According to IDC,
“Windows tablets (which include Windows 7 tablets shipping today, and Windows RT and Windows 8 tablets shipping in the fourth quarter of 2012) are expected to grow from about 1% of the market in 2011 to 4% in 2012, on their way to 11% of the market by 2016. During those same years iOS will grow from 57.2% in 2011 to 60% in 2012, eventually slipping back to 58% by 2016; Android will slip from 38.9% to 35.3%, declining to 30.5% by 2016.”
The myth of invincibility of M$’s marketing team and the slavish behaviour of locked-in users, retailers and OEMs is all but gone even at IDC, a company that has done a lot of research for M$ over the years.
What should be really sobering for fans of M$ is that this thriving ecosystem in IT having little to do with M$ is encroaching on M$’s cash cow and will shrink the monopoly for the next few years at least. The world cannot invest this much in non-M$ stuff and still have money to throw at the desktop monopoly.
17512
12812
206
3
2
23969 
11882 
11733 
4667 
4283 
1644 
198 
14 
2 
0 
0 
0 
METROFAIL tablets will be more expensive then iPADs!
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/09/18/1623253/leak-hints-windows-8-tablets-may-be-dearer-than-makes-sense
ALso, with Office 2013 being released as subscription based, I would not be surprised if they did the very same thing with Windows. 9, 10, ….
Imagine paying $99+/year for an operating system, LOL.
“METROFAIL tablets will be more expensive then iPADs!”
If you don’t like it, complain to Asus, the makers of the tablet.
“ALso, with Office 2013 being released as subscription based”
You mean like Google Apps? After all, they were the first to do a subscription-based office suite.
“Imagine paying $99+/year for an operating system, LOL.”
You mean like OSX 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5?
“The myth of invincibility of M$’s marketing team and the slavish behaviour of locked-in users,”
You mean the myth that the FOSS faithful started in the first place? You’re the ones who have been screaming about “vendor lock-in” for nearly a decade.
Microsoft has historically had horrible marketing. Those stupid Seinfeld ads, the lack of response to the “i’m a mac” ads, etc.
Usually their inability to gain a foothold in many markets is because they moved too slowly into them or they relied on other vendors to build their products. They were late to the mp3 player game with the Zune, they took a long time to reboot their phone OS and are now late to the smartphone game, etc.
The only thing they’ve done right when it comes to consumer electronics so far is the Xbox. They used an apple approach where they controlled the hardware, the software and provided Xbox live network to keep it all up to date; A very Apple approach. Funny enough, the App Store came out well after Xbox Live started selling games online.
Nobody is claiming that Microsoft is some King Midas company where everything they touch turns to gold. All we’ve ever claimed is that Windows works better for the average user than Linux desktop does. However, instead of listening to our concerns, you plug your ears and chant “fix it yourself” or “you don’t need that” or “kill microsoft”.
I’m not complaining, I am just point out an obvious fact.
Your attempts at comparing products is laughable, Google Apps is a collection of business related software that could be used to supplant M$ Exchange.
http://www.google.com/enterprise/apps/business/products.html
I don’t use Google Apps, LibreOffice suits me fine and is free.
Apple does not charge a yearly subscription fee, that is an upgrade fee, but your just trying to deflect the issue.
Conclusion: METROFAIL will sit on shelves and no one will pay for subscription based M$ Office software.
Google Apps is a collection of business related software that could be used to supplant M$ Exchange.
Ha ha, yeah right. If you actually worked in an office rather than manning the fry station at McDonalds, you’d see how ridiculous this statement really is.
Conclusion: METROFAIL will sit on shelves and no one will pay for subscription based M$ Office software.
I’d like a Big Mac and an order of fries please, right now.
Oh how people forget, here are some examples of current M$ lock-in:
- M$ is making it really hard to boot Linux or older versions of Windows
Windows Is Antisocial
The Windows OS does not recognize the existence of other operating systems. Windows does not provide any way for you to access your other operating systems or files installed alongside it on the hard drive.
But Linux makes up for that Windows personality complex. Nearly all Linux distros recognize Windows on a hard drive. Knowing that Linux sees the Windows partition even when Windows does not reciprocate lets you store all of your documents, videos, music and whatever just where you would put them when using the Windows OS.
This lets you access everything when you run the Linux OS. It eliminates wasted storage space from having duplicate files on two partitions. It also eliminates the troubles associates with not opening the most recent document if you alternate between Windows and Linux often.
