Nikon Buckles To Microsoft, Will Pay "Android Tax" For Smart Cameras 272
walterbyrd writes with news that Nikon is the latest company to agree to pay Microsoft for the privilege of using Android on its devices — as you might expect from Nikon, the devices in this case are cameras. (Microsoft's press release.)
Hey buddy (Score:5, Insightful)
You settin' up shop on my street? Nobody, I sez *nobody*... sets up shop on my street without talkin' to me foyst. OK, listen pal. Here's what I'm gonna a do for you. You just pay me a little bidda money on everything you sellz, and I'z a gonna look dee otha way, capiche?
You callin' this "extortion"? That's a big word, my friend. 'Round here we just call it biz niss.
Re:Hey buddy (Score:4, Insightful)
You settin' up shop on my street? Nobody, I sez *nobody*... sets up shop on my street without talkin' to me foyst. OK, listen pal. Here's what I'm gonna a do for you. You just pay me a little bidda money on everything you sellz, and I'z a gonna look dee otha way, capiche?
You callin' this "extortion"? That's a big word, my friend. 'Round here we just call it biz niss.
It's basically an approved bribe. All legal and written out. Serves the same function, serves the same people. Might even be tax deductible.
Re:Hey buddy (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't about any genuine invention. Providing "replacement" technology is actually pretty trivial. Many of these predate their Microsoft counterpart. The real problem is that product configuration becomes unnecessarily complicated because suddenly extra device drivers are required.
Taxes on "being compatible" are obscene and should be viewed by everyone here as such.
Re:Hey buddy (Score:5, Informative)
Its not Android that Microsoft is licensing, its some of their protocols, (MTP most likely).
Bullshit.
It's pretty widely known now that MS is extorting money almost exclusively for its ancient FAT filesystem patents. Because they were able to establish it as a defacto format during their monopoly years, they're now in a position where its ubiquitous. Not because its good, or innovative or took significant effort to develop. Just because it became the lowest common denominator.
And they'll continue milking it until somebody stops them.
It really is time for industry to route around this damage and develop a new common, free and open filesystem format, or for governments to step in and stop this abuse of their systems.
Re: (Score:3)
The complete list is here http://www.dailytech.com/Of+Lawsuits+and+Licensing+The+Full+Microsoft+v+Android+Story/article23088.htm [dailytech.com]
Any remnants of Fat32 is exhausted after 2013.
Re:Hey buddy (Score:5, Informative)
These are the patents from your link:
FAT filenames
Flash Memory filesystem bad block hack
Separation layer/API for telephone radio (aka a driver)
Adding a number from dialler to contacts
Notification API, but on mobiles.
Pop-up menus, but on mobiles.
Offline/online caching and reconciliation (like Notes)
Microsoft is claiming that the thought and effort that went into these ideas is worth more than $230,000,000 per annum in licensing fees.
Re:Hey buddy (Score:4, Insightful)
And apparently they are correct, because the link I posted also has a list of companies who decided it was cheaper to pay license fees than try to beat the patents in court.
The FAT patents end this year.
The rest have several more years to run, unless someone beats them in court.
The key point here is that Microsoft is not claiming ownership of Android or ant core Android technology, but rather a miscellaneous collection of features the see in some smartphones and related devices.
Most likely nikon is using fat patents and likely MTP patents as well.
Re: (Score:3)
But that's not really a problem for Microsoft, because SDHC cards top out at 32GB, which will be bottom of the range by the time the FAT patents expire. Anything from 64GB up requires SDXC, and Microsoft worked hard to make sure that their new exFAT filesystem was written into the SDXC standard.
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft worked hard to make sure that their new exFAT filesystem was written into the SDXC standard.
Exactly right. Wiki says:
SDXC cards are pre-formatted with Microsoft's proprietary and patented exFAT file system, which the host device might not support. Since Microsoft does not publish the specifications of exFAT and its use requires a non-free license, many alternative or older operating systems do not support exFAT for technical or legal reasons. The use of exFAT on some SDXC cards may render SDXC unsuitable as a universal exchange medium, as an SDXC card that uses exFAT would not be usable in all host devices.
However, once Fat32 falls out of patent in 2013, you can fall back to using it on anything less than 2TB.
