Slashdot Mirror


Wal-Mart Threatens Studios Over iTunes Sales

Y-Crate writes "It seems Wal-Mart is threatening retaliation against studios who decide to offer movies on iTunes. The Bentonville, AR retailer seems a bit miffed that someone would dare to undercut their prices. This wouldn't be the first time they've turned on a supplier for dealing with Apple." From the article: "Last year when Disney announced it would begin offering episodes of the hit shows 'Lost' and 'Desperate Housewives' on Apple's iTunes, the reaction of the world's largest retailer sent shockwaves through the entertainment industry. Wal-Mart, worried that offering the shows for viewing on iPods would cut into DVD sales at its stores, sent 'cases and cases' of DVDs back to Disney, according to a source familiar with the matter."

415 comments

  1. Egads!! by LaughingCoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Another business whose primary "value added" is their distribution channel (record labels come to mind) trying to fight technological changes that make their business model obsolete. Methinks we've seen this before, and we'll see it again.

    --
    The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    1. Re:Egads!! by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We've seen this before every time a new process or invention has threatend to make an old way of doing business obsolete, and we'll see it every time it happens in the future. People smashed looms when they were introduced, because they put people out of work; people here have moaned and wailed about offshoring; the recording industry wails about electronic distrribution of media; now a bricks and mortar retailer is threatening suppliers over a perceived threat to its current way of making money.

      Distribution channels have nothing to do with it; it's all about money and a perceived threat to someone's way of making it. "The more things change, the more they stay the same..."

    2. Re:Egads!! by LaughingCoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Distribution channels have nothing to do with it

      My point is that Walmart's value added *IS* their distribution channel. They don't make anything - they distribute products. That's what they do, and iTunes electronic distribution of movies threatens (one aspect) of that. So, since Walmart's business model is basically a distribution channel, that has EVERYTHING to do with it.

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    3. Re:Egads!! by dubiousmike · · Score: 1

      Walmart fights whomever it wants when they sell that company's stuff in their stores. Walmart is the biggest retailer in the country. Getting your stuff sold in Walmart can make or break your company's sucess and Walmart knows that. Disney could have said they didn't care what Walmart thought but my money is on that they absolutely crapped their pants when Walmart hinted they might slow or stop sales.

      It wasn't about halting technological change so much as it was that Walmart would want "dibs" on a new logistical paradigm. Walmart has their logistics to a point where they automatically make 2% more than anyone else selling a product at the same cost. They do not have a stranglehold on digital delivery and thus they owe it to their stockholders to take whatever moves they can to "encourage" manufacturers to not screw with Walmart.

      Unfortunately for Apple, Disney would sooner tell them to jump off a bridge than to ruin a relationship with Walmart.

    4. Re:Egads!! by El+Torico · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Getting your stuff sold in Walmart can make or break your company's sucess and Walmart knows that.

      Only if you make cheap junk; if you produce a high-quality product and are not willing to make compromises, then Wal-Mart is not your retail outlet.

      Here is a good story about how the CEO of Snapper stood up to Wal-Mart - http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/102/open_snapp er.html

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    5. Re:Egads!! by cluckshot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As very nearly every product supplier to Walmart has found out, they throw their weight around. You sign on thinking you are going to make a profitable access to the market. Then they come back throwing weight around. Shortly you as a supplier have your profit margin (The reason you are in business) squeezed to zero and below. You can't make this up in margin. Shortly if you don't cave entirely, they find another supplier. If you cannot sustain, you go broke. This is no formula for profits. It is the formula to go broke. Walmart of course profits all the way to your funeral or bankruptsy.

      I have some good news. Dollar General Store is about to slit their throat. Dollar store is locating in areas where Walmart lives and eating out their roots. Dollar store is paying their help and giving them benefits like insurance. Dollar store is serving their customers and I can already see that Walmart is headed for the ropes. You can only slit the throat of your suppliers for so long. Then you go broke too!

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    6. Re:Egads!! by dubiousmike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sanpper didn't "Stand up" to Walmart so much as made a smart decision:

      "Now, at the price I'm selling to you today, I'm not making any money on it. And if we do what you want next year, I'll lose money. I could do that and not go out of business. But we have this independent-dealer channel. And 80% of our business is over here with them. And I can't put them at a competitive disadvantage. If I do that, I lose everything. So this just isn't a compatible fit."

    7. Re:Egads!! by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      True. Wal-Mart is the ultimate symbol of what is wrong with the world today: TOO MANY MIDDLE MEN WHO DO NOTHING IN TERMS OF ORIGINAL PRODUCTION. Why do you think Dell prefers to buy up technologies from smaller companies rather than having R&D? Not because they love technology and want to help people have better lives, that's for sure... They do it because it allows them to make a lot of money with little investment. The downside is that they have damn little hope of actually fully understanding the technology they sell because they don't have the brains behind them. They buy a technology and just sell it as-is HOPING that it'll all work. Typically it works well enough that people keep buying, but it's not optimal and people are spending too much on things they aren't fully utilizing. Complete inefficiency from the customer's point of view. BUt this is the way things are done these days. Get a bunch of idiots together who know nothing important (examples of important and meaningful knowledge: technology, science, chemistry, film making, musical performance and.or composition, art, history) other than how to convince people to give them money for half-baked products and set them to work with some venture capital and you're halfway there. Don't get me wrong, business DONE RIGHT is not a bad thing.

      What proper business practices involve is to actually develop a real product yourself (not calling in experts, you MUST do it yourself) with the intent of solving a problem or providing people with a better quality of life even with something as simple as entertainment, and then working hard to get it to sell. ON YOUR OWN. If your invention or product has any worth it will catch on. If not, you go back to the drawing board and start again. If you MUST involve venture capitalists, make it clear to them that YOU control the way the product works, looks, smells, whatever. They have no right to appropriate your product for their own goals. They are simply along for the ride. If you succeed, they succeed. With success being defined, not by unrealistically huge sales, but by satisfied customers who become loyal to your product above all other competition. That loyalty is built by creating something that actually benefits the customer in ways that no one else can strictly based on a clear understanding of your product (or service). You DO NOT promise them things that you cannot provide. The biggest problem is the claims that a lot of sellers of goods and services make that they can't live up to. Take for example the ISPs who promise they'll prevent spam from ever getting to you. But they don't tell you that "oops" they might from time to time block something you wanted (and may rely on receiving). They don't tell you that some spam DOES slip through due to the incredibly high volumes of spam that are being sent now. ISPs can't live up to those promises for every customer and therefore SHOULDN'T make them. In the end it's all about honesty, making a truly decent product or service and putting the customer at the top. The investors can take a hike if they don't understand that. The end goal should NEVER be about making a mountain of cash. If it is, then you're a miserable individual. The end goal should be about building a long-term organization that you expect to survive for centuries soley on reputation and what you provide to society. That is the ONLY valuable and honorable goal in the end.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    8. Re:Egads!! by Retric · · Score: 1

      Grand parent post was saying:

      Another business trying to fight technological changes that make their business model obsolete.

      Is clear but:

      Another business whose primary "value added" is their distribution channel (record labels come to mind) trying to fight technological changes that make their business model obsolete.

      is less clear. Record labels also promote the music they distribute through direct advertising, image management, ect. They still make money off of itunes even if they don't itunes all that much.

      PS: Linking Record labels with napster world have worked.

    9. Re:Egads!! by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

      Record labels also promote the music they distribute through direct advertising, image management

      You are confusing business model with tactics intended to implement/support the model. You cited a bunch of expenses that record labels incur in order to support their business model, which is to distribute music. They don't make money by paying for advertising ... they make money by selling (distributing) music. Ditto for Walmart. Their TV ads and print ads are expenses designed to stimulate sales.

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    10. Re:Egads!! by The+Snowman · · Score: 4, Insightful
      True. Wal-Mart is the ultimate symbol of what is wrong with the world today: TOO MANY MIDDLE MEN WHO DO NOTHING IN TERMS OF ORIGINAL PRODUCTION.

      While I have issues with Wally World, this is not one of them. Wal-Mart performs a valuable service: they stock thousands of items on their shelves that I really don't want to have to buy straight from the manufacturer. They handle some of their own shipping and distributing, i.e. moving stuff around. Sure, I could drive to another state to buy something from the manufacturer directly. I could also pay a shipping company such as UPS to deliver it for me. Or, I could go to a store that stocks it on their shelves (e.g. Wal-Mart) and have the convenience of a short drive from my house 24 hours a day to buy it.

      Middlemen definitely have advantages in a supply chain. True, too many will drive up prices and down quality in some cases (e.g. food items that spend too much time shuffling around and have a short shelf life by the time you purchase them). However, do you really want the inconvience of having to pursue the hundreds of items you need on a weekly basis yourself? Personally, I prefer to use stores.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    11. Re:Egads!! by Erectile+Dysfunction · · Score: 1

      Usenet wants its kook back.

    12. Re:Egads!! by CaptainZapp · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Dollar store is paying their help and giving them benefits like insurance.

      Slightly of topic, but reminds me of In'n'Out Burger. They pay decent wages to their employees, health benefits are the rule and what surprised me most: They use neither freezers, nor microwave ovens. The produce is delivered fresh, every day.

      Tasting such a burger is an epiphany. When you order it with onions, for example, you bite into a real onion and not into some fuzzy crap, designed by a food lab.

      Now, the surpising thing, acording to Fast Food Nation, The Dark Side of the All-American Meal is the fact that In'n'Out Burger is highly profitable, even though their prices are quite reasonable.

      To me this proves that you don't have to fuck your suppliers, employees and ultimately customers left right and center in order to turn a buck. This is somewhat encouraging in a world where greed and cheap seem to turn more and more into religious mantra.

      --
      ich bin der musikant

      mit taschenrechner in der hand

      kraftwerk

    13. Re:Egads!! by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Costco, also.

      Costco, in terms of how they treat their employees, and how they negotiate with suppliers, is the anti-walmart.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    14. Re:Egads!! by Erectile+Dysfunction · · Score: 1

      And of course the smartest decision for those seeking to sell their wares is to not let Walmart dictate their business practices to them, unless they truly have no recourse. If Disney bows to Walmart's tactics it has essentially put a noose around its neck, and the necks of its investors. Disney is not a small company itself, and it is hardly a stranger to buying politicians to support its own business interests. I would not expect it to let Walmart dictate its future business decisions. Someone at Walmart has a serious god complex.

    15. Re:Egads!! by Jerf · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Wal-Mart is the ultimate symbol of what is wrong with the world today: TOO MANY MIDDLE MEN WHO DO NOTHING IN TERMS OF ORIGINAL PRODUCTION.
      Wrong. They centralize a lot of products into one place so you don't need to travel to the Nabisco store and the Keebler store and the M&M Mars store and the Pepsi store and the Coke store and the Nike store and the Sony store and the Nintendo store and the Pioneer store and the... clearly this could go on for quite a while.

      They are also able to lower costs by shipping en masse to this facility rather than shipping to a bajillion homes directly or a lot of separate stores, and there's other benefits in centralization that reflect in the costs, both to them and to you.

      These benefits are not unique to Wal-Mart, which is, after all, why they are neither the first nor last retail chain. They've merely been the most successful.

      Retail stores add plenty of value for the consumer. Do-nothing middlement would be the ones between Wal-Mart and the relevant factories, and I'd lay money the number of those has been undergoing a dramatic decrease in the past decade.

      Given how screwed your understanding of business is in the first twenty or so words, I'm not even going to begin to try to take apart the rest of your message. I merely invite you to put your clearly awesome business skills to the test someday.
    16. Re:Egads!! by Ucklak · · Score: 0

      Wal-Mart is business done right, and that is not a bad thing.
      Wal-Mart empowers everyone - except for those employees that are seemingly forced to work there - but for consumers, Wal-Mart is a win.
      You'd be hard pressed to find a better retailer with a liberal return policy as theirs.

      Personally, I like Target better than Wal-Mart but Wal-Marts prices are better so I shop there.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    17. Re:Egads!! by penguinbrat · · Score: 1

      I doubt I will ever be one to download movies, but atleast for me Walmart doesn't need to worry about that when it comes to loosing me a DVD buying customer. I used to be religous about going in a buying atleast 1 DVD everytime I went shopping, 3-4+ a month, when they started putting the DVD's behind locked glass cabinets and had to have some low paid employee stand there and watch me as I tried to browse their selection- I stopped buying them there VERY quickly.

      The security that goes into DVD's is bad enough by it self - but to have to stand there and have someone that barely makes a living (and likewise could care less except for loosing their job), watch me so I don't quitely open the packaging, carefully remove all that tape, and stuff the DVD down my pants is simply going WAY to far. I go to CircuitCity or Target for all my DVD's now.

