For those who care about our world and future generations. Many people in Europe already do.
Please sign Chief Raoni's pétition against the Belo Monte dam project
For those who care about our world and future generations. Many people in Europe already do.
Please sign Chief Raoni's pétition against the Belo Monte dam project
What is DRM?
Digital Restrictions Management – it restricts what you
and your family can do with the electronic devices and
media purchased. It is an attempt by technology and
media companies to take away your rights.
DRM software and hardware monitors and controls
your family's behavior.
iPod users are restricted from transferring their music to
other nonApple devices because the music downloaded
from iTunes is encrypted locked with DRM. Apple
allows you to write an audio CD, but will leave you with
very lousy sound quality if you ever want to take your
music to a new portable device in a compressed format.
Sony Music has secretly planted DRM “rootkits” on
computers when users purchased music CDs from them.
DRM is more than a nuisance. The film and music
industry are setting the agenda to increase their control.
They have demanded that technology companies impose
DRM to deliver for them what their political lobbying to
change copyright law never has: they aim to turn every
interaction with a published work into a transaction,
abolishing fair use and the commons, and making
copyright last forever. By accepting DRM users
unwittingly surrender their rights and invite a deeper
surveillance. This will put your family's viewing,
listening, reading, browsing records on file with them.
What gives them that right?
DRM Means: No fair use. No purchase and resell. No
private copies. No sharing. No backup. No swapping. No
mix tapes. No privacy. No commons. No control over
our computers. No control over our electronic devices.
The conversion of our homes into apparatus to monitor
our interaction with published works and web sites.
What you can do
Stay away from DRMdependent products like Bluray
and HDDVD, iTunes, Windows Media Player, Zune,
Amazon Unbox... Stay away from retailers who insist on
making DRM part of the package. Stop financing the
people who want to restrict you. Find out more at
Amazon timber is all over the U.S. You can find it in hardwood flooring at national retailers like Lumber Liquidators and in walkways at landmarks like Atlantic City, Miami Beach, and the Brooklyn Bridge. Much of this wood comes from Pará State, Brazil’s largest timber producer and exporter. It is estimated that 78% of the timber logged in Pará is taken illegally.
Just last month, I joined my Brazilian colleagues in Pará State to do some field research, speak with locals, and fly over some of the most threatened areas in the Amazon.
The scale of the problem in the Brazilian Amazon is incredible. We witnessed logging trucks racing along dirt roads to remove trees for sawmills. And we spoke with many locals who confirmed that criminals throughout the state continue to buy and sell illegal timber with impunity.
Controlling illegal logging is fundamental to saving the Amazon. Predatory logging sets the stage for deforestation in remote areas of the forest and threatens protected areas, including biological reserves and indigenous lands. Predatory logging threatens communities who depend upon and live in the forest. And it endangers animals like the jaguar. Meanwhile, it releases heavy amounts of climate pollution. Deforestation and forest degradation via logging is amongst the greatest contributors to climate change.
Loggers particularly focus on the most valuable tree species like Ipe, which some have described as the next Mahogany. Ipe is very rare and fickle in terms of the conditions required for it to grow. A recent study concluded that it may be logged into extinction if things don’t change.
Greenpeace’s recent investigation has documented the pervasive fraud and then tracked the fraud from tree to tabletop. Our team outlined common scams such as overestimating the number of valuable species in forests, falsifying information for chain of custody documents, and applying for logging permits in areas already deforested, all in order to sell timber of illegal origins with official documents. Criminals are easily able to generate the official documentation fraudulently and then use the documents to launder illegal wood.
The documentation is legal but the timber isn’t. I often compare it to a teenager using his older brother’s ID to buy alcohol.
Importers of Amazon timber in the U.S. are part of the problem. Lumber Liquidators provides a striking example. One of the company’s suppliers, Pampa Exportacoes is connected to our case studies of forest crime and has been fined over 1 million USD in environmental fines. Furthermore, its sawmill suppliers have been fined roughly 79 million USD in environmental fines within the past five years. Finding that Lumber Liquidators is sourcing from tainted sources was not too surprising considering that Lumber Liquidators is already under investigation for importing illegal timber through Chinese factory suppliers in violation of the Lacey Act.
Content extracted from Greenpeace.org.