Since the FAT32 file system supports volumes up to the SDXC's maximum theoretical capacity of 2 TB as well, a user could reformat an SDXC card to use FAT32 for greater portability
Seeing this, Microsoft put a change into windows vista and windows 7 to prevent formatting cards that big in Fat32, (although you can still do so in Linux and some devices). They force the use of exFat, because it is under patent longer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's pretty widely known now that MS is extorting money almost exclusively for its ancient FAT filesystem patents.
It might be pretty widely known, but it is also pretty widely wrong. Microsoft has a massive portfolio of patents which can be used against Android, a lot of which is just useless user interface minutia. If you look at the bottom of the press release [talkandroid.com] it distinguishes between Android patents and exFAT patent agreements. You can see an example of the kind of the patents Microsoft use [talkandroid.com] from the various times they have had to list them publicly.
Also, it is not the ancient FAT filesystem that is patented (althoug
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The patent system is broken, I'll agree with you there, but this is different from what any other company does regarding the patent system. This isn't exploiting a broken system, it's extortion.
Re:Hey buddy (Score:5, Insightful)
Extortion is just one way to exploit a broken system.
Re: (Score:3)
RAND is not really all that RAND unless it is based strictly on percentage of profit. Even one millionth of one penny per unit is impossible for free, open, or public domain software where we cannot determine how many copies are out there.
Re:Hey buddy (Score:5, Insightful)
Root of the problem --- the political system (Score:3)
I agree that what M$ is doing is no different from extortion
I also agree that the patent system is broken
A lot of people state that the broken patent system is the root of the problem, as if someone can find a way to patch the patent system then everything is fine and dandy
I disagree
To me, the real root of the problem is the political system --- from the way the political party is structured to the funding to the way the politicians are chosen how those idiots get to determine what's right and what's wrong
A
Who has Google extorted? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think Google buying Motorola was clearly a defensive move. Google was attempting to protect itself from the most vicious patent trolls, and scam artists in the business, namely Apple, Oracle, and Microsoft.
Who has Google extorted, and how?
Grow up, kid. (Score:5, Interesting)
You callin' this "extortion"? That's a big word, my friend. 'Round here we just call it biz niss.
Nikon is a big boy now and can take care of itself.
Founded in 1917 and a core component of the Japanese industrial cartel Mitsubishi.
You do know Mitsubishi? Employs 350,000 people? Rakes in about $350 Billion in revenues each year?
In a mature industry, all Android-related patents would be pooled, managed and cross-licensed to stabilize the business and the product.
No need to build your own customized portfolio. That hasn't happened yet and the geek won't like it when it does ---- any more than he likes the dominance of the MPEG LA pools in video compression.
Re:Grow up, kid. (Score:5, Insightful)
Extortion doesn't necessarily have to be a big player threatening a small player. How does the age or size of Nikon change the fact that this is extortion? It doesn't change a thing, scale is irrelevant.
But is it extortion? (Score:4, Insightful)
How does the age or size of Nikon change the fact that this is extortion?
It is not extortion if Nikon considers the Microsoft patents valid and a useful addition to their portfolio.
This is the argument the geek cannot accept.
It has to be extortion. He has no other way of explaining what happened.
No matter how wildly improbable it is that so junior and foreign a competitor as Microsoft could bully a core component of a Japanese industrial cartel as old (1870), culturally insular, rich, proud and powerful as Mitsubishi.
Re:But is it extortion? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Grow up, kid. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the people here get it. They get that Software Patents are inherently evil and wrong and should be abolished... and the patent trolls of the world need to all die in a fire. Reforming the Patent system to prevent patent trolls would go a long way towards making the Patent system what it was intended for...
Until then, we'll see extortion like this from Microsoft (and everyone else).... I rather like the "hippie free-love software"... but then again I don't play in Apple's or Microsoft's sandbox.
The rest of them can suck my balls.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet most people don't really get it:
The concept of ownership of ideas is inherently immoral and a disgrace to the human intellect.
It is corrupted capitalism, and it really does not matter if it's about software or something else.
Re:Grow up, kid. (Score:4, Insightful)
And the exploitation of resources is something humans have been doing since, well, forever. It's something that we do, and will continue to do. Ideas are a resource - a resource that should be shared and not "owned", but there's nothing wrong with you exploiting your own expression of an idea, be it selling your novel, or your software - or even selling your rights to exploitation of that product - it's the idiots who grant patents for "rounded corners" that need fixing. I haven't got a problem with you obtaining a patent and exploiting your innovative variation on an idea (your idea or someone else's), as long as it's innovative. I guess the problem here is that it's too easy to prove "rounded corners" are innovative and deserve a patent.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the people here get it. They get that Software Patents are inherently evil and wrong and should be abolished...