    18. Re:Egads!! by Skreems · · Score: 1
      You'd be hard pressed to find a better retailer with a liberal return policy as theirs.
      That's because they strongarm their suppliers into soaking up the cost of returns, even if they can't really afford to do so.
      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    19. Re:Egads!! by flooey · · Score: 4, Funny

      You'd be hard pressed to find a better retailer with a liberal return policy as theirs.

      You should try Costco sometime. You can return things there they don't even sell.

    20. Re:Egads!! by dosius · · Score: 1

      Dollar General isn't exactly in the same league as WAL*MART. WAL*MART is a full size "discount department store", while Dollar General is a much smaller "five and ten". They overlap, but they're quite different. I don't think WAL*MART has anything to worry about from them. Though, around here where WAL*MART is on the outskirts of the city and there's several Dollar Generals within the city, Dollar General could eat up a little of their business - again, because five-and-tens and discount department stores have *some* overlap. But most of what WAL*MART sells you won't find at Dollar General.

      -uso.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    21. Re:Egads!! by Ucklak · · Score: 0

      Nobody forces people to do business with Wal-Mart.
      Nobody forces people to work at Wal-Mart.
      Nobody forces people to shop at Wal-Mart.

      Again, my comment You'd be hard pressed to find a better retailer with a liberal return policy as theirs. still stands regardless of the arrangement the distributor has made with the manufacturer.

      If the manufacturer complains about the return policy then:
      A) Don't do business with Wal-Mart
      B) Don't push a crappy product

      If you made a product that you wanted everyone to have, you'd be salivating if Wal-Mart wanted to distribute your product.
      At least to get to the negotiating phase.
      The Snapper mower story comes to mind where there was a quantity vs. quality issue. Proof there is that the company wanted Wal-Mart to push it's products as it is an attractive arrangement even if the eventual outcome wasn't healthy for the company.

      There isn't a cheaper place to get diapers for $11 a pack of 68. And that is money that basically gets thrown away.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    22. Re:Egads!! by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      True. Wal-Mart is the ultimate symbol of what is wrong with the world today: TOO MANY MIDDLE MEN WHO DO NOTHING IN TERMS OF ORIGINAL PRODUCTION.

      This has to be a joke. Wal-Mart is the antithesis of "too many middlemen" as they have crunched out so much inefficiency. They have built a distribution and logistics structure that would shame most armies. You might even say that Wal-Mart is Wal-Mart's product, and if it's not original, it sure is highly evolved.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    23. Re:Egads!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be hard pressed to find a better retailer with a liberal return policy as theirs.

      Maybe if the stuff the were selling wasn't just "Chinese Crap In A Box" (tm), they wouldn't have to have such a "liberal" return policy.

      Personally, I like Target better than Wal-Mart but Wal-Marts prices are better so I shop there.

      You do realize that the "cost" of buying a product at Walmart is more than just the sticker on the shelf? They have such a negative impact on their localities that it ends up costing you more in the form of taxes. Additionally, Walmart will price gouge on products that have local area competitors until the point that the competition is out of business, then they jack up the price.

    24. Re:Egads!! by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Nobody forces people to shop at Wal-Mart.

      This is true. It is also why I do not shop at Wal-Mart and why this year I decided to buy a Snapper lawn mower from an actual Snapper dealer. (I bought a new house, so I needed a lawn mower.)

      And it has been a pretty good lawn mower, too. After I bought it, I found out that my grandfather also owned a Snapper lawn mower.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    25. Re:Egads!! by cluckshot · · Score: 1

      I can only say, you obviously haven't seen the Dollar General Market units that are rising around my area. Groceries, Drygood and more!. Don't worry, Walmart is going to lose this fight hands down. Selection, Service, Price and LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION! These guys go places Walmart will not go and they eat the roots out from under Walmart.

      Shall I say they are everywhere!

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    26. Re:Egads!! by cluckshot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't understand the bizarre obsession with the concept that an employer should not maintain the integrity and functionality of their greatest capital asset. If the cash register goes to ailing, rest assured major efforts will be made promptly to bring it back into functionality. If the inventory computer craps out watch the dollars fly to fix the mess. Let the man running it get sick watch the "capitalists" bitch moan and complain that they cannot simply dump that person in the ditch and get another functional unit. Capitalism preserves its capital assets and a decent company realizes that its human beings are its highest from of capital.

      I love the standard slashdot responses running around that we in the USA are running some sort of capitalist economy and it is some how "the best." Honestly there are many things we do in the USA that are great and right. Our "capitalism" isn't one of them. Right now investors can chuck their money into stocks but there is little or no hope that they will be paid back in return as the company makes money. Here is the Walmart Example following

      Walmart braggs about its associates being stock holders. They pay a dividend far lower than may be returned on Government Bonds or from even a simple CD at the bank. All of this would appear to be a company with marginal earnings. Actually Walmart finances its stores through the various Industrial Development Boards. They don't own the stores or even pay for them. Walmart then demands tax free status to open up in a town. As such they don't even pay to educate the next generation of kids to work in their stores or be their customers. They factor their inventory on a 60 day delayed after sale payment schema. All of this said you can do your earnings calculations on a company that has no investment or risk and is making markup on all sales. The company then has an inventory turn rate of about 90 times a year with a net (after all those stinking worthless employees -- for effect) markup on each sale of nearly 40%. Doing the simple math here they are a company earning about 90 * 40% a year on an cost basis against an investment that is not theirs and is so low that ROI is impossible to do anything but estimate. This means that the company is earning about 3600% against 100% of the entire investment of all parties in the store. They against their part which may be even less than 10% of that are earning at least 36,000%.

      The upshot of this is that they build massive devices in the supply chain to scrape off this profit and avoid stockholders, tax entities and other factors that the are obligated to pay.

      To be blunt capitalism is where investors get paid for earnings. That is what Walmart will never do. They are structured to defraud their stockholders.

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    27. Re:Egads!! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Furthermore, WalMart actuall 'Flattens' the layers of middlemen that consumers otherwise have to obtain their purchased through. WalMart deals directly with the producers of goods, not through several layers of bullshit like the Mom & Pop operations. As a result, they keep the 'middle' costs down.

      This pisses off a whole consortium of 'gimmie' operators in the middle, and the scale of their operation terrifies the Union Bosses who want to be the main 'big guys' and maintain their industry-wide labor cartel.

    28. Re:Egads!! by nomadic · · Score: 1

      You have a bizarre obsession with employers providing health insurance -- but not car insurance, interior decorating, or groceries.

      From Merriam-Webster's dictionary:

      strikingly out of the ordinary: as a : odd, extravagant, or eccentric in style or mode b : involving sensational contrasts or incongruities

      You have strangely decided to paint people's attachment of importance to employer-provided healthcare as something unusual. Considering a large percentage of businesses provide such healthcare (and not the other services you mention), and society expects this to be something typical, how does this qualify as "bizarre"?

    29. Re:Egads!! by wavedeform · · Score: 1
      ...which is, after all, why they are neither the first nor last retail chain.

      They may well be the last, at the rate that they are spreading, and undercutting smaller stores.

    30. Re:Egads!! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0, Troll

      My brother-in-law bought a Honda lawn mower because there is such great quality behind the Honda name. He spent in excess of $600 on a regular push mower.

      He has had horrible experiences with it, and now has given up and went out and bought an inexpensive > $150 mower at a discount store. The Honda sits in the garage, useless.

      I have a 1958 LawnBoy mower (from the 'Yellow Deck' era, very much a collectors item) and have used it once or twice. It's two-cycle, though, and when I used it to mow part of our pasture, the fog of smoke that rose slowly wafted over to settle over the Trailer Park (those poooor people!) a quarter mile off. They'll never know the difference, of course, until it discolors the external packaging ("gotta keep your investment in the original box!") of their NASCAR collectables.

    31. Re:Egads!! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      WalMart sells high quality products. They also sell some of the cheapest possible.

      I bought my Gruen wristwatch at WalMart. It has an all stainless steel body and band, and is waranteed for 14 years. They also carry a large line of absolute shit watches. I paid $80 for my Gruen, and will probably get more value from it than I would buying a new $4.88 watch every 9 months.

    32. Re:Egads!! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      Costco pays their employees about three times as much as WalMart, and since their sales volume per employee is about three times that of WalMart, it seems they extract that much more labor out of each employee. The people who demand that WalMart start paying their employees 'equivalent pay to what other stores offer' need to help decide which 2/3 of the WalMart staff should be fired. Until they have this answer, they should (how should I put this?) FOAD (no, that's too harsh).

    33. Re:Egads!! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      You must live in a high crime area. None of the DVDs are 'behind glass' at the local store here.

      I suppose you now pay %25 more at Sam Goody?

    34. Re:Egads!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They use neither freezers, nor microwave ovens. The produce is delivered fresh, every day.

      So? Wendy's works the exact same way.

    35. Re:Egads!! by steve_bryan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately for Apple, Disney would sooner tell them to jump off a bridge than to ruin a relationship with Walmart.

      For your edification you might want to review some relevant facts. The single largest stockholder in Disney is Steve Jobs. In a related fact Steve Jobs is on the Board of Directors of Disney. So you expect Steve Jobs to tell Apple to jump off a bridge?

      In any case Disney is a huge company that doesn't need Walmart to be successful. These strong arm tactics are probably very threatening to smaller companies but Disney is not a mom and pop operation.

    36. Re:Egads!! by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Er... hate to break to you, but they reheat stuff in a microwave all the time. Just watch them when you get that chicken sandwich.

    37. Re:Egads!! by nomadic · · Score: 0, Troll

      Awww, little fringie's getting defensive. How about this: I will give you the explanation you're asking for if you tell me where exactly in my post I actually you know, indicate support for employer-provided healthcare.

      Because you know, my reply wasn't especially long, so you would think such a statement of support would be easy to find, but I looked and looked and I couldn't find it.

      Now that's bizarre.

    38. Re:Egads!! by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      The DVDs at the wal-mart where I am are all just on open racks or in the bargin bin. No glass or snooping employees.

      The DVDs at the K-mart here on the other hand are almost all under lock and key.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    39. Re:Egads!! by Ucklak · · Score: 0

      As a fan of Costco, I agree. However Wal-Mart doesn't have a ridiculous 'membership' fee (Sams does bt IMO, Costco is better)

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    40. Re:Egads!! by Ucklak · · Score: 0

      BS
      They have such a negative impact on their localities that it ends up costing you more in the form of taxes. is wthout merit.

      You can pay $18 for a pack of diapers then.
      After a month, that equates to $72 for you, $44 for me.
      After 2 years, that equates to $1872 for you, $1144 for me.

      I continue to support Wal-Mart.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    41. Re:Egads!! by causality · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well I would have moderated, but I think this one needed to be said.

      The custom of employers providing health insurance is not because someone, in a vacuum, said "hey, what a great idea this would be!". Not by any means.

      During World War II, the USA federal government froze wages. This meant that if you were an employer, you could no longer decide for yourself how much you will pay your employees. If you wanted to attract the best talent, you had to find other ways to make them want to work for you. In order to get around this restriction, companies began to provide benefits for free that the employee would otherwise have to pay for, as a method other than wage that could be considered a part of that employee's compensation.

      This, like the federal income tax, was a "temporary" wartime measure (like the Patriot Act of today). The result has been that now you have no buying power as an individual; the companies who go to health insurance providers and say "I have 50,000 employees, let's discuss price" are able to obtain decent group rates but the single individual is not. If you are in the USA, try shopping around for individual health insurance sometime -- it's ridiculously expensive. This is a form of inertia that has made employer-provided health insurance difficult to reverse. This also means that your employer has more leverage over you, and is part of why companies are not nearly as worried about losing employees as employees are worried about getting fired (which to me is one of the flaws in how business is done; unions are a horrible hack that take on agendas of their own and usually fail to address this).

      It does, however, serve as a great reminder for those of you who think that the government's definition of "temporary" means anything less than "until the Sun starts running out of nuclear fuel."

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    42. Re:Egads!! by aero6dof · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What about car insurance? What about interior decorating? What about groceries? Does In'n'Out Burger provide these? No, of course they don't. You have a bizarre obsession with employers providing health insurance -- but not car insurance, interior decorating, or groceries.

      With our current economic system in the US, employers paying for health insurance is the encouraged societal route for health care. Employers can write off the cost of the benefit, not so to the same degree for an individual employee. Employers have better clout to negotiate with armies of health insurer beauracrats and lawyers. Again, its not as balanced for an individual employee. I would far prefer to select my own health insurance if there wasn't a tax penalty for me to do so, and if consumer protections for individual health consumers vs the insurance industry were stronger.

      The other items you mention are bought and sold on markets where the balance between buyer and seller are much more balanced.

