- Last Active
rob53 said:doggone said:rob53 said:I would hope this would benefit chip production in the US but why Arizona? Cheap land and taxes? TSMC is not an American company and all profits (after taxes) will not stay in the US. Will the citizens of Arizona accept a Taiwanese company or will they boycott them as being non-American? I guess money talks more than anything else but how much is Phoenix paying them to build there? Are they selling out the citizens like Wisconsin did with the failed Foxconn major installation?
It would be great to see that site successful and pave the way for more high end manufacturing in the US.
What gets my goat is the argument that streaming is not analogous to a radio station, but rather to a record store. Really? You're claiming that with a straight face?
If I go to a record store and buy music, I own a copy of it. I can pretty much do what I like with it, including (with limitations) loan it to a friend.
The ownership rights for a song I stream? Zero.
Streaming is exactly like a radio station, except I'm the DJ. Pay the artists on a 50/50 split for streaming, just like for radio.
Or you could use higher-throughput wireless technology like WiFi that's connected to a fibre line at the gateway in your home.
This sounds like people wanting to discontinue running cables to multiple locations (capital-intensive, regulatory issues, long time to provide coverage) and instead push users to services that are more profitable for the provider. There are benefits to this approach for some of the userbase, but I'm not ready to give up my wired connections that have lower latency, greater resistance to environmental factors and lower operating costs - especially lower energy use.
I've been working remotely using a Citrix-based solution (via the MS Remote Desktop Mac client) that provides a user shell running Windows - this for about 9 months since the work-supported VPN (Pulse Secure) had issues with an upgrade. It has been flawless for my use case (software development and support), allowing me to RDP to our servers as required, hooked into the relevant Active Directory domain controllers... the whole works.
This announcement from MS sounds like an effort to go direct to the customer (the big organisations needing "PC" management) rather than cede money to Citrix, and from a strategic perspective is a no-brainer. Even if they have implementation issues, their size and budget mean they can force their way into this market and ride out short-term problems. They're basically copying AWS here, which first built the capability to provision VMs with set capabilities (the MS version is Azure) and then granted the capability to have non-server versions of Windows VMs to be used as user shells (now MS has "Windows 365").
I fully expect the licensing and configuration of this stuff to be convoluted beyond what a normal person would put up with (although of course once it "clicks" you are fine with it), and it will end up part of the landscape five years from now.
exceptionhandler said:My question is this: how do they know this if we are not being tracked? How do they know how many have not opted in? Either they’re pulling numbers out of their butts or some limited degree of tracking is still being done.
I guess they could compare before and after datasets (everybody vs those opted in).