Did Microsoft engage in deceptive marketing tricks to sell Vista?

According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer Microsoft is being sued over deceptive marketing practices that allowed PC makers promote computers as "Windows Vista Capable" even if they couldn't run the new operating system's "signature" features.

The proposed class action has been filed on behalf of Dianne Kelley of Camano Island. The issue surrounds PCs carrying the "Windows Vista Capable" stickers. These PCs were designed to meet the very basic requirements for Windows Vista Home Basic and would not be capable of making use of Vista more advanced features such as Aero, Flip 3D and media center support. In order to be able to fully leverage these features customers will need to have bought a "Premium Ready" PC in order to run Vista Home Premium or higher.
Microsoft claims that the suit ignores the lengths that the company took to make clear the differences between the different versions of Windows Vista.

I've written about this issue several times before (the last time I touched on this was in the post entitled "Is Vista Home Basic a way for vendors to sell low-spec PCs?") and my take is that having a situation where you have so many different operating systems all falling under the "Vista" banner, and then having two sets of system requirements and two logo programs for PCs is just too complicated for the average user to navigate. Not only that, but the scope for confusion and misrepresentation at the store level is also high. Microsoft then went on to market Vista based on features such as Aero which aren't guaranteed all round. Take this passage directly off the Microsoft Vista website:

In the Home Premium, Business, and Ultimate editions of Windows Vista, you'll see everything you're working on more clearly through the stunning new Windows Aero interface, which includes Windows Flip 3D to help you quickly switch between windows and tasks.

Makes it sound like a done deal to me no matter what your hardware. The small print might make it clear that "some product features are only available in certain editions of Windows Vista and may require advanced or additional hardware" (the wording that you come across on the Microsoft site quite often), but the main text and images gloss over the differences. OK, a few minutes researching Vista will tell most people what they need to know about the different versions, but if all consumers researched before they purchased PCs, we probably wouldn't have the "Vista Capable" logo in the first place.

Personally, I don't feel that this deserves a lawsuit (I'm no real fan of them because the only winners are lawyers, and in this case I'm almost certain it's going to get thrown out anyway), but I do think that Microsoft needs to make it clear to customers what they need in order to see the WOW. Windows Vista is not just about Aero and Flip 3D but Microsoft does promise a lot of WOW! After all, if you bought a new PC, bought it home and didn't see the WOW, wouldn't you feel just a little bit cheated?

By the way, do you feel that the wording on the "Vista Capable" stickers is a bit, well, misleading? What does "Windows Vista Capable" mean to you?

90 Firefox extensions

The ability to host extensions is one of the most powerful features of Firefox and one that makes it popular among users. But which extensions should you install? Which are the most useful?

I asked you, Firefox users, for your list of "must have" Firefox extensions. From the comments you posted I extracted 90!

Have fun!Adblock
AI Roboform Toolbar
All-in-One Sidebar
Auto Copy
AutoSlideshow
Beagle Indexer
British English Dictionary
Clean and Close
Colorful Tabs
Colorzilla
CoolIris
CustomizeGoogle
deskCut
Dictionary ToolTip
DictionarySearch
DOM Inspector
Download Statusbar
DownloadThemAll
Duplicate Tab
Fasterfox
Filterset G
Firebug
Firefox ShowCase
FireFTP
FlashBlock
FlashGot
Flat Bookmark Editing
ForecastFox
FoxClocks
FoxLingo
Foxmarks
FoxyTunes
Free Translate
Get directions from Google Maps
GetMail
Gmail Space
GreaseMonkey
HashColored Tabs
IETab
ImageZoom
KeyScrambler
Linkification
Live HTTP Headers
LoremIpsum Content Generator
McAfee SiteAdvisor
Measure it
MinimizeToTray
Mr Tech Local Install
NoScript
Password Hasher
PDF Download
PermaTab
Personal Anti-Phishing Sidebar
Plain Text to Link
Platypus
PrefBar
Print/Print Preview
QuickJava
Redirect Remover
Regular Expression Tester
ReloadEvery
Remember Mismatched Domains
ReminderFox
Right-Click-Link
Sage
ScrapBook
SearchStatus
SecurePassword Generator
SEO for Firefox
Session Manager
ShowIP
SiteAdvisor
SmoothWheel
Stack Style Tabs
StumbleUpon
SwitchProxy
Tab Mix Plus
Tabbrowser
Table2Clipboard
Talkback
TargetAlert
TinyMenu
TrackMeNot
UI Tweaker
Unhide Menubar
User Agent Switcher
VideoDownloader
View Source Chart
Web Developer
Yellowpipe Lynx Viewer Tool