    43. Re:Egads!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny that you pick diapers, because of Walmart, Target, CVS, and BJs, I've found that Walmart is the most expensive.

      Of course, I don't shop at Walmart anymore, either, so the point is kind of moot.

    44. Re:Egads!! by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      You bring up an excellent example. I myself have eaten at In'N'Out while visiting Orange County, and of course we have no In'N'Out burger locations in the midwest. I would fly out to California or road trip out there with friends just to eat at In'N'Out burger. They're that good.

    45. Re:Egads!! by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm glad the people who are so indignant about employers that don't provide health insurance, are agitating to have this changed so that health insurance is more portable and less dependent on one's employer.

      I'm pretty sure you spend so much time being sarcastic because you never actually research and think about the topics you get bent out of shape over. I think you'll find that those most critical of Wal-Mart and other employers who fail to provide health care are also those most supportive of national health care or other alternative methods of getting insurance that are less dependent on employers.

      Unfortunately, you keep making the same mistake over and over again in your replies, which is equating health care/insurance with any other commodity (even other forms of insurance). Health care is not something "nice to have", it is quite literally life and death. If you don't get care at a critical moment, you'll die or wind up unable to work for the rest of your life. The same can not be said of buying milk or auto insurance or an mp3 player, where you have the ability to walk out the door and go to another salesman or forego the product completely.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    46. Re:Egads!! by Kafir · · Score: 1

      You might have added that employer-provided health insurance in America came about, not because of an interest in "maintaining capital assets", but because businesses needed a way to get around the wage controls Roosevelt imposed during WWII.

      There is a possible advantage to employer-provided health insurance that wouldn't apply to food or transportation, though--a large employer that provides health care to all of its workers can distribute the cost among all of them and avoid the problem of adverse selection. On the other hand, if workers seek employment with health benefits in mind, adverse selection is back: unskilled workers with poor health will find jobs at Wal-Mart (lower pay, better benefits), while unskilled workers in good health will wait tables (better pay, no benefits).

      God damn you guys are funny.

      I considered modding you up--your comment is somewhat insightful--but you aren't going to persuade many people when you come across as such a smug prick.

    47. Re:Egads!! by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure you spend so much time being sarcastic because you never actually research and think about the topics you get bent out of shape over. I think you'll find that those most critical of Wal-Mart and other employers who fail to provide health care are also those most supportive of national health care or other alternative methods of getting insurance that are less dependent on employers.

      No, I'm aware that they agitate for schemes like national health insurance, but on the path to that, the oppose any attempt to make people dependent on one employer. That's stupid.

      nfortunately, you keep making the same mistake over and over again in your replies, which is equating health care/insurance with any other commodity (even other forms of insurance).

      It's not a mistake. Every "argument" (and I use that term loosely) you've given that attempts to differentiate them fails.

      Health care is not something "nice to have", it is quite literally life and death.

      So is food. So is shelter. Where's your argument supporting employer provision of those?

      If you don't get care at a critical moment, you'll die or wind up unable to work for the rest of your life.

      But you already get emergency care, regardless of whether your employer provides it. Not because of any generosity -- emergency care providers will always provide you with care at a critical moment because they can't afford the time to check.

      And even if I accepted that it was "different" along this dimension, it wouldn't explain why e.g., employers couldn't just *give the employee that cash* at let him buy from any approved plan.

      The same can not be said of buying milk or auto insurance or an mp3 player, where you have the ability to walk out the door and go to another salesman or forego the product completely.

      No, you're (suprise!) making an apples-to-oranges comparison. You're comparing receiving emergency health care to a planned purchase. But since the question is about employer-provided insurance, not the actual care itself, you should be comparing the planned insurance purchase to the planned electronics purchase.

      But then again, that would require thinking about the subject unemotionally. I can see now why you didn't do it.

      I use sarcasm because you've obviously never given serious thought to this issue.

    48. Re:Egads!! by chaoticgeek · · Score: 1
      True. Wal-Mart is the ultimate symbol of what is wrong with the world today: TOO MANY MIDDLE MEN WHO DO NOTHING IN TERMS OF ORIGINAL PRODUCTION.


      From what I know this is horribly wrong. I don't know about anyone else but I worked there, and it is not a bad place to work at while your at college. But their whole business model revolves around the fact of cutting out the middle men. They have distrobution centers that buy everything in bulk and have complex computer systems to send everything out to each store. They mainly buy straight from the manufacturer, however sometimes they have to buy from one or two middle men.

      As far as buying digital music and movies I still prefer a physical copy of whatever the CD or DVD is and I hardly buy CDs from Walmart because of their policy in my area to only supply edited music, this may be a nation wide thing, but I don't go to many other walmarts to buy a CD. And then they don't supply many great anime series that I like so I have to go else where anyways. But for things I need I'll go there because I spend a lot less.
      --
      hello
    49. Re:Egads!! by saridder · · Score: 1

      And WalMart also knows what sells and what consumers want (because of their sense and respond/just-in-time retail system and supply chain) better than the manufacturers do. Because of this, they don't just stock shelves, they participate in product development on some products.

      --
      --- RFC 1149 Compliant.
    50. Re:Egads!! by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      There is a possible advantage to employer-provided health insurance that wouldn't apply to food or transportation, though--a large employer that provides health care to all of its workers can distribute the cost among all of them and avoid the problem of adverse selection [wikipedia.org].

      Hey, thanks for the link to "adverse selection". I've obviously never heard of the concept before.

      On the other hand, if workers seek employment with health benefits in mind, adverse selection is back: unskilled workers with poor health will find jobs at Wal-Mart (lower pay, better benefits), while unskilled workers in good health will wait tables (better pay, no benefits).

      This isn't an advantage: you add a huge unnecessary constraint on who someone can work for, creating a mismatch of workers and demand for their labor, you shift onto employers the task of vetting employees for health conditions (which generates boneheaded "discrimination" lawsuits), and then you shift onto less risky people the cost of caring for more risky classes. Naturally, government-provided care also does the last, but at least it's straightforward about it and not mired in a complicated system with skewed incentives that mucks up the labor market.

      I considered modding you up--your comment is somewhat insightful--but you aren't going to persuade many people when you come across as such a smug prick.

      You're probably right. People who make such idiotic comments, patting themselves on the back for "caring", piss me off to no end, and I'm rather harsh for that reason.

      I accept that people might be indignant about some issue. I accept that people might be clueless about some issue. I do not accept why people would be indignant on the very issues they're clueless about.

    51. Re:Egads!! by insane_machine · · Score: 1

      So you are implying that apple does not make a high quality product(read ipod)?

    52. Re:Egads!! by Ucklak · · Score: 0

      Not where I live.
      Target is $2 more
      CVS is $5 more. Although they are the only place with a digital print shop that will give you your print immediately. Not even the mighty Wal-mart has that service and Target was nonexistent when I went in last (about 2 weeks ago)

      There is no such thing as BJs where I live.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    53. Re:Egads!! by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the background. Actually, I feel sort of misunderstood. :)

      The point is not health insurance (or other benefits) per se; the point is respect towards your employees and this involves fair compensation and (label me a socialist) a participation in the success, of which they are part in creating.

      Obviously it is possible to thrive on not being a cheap fuck! I speak from the perspective of running a small data management consultancy, which survived quite turbulent times between 1999 and today. I believe that part of this success lies in exceeding your customers expectation and having a network of reliable suppliers, who are worth their price. And in being fair with your employees without losing sight of the actual numbers.

      --
      ich bin der musikant

      mit taschenrechner in der hand

      kraftwerk

    54. Re:Egads!! by squidsuk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Grandparent goes a bit too far, while some original production is of course necessary, middlemen and distribution can also add value, depending on circumstances, exactly as you describe:

      While I have issues with Wally World, this is not one of them. Wal-Mart performs a valuable service: they stock thousands of items on their shelves that I really don't want to have to buy straight from the manufacturer. They handle some of their own shipping and distributing, i.e. moving stuff around. Sure, I could drive to another state to buy something from the manufacturer directly. I could also pay a shipping company such as UPS to deliver it for me. Or, I could go to a store that stocks it on their shelves (e.g. Wal-Mart) and have the convenience of a short drive from my house 24 hours a day to buy it.

      ... however, this makes sense for products which are physical and tangible - it's not clear that it makes sense any more for intangible products which can be distributed at effectively zero cost. That's pretty much there now, for music/mp3's, even videos and films, software, and pretty much anything reduced to digital form. There's no reason to ever remove anything from the catalog, all you need is a slick interface and decent search engine.

      Thus there's no longer any value-add to being a middleman for a wholly intangible product - maybe for a version of that intangible with a nice pressed disk, a nice case and professionally produced insert, but then those tangibles are what you're really paying for, not the digital bits on the disk. Sure, it's disruptive technology, and there are established players whose business model is being wiped out - but that's normal, to find that the normal state of the world is to be changing, and it's counterproductive (and, in the longer run, pointless) to try and freeze everything like a fly in amber and imagine it will always be the same

    55. Re:Egads!! by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wal-Mart empowers everyone - except for those employees that are seemingly forced to work there - but for consumers, Wal-Mart is a win.

      Until they've destroyed all their competition. Do you think they cut their prices because they're really nice people? As soon as there is no one left to undercut, what do you think will happen to their prices?

    56. Re:Egads!! by pboulang · · Score: 1
      Can they do this better than Apple's iTunes store for CD's and Movies or are you just derailing the topic with your AOLish "me too" mentality?

      Related to the subject at hand, the NEW distribution model is much cheaper and flexible then shipping physical media to stores.

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    57. Re:Egads!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, somebody mod this Troll? 'Cause In-n-Out doesn't even sell chicken sandwiches. As anyone who's been there could tell you. They have an extremely limited menu, hasn't changed in 40 years or something. (and no, they don't use microwaves).

    58. Re:Egads!! by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      I agree with your assessment of middlemen like Wal-Mart. In fact, not only are they convenient, they are necessary. It's just simply not economically feasible for every town to have their own Charmin toilet paper store. As far as I'm concerned, places like Wal-Mart are okay for distributing basic necessities like food & clothes.

      However, when it comes to playthings, Wal-Mart mostly serves up cheap crap. I wouldn't dream of purchasing a television, DVD player, computer, or stereo components from them. Furthermore, if your musical tastes extend beyond Justin Timberlake; or if you like obscure films, you're probably better off shopping elsewhere.

      For some of us the choices are (1) driving to the local Wal-Mart/Hastings and not finding what we want or paying too much for it, OR (2) shopping online, finding exactly what we want, and having it shipped to our doorstep for a total cost that's less than what we'd pay locally.

    59. Re:Egads!! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      They are also able to lower costs by shipping en masse to this facility rather than shipping to a bajillion homes directly

      Situation A: Company ships stuff en masse to this facility (we'll call it a "Wal-Mart"), and customers drive to it (and back to their homes) in vehicles (we'll call them "SUVs") to pick up the stuff they want.

      Situation B: Company ships stuff en masse to this facility (we'll call it a "distribution warehouse"), and professional drivers load up vehicles (we'll call them "Delivery Trucks") and deliver the stuff the customers want in a circuit, going directly from house to house without going back to the facility until the vehicle is empty.

      Now, tell me: what makes you think situation A is more efficient than situation B?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    60. Re:Egads!! by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Wal-Mart isn't there for small-to-medium businesses to stock their shelves with the odds and ends. Wal-Mart is there for the people who want cheap shit. Costco is there for people who want bulk cheap shit. Of course, your supermarkets aren't likely to be going through Costco for their checkout aisle candy (as they need enough to buy by the palette direct, not to mention have the connections already), but your corner convenience store doesn't want to buy their checkout aisle candy by the bar either.

      And, despite the membership fees, my "local" Costco (five times further than my local Wal-Mart, and in the middle of nowhere) is always far more crowded than the local Wal-Mart, and people seem to consistantly have more in their carts.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    61. Re:Egads!! by zer0halo · · Score: 2, Funny

      ./ readers buy diapers???

      --
      Impossible is nothing.
    62. Re:Egads!! by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      There are always exceptions. Honestly, I don't own an ipod, so I don't have an opinion on its quality.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    63. Re:Egads!! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      They use neither freezers, nor microwave ovens. The produce is delivered fresh, every day.

      Moe's Southwest Grill does the same thing, but (speaking as a former employee) it hasn't stopped the quality of their food from going to crap over the past few years, in an effort to save labor costs by cutting down on the amount of preparation required. In particular, their steak used to be really good -- it came as a side of beef and we cut it into strips, marinated it, cut it into cubes, marinated it some more, and then finally grilled it. Now it comes pre-cut and pre-marinated, and it tastes like dog food.

      Anyway, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's not enough just to try to be good, you have to keep it up too.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    64. Re:Egads!! by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      No, I'm aware that they agitate for schemes like national health insurance, but on the path to that, the oppose any attempt to make people dependent on one employer. That's stupid.