All of us who use computers create a problem we rarely consider. How do we dispose of them? This is no small concern. Estimates put the number of personal computers in use world-wide today at about one billion. The average lifespan of a personal computer is only two to five years. We can expect a tidal wave of computers ready for disposal shortly, and this number will only increase. And as if that isn't challenge enough, there are already several hundred million computers out-of-service, sitting in attics and basements and garages, awaiting disposal.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, most computer and electronics waste in the United States is not disposed of properly. Some 85% goes into landfills or is incinerated. Much is exported to China, where it is "recycled" without regard to the environment or labor safety.
A problem of this scale can only be addressed by a set of coherent solutions. This article discusses one piece of the puzzle. If we simply keep computers in service for their natural lifespans -- rather than for the artificially-shortened lifespans promoted by some vendors -- we reduce the rate at which we must displose of them.
Better use of existing computers also conserves natural resources. Making a single new computer requires:
* A half ton of fossil fuels
* One and a half tons of water
* 48 pounds of chemicals
That's why your laptop is the most expensive electronic item per cubic inch in your house.
Finally, better use of existing computers makes it possible to get technology into the hands of the nearly one in four Americans do not own a personal computer. Not everyone can afford a new computer.
Vendors don't like this thinking. Many consider it heresy. The goal of any business is to produce and sell as many as you can as fast as you can. This is laudable. But this has been mutated into planned obsolescence, a system that encourages -- even forces -- premature computer disposal.
The computer industry wants you to view your computer as a disposable consumer device. But why toss out a perfectly good computer if it still meets your needs? And why should the computer industry dictate when your computer is obsolete?
How Planned Obsolescence Works
I collect computers donated to charity for refurbishing or recycling. A quarter of the computers I receive are still perfectly usable. They merely have software problems that result from Windows deterioration.
Windows needs to be tuned up, just like an automobile. Few users know this, so many discard good hardware. (This guide tells how to tune-up Windows systems to keep them in service.)
Microsoft bases its businesson planned obsolescence. Theyleverage their monopoly to enforce it. Their goal is a win-win-win ecosystem where:
Microsoft often achieves this trifecta marketing ideal. But whether it does or not -- and whether or not consumers wish to participate -- Microsoft leads the computer industry in an infrastructure of planned obsolescence. Here are just a few of the techniques employed:
Finally, Windows' famous vulnerability to malware presents an insurmountable problem when it comes to keeping mature machines in service. Microsoft has terminated updates for many Windows XP and earlier systems. This effectively kills those computers because Windows requires security fixes. Moreover, the anti-malware overhead required to protect Windows computers compromises performance on processors operating at less than about a gigahertz. Can't these working computers still be useful?
How Linux Helps
Mature hardware in good working condition can still be useful. What is needed is software that does not mandate undue resources or limit flexibility through artificial constraints.
Microsoft's goal is for consumers to purchase new computers -- with new versions of Windows and Office -- on the schedule it dictates. Revenue targets drive this schedule. In contrast, functional requirements drive Linux. Not only does Linux require fewer resources for equivalent functionality and performance, it does not suffer the overhead of Windows' required anti-malware software.
The chart shows that the current version of the popular Ubuntu Linux, 10.04, requires computing resources on par with what Windows XP required when it was introduced nine years ago. Puppy Linux isone of several major Linux distributions specifically designed for mature hardware. It even renders serviceable machines in the 10 to 13 year old range. Among the many tricks it employs to ensure decent performance is to run the entire OS from memory on any machine having at least 256M. Puppy bundles a full range of applications and runs them on old equipment while being reasonably easy to use.
If Microsoft software drives obsolescence to promote sales, Linux presents a sound alternative. It is competitive, supported software witha full range of free applications. The open source mindset offers an alternative to the disposable-device mentality that litters our landfills and pollutes the environment. Linux and open source keep older computers in service as long as their hardware still works and they support useful work.
Free Geek's Reuse Model
The computer refurbishing and recycling organization Free Geek Chicago embodies this alternative mindset. Free Geek is a group of loosely associated 501(c)(3) non-profits in about a dozen cities. Free Geek shows how Linux can be used to extend computer life while getting computers to those who might not have them otherwise. About on in four americans do not own a personal computer.
Computers of approximately ten years old or less are refurbished and reused. Older computers are de-manufactured into their constituent parts. Reusable parts are then used to build up resources on refurbished computers, or are put directly back into the community. Parts that can not be reused are segregated by material and environmentally recycled.