The soon-to-be-released Windows 8 OS makes an even more compelling case for migrating to Linux and keeping Windows 7 available in reserve, at least until you work in Linux full time. Windows 8, thanks to Microsoft’s pressure tactics against PC makers, will have a mechanism that blocks any other OS from booting.
- If you buy a M$ Surface or Windows RT tablet, you’re pretty much locked into Windows 8 forever
By fighting off the competition, M$ is only shooting themselves in the foot.
Microsoft’s secure UEFI Boot and ELAM services can prevent many traditional malware removal products from working properly. If you look at items like ComboFix and Spybot Search & Destroy both of these require the ability to load during the startup process to remove malware that has embedded itself in the boot process. The counter to this is that the Secure UEFI Boot and ELAM are supposed to prevent that from happening. How many of you actually believe that this will be the case forever? We know that the people that write malware are very creative and have even used Microsoft’s own tools against them. How long before someone manages to replicate the signing process for the secure UEFI Boot and to bypass ELAM? From what we are hearing this might already have happened although we have been unable to confirm it as of this writing. Microsoft is limiting what security companies can do, but there are no such restrictions on malware developers. They will go after the core pieces of Windows 8 Security in the same way they have done before, the difference is that now the tools you use to remove these will not work.
Examples of prior M$ racketeering.
M$ wants you to pay them protection money.
“We spend a lot of money – the rest of the commercial industry spends a lot of money – on R&D. We spend a lot of money also licenses patents, when people come and say ‘Hey this commercial piece of software violates our patent, our intellectual property,’ we’ll either get a court judgment or pay a big check. I think it is important that the open source products also have an obligation to participate in the same way.” and “People who use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense have an obligation eventually to compensate us,”
M$ thinks it can wave 235 patents at the free market and Linux and demand payment.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/
So, of course they threaten to sue and would prefer everyone develop FLOSS on their crap software and wishes Linux away.
“I would love to see all open source innovation happen on top of Windows”
Even McDonalds knows better then to bet on Windows.
http://imgur.com/a/7pbmQ/
Even McDonalds knows better then to bet on Windows.
For an image rotator app, sure.
For business solutions and desktop, nope.
Linux < 1%
Better luck next time fry boy.
LOL! Dougman, I see that you are still up to your old tricks. Telling horse poo, that is.
Windows doesn’t recognize other OSs
And it doesn’t have to, thank you very much. Dual booting is the exception, not the norm. It’s good for FLOSS trolls who claim to be Linux users when, in fact, they boot Windows the whole time. Pretending to boot it only for games. What a pitiful excuse!
Windows doesn’t let you access Linux partitions
Again, there’s no need out of the box for that. See above. If the need arises, there are tools to deal with it. They’re FLOSS, so even cheapskates like you can enjoy them.
PCs with Windows 8 won’t boot any other OS
Horse poo again. You’re deliberately mixing up things. Secure Boot can be disabled. Therefore not a problem.
As for tablets, you ignore the harsh reality. People are not rooting their precious Android tablets and scouring the web for other ROM images. This is for geeks who don’t do anything else all day long.
Microsoft wants protection money
That must be some evil scheme. In fact, it’s so evil that the regional court in Munich just yesterday ruled in favor of Microsoft and against Motorola with regards to a certain patent.
Want to end it? Abolish the patent system. But don’t go around whining that Microsoft uses the system as it’s supposed to be used.
schmodme its not just the image rotator app.
http://blog.gnu-designs.com/wait-mcdonalds-runs-linux-yes-yes-they-do/
Linux in McDonalds has not got to the Office. But it is taking over every other computer in the place that is not in the office.
Some countries McDonalds all their cash registers are Linux as well. McDonalds is almost a 80/20 split of Windows and Linux if you count every machine in the place. There are not many computers in a McDonalds office. Most are spread around the building.
The reality not every computer in a business needs Windows. Information displays, items to keep kids bussy. POS solutions all don’t really need windows.
schmodme wrote, of McD and GNU/Linux, “For business solutions and desktop, nope.”
Actually not nope but yes: http://blog.gnu-designs.com/wait-mcdonalds-runs-linux-yes-yes-they-do/
Actually not nope but yes: http://blog.gnu-designs.com/wait-mcdonalds-runs-linux-yes-yes-they-do/
Yes, it shows a crashed Linux on a turnkey solution which McDonald’s acquired externally. Great, great advertisement.