      I'll assume you meant the opposite of what you said, since what you said makes no sense. You keep speaking as if there is one collective group of people with a single idea, but that isn't the case. Many do work to disentangle health care from employers, while others see it as the lesser of two evils until some sort of more widespread care is available. One common idea is that as health care becomes more and more of a burden on employers, eventually it will be Ford and GE and IBM who go to Congress and demand to be more competitive internationally by nationalizing health care.

      So yes, the fundamental statement that you made, that for some reason people complaining about Wal Mart don't seem to be doing anything else in the health care debate, is meritless.

      So is food. So is shelter. Where's your argument supporting employer provision of those?

      Those are provided by the government (and many private charities) if you can't afford them. If historically they had been provided by employers, it would doubtless have been a difficult public battle to have them provided by government. But neither situation has anything to do with what I was saying, that they are necessary for life and therefore many believe should be available outside of the market to those who cannot afford them. It is also worth noting that food and shelter for a family can be had for a few hundred dollars a month, while health insurance for a family generally costs at least $1,500 a month when bought as an individual on the open market.

      But you already get emergency care, regardless of whether your employer provides it. Not because of any generosity -- emergency care providers will always provide you with care at a critical moment because they can't afford the time to check.

      That is correct, we already pay for very expensive health care (through taxes) at our emergency rooms. But that excludes essentially all preventative care and dealing with any chronic conditons -- chronic and preexisting conditions being one of the greatest reasons for people being excluded from private health care in the first place.

      And even if I accepted that it was "different" along this dimension, it wouldn't explain why e.g., employers couldn't just *give the employee that cash* at let him buy from any approved plan.

      If some businesses and health insurers want to move to such a plan, I'm sure they would have a great deal of support from many corners. In my experience, the CEOs and other high ranking officers of a company usually have exactly this kind of private insurance provided for them. Certainly, nobody is stopping a company or insurance company from doing it for all employees, I suspect it would simply be more expensive due to the reduction in size of the risk pool.

      No, you're (suprise!) making an apples-to-oranges comparison. You're comparing receiving emergency health care to a planned purchase. But since the question is about employer-provided insurance, not the actual care itself, you should be comparing the planned insurance purchase to the planned electronics purchase.

      I was comparing both care and insurance (hence the use of "health care/insurance" in my sentence!). Note that I said "or forego the product completely", which is not an option for someone with preexisting or chronic conditions, at least if they'd like to live to see old age. You can shop all you'd like, but if you have an exclusionary condition, you won't find private insurance at any price a normal mortal can afford, which is generally why large risk pools are created in the first place (by employers or governments or some other third party). If you stick out of the risk pool in home or auto insurance, you can make changes to fit back in. There is no comparable way to reenter the market for health insurance if you are deemed "u

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    65. Re:Egads!! by Kafir · · Score: 1

      This isn't an advantage

      I assumed that was clear. I agree completely that employer-provided health insurance is a bad way of dealing with health care. Arguably it was not such a bad system back in, say, the 1950s, when more workers had the expectation of stable, long-term employment with a large company (say, GM); those conditions no longer exist.

    66. Re:Egads!! by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      Actually, you own an M. Z. Berger & Co. watch; they use the Gruen name. Gruen went out of business in 1958.

      The watch you have is likely a reasonably good watch since it probably uses a Swiss made ETA 2824 movement. Here's a good link on that - http://www.chronometrie.com/eta2824/eta2824.html.

      I read that these watches did not sell well at Wal-Mart and they have discontinued selling them. They are not on the Wal-Mart web site. You found a decent watch at a good price.

      I still assert that Wal-Mart sells junk; there are exceptions, but they are rare.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    67. Re:Egads!! by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      ne common idea is that as health care becomes more and more of a burden on employers, eventually it will be Ford and GE and IBM who go to Congress and demand to be more competitive internationally by nationalizing health care.

      Right: common and wrong. GM, Ford, and IBM would become no more competitive through a single payer system. GM and Ford (I'm not familiar with IBM's finances) are suffering because they long ago made unfunded promises -- cheered on by people like you -- that assumed they would never see competition. A national health care system wouldn't change that, because there would still be a contract for GM to provide a certain level of health care. The nationalized system would only make a difference if on starting it, it were to somehow void these past contracts. But that's not what people mean by a "national health care system".

      So yes, the fundamental statement that you made, that for some reason people complaining about Wal Mart don't seem to be doing anything else in the health care debate, is meritless.

      I didn't say they were "doing nothing", I said they were doing the wrong things. They prefer locking you into one employer for health insurance if they can't get a nationalized system. Watch the history of Congress -- politicians from both parties (but mainly Democrats) will shoot down any attempt to put individiuals shopping for health insurance on the same footing as employers by giving the same savings to them.

      [Food and shelter] are provided by the government (and many private charities) if you can't afford them. If historically they had been provided by employers, it would doubtless have been a difficult public battle to have them provided by government. But neither situation has anything to do with what I was saying, that they are necessary for life and therefore many believe should be available outside of the market to those who cannot afford them.

      Good, then you agree we shouldn't shovel that burden on employers if we want to be consistent. Thanks.

      It is also worth noting that food and shelter for a family can be had for a few hundred dollars a month, while health insurance for a family generally costs at least $1,500 a month when bought as an individual on the open market.

      Did you ever once think about why that might be? Of course not -- that would be giving you too much credit. Individuals make their own food decisions, and feel the cost of every food preference choice they make. They have the same tax advantages as employers when purchasing food. Individuals also aren't required to purchase food they don't think they need (while they are required to purchase all kinds of health insurance they don't want, or don't want to get through insurance). And surprise (to anyone unlike you), those markets are more efficient.

      But it really is easier to stare in awe about how much more "expensive" health insurance is and tritely remind others of this, right?

      Also, I wouldn't call such a health insurance market incredibly open, but then again, "I don't think like you". So, go fig.

      That is correct, we already pay for very expensive health care (through taxes) at our emergency rooms.

      Right -- not through employers.

      If some businesses and health insurers want to move to such a plan, I'm sure they would have a great deal of support from many corners.

      First of all, it's not "businesses moving to such a plan". It's businesses not having a plan because they just give employees the cash. Second, if you REALLY think it would have support, when precisely that idea -- the equalization of tax advantages for health care between employers and employees -- has been shot down whenever it's been proposed (by people you probably support), I don't know what to tell you.

      Certainly, nobody is stopping a company or insurance company from doing it for all employees,

      Yes, somebody is (people who think like you): the tax penalties for an individ

    68. Re:Egads!! by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      You seem to spend an awful lot of time talking about people "who think like me" or "who I must support" or who "I must agree with". If you want to talk to them, send them an email.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    69. Re:Egads!! by saridder · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that through their IT systems, Wal-Mart can sense demand as well as any e-commerce shop, and because they have less leeway for mistakes when predicting and responding to demand, they're much more sophisticated at response and fulfillment. Furthermore, since they see a bigger slice of the market, their data is more complete and accurate than any specialty website who sees a small segment of the same market.

      The e-commerce sites have cheaper distribution channels, can respond to demand faster (by changing graphics on their website overnight vs shipping and laying out product in a store) and offer superior personalization.

      Not sure what you mean about the me too AOL comment or why you had to attack me, I was merely responding to the above comment that Wal-Mart was a no-value middleman.

      --
      --- RFC 1149 Compliant.
    70. Re:Egads!! by Faaln · · Score: 1

      I have to completely agree with you there. The nearest in and out burger is about one and a half hours away and one of my friends routinely packs us all in his car and we drive up there for the sole purpose of eating there. When you can get people to do that, you don't really need to gouge prices.

    71. Re:Egads!! by Funkcikle · · Score: 1

      I have control over my bodily functions and pay...zero on nappies.

    72. Re:Egads!! by causality · · Score: 1
      Health care is not something "nice to have", it is quite literally life and death. If you don't get care at a critical moment, you'll die or wind up unable to work for the rest of your life.

      Hospitals are not allowed to refuse necessary medical procedures. The only thing health insurance does for you, is that it prevents you from going bankrupt after you get better and leave the hospital and have a ton of medical bills to pay. This is not literally life or death, except maybe for your credit report.

      I am undecided whether you were being deliberately melodramatic or whether you truly did not know this.
      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    73. Re:Egads!! by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Situation A is more efficient because there is more than one product involved.

      British Bakeries, Arla Daries, Kellogs, Cadburys, etc, etc, etc, all deliver their stuff to the local Asda (Walmart UK) store. Then people go there and pick up all their shopping.

      Alternatively, in Situation B, you have to take deliveries from all the different manufacturers.

      If you are suggesting that in Situation B, the same distribution warehouse should hold all the different products, then it does happen round here. Most of the big supermarket chains, including Asda, will deliver to your house if you order online.

    74. Re:Egads!! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      If you are suggesting that in Situation B, the same distribution warehouse should hold all the different products, then it does happen round here.

      That's precisely what I'm suggesting. So again (despite the fact that you're not the person I originally replied to), why wouldn't situation B be more efficient?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    75. Re:Egads!! by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      It may well be more efficient, but it is still the supermarkets like Walmart that do it.

    76. Re:Egads!! by Meneth · · Score: 1
      MIDDLE MEN
      Half the human race is middle-men, and they don't take kindly to being eliminated. (Obligatory Firefly reference.)
    77. Re:Egads!! by rapidweather · · Score: 1
      I saw something about the rfid tags that Wal-Mart wants added to every case, and each pallet:

      These little things can record the temperature and humidity that the case or pallet experienced. That alone will help Wal-Mart keep quality up, as the rfid scanners will reveal pallets or cases exposed to extremes, outside of guidelines. I like Wal-Mart, and am sorry to see negative stories coming to light about them. I do save on groceries when I go to Wal-Mart, and get fresher items also.

      Somebody has to do the distribution, not everyone can chase down their own cow and milk it. For those who can't, there's Wal-Mart, with milk in gallon jugs at a reasonable price.

      Buttermilk, Chocolate Milk, Skim Milk, Fake Milk made from soybeans.

      How can you go to bed at night without a nice glass of milk?

      Don't forget the endless selection of Potato Chips, available at Wal-Mart, too!

    78. Re:Egads!! by dubiousmike · · Score: 1

      I would expect Disney to tell Steve Jobs to jump off a bridge if they had to choose between Apple and Walmart. Walmart has that kind of leverage.

      And you are mistaken. 99% of manufacturers of lower priced consumer products out there either desperately need Walmart or deperately want Walmart.

      I don't shop there myself. Its just fact.

    79. Re:Egads!! by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1
      So, why can't the employer just give them "money" they can use to "buy" their own health insurance?

      One, sorry, two words: Bargaining power!

      What amazes me, UbuntuDupe, is that you're modded flamebait. You raise a fair point.

      --
      ich bin der musikant

      mit taschenrechner in der hand

      kraftwerk

    80. Re:Egads!! by shmlco · · Score: 1

      Whether it's a WalMart store or a "distribution" center, someone bought a lot of stuff and put it under one roof.

      So even if we choose Situation B, the only difference is that now we're complaining about "DistribUHome" will all the power in the marketplace...

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    81. Re:Egads!! by AJWM · · Score: 1

      why wouldn't situation B be more efficient?

      It can be, but your situation A oversimplifies in that it doesn't look at what the individual drivers in "A" might be doing in addition to stopping at the distribution center -- taking kids to/from school or some activity, coming home from work, doctor visit, etc, etc. Most people I know combine errands.

      It makes the oveall outcome a little harder to simulate.

      --
      -- Alastair
    82. Re:Egads!! by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      Wal-Mart performs a valuable service:

      They put stuff on trucks.

      The Internet is a dump truck. I don't understand the problem.

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    83. Re:Egads!! by cubicledrone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nobody forces people to do business with Wal-Mart.

      After all the other stores have been run out of business?

      Nobody forces people to work at Wal-Mart.

      After all the other stores have been run out of business?

      Nobody forces people to shop at Wal-Mart.

      After all the other stores have been run out of business?

      Don't do business with Wal-Mart

      After all the other stores have been run out of business?

      If you made a product that you wanted everyone to have, you'd be salivating if Wal-Mart wanted to distribute your product.

      After all the other stores have been run out of business.

      At least to get to the negotiating phase.

      After all the other stores have been run out of business?

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    84. Re:Egads!! by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      To me this proves that you don't have to fuck your suppliers, employees and ultimately customers left right and center in order to turn a buck.

      Every once in a while, truth rings, and it is a mighty thing to behold.

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    85. Re:Egads!! by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      'equivalent pay to what other stores offer' need to help decide which 2/3 of the WalMart staff should be fired.

      Ooh, nice false dilemma. Now do a red herring.