Don't blame me if this maxes out your Firefox install! ;-)

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the list.

EMI DRM-free deal -Shortsighted, risky, and possibly irresponsible to the company’s shareholders

It's been interesting over the past few days to watch the reaction from different tech sectors to the EMI/Apple and then the EMI/Microsoft deal to make DRM-free music with less compression available to the public. To call the response "mixed" I think describes it well. Basically, the impression I'm getting is that no one, not even within EMI, Apple or Microsoft, really knows how this is going to play out. Bill Rosenblatt, writing for DRM Watch, does a good job of analyzing the possible short-term impact of these deals. So, is this a good move for EMI? Rosenblatt doesn't think so:

As far as EMI is concerned, the deal was shortsighted, risky, and possibly irresponsible to the company's shareholders. EMI is the smallest of the four majors, enjoys no synergies with corporate siblings, and is undergoing financial hard times. This move with Apple was a lunge for near-term revenue, at the quite possible expense of longer term revenue for EMI and the rest of the industry.

The announcement also didn't help EMI's stock price:

Any longer-term revenue effects from the deal are unpredictable. The financial markets concur with this assessment: EMI's stock has edged down slightly in the days since the Apple announcement.

But the deal is very good for Apple:

The short-term effects of this announcement on Apple, as with EMI, are predictable; but unlike EMI, they look positive (Apple's stock was up about 1% on the news). Apple is now well and truly in control of music download economics for Internet distribution. This deal should also be a huge help to Apple in defusing consumer advocacy actions in many European countries.

What about the knock-on effect on iPod sales?

Apple has determined that it no longer needs DRM to sell iPods. It stands to benefit most from any additional unauthorized copying resulting from the lack of DRM. And any additional movement towards DRM-free music will hurt its would-be competitors among device and platform makers, notably Microsoft. In other words, give credit where it is due: Apple has indeed played this scenario smartly.

I think that it'll be interesting to keep an eye on iPod sales over the next 12 to 24 months and see what happens. Initially, there's no way that the EMI deal can have a negative effect on iPod sales. After all, the type of person likely to by DRM-free EMI tunes from iTunes is also likely to have a large DRMed library too, forcing them to remain within the iPod ecosystem. But over time, especially if more and bigger player jump aboard the "DRM-free" wagon, there will be an increasing number of iTunes users who won't be locked into this ecosystem (assuming, of course, that they buy smart and stick to non-DRM stuff) and will be free to pick and choose their next media player from outside the iPod range.

Has EMI given too much power to Apple?

What does EMI get in the longer term? No one really knows. The effect that the lack of DRM will have on content misuse or on revenue is unpredictable. What we do know is that this deal flies in the face of the music industry's view that Apple has too much control over it. That's where the irresponsibility part comes in. If EMI wanted to go DRM-free, it would have been better off in the long run if it did so with an iTunes competitor.

This is a good point, but I think that EMI is hoping that Apple's halo will help profits, in the short-term.

It's a missed opportunity for the majors, most likely gone forever. EMI has launched an experiment from which there is no turning back.

Now, if EMI has done one thing, it's bound to have annoyed and irritated the other major players. What EMI has done is set a standard for DRM-free music that the other players will either have to match (and then be accused of doing more than following the herd), or do better in terms of say price, which could hurt bottom lines. I don't agree that EMI could turn back from this deal at some future point, but as soon as another player comes on board the entire industry will be locked in a price and features war, which is going to be great for consumers.

But, if DRM-free music what consumers really want?