It isn't so much that software patents are evil. It is that trivial patents are evil, whether or not they are software related. Its just that the majority of software patents are non novel and obvious.
Time for Microsoft to be sued out of existence (Score:4, Insightful)
They are a leach on modern businesses, their operating systems are found lacking, their office products are crap, their hardware is of the scaliest, slimiest design. In other words, they are dinosaurs in modern society.
MPAA - On warning for extinction.
RIAA - On warning for extinction.
Microsoft - On warning for extinction.
Time to open up the hunting licenses, and finish them all off.
Songwriters' trade group (Score:2)
RIAA - On warning for extinction.
Even if the trade group representing sellers of recordings of music is on warning for extinction, I don't see how the trade groups representing publishers of the underlying compositions are. These are the groups that get paid when you play songs on FM, XM, or Internet radio (BMI and ASCAP), and the groups that get paid when you record a cover version of a song (Harry Fox Agency). And these are the groups whose members can sue you for accidental plagiarism* should a song you write happen to be too similar t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Awwwww poor widdle microsoft wubers crying cuz someone states the truth??
No, your post was most likely deemed "flamebait" because it was laughable Internet Tough Guy [imageshack.us] drivel that wasn't even pretending to offer a realistic solution to the problem. Ooh, you're putting them "on warning" for extinction and going to "finish them all off"?! Please.
Anyway, one may as well extend MS' lack of innovation to well over 30 years, since even the original MS-DOS circa 1981 was at best a workalike knockoff of CP/M that they bought in from someone else. In fact, while Gates may have written th
Turnabout is fair play: DR-DOS (Score:4, Interesting)
even the original MS-DOS circa 1981 was at best a workalike knockoff of CP/M that they bought in from someone else
If Oracle beats Google on appeal, then DRDOS Inc. has a case against Microsoft. The maker of CP/M reworked CP/M-86 into DR-DOS.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If Oracle by some chance beats Google, then Oracle is doomed, as IBM will strip oracle of 100% of their profits from their inception.
Oracle database was 100% ripped off code from IBM's DB/2... 100% - not 5 lines of fucking code.
The database structure, format, API, programming language, all of it - stolen from IBM.
Goodbye Oracle if you try and succeed - you're signing your death warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
> Microsoft hasn't innovated anything in 20 years
Scroll wheels on mice aren't 20 years old, and to the best of my knowledge, they came straight from Microsoft. Once in a great while, Microsoft *does* get *something* right.
Re:Time for Microsoft to be sued out of existence (Score:5, Interesting)
Goodbye Nikon (Score:3, Interesting)
One less brand to ever appear on my shopping list.
Re:Goodbye Nikon (Score:4, Funny)
Looks like your going to be using a pretty short list. Since you don't want to step on anyone else's intellectual toes, I'd suggest starting with this camera manufacturer [holgacamera.com],.
Re: (Score:2)
Those all appear to be film cameras. No pesky software patents.
However, Holga isn't known for quality glass. I don't think they're known for glass, period.
Re: (Score:2)
Best avoid Android, then.
More like Nikon is the victim. (Score:5, Insightful)
One less brand to ever appear on my shopping list.
Help me understand - you are mad at the victim? Do you stop talking to friends because they paid for Windows? Don't buy anything with a Samsung-made component?
I'm sure Nikon looked at the cost of fighting and decided it made business sense to pay them. Consider the volume of Android devices Nikon sells vs. Samsung and other cell phone companies. If it doesn't make sense for the cell phone vendors, it is unlikely to make sense for Nikon to fight in court.
Frankly, your anger toward Microsoft might be better directed at Microsoft. And Google. Why hasn't Google challenged this?
Re:More like Nikon is the victim. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google hasn't challenged this as they haven't directly been sued, for good reason I would guess. Barnes & Noble did stand up to them, and published the jokes being used for this extortion. What Microsoft are doing should be considered criminal. I'm guessing that these companies look at the legal fees and decide that paying the extortion is significantly less expensive than paying the extortion, especially when the danger of dealing with an American company in the American legal system is taken into account.