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    86. Re:Egads!! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I'm not up on the buzzwords in whatever sort of deceptive game you play.

    87. Re:Egads!! by steve_bryan · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess we can wait and learn what happens. However, you don't seem to have absorbed the facts that Steve Jobs is on the Board of Directors (the people who hire and fire the CEO) of Disney and more importantly he owns more Disney stock than anyone else. They knew what Walmart's position would be and made their decision. The CEO of Disney was part of the announcement. Of course no one really knows what the market will do. If Disney does well with iTMS then the other movie studios will be clamoring to join just like they did for TV shows and tell Walmart to get stuffed. These myths of corporate invincibility last until markets shift and then invincibility evaporates. For years before Sony released the PlayStation there were a lot of articles and books about how Nintendo was invincible and could never be matched. There was also that whole mythology built up about the invincible Japanese economy in the 80's.

      Another angle to consider is that Walmart is not the only one playing this sort of game. It is more subtle but you might notice that although Apple committed to Blu-Ray as an HDTV disc standard it is still not built into any of their Macs. You might expect that to occur right after Sony Studios start to release movies through iTMS.

    88. Re:Egads!! by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Bargaining power!

      So they have enough "bargaining power" to get the employer to pay for some portion of their health insurance, but not enough bargaining power to get the employer to pay that same portion as cash?

    89. Re:Egads!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How can you go to bed at night without a nice glass of milk?
      Easy if you're lactose intolerant.
    90. Re:Egads!! by lonecrow · · Score: 1

      Wal-Mart should chill out. What portion of their overall sales are from information based products?

      Its not like they have to be worried about someone opening up a Tent/Towel/[Any physical product here] downloading service. Although... I for one will relish the day I can download a case of beer.

    91. Re:Egads!! by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1
      I don't understand the bizarre obsession with the concept that an employer should not maintain the integrity and functionality of their greatest capital asset.
      Think about it this way. Likely you have a TV. If not, you likely have a car. What do you do if it breaks? Usually, try to fix it, or try to have someone else fix it.

      Now, what if you don't own the TV/car? What if you're leasing it, and your contract says you can simply drop the lease at any time, and there are hundreds of other people willing to sign you up for a new lease on the same terms? Would you bother to try fixing it?

      That's how companies view people. That's how they view YOU. You're disposable, and expensive to fix. Best to simply ditch you and replace you - it's far cheaper.
    92. Re:Egads!! by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      No, because the employer has more bargaining power with the insurance companies than the individual does.

      Plus, the laws are heavily rigged in favor of getting your health insurance through an employer. They get tax breaks on it, you don't. You can't get dropped from a group health insurance plan on a whim, nor can they simply jack up your rates. With individual insurance, they can do both these things.

      Plus, they can illegally drop you for simply getting sick, and you'll likely be too poor to fight back. Companies can throw a lot more weight.

      Of course, I'm starting to think you're being deliberately obtuse, so likely this information is wasted on you.

    93. Re:Egads!! by laughingcoyote · · Score: 1

      Nobody forces people to do business with Wal-Mart.
      Nobody forces people to work at Wal-Mart.
      Nobody forces people to shop at Wal-Mart.

      You are absolutely, WRONG! But thank you for playing. In fact, I do believe I saw a story on some website recently ("dotslash" or something like that? I don't recall) about Wal-Mart attempting to FORCE video producers to deal with them!

      You might look it up.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    94. Re:Egads!! by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      Another factor to think about is that food and transportation (cars at least) are transferrable - if the rich are charged more than the poor, the poor will simply buy more and sell to the rich at a discount.

      You can't do this with health care - a doctor has to treat you directly. You can't buy some health care and then sell of the extra.

    95. Re:Egads!! by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      They're still not forcing business with Wal-Mart. They're just making it unattractive to do business with them.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    96. Re:Egads!! by masdog · · Score: 1

      We might not have an In-and-Out or whatever it is called, but we have a lot of Culvers, and they supposedly do the same thing.

    97. Re:Egads!! by masdog · · Score: 1

      We're talking Disney here. Not some other production house. Wal-mart needs Disney more than Disney needs Wal-mart because when they release (or re-release) a film, people rush out to buy it to add to the collection. Kids love the films, and whatever kids love, mom and dad will buy.

      So if Wal-mart cuts off Disney, they will be the ones hurting. Parents will go to Wal-mart, see they don't have the film, and buy it somewhere else. And after a month or two, Walmart will come crawling back to Disney.

    98. Re:Egads!! by QuantumLeaper · · Score: 1

      I know people won't even eat there because of the chicken sandwich they got there.

    99. Re:Egads!! by QuantumLeaper · · Score: 1

      I have never eaten at an In-and-Out but I have at Culvers, I don't like there burgers all that well, Stake 'N Shake make a much better burger than Culvers.

    100. Re:Egads!! by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      No, because the employer has more bargaining power with the insurance companies than the individual does.

      Right, just like my employer has more bargaining power in buying radios. Doesn't mean Wal-mart can't get me the same bulk discount on radios, nor that getting radios through one's employer is a more desirable system.

      Plus, the laws are heavily rigged in favor of getting your health insurance through an employer. They get tax breaks on it, you don't.

      Yes, and this is the root of the problem. The original poster on this topic, however, was talking about how that was somehow a sign of good compensation of employees, when really it's just a sign of how messed up the laws are.

      You can't get dropped from a group health insurance plan on a whim, nor can they simply jack up your rates. With individual insurance, they can do both these things.

      What are you talking about? Of course they can raise the employer's rates and drop your service. They do it all the time, and yes, they even pass it on to you. What do you think health insurers are, charities?

      Plus, they can illegally drop you for simply getting sick, and you'll likely be too poor to fight back. Companies can throw a lot more weight.

      If they really did do something illegal, you can sue just the same as an individual. Employers don't give much scrutiny to health insuranace providers, which is completely outsourced.

      Of course, I'm starting to think you're being deliberately obtuse, so likely this information is wasted on you.

      I'm obtuse? You're the one making all kinds of distinctions that don't hold up on closer examination. You don't think I'm aware of the "arguments" (and I use that term loosely) that you made above?

    101. Re:Egads!! by laughingcoyote · · Score: 1

      I guess we have a different definition of "force"-if I put a gun to your head and demand your money, am I just making it a very unattractive option for you to refuse? Of course, that is physical force. What about when the IRS says "Pay your taxes or we'll seize your house?" That's not -physical- force, per se, but I'd very much call it coercive force regardless.

      Certainly, the dictionary seems to have some definitions which don't involve phsyical coercion and seem to fit the bill here:

      4. power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power: the force of circumstances; a force for law and order.
      13. any influence or agency analogous to physical force: social forces.
      18. to compel, constrain, or oblige (oneself or someone) to do something: to force a suspect to confess.

      Source: dictionary.com definition.

      It seems the same would apply to underselling other competitors in the area, especially when done below cost while backed by the big corporate war chest until other businesses in the area must close down. This forces (that word again!) those who live in that area to work and shop there if no alternative is available. This -is- a blatantly coercive tactic, and it is quite evidently an attempt to force suppliers not to do business with others. And just because the suppliers per se have a "choice" (accept our dictates or don't do business with the biggest retailer in the country), does not mean they have any more of a -real- choice then you do in paying that tax bill. Monopoly abuse at its finest, and the sad part is, people actually step up to defend this type of behavior.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    102. Re:Egads!! by pboulang · · Score: 1
      First, I have no problem with your comments re: walmart as a physical retailer. My AOL comment was to the *three* level deep "me, toos" defending Walmart. I do, however, think that the point is that the distribution for digital content is wildly different, and everything they know about distribution is therefore antiquated (in this context, not for cheap pampers). Plus, there is NO "walmart leverage" to get better source pricing, since digitally copying something throws production guarantees out the window.

      I'd argue that with a physical store you have almost zero sense of what people are looking at, merely the data available at the register. I don't understand your statement "Because of this, they don't just stock shelves, they participate in product development on some products.". How does this relate to production of movies or music?

      Again, not having to purchase inventory means that digital distribution is infinitely more flexible and creates a market that Walmart CANNOT compete in with a B&M. That is why they are fighting back (more and more toothlessly as people move away from physical media) and why they tried their own online store...

      Regarding your signature: "RFC 1149 Compliant" is generally used in a derogatory way to imply that the compliant person/machine is very slow. What is the object that the statement refers to?

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    103. Re:Egads!! by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      In other words, the internet is replacing others as the middleman for intagible products.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    104. Re:Egads!! by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying I agree with Wal-Marts tactics in this case. I disagree with their method. Obviously, the media section of their store is worth alot more than everyone realizes.
      Again, no one forced Dell, Compaq, and HP to choose to put Windows on their computers over BeOS way back when but I'm sure that 3rd party support and enterprise buying history also played a factor in their decision.

      The IRS does eventually use physical force when it comes to evasion where you are forced to pay at the point of a gun and/or spend time in the slammer.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    105. Re:Egads!! by saridder · · Score: 1

      You're wrong, RFC 1149 isn't a derogatory comment implying slow PC's or anything else. RFC 1149 was an April Fools joke.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFC_1149

      You're wrong. There are systems out that that can track what people look at, judge how long lines are (and take action like page employee to open another register, etc). Check out http://www.brickstream.com/.

      You're wrong. I wasn't commenting on the digital distribution, as I said before, I was adding to the comment above that Wal-Mart isn't a zero-value middleman. Why don't you get that?m Everything else you bring up is just changing the topic.

      --
      --- RFC 1149 Compliant.
    106. Re:Egads!! by julesh · · Score: 1

      Costco pays their employees about three times as much as WalMart, and since their sales volume per employee is about three times that of WalMart, it seems they extract that much more labor out of each employee.

      Costco = wholesale, Walmart = retail. This distinction is unsurprising, seeing as wholesalers work by making smaller margins on larger volums of goods. The fact that the margin will be substantially lower per unit sold completely invalidates the rest of your point.
      Apples, oranges.

    107. Re:Egads!! by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure it's quite that straightforward. If I recall correctly, I've heard it said many times that replacing an employee costs approximately 1.5 times their annual salary when you count in everything from recruiting through training, as well as downtime before you hire someone else, and productivity gap between a new worker and an experianced one.

      Of course, this doesn't mean that if you turn up with cancer while working as a shelf stocker at Wal-Mart it doesn't make financial sense to replace you - of course it does, but if you have a broken leg, and it will cost $5,000 to "fix" you counting time not working productivity lost, vs say $23,000 to get a new employee up to speed as above - assuming ~ $15,000 a year salary.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    108. Re:Egads!! by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1
      Right, just like my employer has more bargaining power in buying radios.

      The radios that a company produces will be nearly identical, and costs will be the same. The amount an insurance company will have to pay out will vary a great deal, and could be a very large amount - which is the nature of insurance.

      And since insurance companies can pick and choose their individual policyholder if they go the individual insurance route, while they cannot if they deal with an employer with a large number of employees, individuals can get a far better deal through their employer than they can by themselves (if they can get individual insurance at all).

      This is a problem, because it's just one more factor putting employees at the mercy of their employer. I suspect that if we got a decent single payer health care system in place, many, MANY people would change jobs because they would not be quite so shackled.

      What are you talking about? Of course they can raise the employer's rates and drop your service.

      They can't drop individuals from a group plan, they have to drop everybody or nobody. They also cannot single people out and raise their rates only. They also cannot refuse an individual for whatever reason - if the employer puts that person on the plan, they have to take them.

      But yes, they can raise the rates for everybody, or cancel the total policy.

      If they really did do something illegal, you can sue just the same as an individual.

      Yes, but by the time you have a case, you're already deeply in debt to hospitals and doctors. You'll have to audition for lawyers to get them to take the case on contingency. See the fiasco with Blue Cross/Blue Shield (had to go to class action before any real action could be taken).
    109. Re:Egads!! by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      These little things can record the temperature and humidity that the case or pallet experienced.

      Those big ugly shipping containers you see stacked up at ports do that now too, including recording their journey through the use of GPS. I was surprised to learn this, as they look like about the lowest tech there is - just a big metal box. But when one comes into port all that data gets downloaded and you can see every place it's been, and what the temperature and humidity were at the time.

      (Not exactly on-topic, I know.)

    110. Re:Egads!! by toadlife · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the mom and pop stores that stock the exact same cheap crap for higher prices. Feel free to shop at those and "stick it to the man" all you want. I'll stick to Walmart/K-Mart/Target, thank you.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    111. Re:Egads!! by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      There isn't a cheaper place to get diapers for $11 a pack of 68.

      Hard to argue with that statement. Of course, there isn't a more expensive place to get diapers for $11 a pack of 68, either.

      My smart-ass remark not withstanding, I agree with what you wrote.