The market will decide whether music tracks without DRM (and with less audio compression) are worth the extra money. We do not believe that the existing market research really predicts how consumers value DRM versus DRM interoperability versus no DRM.

This is really the crux of the whole matter. Will consumers pay more (and it's not a "little more" like I've seen it described elsewhere, 25 to 30 per cent is a lot more) for higher quality, DRM-free music? Sure, there's a market, but how big is it? How many people are unhappy with the current state of downloads who will be happy enough now to start buying downloads? Some tech communities make a lot of noise about the negative effects of DRM and how it's bad for consumers (and there's no doubt in my mind that it is bad), but the flip-side of that coin is that people are still buying DRMed content.

First of all, we believe that the number of consumers who would truly benefit from "interoperability" is small. Furthermore, market research that asks consumers if they would pay more for "interoperability" is strictly hypothetical — of course people prefer interoperability; it's like asking if you prefer "pure" or "chemically treated" water — and fails to isolate DRM as a factor in interoperability.

This is a good point. We're always hearing anti-DRM arguments that go something like "I want to be able to listen to my music in the car, when I'm on the move and in the gym, from my toaster … and DRM doesn't allow me to do this." This argument just doesn't convince me because there are plenty of "one stop shop" devices on the market that will let you listen to music wherever you are, and the number of people trying to juggle their library across multiple devices has got to be small. In fact, the only people I know who try to do this are tech-savvy users who seem to have been sucked in to buying DRMed content and then wish they hadn't. My experience is that the average consumer is pretty happy with how things are.

Effects on revenue and piracy are unknowable at this point, as are the next steps of the other three majors.

Now if this deal is only going to do one thing, it's going to settle once and for all the debate on whether DRM protects the industry against piracy. In 12 to 24 months we'll know the answer to this question thanks to EMI.

Is DRM dead?

We don't think so. Rights management should continue to play a role in helping content owners define different economic offers. Subscription on-demand services like Rhapsody and Napster are unworkable without DRM, and certain types of users prefer them. Furthermore, we don't see film and television content owners changing their stances on DRM anytime soon; this deal will most likely fall under the heading of "music industry mistakes we don't want to repeat."

No, DRM isn't dead, but I think that things are going to change as a result of what EMI's done here. Hopefully, we'll now see the digital download evolve into a more consumer-friendly market that respects the buyer rather than considering them thieves. But it's not going to change overnight. So, for now at least, I'll still be buying CDs.

Sex trade at Google, not Craigslist

Does Craigslist REALLY have a “dirty little secret”? NO, but Google may!

Compete, a Website which claims “insights powered by over 2 million people,” declares a “scoop,” daring to bare the “virtual red-light district,” aka Craigslist:

"It’s no wonder that Craigslist is champion of the online classifieds revolution; Compete reports just under 17 million people visiting per month. The site boasts quick accessibility, a straight-forward interface, and a posting registry ranging from video games and community events to furniture and real estate. But as it turns out, many visitors to craigslist.org are looking for something more risqué than that lamp with the red velvet fringe."

The real wonder: Why did Compete need the “insights” of 2 million people to figure out sex is a prime draw at Craigslist.

Compete commenter jlewin quickly noted HIS Craigslist insights, observable to the naked eye:

This is a secret? The personals section is listed at the top center of Craigslist, with a number indicating how many thousands of posts there currently are. It’s always the second most popular section after for sale items.

In Craig Newmark targeting ‘bad behaviour’ at Craigslist I recount my conversation with Craig last year about rampant sexual listings at his namesake site:

During our chat, Craig Newmark spent much time discussing his efforts to rid Craigslist of “bad behaviour.” Like much about Craigslist, however, their policing of “bad behaviour,” is somewhat fluid, reflecting both the need to provide a safe, legal environment, and the wish to be inclusive and “compassionate.”

Like other Internet sites promoting open access and participation, such as MySpace, anti-social behaviour is a problem at Craigslist, same as in the offline world. As the day to day operations of Craigslist are run by Jim Buckmaster, CEO, Newmark spends much of his time trying to police predatory and illegal activities transpiring at Craigslist: scams, harassment, prostitution…

What about Google? Does it have a “dirty little secret” of its own?