But it’s quite true. Crashed Linux on publicly accessible devices is an all to familiar sight.
Chris Weig wrote, “it shows a crashed Linux on a turnkey solution which McDonald’s acquired externally. “
Looks like hardware failure to me. McD also run GNU/Linux on mission-critical stuff:
http://www.securitronlinux.com/bejiitaswrath/ubuntu-linux-used-in-mcdonalds-restaurants/
@ Chris Weig
Your comment refers ….” Secure Boot can be disabled. Therefore not a problem.
You know this for a fact. ?
Windows 8 System Requirements, pg. 121.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/windows/hardware/hh748188
Mandatory. Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement
the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. A physically present user must be
allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of PKpriv. A Windows
Server may also disable Secure Boot remotely using a strongly authenticated (preferably
public-key based) out-of-band management connection, such as to a baseboard
management controller or service processor. Programmatic disabling of Secure Boot either
during Boot Services or after exiting EFI Boot Services MUST NOT be possible. Disabling
Secure Boot must not be possible on ARM systems.
@ Chris Weig
Thank you for clearing that up but the fact remains you cannot disable it on ARM based systems and who knows how long before ARM is on the desktop.
Besides that, do you know for a fact that Microsoft won’t start to lock down x86 systems in the future.?
The problem arises when you have to repair a system.
Maybe worth a read:
http://communities.intel.com/community/vproexpert/blog/2012/06/26/microsoft-windows-8–enabling-secure-boot
“Conclusion: METROFAIL will sit on shelves and no one will pay for subscription based M$ Office software.”
The “failure” you speak of hasn’t even been released. Windows RT isn’t even out yet and Asus hasn’t released the tablet you claim is the benchmark for all Windows 8 tablets. But by all means, continue to backpedal and deflect with unrelated Office subscriptions that Google has been doing with Google Apps for ages now.
How do I know? Because I use Google Apps, goofball!
“Your comment refers ….” Secure Boot can be disabled. Therefore not a problem.
You know this for a fact. ?”
No, Google does.
search for “You can disable secure boot entirely”
Notice the line directly above “If that was all Secure Boot did, you wouldn’t be able to run any non-Microsoft operating system on your PC.” Hmmmm. I guess searching for facts that counter your claims rather than simply back them up might be a wise thing to do.
Naturally, when Linux releases their own secure boot facsimile, it will be heralded as new, revolutionary and vastly superior to everything.
“Imagine paying $99+/year for an operating system, LOL.”
“Imagine paying $320-1200/year for an operating system, LOL?
No — Ubuntu!
@ TM Repository
Perhaps you could take the time to read my post numbered 17.
Your comment refers …..”Naturally, when Linux releases their own secure boot facsimile, it will be heralded as new, revolutionary and vastly superior to everything.”
Red hat and Cnonical have both issued statements on the matter perhaps you can google that and read it.
I don’t see them heralding it as the next new thing.
@ TM Repository
Contrary to what you believe it has come to the attention of the linux developers and I don’t read anything here either about it being the next best thing.
In case you missed this:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/linus-torvalds-on-windows-8-uefi-and-fedora/11187
http://www.zdnet.com/linux-developers-working-on-windows-uefi-secure-boot-problem-7000000909/
@ ilia
The Ubuntu prices are for commercial support on the server version not the desktop version.
If you into making comparisons why not compare these prices with Microsoft server edition support and then also include the cost of the software.
JR wrote, “who knows how long before ARM is on the desktop.”
I predicted many months ago that ARM and */Linux would be on the desktop and there have been several announcements of products doing just that. Latest I read was a thin client using Android/Linux on ARM… While I think it is really strange using Android in that role, it’s all good and better than monopoly. Choices for consumers mean better prices and OEMs forced to innovate. The idea that M$ can dictate to the world of IT will seem an amusing tale after this year. The cripple-ware that is “8″ especially on ARM will not thrive in this renewed competition. Consumers will reject it on price and retailers and OEMs will not put all their eggs in that basket.
Of course, M$ will raise prices to maintain its standard of living from the truly locked-in as long as possible. Seeing that a considerable number of Apple’s customers are happy to pay more for less, M$ will likely do the same.
Chris Weig, reminding us why WARM is a bad idea, wrote, “Disabling Secure Boot must not be possible on ARM systems.”