    112. Re:Egads!! by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      There is no such thing as BJs where I live.

      Strict Catholic then?

    113. Re:Egads!! by pboulang · · Score: 1
      You're wrong. I wasn't commenting on the digital distribution, as I said before, I was adding to the comment above that Wal-Mart isn't a zero-value middleman. Why don't you get that?m Everything else you bring up is just changing the topic.
      You're an idiot. My point was that your comment no longer was valid BECAUSE of the context of digital distribution. Look back to my original question to you if your memory is too poor. Additionally, the way you said it was just about as useful as an AOL user.

      You're wrong. There are systems out that that can track what people look at, judge how long lines are (and take action like page employee to open another register, etc). Check out http://www.brickstream.com/.
      You're an idiot. That is a fantastic product, but the BEST it can do is to show that a particular shopper is standing in a particular area, NOT exactly what product is being looked at. The other wins from that product do NOT apply such as queue lengths, number of open registers, staffing scheduling. Lordy, it's like I'm talking to a 12 year old. What, you work for them or something? Why can't you come up with a well thought argument and justification instead of throwing out non-sensical thoughts?

      You're wrong, RFC 1149 isn't a derogatory comment implying slow PC's or anything else. RFC 1149 was an April Fools joke.
      And yet you don't understand that calling something RFC 1149 complaint isn't an insult? BWAHAHAHAHA! You really have your head up your ass...I'll just have to assume it applies to you, then. Lordy, I hope you reply, you come up with such gems, I'm laughing so hard I have tears in my eyes..

      Here, I'll give you some other fake points you can make:

      * Walmart is more effective because they have customers on-site longer then web shoppers are online.

      * Walmart employees are smart and efficient, making my shopping experience not only a joy, but an educational experience.

      * Walmart threatening the studies is somehow good for the consumer.

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    114. Re:Egads!! by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Stake 'N Shake make a much better burger than Culvers.

      Stake 'n Shake? Is that some kind of vampire disco?

    115. Re:Egads!! by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately health care is getting more and more expensive, and the employer may well have to pay for various procedures a few times. This is probably the reason why they just toss people.

      Plus, at places like Wal-Mart, turnover is so high that they are hiring near constantly anyway. Might as well just not say no to one of the people they interviewed instead of fixing an older worker.

    116. Re:Egads!! by saridder · · Score: 1

      You lose. Conversation over.

      Once a person moves from attacking and debating the ideas to attacking the person, they've ran out of intelligent things to say and have to resort to that kind of talk. I don't stoop to your level, and seeing your past comments, you seem to argue a lot. Was fun to watch you slip and slide though.

      --
      --- RFC 1149 Compliant.
    117. Re:Egads!! by pboulang · · Score: 1
      I don't stoop to your level, and seeing your past comments, you seem to argue a lot.
      I see. You never answered my initial question. You seemed genuinely confused on many issues, such as comparisons to AOL users vs independant thought, how distribution methods change/invalidate the role of middlemen, and how a comparison to a slow by design protocal could possible be regarded as derogatory. You take a superior tone, even though you are wrong. I enjoy pointing out your errors. Welcome to the Internet. Now, if you could just get out of your 20th century mindset on distribution models, you might learn something.

      Now, I don't mean to be condescending (that means to talk down to you), but you are still an idiot.

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    118. Re:Egads!! by saridder · · Score: 1

      Keep attacking, it shows you can't articulate and hold an argument on the subject at hand.

      There were no errors on my part and you didn't point anything out. You just brought out new issues that were irrelevant and not pertaining to the subject and intent of my original post! When I point this out, you presume to tell me what my original intent was, that I'm off topic, an idiot and wrong?!? Same with my signature - I create a signature with one intent, tell you the intent and you presume to tell me I'm wrong?!? You had one idea about what the RFC was, were shown that it wasn't what you thought, and you continue to hold onto your preconceived notion like a starving man to his first meal in a week. Let go of it dude; your idea about RFC 1149 being a derogatory remark is just wrong. But I'll tell you what genius, if you can prove and show me a sentence where someone used RFC 1149 as a negative comment in the way you describe, I'll stand corrected. I point out a technology to show you that retailers can see what consumers look at and can help line bust, and you tell me it can't!?! I know the owner of the company, know the use cases of the solution, have toured stores that use it in real life and seen the results and have recommended it to clients. Yet I'm wrong?!? You bring out obtuse and cryptic remarks about AOL and assume people are going to stoop down to your level to understand the meaning, and when someone doesn't, you think they're an idiot.

      It's ridiculous and I've never met anyone like you before. How can I argue with someone like you and why would I want to? You're the type that knows it all and would tell me what I dreamed about last night if you had the chance. Furthermore these are all irrelevant topics from the original post, hence why I decided to end this conversation. Your type of character is beneath me and a waste of my time to argue with.

      Flame away as that's all you can do.

      --
      --- RFC 1149 Compliant.
    119. Re:Egads!! by pboulang · · Score: 1
      Let's start again. Feel free to correct me where I am wrong.

      I. Your initial post, which agreed with both the parent and the grandparent:

      And WalMart also knows what sells and what consumers want (because of their sense and respond/just-in-time retail system and supply chain) better than the manufacturers do. Because of this, they don't just stock shelves, they participate in product development on some products.

      II. My response to you in direct response to your claim that they know what sells and what consumers want better than manufacturers do. was:

      Can they do this better than Apple's iTunes store for CD's and Movies or are you just derailing the topic with your AOLish "me too" mentality? Related to the subject at hand, the NEW distribution model is much cheaper and flexible then shipping physical media to stores.

      That is my question, Can Walmart know what consumers want better than Apple for CDs and Movies? [1] I also wanted to clarify whether you were defending Walmart as a "middleman" (which the parent and gparent had already done) in all areas, or were allowing this statement to cover digital media.

      III. You suggest that Walmart can do a better job and in the process seem to mix up physical media and digital media, if you will note that your first and second paragraphs are contradictory:

      I'd argue that through their IT systems, Wal-Mart can sense demand as well as any e-commerce shop, and because they have less leeway for mistakes when predicting and responding to demand, they're much more sophisticated at response and fulfillment. Furthermore, since they see a bigger slice of the market, their data is more complete and accurate than any specialty website who sees a small segment of the same market.

      The e-commerce sites have cheaper distribution channels, can respond to demand faster (by changing graphics on their website overnight vs shipping and laying out product in a store) and offer superior personalization.

      Not sure what you mean about the me too AOL comment or why you had to attack me, I was merely responding to the above comment that Wal-Mart was a no-value middleman.

      You'll also note that you asked the question as to why the AOL comment, which I admit is valid.. which is why I answered it.

      IV. So, now you have stated that Wal-mart can sense demand as well as any e-comerce shop and I felt the need to reinforce my differentiation that physical and digital media are different beasts. I haven't attacked you at all.

      First, I have no problem with your comments re: walmart as a physical retailer. My AOL comment was to the *three* level deep "me, toos" defending Walmart. I do, however, think that the point is that the distribution for digital content is wildly different, and everything they know about distribution is therefore antiquated (in this context, not for cheap pampers). Plus, there is NO "walmart leverage" to get better source pricing, since digitally copying something throws production guarantees out the window.

      I'd argue that with a physical store you have almost zero sense of what people are looking at, merely the data available at the register. I don't understand your statement "Because of this, they don't just stock shelves, they participate in product development on some products.". How does this relate to production of movies or music?[2]

      Again, not having to purchase inventory means that digital distribution is infinitely more flexible and creates a market that Walmart CANNOT compete in with a B&M. That is why they are fighting back (more and more toothlessly as people move away from physical media) and why they tried their own online store...

      Regarding your signature: "RFC 1149 Compliant" is generally used in a derogatory way to imply that the compliant person/machine is very slow. What is the object that the statement refers to?

      Here I also

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    120. Re:Egads!! by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      We might not have an In-and-Out or whatever it is called, but we have a lot of Culvers, and they supposedly do the same thing.

      Haven't been to that other place, but my future cardiologist will be sending thank-you notes to Culvers.

    121. Re:Egads!! by Scudsucker · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'm not up on the buzzwords in whatever sort of deceptive game you play.

      False delimas and red herrings ARE deceptive word games. Watch Fox News or just about any Republican speak for more than, oh, five seconds or so and you should hear one of those, plus a straw man or two.

    122. Re:Egads!! by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      This is getting tiresome. Do you want to debunk these distinctions yourself this time, or do you need me to do it?

    123. Re:Egads!! by porcupine8 · · Score: 1
      Wal-Mart has that kind of leverage over just about any company BUT Disney. This is a clash of the titans kind of situation - when a new Disney DVD comes out, people will rush out to buy it. Parents, grandparents, Disneyphiles, nostalgics. And if they can't find it at Wal-Mart, they'll say "Gee, that's odd" and go buy it somewhere else. But they will buy it somewhere. And when there kids MUST HAVE an Incredibles birthday party, they will find the Incredibles party supplies somewhere. They won't settle for some other cartoon just because that's what Wal-Mart has in stock, not when they've already promised The Incredibles.

      For most things Wal-Mart sells, this isn't the case. WM doesn't carry Glad trash bags anymore? Guess I'll get Hefty this week. No Sony TVs? Guess it'll be a Panasonic. Even most other movies and music, people will often just buy something similar if what they were looking for isn't available. But if you own every Disney DVD made so far, there's no replacement for the new Little Mermaid two-disc set.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    124. Re:Egads!! by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to make clear to you that if you really want to know the source of the health care dilemma, all you have to do is find your nearest mirror.

      It's exactly your mentality that has caused the problem in the first place and prevents any reform. What mentality?

      1) Employers, not individuals, should buy insurance for employees rather than give them the cash equivalent, and tax policy should penalize deviation from this. (Well, just health insurance. Life insurance, car insurance, home/renter insurance, and expatriation insurance are "different". Somehow.)

      2) Employers who scrap a health care plan and give cash instead are "evil".

      3) Employers who provide tokens only redeemable at the company store, oops, I mean health insurance, are "non-evil".

      4) The idea that individuals should be responsible for buying their own food from their wage money is a outdated, right-wing nut idea. (Wait -- I think you say "health insurance" instead of "food" there. Same dif.)

      Only when you accept that you are part of the problem, and all the ego-shattering that entails, will we ever get out of this mess.

    125. Re:Egads!! by safXmal · · Score: 1
      Situation A is more efficient for the store because they don't have to pay for the transport to the customer.

      This hidden cost is solely paid by the customer when he goes to Wal-Mart to pick up their goods.

      Btw. How would you organize Situation B in an efficient manner? People are not home during the day. You would have to make an appointment with each of your customers.

      The only way that I see to even come close to an efficient situation B is to have local - think street or community level - stores/depots where the customer could pick up the goods ordered on line.

      That way the chains could avoid waiting times or second delivery attempts while the customer could reduce his driving costs and shopping time.

    126. Re:Egads!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, despite the membership fees, my "local" Costco (five times further than my local Wal-Mart, and in the middle of nowhere) is always far more crowded than the local Wal-Mart, and people seem to consistantly have more in their carts.

      That's because once they've paid the fee, people feel like they have to buy everything there to get their money's worth. Furthermore, they buy way more than they need (and end up throwing much of it out when it spoils) for this same reason.

      Very clever business model.

    127. Re:Egads!! by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the only problem is that I don't believe any of those things. You spend entirely too much time trying to show how smug you can be, and not enough time listening to what people actually say so that you can engage them in actual conversation and possibly learn something (I know, it's a crazy idea!).

      And, FWIW, I've worked in international health care for the last decade of my life and have seen every variation on free to market based health care that exists. Both Ayn Rand and Karl Marx lose a little of their brilliance when translated to the real world. I'm not sure how such a statement fits into your worldview where everyone either agrees with you 100% or is functionally retarded. Needless to say, ideologues are unlikely to solve this problem, so you should probably give that mirror a glance yourself every now and then.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    128. Re:Egads!! by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the only problem is that I don't believe any of those things.

      I can't read your mind, but it doesn't matter: you just naively support those that do believe those things, which is worse.

      You spend entirely too much time trying to show how smug you can be, and not enough time listening to what people actually say so that you can engage them in actual conversation and possibly learn something (I know, it's a crazy idea!).

      Okay -- explain to me exactly which insight I was supposed to get from your responses. That health insurance is "different" for a bunch of transparent reasons? That through a misunderstanding of nationalized health care, GM would benefit? That you really, truly need food, unlike health care, which you er, also really truly need?

      I'm not kidding -- back up what you said. Explain what I was supposed to "learn" from you.

      Don't flatter yourself -- you didn't tell me anything I hadn't heard a hundred times from people equally as reluctant to think.

