I got Windows 7 Ultimate for free by attending a similar event. There was also free food. Not bad.
Ray7 said:Bass said:*snip*
And this is the system Apple is trying to kill Flash for?
And people worry about Microsoft!
It doesn't make any difference if you use Flash/Silverlight/HTML5, if you use H.264, you need to acquire a license from the MPEG LA. It doesn't seem to be a well known fact, but it's true. There is really no way to get around this, the MPEG LA does not really like to issue broad licenses that would cover a lot of people.
If you think that's impossible, read this:
Microsoft specifically has a clause in their Win7 EULA saying what you are allowed to use the H.264 codec that is bundled with Windows 7 for. If you use it for commercial purposes, you must get a license from the MPEG LA. I assume this is also true if you are writing commercial software which utilizes the DirectShow API to decode/encode H.264 in some way.
They weren't planning on starting to charge for royalties from 2011, that was speculation because they had a licensing term that ended in 2011, the worst-case scenario speculation was that they would.
I'm not aware of any large-scale regressive royalties being introduced and the license-holders getting away with it. For one it's totally unenforcable.
They currently charge $2.00 per unit for MPEG-2 licensing, which is close to expiring. H.264 is a substationally better codec and generally more advanced technology, but H.264 is 20 cents per unit with a $5 million dollar cap (MPEG-2 has no upper fee cap).
Why is H.264 so much cheaper? Because H.264 is still a developing technology, while MPEG-2 is used in so many things it's not funny (DVDs for one). Their strategy is clearly to get the world addicted to this codec, then they can start charging the real license fees.
MPEG LA announced today that its AVC Patent Portfolio License will continue not to charge royalties for Internet Video that is free to end users (known as Internet Broadcast AVC Video) during the next License term from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2016.
They were planning to start charging royalties on Internet broadcasting in 2011. I assume this change of heart is in response to the HTML5 video debacle. Of course should H.264 actually be adopted, what happens in 2017 is anyone's guess. The H.264 patent portfolio expires in [currently] 2028, which still gives the MPEG LA 10 years to milk Internet webmasters Unisys style.
Ray7 said:Bass said:*snip*
No, it just looks free. Since I have to buy a decent-specced Mac to develop for the iPhone, I think that makes it one of the most expensive development kits going.
You don't really need a decent spec'ed Mac to develop iPhone/iPad apps. A regular Macbook/iMac will do just fine.
elmer said:Bass said:*snip*
Probably why Apple picked iPhone OS over Mac OS X on this device.
I doubt it.
I suspect it's more likely to do with locking the source of applications/media to Apple's stores.
The next step will be for Apple to try and control e-books to the same degree they do music... but to make it work, first you need a closed platform.
It seems to me that this is also why you won't see flash on these devices - too easy to circumvent the need for the app/media stores.
You can't just slap the same interface on every kind of device and expect it to work well. I don't know what the hell Microsoft is thinking. Mac OS X would be a terrible interface for a tablet, it's designed at it's core for a keyboard and mouse. Android/iPhone OS are UI _designed_ for touch tablets in mind.
I don't buy this whole "it's a conspiracy" BS either. When the iPhone was first out, it diesn't even have an App store, that came more then a year later. I don't think they were even thinking of having an app store until everyone bitches about it.
Apple gets like 30% of the revenue from the store, and they have to pay off the credit card companies, all the people maintaining the app store, etc. with that revenue. I doubt they are making a killing from it. Sure they also charge developers $100 for access to the App store, but unlike Microsoft all of Apple's development tools are free. However, developing and maintaining developer tools, as well as documentation worthy of external use is not free.
CannotResolveSymbol said:Sabot said:*snip*
A "minor grumble" (that Microsoft and the manufacturers treat tablet/slate computing just like any other PC, and don't provide any kind of optimized experience for them) has kept tablet computing from going mainstream. Hardly sounds "minor" to me.
Probably why Apple picked iPhone OS over Mac OS X on this device. iPhone OS was designed around being used on what is essentially a tablet, while OS X apps tend to be designed with a keyboard/mouse in mind.
ScanIAm said:Bass said:*snip*
too bad for me. I sold all my MSFT shares a few months ago to pay off my car
MSFT has so many shares out that even $6 billion dollars in profit gets split to many times over the dividend check wouldn't be that high anyway (unless you had a ton of stock, and if that true, nice Ferrari).
elmer said:phreaks said:*snip*
Especially when you can get a multi-touch enabled HP Slate with Windows 7 for less.
I predict that the HP Slate will be a failure.
People do seem to want the larger device with pad/slate-like input options, even if only because it’s trendy now that Apple is in the market.
However, IMHO, a fully featured O/S like Win-7, without a keyboard, will quickly become a P.I.T.A. to use.
Screw the 3rd product tier B.S. of the netbook/iPad/Slate, I just want a better design of light-weight, slim-line, convertible notebook, with a quality 13” wide-screen, long battery life, running Win-7... and I’d be prepared to pay over the odds for the right product.
Companies are already lined up to offer "alternatives" to the iPad. MSI has a very similar looking device that will be out on the market for $500. Unlike iPad, it includes a camera. Might be worth checking out.