Re: (Score:2)
Google hasn't challenged this as they haven't directly been sued, for good reason I would guess.
Yes, the good reason that Google doesnt get sued by Microsoft is that Google pays Microsoft a licensing fee.
Re:More like Nikon is the victim. (Score:5, Interesting)
>Help me understand - you are mad at the victim?
The problem with danegeld is that you never get rid of the Dane.
Paying off Microsoft is the absolutely wrong "solution" to this and only emboldens Microsoft. Microsoft can point at all these people paying danegeld and say "hey, you have to pay too."
It's why we all got mad at people who paid SCO for their extortion.
Fuck Microsoft, but also fuck Nikon for financing their extortion.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't Nikon skirt the whole patent (the enforceable and legally-tested claims, anyway) by just shipping the camera with unformatted flash, making users format them on a PC, and ignoring long VFAT filenames by only looking at the 8.3 part? AFAIK, Microsoft's chief patent narrowly covers the act of formatting a blank card as ExFAT (but not its use), long VFAT filenames (expiration imminent, if it hasn't happened already), and NTFS.
Nikon could easily save $10 by making their cameras only use FAT16 (or FAT3
Re:More like Nikon is the victim. (Score:5, Interesting)
Nikon could skirt the patent by using EXT2/3 on their disks and include a driver for EXT2/3 for Windows and OSX. Because such things already exist. It's not like Windows users aren't used to installing drivers already.
But that makes too much sense.
Why device manufacturers insist on using VFAT and FAT64 boggles my mind.
This whole situation is just pure laziness, and a reason why people should point and laugh at Nikon for paying danegeld.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3)
Why device manufacturers insist on using VFAT and FAT64 boggles my mind.
This whole situation is just pure laziness, and a reason why people should point and laugh at Nikon for paying danegeld.
I guess you don't realize that devices like my TV, Blu-Ray player, projectors, etc. all read FAT-formatted SD cards. So you're asking Nikon to lose compatibility with all those devices. They would also have support calls about cards not working, etc.
Oh yeah - FAT is part of the SD standard.
https://www.sdcard.org/developers/overview/capacity/ [sdcard.org]
Camera companies fighting for survival (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah - I get all that. In principle, I agree with you.
But the practical is different. Nikon has it's hands full with its primary competitors, and a shrinking market. Smartphones are killing the compact camera market, and new "mirror-less" cameras are eating into the D-SLR market. Canon and Sony make lots of products outside the camera business, but 75% of Nikon's sales are dependent on cameras and lenses. They are being super aggressive in the D-SLR segment to make up for that revenue, and trying to find something to fit in the space between the smartphone and D-SLR. And they need the support of Microsoft, Apple and Adobe for processing those files. Right now, they need friends - not another enemy.
I suspect the Android camera is an experiment to see if consumers will accept a compact camera that does pretty much everything a smartphone does, except for phone calls. Do consumers want Android-based cameras? Nikon makes just a single model with Android. It could be a flop, and something Nikon might drop. Do the sales justify an expensive legal fight in the USA - Microsoft's home turf.
I'm sure they see two giants (MS and Google) about to face-off in a war, and they will pay the MS "tax" and sit this one out. This is a bit like someone fighting cancer who decides not to get involved in a conflict between nations.
Nikon is fighting for survival, so I think we should give them a pass on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you stop talking to friends because they paid for Windows?
I would if they walked into BestBuy, approached the cashier and said "Please send this $100 for a windows license to Microsoft. Oh, no, I don't need a copy, thanks."
Re: (Score:3)
I would if they walked into BestBuy, approached the cashier and said "Please send this $100 for a windows license to Microsoft. Oh, no, I don't need a copy, thanks."
I think it's more like your buddy is fighting cancer and a big thug wants a dollar to make sure nothing happens to his car in the hospital parking lot.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Aeneas was a bit of a Linux fan, and Dido did not not take rejection lightly.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow! Using your income as a tool for protest. You're so fucking cool! As if anyone gives a shit what you buy with your meager salary.
Enjoy some good reading here: Adbusters [adbusters.org], and then think about how you can throw off the yoke for yourself.
Re:Goodbye Nikon (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow! Using your income as a tool for protest. You're so fucking cool! As if anyone gives a shit what you buy with your meager salary.
Wow! You're so fucking cool! Using /. posts to mock those who take a moral stand! As if anyone gives a shit about your apathy and lack of concern for matters of right and wrong.
