them too.
Now Google isn't bad at making software. In particular, they've done very well with search engines. And their own computers run on Linux. Which makes this interesting. Because an interesting thing about Linux is that large parts of it these days are developed by for-profit corporations who then give away the code. That raises a very interesting and to-date unexplored question about dumping.
By definition, giving something away for free implies that you're selling it below cost. And sales below cost are indicative of anticompetitive behavior - they're not proof positive of it, but they definitely show something interesting. The General Public License (GPL) would prohibit Google from doing the most traditional aspect of anticompetitive behavior, which would be to drive Microsoft out of business by giving away free what Microsoft charges for only to start charging later once the competitor is gone, because it's a violation of the GPL to refuse to distribute source that is derived from GPL-licensed code. Unless Google's end game is making its own kernel to replace the Linux one once they have killed off Microsoft.
That would raise some interesting IP questions: if Google writes code that integrates with GPL-licensed code and is open-source, but then replaces the GPL-licensed parts, can it change the license for the parts it wrote? I'd say yes. But the second Google does that, its anticompetitive actions would be clear.
By integrating the Chrome browser Google is raising other interesting issues of tying and bundling also. Microsoft keeps getting in trouble for having an OS with integrated browser. In the USA this is illegal if its effect is to drive a competitor out of business (Microsft made the law on this point). In Europe it's just illegal in and of itself - if there's a company out there that sells a product that you give away for free, you're breaking competition law (Microsoft made the law on this point too). It turns out that Microsoft does sell an operating system that comes with a free browser and search tools. And it turns out that the EU is trying to make Microsoft stop leveraging its OS strength by forcing them to allow users to choose their own browser and search tool. Will the EU force Google to do the reverse?
From a government affairs perspctive it's also interesting in Europe. Just like Microsoft, Google isn't European. And that's one of the biggest reasons the EU hates Microsoft. Little-known fact: one of the biggest funders for the development of open-source software throughout the early years of this millennium was the EU. Mostly-forgotten fact: the French government is funding a "European" search engine called Project Quaero (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2921407/Chirac-backs-eurocentric-search-engine.html). And the EU is constantly going after Google for perceived privacy violations. Imagine how they'd feel about another American company they can't control taking over the world of computing. It doesn't take Nostradamus to think they might go the way of Microsoft and Intel and bring very expensive complaints.
But the difference is, you don't need creative antitrust theories to get Google into court in Europe. Google is actually breaking the law in Europe right now. Google's practice of selling AdWords that are company trademarks keeps being the cause of litigation in Europe, and Google keeps losing. I don't know if they've lost every single suit, but they sure did lose most of them when last I checked. So if they integrate their search tools into the OS, they are one injunction away from not being able to sell the computers bearing their operating system in the EU.
So let's review. We have: a company that is definitely bundling a browser and an operating system (illegal in the USA if you're doing it to kill a competitor, and illegal in Europe in and of itself). This company is going to give away the product that competes with a product that's sold by its competitor. And this company is already the target of investigations for anticompetitive behavior in the USA (remember the books settlement?) and Europe, as well as breaking national laws throughout Europe.
Oh yeah, this is a smart move. How do you short stocks on Fidelity again?
7.07.2009
Well, that's one way to avoid government corruption
"Staff at Nepal's main international airport are to be issued with trousers without pockets, in an attempt to wipe out rampant bribe-taking."
7.06.2009
Apparently I wasn't trying hard enough to find crappy ideas
"Remember View-Master, the Fisher-Price toy with those little 3D picture discs of mountains, rivers and caverns that you could rotate through a viewfinder? Well, DreamWorks is in negotiations to acquire movie rights to the toy from Mattel (which owns Fisher-Price) and has asked Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci to do some "Transformers"-style magic on it."
Yep...
Yep...
Kids these days...
To commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Walkman, the BBC gave one to a 13-year-old kid to see how he reacted to it.
Not well, is the answer.
"My friends couldn't imagine their parents using this monstrous box, but there was interest in what the thing was and how it worked."
"It took me three days to figure out that there was another side to the tape. That was not the only naive mistake that I made; I mistook the metal/normal switch on the Walkman for a genre-specific equaliser, but later I discovered that it was in fact used to switch between two different types of cassette."
Outstanding.
Not well, is the answer.
"My friends couldn't imagine their parents using this monstrous box, but there was interest in what the thing was and how it worked."
"It took me three days to figure out that there was another side to the tape. That was not the only naive mistake that I made; I mistook the metal/normal switch on the Walkman for a genre-specific equaliser, but later I discovered that it was in fact used to switch between two different types of cassette."