This model ensures that all parts are reused that possibly can be, while only broken or technologically obsolete parts are environmentally recycled.
The model supports education and spreads computer access. Anyone is welcome to come to Free Geek and earn a free computer by participating in the organization. Volunteers normally start out in Teardown, which gives them a hands-on opportunity to see how computer components are connected and assembled. Eventually newcomers know enough to assemble their own computer, and they graduate to refurbishing and building computers.
This reuse model presents compelling advantages:
1. It addresses environmental problems by reusing when possible, and environmentally recycling when necessary 2. It gets computers to those who need them at little or no cost 3. It uses mature computers for hands-on education and computer literacy
Open source software is central to Free Geek's approach. Not only is it free -- important to a non-profit with limited resources -- it's free of licensing restrictions and the headaches that go along with that. And it includes thousands of free applications beyond the full set bundled with the operating system itself. What could be better?
Free Geek typically installs Xubuntu Linux, a version of the popular Ubuntu system. This gives users all the advantages of Ubuntu -- its gigantic repository of free applications, its huge support community, and its vast array of free educational and tutorial resources.Xubuntu requires less memory than Ubuntu due to its lightweight graphical user interface.
How Old Can You Reuse?
If you're reading this article on a state-of-the-art dual-core computer, you might wonder: of what possible use could old P-IV's and P-III's be? The first chart in this article is, after all, representative of the kinds of donations we receive.
The answer lies at the intersection of user requirements and machine capabilities. Any machine above 1 ghz -- running Linux -- plays video and flash fine and handles social networking. Any P-III or better offers word processing, spreadsheets, presentation graphics, web surfing, email, audio, text editing, chat and IM, image scanning and management, and more.
With the right software, a single-core P-IV or P-III with adequate memory still supports the tasks most people perform today. I researched and wrote this article on a P-III running Ubuntu and Puppy, which I regularly use at a relative's house. It is her only computer.
Perhaps the best way to answer whether these computers are useful is to tell the story of a single mother of two who asked me for a computer. She was out of work and searching for a job. I felt badly that I had nothing to give her at that moment but a 400mhz P-II running Puppy Linux from its 256M of memory. Never was anyone so grateful for such a small gift! Now she could respond quickly to email from potential employers without taking the bus to the library every day. She could also research job leads when convenient to her at night. The old machine I gave her improved her life.
What You Can Do
If you have an unused P-IV or P-III, donate it to charity rather than letting it age into obsolescence in your attic or basement. Make sure you donate it to a refurbisher rather than to a recycler. Refurbishers reuse older equipment if possible, only recycling what they can not reuse. A recycler simply destroys your old computer in an environmentally responsible manner. The components (metals, plastics, glass, etc) are segregated and melted down for their material value. Most "vendor takeback" programs recycle rather than refurbish. They can't afford the labor cost to refurbish. Your goal should be to "reuse, then recycle."
When you look for a refurbisher, keep in mind the lax US laws regarding electronics waste. Some companies that say they reuse or recycle your old equipment are actually fake recyclers. They tell you they will recycle your donation, then export it to countries like China, where it is de-manufactured under unsafe conditions and without any regard to the environment. What these companies do is not "recycling" in any normal sense of the word. Programs like 60 Minutes, PBS Frontline, and BBC World News have exposed this scandal. Your tip-off to a fake recycler is that they accept CRT display monitors and printers without any fee. These items can rarely be reused and cost money to properly recycle.
Ask any refurbisher how old a computer they can reuse versus what they recycle. Free Geek reuses computers up to ten years old. The "secret sauce" is Linux. Most Windows refurbishers only reuse about five years back. Find your closest Free Geek affiliate here.
Social Impact
Linux is not only green in that it saves money, it's also environmentally green. Open source software extends the useful life of computers and reduces e-waste. It provides a crucial alternative to Microsoft's planned obsolescence business model. Linux enables mature computers to support education and computer access for those who need it when coupled with a good reuse model like that of Free Geek.
Linux and open source software have become popular for their flexibility, low costs, and utility. How many of us consider their beneficial social impact?
Resources
Electronics Take Back Coalition
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Microsoft's Refurbishing Programs
Addendum: Microsoft's Refurbisher Programs
This article focuses on Microsoft's business model, which attempts to sell more computers by encouraging planned obsolescence. The goal is not to denigrate Microsoft but rather to explain how its business model shortens computer lifespans. Microsoft has a unique role in the industry due to its operating system monopoly, and many hardware and software manufacturers follow Microsoft's lead to their mutual benefit. This negatively impacts the environment, efficient resource usage, and consumers' wallets.