In XXX Porn at Google.com powers AdWords business last year I drilled down on the Google sex trade:

A search on “porn” at Google.com yields 139,000,000 search results, a “porn” definition link and ten AdWords “Sponsored Links” on the first SERP, which hawk hardcore sex products and services.

Number one Google algorithmic search result:

PenisBot’s Porn Links
PenisBot’s Porn Links. All porn links what are worth your visit. Well organized collection of free, pay, avs sites are waiting you here.




Today, the number one “Sponsored Link” at Google.com in a search for “porn” is Google’s own “Sponsored Link” redirecting Google searchers to “Pics” at Google’s own test site “SearchMash”!

How about Google’s "classifieds" Base? The number one result for a search for “sex” there yields 1) a porn slide show, 2) porn pics for download and 3) to a hard core sex site, all from Gia, who identifies herself as "self-employed" and interested in "sex."

BOTTOM line, sex is no secret on the Internet.

Mozilla Updates Mobile Browser

The newest version of Minimo, the Mozilla mobile browser, became available this week in the midst of changes within the Minimo project that make its future uncertain.

Minimo 0.2, available for free download, is compatible with Windows Mobile 5.0 and is smaller and faster than previous versions, according to early users who posted comments to the blog about the browser. It also supports GPS (Global Positioning System), a cleaner user interface and a start page that includes bookmarks and search. Minimo is designed to be an alternative to the browser that comes with Windows Mobile and its creators promote its speed in accessing sites and other features such as tabs, better security and support for widgets.

The Minimo project, which isn't a Mozilla Corp. endeavor but is hosted by Mozilla.org, was one of the earliest third-party mobile browser initiatives but seems to have been eclipsed by other developers, including Opera Software ASA.

In 2004, when Minimo seemed promising, Nokia Corp. made a financial investment in the initiative. But around the middle of 2004, users were posting questions to the Minimo forum asking if the project was still alive. By the following year, Nokia announced that it was developing its own browser using open-source components from Apple Inc.'s Safari browser that would be used in its future smartphones.

Those ups and downs have been tied to financing, said Doug Turner, the leader of the project. "It is an open source project that has had some financial backing, and during those times, we push hard. When there isn't funding, we keep it alive because it is something we use," he wrote in an e-mail.

Now, even after the most recent release, the future of Minimo is unclear. In late December, Turner wrote that he wouldn't be dedicating much time to it in the future. "There are lots of browsers in the space, the market is tightly controlled by cellular operators, and the end users aren't using the browser," he wrote on his blog. "This will change, but not for a few years."

He points to a market share report that shows that all mobile browsers combined don't add up to 1 percent of Internet use.

Opera, which also offers a free browser for phones including those running the newest OS from Microsoft, Windows Mobile 6.0, has been attracting more and more users. In February, there were 216,283 downloads of Opera's browser for Windows Mobile Smartphone and Pocket PC editions, up from 142,502 in the same month last year, Opera said.

Turner argues that Minimo has also held its own.

Minimo may end up heading in a different direction in order to better compete. "At the Firefox Summit, we had a brainstorming session that exposed some ideas that would help improve the lives of Firefox users that have mobile phones without having to build a full browser for the mobile handset. Things that we could do in a few months, rather than many years," Turner wrote in the blog posting. He plans to continue flushing out these ideas in the coming months.

Minimo may end up heading in a different direction in order to better compete. "At the Firefox Summit, we had a brainstorming session that exposed some ideas that would help improve the lives of Firefox users that have mobile phones without having to build a full browser for the mobile handset. Things that we could do in a few months, rather than many years," Turner wrote in the blog posting. He plans to continue flushing out these ideas in the coming months.

Both Minimo and Opera face renewed competition from Microsoft, which just this week began previewing new technology that could be included in future versions of its mobile browser.

PC MAV RC 14

PCMAV RC 14 siap didownload. Klik Link Berikut ini DivShare File - PCMAV-RC14-04-ALL.zip