People don't use their income as a tool for protest because they think they're going to change things. They do so because financially supporting unethical actions is unethical itself, whether the effect is great or small. Go back under your bridge.
Re: (Score:2)
Nikon doesn't have to play this game. But then, they do want to inter
Oy Vey (Score:4, Insightful)
They also license patents from Apple, IBM and god knows who else, but it's not a big story then.
Why try and spin it as some sort of evil "Microsoft tax", when we could actually have a discussion on the patent system, instead of some retarded online version of two minutes hate.
This site has become completely worthless as a place to discuss technology.
Except we do. (Score:5, Insightful)
They also license patents from Apple, IBM and god knows who else, but it's not a big story then.
Except we do in the case of Apple *endlessly* Its not just been big news here, but in every damn newspaper worldwide. In fact very little is said of Evil Microsoft(sic) shady deals which are in the main back room affairs "While the contents of the agreement will not be disclosed" , with it being spin as a joyful agreement "Microsoft and Nikon have a long history of collaboration".
Perhaps if your not happy you could register and submit stories you feel more worthwhile, rather than attack a community.
Re:Except we do. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft are also trying to hide the 'patents' they are using as threats.
Re: (Score:2)
Except we do in the case of Apple *endlessly*
Because unlike Microsoft that happily sells licenses for its IP, Apple steadfastly refuses to sell licenses for its IP and files lawsuits instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft is much more of a classic parasite. A parasite can't thrive if it destroys the host. In this respect, Microsoft is actually far less destructive than Apple. On the other hand, Apple tries to destroy companies rather than just feed off of them.
Of course the whole system is corrupt and all of the big bully companies like the status quo.
Re:Oy Vey (Score:4, Interesting)
Moreover this is a friendly reminder for all those who think that the Xbox/Xbox 360 makes money: the royalties from mobile system patents are collected by the EDD, those, and not the Xbox, counterbalance the losses of Windows Phone.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realise their annual reports are broken down into a little more detail than that right? You can see plain as day exactly how much Xbox brings in compared to Windows Phone (which since it's just Windows 8 is probably attributed to the Windows Division now) and how much licensing brings in. Your reminder falls flat on it's face upon reflection of that point.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realise their annual reports are broken down into a little more detail than that right? You can see plain as day exactly how much Xbox brings in compared to Windows Phone[...]
The break down is about revenues, I was clearly talking about profits. I know that very well, in facts to me it's pretty clear that if the console business adds up to 70-80% of total division revenues and the division loses money (4 billions since 2002, this figure lacks the original Xbox launch and development cost, which is usually estimated at 1-2 billion more), then the console business must not be that profitable.
Confusing press release without context (Score:5, Informative)
Here's some info on the patents that Microsoft claims android is in violation of:
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070611-microsoft-android.html [networkworld.com]
Re:Confusing press release without context (Score:5, Insightful)
So what happens if MS loses the patent claims to Google? Does the "Microsoft tax" get paid to Google instead? Or just gets them invalidated for being obvious?
Seriously, "a record button on a computer system"... what the hell, US patent system. What the hell?
Re: (Score:2)
WIth the publicity on this, to inforce the tax on others, I could see this taking an Ernic Ball approach.
http://news.cnet.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html [cnet.com]
And they haven't given in..
http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/2012/11/12/ernie-ball-inc-still-rockin-11-years-without-microsoft/ [myitforum.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's not really the fault of the USPTO. They can't know the state of the art in every industry, so they act more as a stamping house. "Yes, you did in fact apply on this date for a patent on something we don't seem to already have a patent for." Then if someone else wants to contest the patent, you take them to court to invalidate it. The problem then is that the side with the most money tends to win court cases.
Re:Confusing press release without context (Score:4, Interesting)
Why isn't Google sticking up for Android?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They also make the Nexus line.
I am wondering why it is that in every single story about Microsoft's "Android Tax" there is about a thousand slashdotters that don't fucking know that Google pays Microsoft a licensing fee.
Google is not giving out Android and saying its free of patent issues.. Google is in fact saying that if you implement an Android device will all the features that Googles Nexus line has then you are most certainly goi
Re:Confusing press release without context (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, because we've always felt these were valid here on Slashdot:
Patents 5,579,517 and 5,758,352, issued in 1996, "relate to implementing both long and short file names in the same file system,"
Re: (Score:2)
At least the FAT patent expires in 2014.