While driving planned obsolescence in the computer industry, Microsoft also supports computer reuse through its Microsoft Authorized Refurbisher (MAR) and Registered Refurbisher programs. These programs offer reduced-fee Windows XP and Office licenses to organizations that conform to Microsoft's program requirements. The emphasis has been on reusing computers less than five years old.
Member organizations have done a world of good in reuse and recycling. At the same time, the programs help Microsoft fulfill the "Prime Directive" of every monopoly -- maintain monopoly status in all market segments.
Full Article: OSNEWS
AnandTech(USA)
CanardPC(Canada)
HardwareHeaven(United Kingdom)
Extreme Overclocking(USA)
HardOCP(USA)
HardwareLogic(USA)
Hardware Secrets (USA)
JonnyGURU(USA)
Overclock3D(United Kingdom)
PC-Experience (Germany)
PC-Max (United Kingdom)
PC Perspective(USA)
Planet3dnow (Germany)
Sweclockers (Sweden)
Technic3D(Germany)
The Tech Report(USA)
Tom's Hardware Guide (France)
X-bit labs(USA)
Want a way to stop the corruption and pollution that the fossil fuel industry is wreaking on our planet? We've seen a better future, and here's our plan to get there: the Energy [R]evolution.
The best way to stop an oil gush? Keep it in the ground. If you think that's impractical, or that it means shivering in the dark, or millions of people without energy, or millions of people without jobs, you'd be forgiven for thinking that. It's the line that we've all been fed by Big Oil and King Coal. It's wrong on all counts.
Greenpeace teamed up with more than 30 scientists and engineers from universities, institutes and the renewable energy industry to create our Energy [R]evolution Scenario. Using only existing technologies, it charts a course by which we can get from where we are now, to where we need to be: decreasing CO2 emissions after 2015; 95% renewable electricity by 2050; a phase out of nuclear power; 12 million jobs by 2030, with a third more jobs in the global power supply sector than in a business as usual scenario. The scenario respects natural limits, decouples growth from fossil fuel use, and proposes an investment system in which costs are shared fairly under a global climate regime. It also means finally providing energy to the two billion people currently without reliable access to energy services.
Learn more about the Energy [R]evolution.
Why a [R]evolution? It's an evolution, AND a revolution. (And yes, electronics geeks, that's the symbol for [r]esistance there as well.)
We need a [r]evolution because business as usual is not going to stop the tens of thousands of barrels of crude oil spilling into our waters, scores of workers losing their lives to accidents in coal mines around the world, or the countless other disasters we are all facing due to our reliance on dirty energy.
Jobs
The Energy [R]evolution scenario outlines how to create about 12 million jobs, with 8.5 million in the renewables sector alone, by 2030. If we continue under business as usual, global renewable power jobs would be only 2.4 million of the global power sector's 8.7 million jobs. By implementing the Energy [R]evolution 3.2 million or over 33% more jobs globally will be created in the power sector alone. If that isn't enough to convince you consider this - the overall annual market for renewable technology will increase from around US$100 billion today, to more than US$600 billion by 2030.
Figure 1: global employment
Emissions
Global CO2 emissions under the Energy [R]evolution scenario would peak in 2015 and drop afterwards. If compared with 1990, CO2 emissions will be more than 80% lower by 2050 if the energy supply is based almost entirely on renewable energies. By 2050 around 95% of electricity could be produced by renewable energy.
Figure 2: CO2 emissions per capita
Greenhouse Development Rights
At the core of the Energy [R}evolution will be a change in the way that energy is produced, distributed and consumed. It will also mean connecting the 2 billion people currently living without electricty. Decentralised energy systems, where power and heat are produced close to the point of final use, will avoid the current energy wastage during conversion and distribution. Investments in "climate infrastructure" as well as super grids to transport large quantities of offshore wind and concentrating solar power, are essential to making the Energy [R]evolution a reality.
The sustainable future of the planet is rooted in the investment in people and local communities who can install and maintain renewable energy sources, rather than further subsidising dirty and finite fossil fuels. We need to create a system in which investment costs are shared fairly under a global climate regime. One such mechanism is the Greenhouse Development Rights framework (GDR) which calculates national shares of global greenhouse gas obligations based on a combination of responsibility (contribution to climate change) and capacity (ability to pay).
