Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Do Microsoft?sCopilot+ PCs Require Linux?
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 08:04:25 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <v2pvo9$2ae8o$6@dont-email.me>
References: <v2k7km$12v2d$1@dont-email.me>
 <qnbu4j1li5mgjm6gm0l5o3kvku94179t9u@4ax.com>
 <QNWdnbsVQuRa29L7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@supernews.com>
 <jd5v4jh01l2cobjil6k7tjpuj6g8ricb1q@4ax.com>
 <SXCdnZlYANrgJ9L7nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@supernews.com>
 <v2oefk$1unm9$1@dont-email.me> <v2oiao$1vg9l$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2olmo$1vp5q$1@dont-email.me> <v2pdu5$27a5s$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 14:04:26 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f93b4a615b6964c7740b9cacd833cfca";
	logging-data="2439448"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18kyd5NMo5EQ2UvJn5FtrKNQiNPbDtOLgo="
User-Agent: Betterbird (Windows)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:D+NBAkBd5kUpiwzpvKnUFZqiCKk=
In-Reply-To: <v2pdu5$27a5s$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6557

On 2024-05-24 3:00 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-05-24, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On 2024-05-23 7:09 p.m., RonB wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-23, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-23 5:51 p.m., Tyrone wrote:
>>>>> On May 23, 2024 at 3:19:39 PM EDT, "Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Windows is a *type of* monopoly, in that only M$ controls it, but it
>>>>>> is used as a general OS.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no such thing as "a type of monopoly".  Either you are or you are
>>>>> not. The legal definition is very clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't have a monopoly on your own product. If that were the case then
>>>>> Harley Davidson has a "monopoly" on Sportsters and McDonalds has a "monopoly"
>>>>> on Big Macs.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that's not how it works. Monopolies exist is markets. Not products. There
>>>>> is plenty of competition in motorcycles and hamburgers. Apple can not have a
>>>>> "monopoly" on iPhones for the same reason.
>>>>
>>>> For what it's worth, I'm probably part of the minority which actually
>>>> liked Windows Phones. It lacked decent music playing software, but using
>>>> it was rather nice before my in-call mic died.
>>>
>>> Microsoft had a chance in the business sector with their Windows phones.
>>> They were rolling these out where my brother worked, but found out they
>>> didn't integrate with the company's voice mail system. Microsoft insisted
>>> that it be done their way, when the industry standard was already set
>>> differently. By the time Microsoft decided to accept the industry standard
>>> it was too late. The rollouts had stopped and business had returned their
>>> Windows phones. Microsoft's near monopoly in its OS, and its own hubris
>>> because of this, worked against them in this market.
>>
>> It's part of what I was saying about Microsoft not having an interest in
>> replacing the Windows core with the Linux kernel. Microsoft has no
>> interest in using a superior kernel as long as they have one that's good
>> enough to offer the world which is simultaneously under their complete
>> control. By using Linux, they're handing over control. They won't do that.
>>
>>>>>> But macOS isn't really less so, it just
>>>>>> isn't seen as a "monopoly" because of lower market share, but what's
>>>>>> the difference?  It's a proprietary OS.  I can't run native Mac
>>>>>> software without a Mac, unless I have some kind of emulation scheme.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't run native Linux software without Linux either, unless you have some
>>>>> kind of emulation scheme. Is Linux a "monopoly"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Proprietary has nothing to do with being a monopoly. Monopoly means you have
>>>>> 97% of the market and are actively buying up/shutting down competitors.
>>>>
>>>> This is something Microsoft was actively doing in the late 90s. It is
>>>> still buying up game studios and smaller software companies, so it
>>>> hasn't changed all that much.
>>>>
>>>>> Having a successful product does not make you a monopoly. Hell, people are
>>>>> trying to claim that Apple is a monopoly with 25% of the phone market!  That
>>>>> is impossible. There is TONS of competition in the phone market.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hint: U.S. anti-trust laws are in place to protect consumers. Not competitors.
>>>>>     Epic Games and Spotify whining about Apple means nothing. No one is forcing
>>>>> either to support Apple. If you don't like the terms of the contracts you sign
>>>>> with Apple, then you are free to tell Apple to Fuck Off and not sign the
>>>>> contracts.
>>>>>
>>>>> If enough companies did this, Apple might change their ways. But whining to
>>>>> lawyers is going to go nowhere. As the judge in the Apple/Epic case famously
>>>>> said, "Being successful is not against the law".
>>>>
>>>> Spotify can whine all that it wants but both Apple Music and YouTube
>>>> Music has better offerings. Apple gives you the best interface and sound
>>>> quality whereas YouTube Music offers the added benefit of blocking ads
>>>> on YouTube.
>>>
>>> I didn't know Spotify was whining. Last I saw they had over twice the market
>>> share of both Apple and Amazon.
>>
>> Probably because some people think that Apple Music also requires Apple
>> hardware. Even without Apple hardware, the sound quality is superior as
>> is the selection.
> 
> You would have better ears than I have to tell the difference.

The ears are one thing, but even if you only know about the 
specifications, you would know that what Spotify offers can't compete. 
Apple's lossy codec is the best there is, so a song encoded at 256kbps 
using it will sound magnificent no matter what kind of speakers you use. 
If that is not sufficient for you, it also offers lossless at no extra 
charge. Meanwhile, the default for Spotify is AAC at 128kbps, using an 
inferior codec that is probably the one offered by Nero. High quality 
there is 256kbps, more or less on par with what Apple Music offers at 
the low end but, again, with a worse encoder. There is no lossless option.

< snip >

-- 
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.