Re:Confusing press release without context (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Confusing press release without context (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft really does need to put more thought into how it designs its operating systems. It won't have that monopoly forever.
Re: (Score:2)
the '97 and fat patents are possibly valid.
the others sound like bullshit because most certainly MS shouldn't be having patents on them...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Confusing press release without context (Score:5, Informative)
Re-posting this as a non-AC so that everyone sees it:
"And as a follow-up to that article from 1.5 years ago, be it noted that when B&N hung tough, and was willing to go to court, MS "settled" by investing $300M in a joint venture, and they became good buddies who were not going to have such silly squabbles any more.
Interesting that they have not gone after Apple's iOS on a lot of those same "patents" - have they?
YMMV"
MS *really* doesn't want to go to court over these patents, nor do they want anybody knowing exactly what they are about... As for the FAT patents? Those were unenforcable long ago. http://www.geek.com/articles/law/microsoft-fat-patent-shot-down-2004101 [geek.com]
Canon here I come (Score:2)
So even though I have been a Nikon fan for many years, I am afraid my next camera will a Canon.
Re: (Score:3)
I am going to have replace my camera kit in the next year. MS has shown that it is never happy with just part of the pie, or letting other people have a pie without the approval of MS. Once the claws get in, they never let go.
So even though I have been a Nikon fan for many years, I am afraid my next camera will a Canon.
Given that the value of a good camera kit is more in the glass than anything, that's a hell of an investment you will have to be replacing (*). And what will you do when Canon decides that it is going to jump onto the Android bandwagon in order to feature comparable with the Nikon cameras? Will you do what someone suggested above and move to a Holga?
* A friend once told me a long time ago - never sell a lens that you like.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really know anything about (semi-)professional photography, but I always assumed objectives from different manufacturers were compatible. Can't you use your old glass with the new, different camera?
Re:Canon here I come (Score:4, Informative)
I don't really know anything about (semi-)professional photography, but I always assumed objectives from different manufacturers were compatible. Can't you use your old glass with the new, different camera?
Camera manufacturers lock you in with proprietary hardware interfaces, so in general you can't mix and match between different companies. They also try and keep backwards compatibility within their own brand and Nikon supposedly has one of the best backward compatibility with its lenses of the major 35mm camera manufacturers.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling it a lock-is a bit strong. Cameras from different manufacturers gave different dimensions and specs. Something sized for one will not fit another. But the specs are well documented and widely used. For example, many professional video cameras from many manufacturers are compatible with Canon lenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling it a lock-is a bit strong.
I disagree. Yes the specs are well documented, and third party manufacturers produce compatible lenses, but you have choose - Nikon system, Canon system etc and you can not cross *that* boundary.
Re:Canon here I come (Score:4, Informative)
Pentax is hugely backwards compatible. I have glass sitting around that is over 30 years old that works flawlessly on my modern SLR. The only problem is some of the newer lenses, made for crop sensors, aren't really usable on film bodies without severe vignetting (though not always, some labeled for ASP-C are actually have a 35mm image circle). Also, all however many years of class all have stabilization, thanks to in body IS (why is also why I picked Olympus for my mirrorless).
Back in the film days there were several companies making class for other big brands. Also most screw mount lenses were pretty universal (m39 for pretty much all rangefinder/Leica type cameras, and m42 for pretty much everything else. Bayonet mounts is where things went downhill for compatibility. Now the only real "open" platform out there is Micro 4/3s, but even that isn't terribly open since its only Olympus and Panasonic.
I wouldn't call it lock in, though, since there are actual physical limitations, such as flange distance, and contacts (what features do you want to ship to the lens, or keep in body?). Some of it is obviously lock in, but thats putting it a bit strong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really know anything about (semi-)professional photography, but I always assumed objectives from different manufacturers were compatible. Can't you use your old glass with the new, different camera?
Only in some circumstances. Most systems have different physical mounts, are built to sit at different distances from the sensor/film, have different electrical contacts for aperture control solenoids and auto-focus motor power/control. Etc.
... but then, the people s
Good lenses can usually be sold without much loss. But when you have a full collection built around a given system, it makes more sense to stick with that system, body-wise. It might mean being a little less pious about open source software
Re: (Score:2)
I would say that a lot of people are looking for any reason to say they are going to dump Nikon, even if it is irrational.