      And, FWIW, I've worked in international health care for the last decade of my life and have seen every variation on free to market based health care that exists. Both Ayn Rand and Karl Marx lose a little of their brilliance when translated to the real world.

      Really? Where exactly did you work where doctors were not monopolized through licensure, which Ayn Rand makes quite explicit is a fundamental part of a free market in health care? In which of these places did insurers not have to give mandatory coverage to certain conditions, so that people could choose to only insure genuinely catastrophic events, which is much cheaper? Where was health insurance decoupled from the government and one's employer?

      I really want to know where this free market example is, and you really want to prove you didn't just outright lie in service of your fantasy-driven ego.

      Needless to say, ideologues are unlikely to solve this problem,

      Ideologues are certainly likely to solve the problem, if their reasoning is sound. What will not solve the problem are solutions predicated on patent falsities that a moment of reflection would reveal as such.

      Know any like that?

    129. Re:Egads!! by ktappe · · Score: 1
      I like Wal-Mart, and am sorry to see negative stories coming to light about them.
      Why are you sorry to see anything negative said about Wal-Mart? They are not a family member of yours; they are a business that are there for one reason only. That reason is not to be your buddy pal, but to try to separate you from your $$. This is not a mean statement, it is simple fact. They are there to make money.

      The root of this story is that Wal-Mart sees another entity (Apple) has invented a better way of performing the business of distributing movies. In response, they have a choice of either embettering their business practices or of using strongarm tactics. Unfortunately they have chosen the latter, which is odd because the way they got so popular is by choosing the former; it's their better & more efficient business practices that have led to them being in every town, serving you with lower prices, and apparently becoming your favorite store.

      Extending your analogy that someone has to carry milk for the masses, it is not the case that the milk store has to threaten the cows that they should not sell their milk to anyone else. That action is not only no good for the cows, it's no good for you, because it causes your milk prices to go up and also gives the milk store no incentive to ensure quality product. Monopolies are like that; they stifle the natural capitalist process.

      -Kurt

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    130. Re:Egads!! by Ashen · · Score: 1

      No no no, the internet is NOT a big truck. Even the senile senator from Alaska knows that!! It's a series of tubes!

    131. Re:Egads!! by EasyT · · Score: 1

      Grandparent is referencing two sorts of fallacious arguments. See http://www.geekpress.com/2006/09/excellent-list-of -logical-fallaciesad.html for an entertaining list of fallacies and associated examples.

    132. Re:Egads!! by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      Hospitals are not allowed to refuse necessary medical procedures.

      Life-threatening chronic problems are common, and are not covered under such emergency treatment laws. That's why I specifically said "or unable to work for the rest of your life", because someone with such problems is unable to receive necessary care until the condition is so debilitating that they qualify for long-term assistance.

      The only thing health insurance does for you, is that it prevents you from going bankrupt after you get better and leave the hospital and have a ton of medical bills to pay... I am undecided whether you were being deliberately melodramatic or whether you truly did not know this.

      I spent about 10 years working in a hospital, so yes I'm quite familiar with how it works. Private hospitals are only required to stabilize patients with life-threatening injuries, at which point they will be asked to leave (usually on an ambulance to a public hospital, where they may or may not receive treatment). There is no requirement that hospitals give you full treatment until you walk out healthy with only financial consequences. Health insurance affects more than the financial aspect of your care.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    133. Re:Egads!! by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      I can't read your mind, but it doesn't matter: you just naively support those that do believe those things, which is worse.

      You're right, you can't read my mind, so why do you keep trying? I don't support people who believe those things (naively or otherwise).

      Don't flatter yourself -- you didn't tell me anything I hadn't heard a hundred times from people equally as reluctant to think.

      Ditto. I find many teenagers in America are enamored of Ayn Rand, but usually when they get jobs and see more of the world and the people who inhabit it, they understand that her particular ideology is as based in reality as that she was rebelling against. She escaped one of the worst tyrranies in modern history -- overreaction is perfectly understandable. But growing up in modern America in the greatest comfort the world has ever seen and then believing you created it single-handedly and don't need anyone else's help is merely a conceit of immaturity and ignorance.

      Really? Where exactly did you work where doctors were not monopolized through licensure, which Ayn Rand makes quite explicit is a fundamental part of a free market in health care? In which of these places did insurers not have to give mandatory coverage to certain conditions, so that people could choose to only insure genuinely catastrophic events, which is much cheaper? Where was health insurance decoupled from the government and one's employer?

      Most of Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia/the Indian subcontinent. It's pretty much a free market fantasy in the majority of African nations and most areas outside of the major cities in the other areas (well, I can't speak of much of East Africa from firsthand experience though my colleagues have said it is similar, I spent most of my time in West Africa, the Middle East and Asia/india). You can buy anything you want, any insurance, you can be left to die on the doorstep of the hospital, nobody is required to treat you, nobody is required to do much of anything. If you show up at a hospital without cash in hand, you'll be turned away (well, if you're white they assume you're a rich foreigner and treat you, but God only knows whether their equipment will be sterile or if the blood is infected with Hep or HIV or any of a hundred other things -- wise visitors buy insurance that covers medevac to another country and refuse transfusions whenever possible!).

      The public hospitals that do exist are mostly places people go to die, not to get better. The private hospitals in large cities are just as modern as any you'd see in the US or Europe or Japan, and just as expensive, so only 1% of the population ever gets treatment beyond the local pharmacist/herbalist/shaman/medicine man. It's very similar to what the US was like when the barber and the doctor were the same man.

      It is a fantastic free market without any restrictions, no wasteful public spending on health care to drag the economy down (most of what is spent on public health is foreign money) and no minimum requirements for physicians, facilities, medicinal quality/contents, or insurance companies. They are great places to take medical students, since they can see diseases that haven't existed in the US for a century, and they can see what the end stages of easily treatable problems look like. I don't think most people can appreciate how difficult it is these days to find a good patient dying of syphilis or tetanus. And seriosuly, we get so used to the antiseptic hospitals that every medical student really should have the opportunity to know what a hospital ward filled with gangrene and goiters smells like. Bonus points if there are birds flying down the halls and flies buzzing around open wounds (actually kind of handy with necrotic tissue). Be sure to have your family members come in to change your dressings every few days, the hospital certainly isn't giving you those things for free!

      Ideologues are certainly likely to solve the problem, if their reasoning is sound.

      No, ideologues are

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    134. Re:Egads!! by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      And like a 5 year old I totally mixed up left and right. I spent most of my time in EAST Africa, not West. West Africa had too much kidnapping (obviously I steered clear of Somalia and some other areas in the East as well).

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    135. Re:Egads!! by saridder · · Score: 1

      First, let's separate sense and respond from distribution. I was defending WalMart's sense and respond/demand prediction IT systems as better than most web retailers (who just set up a static catalog online, combine it with an online shopping basket and "outsource" the "supply chain" and distribution to a UPS or USPS. Note: this comparison excludes the Amazon's and other world class web retailers - although they are probably just as good as WalMart in that area in some respects) when it comes to understanding what sells and what to stock next season.

      The WalMart distribution channel and supply chain is clearly different (and lacking) when compared to a digital distribution system (it's like comparing Blockbuster to Pay-Per-View and is apples to oranges in my book) and I thought I wrote how the web shops have better advantages in those areas.

      If I didn't make the distinction clear enough, I'm sorry and need to articulate my thoughts better.

      I admit that I pushed your buttons on purpose but it's entirely different than attacking someone.

      In the end I think you had a valid point you were trying to make (online distribution of digital products vs B&M physical product distribution) and what I was originally trying to state - that WalMart actively participates in the supply chain and adds value on both the supply and demand side - and is not just a warehouse in which to sell products.

      I'm not a fan of WalMart and think they've done more harm than good in our economy and country, bully suppliers and their employees, entice manufactures to sell though them by offering a vast market of consumers, then force same manufacturer to cut costs until selling though WalMart is no longer profitable and they need to move to China to stay competitive or go out of business (ask Rubbermaid and others), and a myriad of other tough business practices that hurt the US's overall economy (even though a majority of consumers love a bargain and can't resist WalMart, hence the nasty predicament we're in). I don't shop at WalMart and wouldn't be caught dead in one of their stores due to the fact that there are none in Manhattan, and even if there were, am in a different class of consumer that doesn't care about bargains in the first place). But I do admire their some of their business practices and models as I do other retailers like Zara, Virgin Mega Stores and Apple. I was merely defending the fact that they have some good business practices around understanding the American consumer's needs and fulfilling them.

      --
      --- RFC 1149 Compliant.
    136. Re:Egads!! by tbone1 · · Score: 1
      ./ readers buy diapers???

      "It's a sick world and I'm a happy guy." - Larry Reeb

      If you really want odd looks, try buying a pack of condoms and a gallon of Gatorade when you're in a heck of a hurry.

      --

      The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
    137. Re:Egads!! by tbone1 · · Score: 1
      There is no such thing as BJs where I live.

      To quote Tom Carnagie, voice of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, "Theeeeyyyyy'rrre waving it off."

      --

      The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
    138. Re:Egads!! by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      False delimas and red herrings ARE deceptive word games. Watch Fox News or just about any Republican speak for more than, oh, five seconds or so and you should hear one of those, plus a straw man or two.

      Facts are not trolling. For example, check out the recent Administration soundbyte that "no one said Saddam ordered the 911 attacks" which is both a straw man and red herring. Straw man because no one has accused the administration of saying that Saddam ordered the attacks, and a red herring because their claim was that there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

    139. Re:Egads!! by Wicked+Zen · · Score: 1
      No no no, the internet is NOT a big truck. Even the senile senator from Alaska knows that!! It's a series of tubes!
      Would these be the same tubes I keep hearing the country is going down?
    140. Re:Egads!! by MntlChaos · · Score: 1

      Uhh... situation B is exactly what Fedex/UPS already do.

    141. Re:Egads!! by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Employers, not individuals, should buy insurance for employees rather than give them the cash equivalent

      Thats half the point of the argument. If the employers gave the employee the exact cash value of their benefits, their employees would be unable to buy back the insurance they had using the extra cash (even if they received the same tax breaks that the companies have now). Now, if ALL of the employers did this, insurers would be forced to lower their rates in order to do business in the new market, but its unlikely that anything short of more government intervention would bring this about. Of course, the whole argument is like arguing over what flavor shit you'd like to eat...

      Life insurance, car insurance, home/renter insurance, and expatriation insurance are "different". Somehow.

      Which you'd realize if you understood what makes health insurance different. Think about it for a while. If you need help, I suggest calling up your car insurance agent, tell them you've got a million dollar Ferrari Enzo and you want to slam it into the wall of your house at 180MPH, and you want to know how much an insurance policy that will pay for the repairs on that will be. Then call up your homeowner's insurance agent and let them know you intend to try to knock your house down with your car. Be sure to let your life insurance agent know you're planning to be the one driving.

      Then, call up your health insurance agent and ask him how much it costs to get an insurance policy that will cover your care when you get sick. Chances are, the first three will cancel your policy and tell you to go to hell. The fourth will happily give you a quote, because all they do is move money from healthy people to sick people. Even life insurance has term policies that can expire before you do, but only health insurance basically guarantees a payout. And pay out it does, over and over again. Whether it's to 20somethings that get the bug going around the office, 40somethings that stroke after a stressful day at work, 60somethings who lived through too much mcdonalds, beer, and cigarettes or 80somethings with a personal pharmacy and a list of diseases that could fill a dictionary. Don't forget their spouses and kids.

      At least when the government socializes healthcare, skimming hundreds of thousands of dollars off the top sometimes gets people arrested, unless they've got connections. When companies socialize it, the skimmers are called CEOs. Abolishing health insurance completely is the only truly sane way to proceed. The market should readjust fairly quickly without insurers contractually setting the prices doctors charge the uninsured (people like to believe only the government does this, but they're either misled or misleading). Doctors and Hospitals will return to competing on service and cost, rather than just whether they take your insurance or not. Service will stratify of course, poorer people will only be able to afford older technology and shared hospital rooms, but the vast majority of them will be receiving better care at rates they can afford than they did in today's world where service basically existed for the insured and those willing to go deep into debt.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    142. Re:Egads!! by m0rph3us0 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. People shop/work/do business with Wal-mart because it makes sense for them. If dealing with Apple makes more sense for Disney than dealing with Wal-mart then they will do it. Wal-mart doesn't even have a monopoly. The way Wal-mart forces competitors out of business is via competition. People say, oh, but their prices are low when they open and then go up! Exactly, which business that is still around doesn't do that? You don't attract people with high prices.

    143. Re:Egads!! by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Wrong. They centralize a lot of products into one place so you don't need to travel to the Nabisco store and the Keebler store and the M&M Mars store and the Pepsi store and the Coke store and the Nike store and the Sony store and the Nintendo store and the Pioneer store and the... clearly this could go on for quite a while.