What is the technical reason for this discrimination against ARMed silicon? Backroom deal with Intel? Attempt to lock-in mobile customers? Security against switching OS? Where is the benefit to consumers?
This seems to me to be an anti-competitive measure. It is interesting that M$ thinks they can do this on ARM but not Intel. Is that to avoid ticking off current users of XP? Even M$ sees the future is bleak for “8″ and “9″.
Frankly, Mr. Pogson, I can’t see where you’re coming from. It’s not as if Microsoft is misleading anyone by promising them that they can install other OSs on their Windows 8 device. Just as you can’t install this or that OS on an Android device or on an iPad.
And above all this stuff doesn’t even matter for 99,9 percent of the people. This whole alternative ROMs business is a sandbox for geeks to play around in. Normal people just don’t care.
TM Repository Linux secure boot shim system gives you the option of adding your own signing keys.
Fedora SUSE and Ubuntu are all going the shim path.
The advantage they can still use GPLv3 licensed boot loaders after the shim.
https://www.suse.com/blogs/uefi-secure-boot-details/
The shim adds machine owner keys.
–Disabling Secure Boot must not be possible on ARM systems.–
Does not matter to Linux now. Linux is now secure boot compatible.
Fun reality is Linux will be able to boot on hardware with a Microsoft KEK. Microsoft will not be able to straight up boot on hardware that has a Linux distribution KEK only.
With the shim Linux runs with the secure boot and with freedom to alter the software how we want.
Chris Weig the secure boot issue is basically dead in water. Its not going to alter Linux users one bit.
Windows users who many not be able to upgrade and other things might be hurt.
Chris Weig, denying reality wrote, “Normal people just don’t care.”
Munich (Google Translating):“After the result of the client study produced a broad balance between two alternatives, the Munich City Council decided in early summer 2003 for a greater vendor independence, more competition in the software market, as well as improved access to the strategic objectives of the City of Munich. “
Real, normal people can choose to be free of M$. I was a real, normal person facing a daily crash of Lose ’95 when I decided to migrate. The first machine I installed was challenging. After that M$ was dead to me forever. Why would a real, normal person even thing to entrust IT to such an unreliable partner? Why would anyone agree to pay for the privilege of being enslaved?
Taking what I wrote out of context might have worked if you couldn’t read what wrote. Unfortunately it’s right there on this page.
And do enlighten us how Munich’s Linux migration is connected to tablets.
So, on-topic again, my dear Pogson. Customer buys Windows ARM tablet. In 99.9 percent of all cases customer does not care whether he can install another OS.
Correction:
Taking what I wrote out of context might have worked if you couldn’t read what wrote.
Taking what I wrote out of context might have worked if you couldn’t read what I wrote.
Oh, and regarding:
Why would anyone agree to pay for the privilege of being enslaved?
That’s the Linux specialty. You’re a slave to it while thinking that you’re free.
The phony freedom defined by the FSF’s high priest Richard Stallman never was and never will be real freedom.
@Chris Weig. Would you care to expand on how FLOSS is not true freedom when you have the ability to examine the source code and add to it if you wish and redistribute that version of the code you have made. You want to trust a corporation to do things right?
@Satipera
‘Would you care to expand on how FLOSS is not true freedom when you have the ability to examine the source code and add to it if you wish and redistribute that version of the code you have made.’
Here, let me answer that for you.
The problem here is with the ‘redistribute’ part. Suppose you made your own modification to the source code. Suppose also that you did not wish to share the source code of that modification with others, for one reason or another. Societal norms would tell you that forcing someone to share is simply not acceptable. However, if you look at the terms stated in GPL or similar “FOSS” licenses, you’ll notice that sharing the source code of your modification is compulsory if you wish to distribute the software along with your modification. Do you see the problem here?
It’s not automony if someone else is dictating what you can or cannot do with your own fruit of labour.
It’s not generosity if you give with the expectation of receiving something in return.
“FOSS” is neither freedom nor goodwill – it’s just a social experiment in multiplayer game theory.
Why is forcing someone to share unacceptable? The whole community bennefits, and only one person ever loses.
“Why is forcing someone to share unacceptable? The whole community bennefits, and only one person ever loses.”
For the same reason that forcing a woman to “share her vagina” is unacceptable! I mean, then a whole group of men benefit and only one person loses, right? Idiot.