You can have my F100 when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers - but I'm taking my 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S to the grave with me :D.
Though I am thinking its getting time to upgrade my D70.
Real target is not Android (Score:5, Interesting)
The real target of all this bullshit from Microsoft is the use of firmware with software other than what comes from Redmond, period. Face it Microsoft has been squeezed out of the embedded market largely because of the flexibility of OSS and the Linux kernel.
The best and only solution is for manufactures to turn on the bastards and stop using fat and ntfs period or charge more for devices that do.
This could easily be accomplished by providing a software tool with the cheaper devices to read write to Windows without the use of fat or ntfs. If Samsung, Nikon, Sony, Toshiba, Canon and all the other manufacturers got together and created a formatting tool for storage that they shared this could easily be accomplished.
Having one company dictate the format in which all portable storage devices read and write is the problem and the bastards in Redmond need to be held to task and given a full financial enema for a change.
Re:Real target is not Android (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The best and only solution is for manufactures to turn on the bastards and stop using fat and ntfs period or charge more for devices that do.
too late, that battle is lost already
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh8gLKrGeBE [youtube.com]
You mean SDXC cards using exFAT (Score:2)
too late, that battle is lost already
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh8gLKrGeBE [youtube.com]
Sorry couldn't you summarize the hour long video especially when you have a valid point. Which as I see it is the https://www.sdcard.org/ [sdcard.org] SD Association and includes [Canon Inc., Cardwave Services Limited, Giesecke & Devrient, Hewlett Packard, Kingston Technology, Lexar, Motorola Mobility, Panasonic, Phison, Samsung Electronics, SanDisk Corporation, Silicon Motion, Inc. and Toshiba...yeah] everybody who makes a SD Cards , as a successor to SDHC cards SDXC have chosen to use exFAT as replacement for FAT
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Karma Bites Nikon (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Got a reference for that? Five seconds of googling gets you a page describing canon's CR2 format, updated for the 6D and 5D mark III.
Canon also continues to send me updates for their free SDK that allows control of the camera through the USB port.
Also, Nikon ELECTRONIC Format files only encrypt the white balance information. It's a dick move, no question, but it's not really a show stopper. White balance metadata is of limited use in RAW files anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Which patents?? (Score:2)
The only specific one I recall them mentioning was FAT filesystem, but they've claimed to have many more that Linux/Android supposedly infringes on.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing: Microsoft has been making these claims for a VERY long time. No one has produced a list. Many such claims would be worked around if they were identified while others would likely become invalidated for various other causes under re-examination. Software patents, as it turns out, are usually quite weak.
Isn't it time to trim FAT? (Score:2)
According to some things I have read, it seems the patent(s) in question involve the FAT file system which is used on so many consumer devices.
Linus Torlvalds described long filenames long before Microsoft did it. That is prior art. But worse, FAT is a software patent and one which is decidedly used to prevent compatibility... or in this case, "tax" compatibility. I'd like to see Microsoft attempt to extract injunctive relief so that this matter can get the attention it needs.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you are suggesting we make a new filesystem that is reasonably light for for embedded devices like cameras and toasters, but can still be used from ordinary user interface devices like phones, tablets, netbooks, laptops, desktops and servers. Good idea. But will it work with Windows? If you are expecting to add software to Windows to support this, I suggest calling it a "plugin" as people seem to be willing to just install those any time anyone says to.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am saying a legal and patent re-examination attack.
Lets redefine Open Again? Open mean no cost!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Right?
No wrong. I am tired of closed being the new open , and well closed being the new open [Thank you Ars]. Android is an a modular OS where various parts are under different licenses GPL2 (Linux the Kernel) most of the userland (Apache which is why Honeycomb never got released) and proprietary (most first party Applications) with various stuff happening in the cloud (maps; various storage; mail)...and nothing has changed.
Android does not protect you from patent trolls like Microsoft, but then it never did or claimed to...your choices have always been, work around the patents; pay them off; fight them in courts.
In short though this topic has nothing to do with being open...and unless your a Tizen fanboi your just trolling [lets face it iOS and Bada the only serious contenders are closed], with an off-topic comment, now if you has said "But Android is still free [beer]?" you would have least been on topic...still a troll...but on topic.
Re: (Score:2)
You should've seen the protoype. Bill Gates couldn't even lift it to take a picture.