Policy changes
To make the Energy [R]evolution a reality and to avoid dangerous climate change, we are demanding the following policies and actions are implemented in the energy sector:
1. Phase out all subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy.
2. Internalise the external (social and environmental) costs of energy production through 'cap and trade' emissions trading.
3. Mandate strict efficiency standards for all energy consuming appliances, buildings and vehicles.
4. Establish legally binding targets for renewable energy and combined heat and power generation.
5. Reform the electricity markets by guaranteeing priority access to the grid for renewable power generators.
6. Provide defined and stable returns for investors, for example by feed-in tariff programmes.
7. Implement better labelling and disclosure mechanisms to provide more environmental product information.
8. Increase research and development budgets for renewable energy and energy efficiency
The challenge
Despite the decline in support for offshore oil drilling as a result of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, a recent Pew Research Center Poll of the American public shows a *decline* in support for funding for alternative energy as well.
Now, a decline in support for nuclear we can understand: the failure of multiple safety technologies and the poor response to an ecological emergency are good reasons not to trust a technology that relies on deadly fuel to boil water.
But let's look at those numbers. At 73%, a healthy majority of Americans support more investment in alternatives. So why is the US government not delivering a big time investment in alternatives as a way out of the nightmare of dependence on oil, big oil slicks, pollution, corruption, poisoned fishing grounds, and an energy mix that's choking the future to death?
Why indeed?
Sign up - Join the Energy [R}evolution and join the more than 5 million Greenpeace subscribers worldwide who are asking this question of our elected leaders, demanding an end to subsidies for fossil fuels and investment in clean, renewable technologies.
An alternative future isn't just possible -- it's happening. Help us ensure it gets here in time.
Content extracted from Greenpeace.org.
All-Out War: The Computing World´s Battle Lines Are Drawn
Over at Daringfireball this past weekend, John Gruber put words to what many people are thinking about after Google's rush of Android announcements and not-subtle Apple-bashing at this week's I/O conference: "all-out war." I agree with Gruber that a good old-fashioned bitter rivalry could be a great thing for the computing world, and for smartphone/handheld fans in particular.
In the meantime, Michael Arrington is having a brief flirtation with a $25 prepaid phone, but that fling is only enabled by the existence of the iPad for routine mobile computing needs and some unrequited lust for an as-yet-unreleased smartphone. The smartphone isn't going away. It's just going to be a part of an ever-richer market segment.
Right before our eyes, the computing world is being re-oriented, with some former heavyweights being relegated to support players, upstarts rising to prominence, and former champions taking a shot at a comeback. There's a magical combination of technologies and trends that are enabling this transformation, and the various players' strengths and skills at taking advantage of these factors will ultimately determine both their fortunes and the nature of the computing world that we'll all have to live in for the next twenty years. Whether you're a take-sides partisan or a curious onlooker, I think that 2009-2011 will prove to be a critical turning point in technological history.
In Thom's thought-provoking essay from one week ago, he delivered a heartfelt elegy for the platform wars that haven't so much ended but rather burned themselves out, while recognizing that cloud and mobile computing seem to be where the real action is these days. I agree with him, and don't necessarily lament the loss.
As Gruber points out, one of the major differences between Google's devices and Apple's is that Google's are more at-home in a post-PC world, while Apple's are -- literally -- tethered to an accessory personal computer, if only for the initial setup and major upgrades. The cornerstone of the Post-PC world is offloading much of what we used to do with client apps onto centrally-managed server apps, i.e. cloud computing. Advancements in the HTML spec, robust development frameworks for developers, and the ongoing plummeting of the cost of processors, bandwidth, and memory for servers have all made this revolution possible, and most people who work in the web apps space feel that we're just at the forward edge of what's possible.
The new crop of devices, from netbooks to smartphones to the new tablets would be much-degraded without cloud computing. It's all about the strong collection of web-enabled apps that both ameliorate their modest performance and storage capabilities and extend their functionality via an always-on network. As this revolution continues, fewer people will be using these devices as an accessory to a traditional personal computer, and more will be using them as replacements.