Outstanding.
7.05.2009
Why I hate ESPN
I am a rugby fan. A HUGE rugby fan. Yesterday was a World Cup qualifying match between Canada and the USA. Kickoff at 4pm Eastern. I was out for the afternoon so set the TiVo.
Okay, the game started kind of crap. 30 minutes before anyone scored, and then it was drop goals and penalties. 6-6 at the half. For those of you who don't know rugby, this is like watching the first half of a football game and all you get is 2 field goals each. Okay, it's nothing like watching the first half of a football game because it's interesting and there's action rather than a series of set piece battles, but you get the picture.
Funny I should compare to football though...
About 5 minutes before the half I see a horrifying-to-TiVo announcement: that the second half of the game will be on ESPN2. I'm going to miss it. My own damn fault for not staying home. Screw ESPN for booking half the game on one network and the other half on another network.
But wait, that wasn't it.
I notice that the zipper is starting to show that Steve McNair was shot. A tragedy, and we feel for his family, just like we do for every murder victim in America every day, right? As it turns out, no. ESPN has decided to pre-empt the second half of a live sporting event to show highlights of Steve McNair's career, studio commentary, and a talking head at the crime scene. That is, nothing they couldn't have waited an hour to show.
I hate ESPN.
Okay, the game started kind of crap. 30 minutes before anyone scored, and then it was drop goals and penalties. 6-6 at the half. For those of you who don't know rugby, this is like watching the first half of a football game and all you get is 2 field goals each. Okay, it's nothing like watching the first half of a football game because it's interesting and there's action rather than a series of set piece battles, but you get the picture.
Funny I should compare to football though...
About 5 minutes before the half I see a horrifying-to-TiVo announcement: that the second half of the game will be on ESPN2. I'm going to miss it. My own damn fault for not staying home. Screw ESPN for booking half the game on one network and the other half on another network.
But wait, that wasn't it.
I notice that the zipper is starting to show that Steve McNair was shot. A tragedy, and we feel for his family, just like we do for every murder victim in America every day, right? As it turns out, no. ESPN has decided to pre-empt the second half of a live sporting event to show highlights of Steve McNair's career, studio commentary, and a talking head at the crime scene. That is, nothing they couldn't have waited an hour to show.
I hate ESPN.
7.03.2009
Palin Resigns
By now you've all seen this, no need to link to anything. She'll give over power to her Lieutenant Governor on July 26. Speculation abounds as to whether she did it to have time for a full campaign for 2012, or whether she quit because she couldn't handle the pressure, or whatever.
I'll put a stick in the ground. Now granted, I'm the guy who said that Mark Sanford was going to try to be a guy for 2012 and look how that worked out. But I don't think Palin, MILFtastic though she may be, is getting some télénovéla on the side. Instead, I think she starts the new paradigm for opposition political campaigns. Get some experience, and then get out in time to run, run, run for up to 4 years. Become a quote whore so that every time someone wants a point-counterpoint to administration policy for CNN or Fox or MSNBC, you're available. It's the old Seinfeld dating strategy. Start out being there for them. Then just be there.
Fascinating to see if it works...
UPDATE: I've been meditating on the timing a bit and have decided that, if she's doing it to further her career and not to end it, it's brilliant. Bury the announcement into the Fourth of July. By the time anyone is paying attention again on Monday it feels like old news, and any commentators who start hammering on it seem like it's because they are obsessed whackjobs who just can't let go rather than people providing insight on a recent event (cough *ANDREW SULLIVAN* cough).
I'll put a stick in the ground. Now granted, I'm the guy who said that Mark Sanford was going to try to be a guy for 2012 and look how that worked out. But I don't think Palin, MILFtastic though she may be, is getting some télénovéla on the side. Instead, I think she starts the new paradigm for opposition political campaigns. Get some experience, and then get out in time to run, run, run for up to 4 years. Become a quote whore so that every time someone wants a point-counterpoint to administration policy for CNN or Fox or MSNBC, you're available. It's the old Seinfeld dating strategy. Start out being there for them. Then just be there.
Fascinating to see if it works...
UPDATE: I've been meditating on the timing a bit and have decided that, if she's doing it to further her career and not to end it, it's brilliant. Bury the announcement into the Fourth of July. By the time anyone is paying attention again on Monday it feels like old news, and any commentators who start hammering on it seem like it's because they are obsessed whackjobs who just can't let go rather than people providing insight on a recent event (cough *ANDREW SULLIVAN* cough).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