For someone who espouses freedom and morality, you sure don’t practice what you preach, you selfish little troll.
“Would you care to expand on how FLOSS is not true freedom when you have the ability to examine the source code and add to it if you wish and redistribute that version of the code you have made.”
Because I can’t do anything with it without violating some draconian software license. I literally have to avoid GPL code to protect myself against GPL violations even Google is having trouble with!
“You want to trust a corporation to do things right?”
Many of us developers don’t work for corporations, you know. It doesn’t mean I want to give away my hard work for free.
I see pogson took down my reply to Adam about how forcing someone to share their own work is the same thing as forcing someone to give up their body “for the greater good”. After all, like Adam says, more people would benefit while only one suffers.
Adam King wrote, “Why is forcing someone to share unacceptable? The whole community bennefits, and only one person ever loses.”
“Force” and “share” are incompatible. That’s taking, not sharing. In FLOSS, no one is forced to share anything. Anyone can use FLOSS and even modify it without sharing. It’s only if the modified work is distributed that source code must be made available. That’s not forcing anything. The person who uses FLOSS who reads the licence knows the deal. Take it or leave it.
People are forced to share lots of things but FLOSS is not one of them. Still, it’s best if everyone shares. There’s no problem at all if some don’t share, there are enough generous people in the world to take care of everyone. The world can make its own software even if only 0.01% of people share. That’s way more people than M$ employs. No one loses with FLOSS.
TM wrote, “I can’t do anything with it without violating some draconian software license. I literally have to avoid GPL code to protect myself against GPL violations”
If you are not writing FLOSS but link to it you are not allowed to distribute without source code. That’s copyright law leveraged by the GPL. You don’t have a right to use the code that way in violation of the licence.
Of course, if you write FLOSS, there’s no problem that way. Life is easier.
“In FLOSS, no one is forced to share anything.”
Except us developers if we want to use any of said “free and open” source. Just look at Google’s mistake, it could force every single app that everyone else wrote for Android be opened up; Whether they want to or not.
Thank goodness for permissive licenses like BSD, Apache and even MSPL that simply say “do whatever you want, just give credit”. But it sucks that I have to even check this crap.
Were any of you actually developers, you’d realize the problems this can cause.
Stupid winbred doesn’t understand artificial scarcity. I can’t go cloning women as many times as I want, but I can with software. As a result trying to regulate software the same ways we regulate women would be ridiculous.
@ TM Repository
Your comment refers ……”For the same reason that forcing a woman to “share her vagina” is unacceptable! I mean, then a whole group of men benefit and only one person loses, right? Idiot.
Wow! Some analogy.
They should add it to the GPL for reference purposes.
In case someone is confused as to how the GPL works.
TM Repository problem is I am a developer I understand LGPL and GPL I don’t see the problems.
The android one is more of a interesting one. Bionic library is against Linux kernel GPLv2. Its not pure.
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING Read the Linus clause. Due to the Linus clause at the top of GPLv2 of the Linux kernel. Bionic library licensed under the same license would not spread up the stack. So it would stop like a LGPL license as long as the code is used only on top of the Linux kernel or equal license kernel. Since it would be just a interface for applications to access normal Linux sys-calls so in the clear for all the android closed source applications.
This does cause problems for people like RIM planning on running the stack not on a Linux kernel since the Linus clause only applies to if its the Linux kernel or a kernel under the same license. So there are issues but not the same ones you are thinking.
So farmer should not share food with you. People should not share power with you. Everyone should be able to kill anyone who enters their space.
Right this is going down hill right. Humans have to share so much to get along. Sharing women is a different problem to sharing ideas. If we don’t share anything we would be one very dead population very quickly.
Humans have got where they are today by sharing ideas.
–For the same reason that forcing a woman to “share her vagina” is unacceptable! I mean, then a whole group of men benefit and only one person loses, right?–
BSD and permissive licenses are like being gang raped. You released the code you have no promise that people using it will treat you with any respect with the highly permissive.
Wine project stuck in the middle of code-weavers and transgaming learnt this one. Code-weavers was giving code to the project when it was under MIT license. Transgaming was taking and extending so effectively crushing Code-weavers in the market. So basically raped Code-weavers without looking back because it was perfectly legal.
Permissive license is really good for those making closed source programs really sucks for those submitting code to the project. Sets those up giving code to be badly raped by those who keep secrets.
Apache license is not 100 percent Permissive.