But clearly, in the Google vs. Apple smartphone (and soon-to-be, certainly tablet) wars, the big loser almost certainly is going to be has already been Microsoft. Not only can I not imagine them being able to make up for their lost momentum enough to be more than a side player, there just aren't many people who are really rooting for them to win. And there's another problem for them: this computing revolution isn't only about a bunch of nifty new mobile computing devices getting everybody's attention.
There are various things happening simultaneously here, and the interaction between these phenomena is what's causing the revolution: First is a vibrant and exciting new crop of devices, running the gamut of price and functionality: Desktop PCs, laptops, netbooks, smartbooks, tablets, smartphones. A by-product of the various hardware platforms is a variety of different operating systems, each with its own advantages, limitations, and application library. But instead of taking us back to the bad old days of vendor lock-in via software apps, native applications are waning in importance. Some platforms, such as Google Chrome, are trying to dispense with native apps altogether. The iPhone's apps are typically lightweight affairs that are often just a series of UI hooks to a web-based app. Even regular desktop PCs are experiencing the shift. I probably use a quarter of the apps on my desktop machines that I used to, and even some of the ones I use are just gateways to "cloud" apps. Everything else has been replaced by web apps.
In theory, this should make the barrier to entry for a new platform pretty low. As long as you really embrace web-based apps, people should be able to do the things they want to do, and the lack of a large developer community won't hurt you as much as it used to. In the irony to end all ironies, this may actually save Microsoft from becoming completely irrelevant in mobile computing. In practice however, apps still matter, and that's one reason why this war seems to be organizing itself around Apple's vibrant, orderly, and deeply unfair App Store model and Google's evolving concept for an app store, which now appears to include both native android apps and a "store" for web apps. (Of course, Microsoft's still massive library of win32 apps will still remain relevant in the desktop space, but their window for being able to leverage that advantage into mobile is largely closed.)
The vibrancy and simplicity of these new devices, coupled with the increasing viability of a completely cloud-based desktop computing environment is even causing people to question the PC paradigm altogether. I believe that over the next few years we'll actually see a contraction of the personal computer installed base in countries with a fully-developed tech economy. Already, two and three-computer families are becoming one computer, two iPad households. They may be outliers now, but with the convenience and maintenance advantages of Post-PC devices, once the iPad is joined by scads of inexpensive lookalikes, we'll see more and more older PCs being decommissioned and replaced with alternative devices.
I think it's safe to speculate that many of these devices won't be tablets. Lightweight non-Windows netbooks, and even full laptops and desktops will become more popular, particularly if Google's Android and ChromeOS and (Now)HP's WebOS make the advancements we assume they'll make. Is an iPhoneOS-based MacBook (with a detachable keyboard) out of the question?
The upshot of all of this activity for the OSNews reader is a real invigoration of the OS landscape. Granted, for the most part we're still talking about Windows, MacOS, and Linux and their associated variants, but it's exciting nonetheless. The only way this is really going to happen, however, is through a knock-down, drag out war.
As ambitious as Apple has seemed to be as it's made its assault on the smartphone space, it is not, by nature, an ambitious company, strategically. They have existed from the beginning by creating (mostly) excellent products that a portion of the tech community wants to buy, and has always maintained that it's necessary to both keep their product line pretty constrained and their prices pretty high. But pleasing everyone and selling to the mass market has never been their thing. The iPhone enjoyed such a superiority to the field for its first couple of years, that if Google had not intervened, it's quite likely that Apple would have rested on its laurels and differentiated new iPhones mostly around industrial design. Staying a step ahead of Microsoft would have been a background process.
But Google is going to force Apple to up its game considerably, and the fact that Android is free to license means that the entirety of the non-Apple hardware world is likely to get involved. This also means that Microsoft, Nokia, HP, Samsung, and whoever else wants to make a platform play is going to have to work that much harder. They're not going to just have to contend with Apple and its natural boundaries. They're going to have to try to make money in an environment where neither Apple nor any of the Android users is paying a licensing fee for their software. The only way they'll be able to compete in that environment is by innovating: either making a platform that beats out the leaders in some way, or expanding a new product segment where Android and Apple aren't doing a good job.
So will we end up with a boring old Apple/Google duopoly? I think it's too early to call that yet. Most of the money to be made in the post-PC space is in the future, growing, parts of it, and I think the prize is just too glittering for Microsoft and the rest of the players to just give it up so early in the game. It's going to be war, ladies and gentlemen, and the beneficiaries will be us.
Source: OSNEWS
Log in to comment