–5. Products derived from this software may not be called “Apache” nor may “Apache” appear in their names without prior written permission of the Apache Group.–
4 and 5 but 5 particularly. Are design to protect Apache from permissive being used against it.
In fact a lot of closed source people breach Apache license as well. By failing to rename the product when they alter it. No alteration to stuff under Apache license can use the Apache name. So that Apache HTTPD that you applied a custom patch to is no longer Apache and using Apache HTTPD as its name is illegal unless you have written consent.
TM Repository so in a lot of ways Apache License is a big pain in but.
4 and 6 of the Apache license in fact can conflict with each other. So see you in breach of license again. Basically do the acknowledgment wrong and you are up the creak without a paddle.
TM Repository so the two major popular open source licenses Apache and GPL/LGPL have major teeth.
GPL and LGPL does not force you to rename the product just because you have to apply a custom patch. Renaming a code base can be a complete pain in ass.
TM Repository really no one forces you to use LGPL and GPL code. Really you seam to like people who allow anyone to to screw them(this comes from your like of permissive licenses). Have a problem when someone demands some form of payment.
A software project is a entity in its own right.
GPL is not rape. Before you go out with a hooker you should check their price right and if they are healthy. And if a hooker price is too high for what you can afford choose a different one.
Closed source hooker you have to take it on faith that they are not infected with something nasty. Worse have to pay in advance even if the hooker fails to turn up.
GPL hooker you are going to have to behave yourself. Can be safety checked.
LGPL hooker better not bruise or hurt her but otherwise you can mostly get away with what you want. Can be safety checked.
BSD hooker Can be safety checked. If you kill her and dispose of the body no one is going be able todo anything.
Apache hooker if this is an Apache project its protected very much like LGPL since its a huge effort to rename and any alteration will trigger the requirement to rename. If it not an Apache project you can fairly much kill it and dispose of the body and no one will be able todo anything.
TM Repository basically how do you want your hookers to be treated and them treat you.
Apache is far more anti fork than GPL or LGPL is since forks don’t have protection from other companies taking altering and not giving back. Yet the main line forces a lot of work if you do fork to rename it.
“Apache is far more anti fork than GPL or LGPL is since forks don’t have protection from other companies taking altering and not giving back. Yet the main line forces a lot of work if you do fork to rename it.”
“Anti-fork”? What the hell are you talking about. The apache license lets me use a piece of source code without having to open up the application that uses it AND everything that might be hosted within my application.
You have NO IDEA what you’re talking about with this “anti-fork” nonsense. It’s about INCLUDING code, not forking it. I can’t use a snippet of open source code if it’s under the GPL, I can if it’s Apache, BSD, MSPL, etc. Every other license is more permissive than the GPL!
…Anti-fork, what an idiot.
“Stupid winbred doesn’t understand artificial scarcity.”
I understand it a whole lot better than you do since I actually develop software for a living. I have several open source projects of my own and contribute to several more. The projects I contribute to require a very minimal time cost on my part since I’m familiar with the domain. Anything more complex would require significant investments of time. That time is time I’m not paid by my clients. Just because the source can be copied for free does NOT mean it can be produced for free!
“I can’t go cloning women as many times as I want, but I can with software.”
Lucky for them. You’re clearly prehistoric in your opinion of women.
“As a result trying to regulate software the same ways we regulate women would be ridiculous.”
Totally ignoring your hyper-sexist “we regulate women” remark, if a woman gets gang-raped there is an enormous personal cost both mentally and physically because she gets pregnant! You raping her isn’t a free lunch because She suffers.
Your claims of artificial scarcity are the same as claiming that, because we now have contraceptives, women can no longer be technically raped. Lucky us, we can rape anyone we choose now since there are no consequences, right?
Idiot; Go read another chapter in your Ayn Rand book.
@ TM Repository
As far as I can recall I think you were the one who brought women into the equation.
If it costs nothing to produce, why are there thousands of free software projects started by people with no financial insentive? They give it freely as they should. You’re just used to getting a financial insentive and don’t know how to operate without it.
*If it doesn’t cost nothing.
“Your claims of artificial scarcity are the same as claiming that, because we now have contraceptives, women can no longer be technically raped. Lucky us,
we can rape anyone we choose now since there are no consequences, right?”
I like this idea. Since they can avoid getting pregnant, women should start putting out lots more. Liberation and all that.