      But that was how life was before Walmart came about except most of the mom and pop stores weren't owned by the distributor.

      Personally, I avoid Wal Mart like the plague because of crappy products, poor service, and long waits in line. (On occasion I will go to pick up cheap furniture I can't get at Target)

      Otherwise... I like to buy my shoes at a shoe shop... Buy my food a Whole Foods... Buy Nintendo games at locally owned game shop and so on.

      Why? Becuase our local Walmarts are cesspools and I sleep better at night.

      So in truth... Its better to remove the middle men who are these massive chains and put it back into the Mom and Pops are go directly to the distributors.

      It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if Walmart went belly up tomorrow.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    144. Re:Egads!! by Retric · · Score: 1

      They sell advertising to bands. AKA give us X% of your income and we will promote your music and / or simply send a bill for studio time ect.

  2. What about Amazon? by Psykechan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So studios that sell movies through iTunes get boycotted by the 500lb Retailer but studios that sell movies through Amazon's Unbox are fine.

    Either they aren't particularly worried about Amazon being a threat or they have it in for Apple.

    1. Re:What about Amazon? by El+Torico · · Score: 2, Informative
      ...but studios that sell movies through Amazon's Unbox are fine.

      Which is very odd because Amazon and Target are partners. This press release is from 2001 - http://news.com.com/2110-1017-275199.html

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    2. Re:What about Amazon? by Itchy+Rich · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Either they aren't particularly worried about Amazon being a threat or they have it in for Apple.

      Amazon are still limited by the fact that they're selling boxed media that have to be stored, tracked, delivered by hand, etc. The fact that you're buying the same boxed media online instead of in a shop is just a matter for regular competition, territory that Walmart is familiar with. Apple is distributing media entirely digitally, which means the costs and profit margins are very different. I suspect that's what's scaring Walmart.

    3. Re:What about Amazon? by ThisIsForReal · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, I guess you haven't heard of "unbox" either. No problem, most of the rest of the world has, too and it should hopefully go away soon.

      --
      -THE END-
    4. Re:What about Amazon? by ectal · · Score: 1

      Not to mention Apple is well ahead of Amazon in having an established customer base for downloadable media, with customer hardware and software already in place. Unbox is going to be an uphill battle.

      --
      http://nerdcartoons.com/
    5. Re:What about Amazon? by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1
      Unbox is going to be an uphill battle.

      It will probably go the way of the Sony Connect store.

      You know, this thing that will be studied in business history classes as Sonys dumb business venture #357 in five years.

      I'm not quite sure if this is before or after the Sony corporation filed for bankruptcy.

      --
      ich bin der musikant

      mit taschenrechner in der hand

      kraftwerk

    6. Re:What about Amazon? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Where is Sony Connect available? Just tried it from Canada, and apparently it is not available here.

      BTW I tried the client a few years ago and it looked and felt like crap. Its like setting up a a brick and motar Sony Store and then forgetting about the interior design, or that people don't like tripping over hurdles just to get to the back of the store.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    7. Re:What about Amazon? by CaptainZapp · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Where is Sony Connect available?

      See, that's exactly my point :)

      As a matter of fact, I only tried it once and got the following result:

      We have performed a system check and detected that you need to download and install the item highlighted in red below to use CONNECT. Please do this now and then enter the site again. [the item highlited is Internet Explorer, of course]

      The copyright notice is Sony UK, I'm based in Switzerland.

      Since Sony is on my eternal shitlist of companies I will never again do business with, I didn't really bother to research the issue. My opinion is that you will wind up with a lot of expensive data trash in a few years when the service falters.

      --
      ich bin der musikant

      mit taschenrechner in der hand

      kraftwerk

    8. Re:What about Amazon? by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      but studios that sell movies through Amazon's Unbox are fine.

      Maybe Wal-Mart tried Unbox and decided it wasn't a problem (after they finished laughing).

    9. Re:What about Amazon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Yeah, I guess you haven't heard of "unbox" either.
      > No problem, most of the rest of the world has, too and it should hopefully go away soon.

      The world? Yes, it will be going away soon, don't worry.

    10. Re:What about Amazon? by ben+there... · · Score: 1

      After buying $30 or so of videos from each service, Amazon blows iTMS away.

      iTMS finally got 640x480 videos, but they're still ~240 MB / 0.5 hr compared to Amazon's 550 MB, for the same price.

      The blockiness of iTMS videos is still very apparent. Amazon's look very close to DVD quality.

    11. Re:What about Amazon? by ChiChiCuervo · · Score: 1

      Wish i could find a link about this old story (i think it was macintouch or don crabb), but I remember Walmart and Apple going at it over product returns back in the Performa days.

      Basically Apple said "We don't take returns" and Wal(800lb gorilla)mart said "Oh yes you do, or we won't sell your product anymore!" with Apple replying "Fine."

      Considering how viciously Walmart goes after suppliers in order to force them to capitulate to their demands, I wouldn't be surprised if the folks in Bentonville were holding a grudge.

  3. Whoa whoa whoa... by HoosierPeschke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This seems to me that Wal-mart is using its position as a major distributor to strong arm against its would be competitors. It's not quite a monopoly (read Target, K-Mart, etc...) so is there any legal avenue to take against Wal-mart for this kind of action (other than consumer action which doesn't work so well when dealing with lower prices)?

    --
    Mr. Universe: "They can't stop the signal, Mal. They can never stop the signal."
    1. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This seems to me that Wal-mart is using its position as a major distributor to strong arm against its would be competitors. It's not quite a monopoly (read Target, K-Mart, etc...) so is there any legal avenue to take against Wal-mart for this kind of action (other than consumer action which doesn't work so well when dealing with lower prices)?

      Uhhh, no. Happily.

      What is it with you litigious anti-Walmart goons?

      It's NOT a monopoly, as you stated. Plenty of other big stores in the same business, competing on selection and price and service and all those other B-School 101 points. When Martha Stewart made her exclusivity deal with K-Mart, I'm sure she knew that Walmart would be pushing all her cookbooks to the back shelves and start promoting Rachel Ray's. She makes her deals, she takes her chances. As do the studios. Risk, Reward, Business. How do they do it on your planet?

      What, because iTunes delivers movies tek-no-log-ee-cully ("oooh, shiny!"), all the brick-and-mortar operations that have pumped truckloads of money into the studios' pockets over the years are supposed to just roll over and cave?

      "Gosh, dern, there, Mister Studio Boss, shucks, we're just a simple uber-ultra-mega-chain from Arkansas, don't know nothing 'bout birthin' no downloads. Shure, we brung ya to the dance, bought ya dinner, drinks, and flowers, but it's OK if ya want to leave with that there Miss Apple. We understand, she shore is purty!"

      Are you naive, blindly hate Walmart cuz you're some too-cool-for-the-country urban Goth, or do you just like litigation? (It's OK, you can check off more than one.)

      Oh, wait, I know! It's unfair because Walmart uses under-age Chinese vagrants to put the DVD's on the shelves. Is that it? Would you feel better knowing that these were the same under-age Chinese vagrants that Apple uses to build its iPods? Would that make it all better?

    2. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Actually, Wal-mart does engage in anti-competitive practices, and does have a monopoly position. Problem is, nobody is filing a complaint, at least nobody big enough to matter; with Microsoft, big players like Sun and Apple were filing, so people noticed. Wal-mart's anti-competitive practices are parallel with Microsoft's, but in their business, that just means that small stores and local chains are ruined.

      This thing with the movie studios is nothing new, Wal-mart engages in such tactics all the time, with all of their products. The basic, "if you sell to anything that competes with us, we will use our mass to hurt your business," tactic is something that Wal-mart is very good at, and is one of the main reasons they are capable of destroying the economies of entire towns. In this case, it won't be destroying a town's economy, it will just make it harder for Apple to offer their DRM downloads. This is where I am forced to ask myself which is worse, DRM DVD's or DRM downloads...what a wonderful choice to make. They wonder why people use BitTorrent.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by Zadaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Monopolies are not illegal in America.

      However, there are antitrust laws that this certainly seems in the realm of. Not that they're enforced, but there are laws...

    4. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      It's probably not illegal for monopoly reasons but perhaps there is another angle.

      Publicly traded companies are obliged to protect the investments of their shareholders. If Wal-Mart refuse to stock products that their customers clearly demand, they are depriving themselves and their shareholders of revenue. It would be like a publicly traded bookshop refusing to stock Dan Brown because the CEO think's he's an overrated hack.

      Unless they can justify a pretty good business reason for doing this, i.e. not just a kneejerk reaction, shareholders could kick up a stink.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    5. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Actually, Wal-mart does engage in anti-competitive practices,

      So does every other businessperson. Some of them are noble (cutting prices, making workers happy and more productive by improving working conditions, etc) and some are underhanded (like this action by walmart). ...and does have a monopoly position.

      No they don't. There are targets, kmarts, all sorts of competetion. How can you say they "have a monopoly position?"

      it will just make it harder for Apple to offer their DRM downloads

      As I think anyone who uises DRM should lose their copyright, I think killing DRMed downloads is a GOOD thing.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    6. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      Settle down, chief. If there was a legal avenue to take, then it's our right to take it. If you don't like the laws, either change them, leave, or go hang out with teenagers who bitch about their parents rules but won't get the fuck out of the house.

      With that said, there doesn't seem to be. There probably shouldn't be. How do you make "being a fucking jerk" illegal without throwing 90% of the population in jail for breaking it at one point or another?

    7. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can be found guilty of antitrust violations without even having a majority share of the market, you just need to be large enough. 40% is already enough to be found a monopoly. The sole fact that Wal Mart can pressure suppliers like this already demonstrates that they are large enough to count as a monopoly in the eyes of the antitrust laws.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    8. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by Millenniumman · · Score: 1
      If there was a legal avenue to take, then it's our right to take it.

      That's not true. Even if there was a way to legally murder someone, you still have no right to do it. There have been many bad things that were legal in the world's history. The people who did them still had no right to do so.
      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    9. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by kfg · · Score: 1

      . . .so is there any legal avenue to take against Wal-mart for this kind of action (other than consumer action which doesn't work so well when dealing with lower prices)?

      Sure, for the distributors to not cave and just tell Wal-Mart, "Fine, we have alternate outlets if you don't want to profit from our work. Cut your own throat, see if we care."

      KFG

    10. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      No one has to shop at Wal-Mart. Generally there are near effortless alternatives. Regardless of what some ridiculous law says, they are not a monopoly.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    11. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by Abreu · · Score: 1

      There are numerous documented cases of a small town's economy crashing a few months after a Walmart being open because it drives small retailers out of business.

      I am talking about small towns with no Kmart, Target, etc. to offset it.

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    12. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      It absolutely is our right under the law. Whether or not it's a "universal right" or not is completely irrelevant.

    13. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by NosTROLLdamus · · Score: 0
      Uhhh

      The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped away most of your of what you wrote, because, well ... it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective... Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things to be difficult. If I had known that this was true in your case then I would have never have exposed myself to what you wrote. It just wouldn't have been "right." Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you.

    14. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No one has to shop at Wal-Mart.


      Thank your diety of choice (or lack thereof) for that! If I had to shop at Wal-Mart, that paragon of everything that is wrong with retail in the United States today, I'd probably just commit suicide.
    15. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Santa Cruz, CA doesn't have a Wal-Mart at all. They used to have a K-Mart, but it went out of business because they went broke. How an area with 255,000+ people is unable to support a single K-Mart with NO REAL COMPETITION (CostCo notwithstanding) is beyond my imagination. There's a K-Mart up in Scotts Valley fifteen minutes away, but that's in bad shape. (They're renovating it, fortunately.)

      If companies like K-Mart can't stay in business in cities of hundreds of thousands where there are no Wal-Mart or Target stores to compete with them, of course they can't survive in a small town with competition. That doesn't reflect Wal-Mart driving other stores out of business so much as it reflects that K-Mart is hopelessly mismanaged.

      My home town of 8,000 people in TN still has its original drug store and jewelry store even though it has a Wal-Mart Supercenter now. It still has its Ace hardware (oddly, the city of Santa Cruz, CA couldn't keep one of those in business, either, despite no real alternatives). It still has a Rat Shack, owned and operated privately like it always has been. It still has the same "local" grocery store (though they moved to be on the same side of town as Wal-Mart). After Wal-Mart moved to the university side of town, suddenly there was a market for fast food, too. We now have a Burger King, McDonald's, Taco Bell, Long John Silver's, and a KFC. Wal-Mart's presence within walking distance (or short drive) of the university was directly responsible for all of that.

      For every store that Wal-Mart destroys in a small town, it creates five more by centralizing shopping in a way that allows those stores to exist nearby, where otherwise there would not have been a large enough concentration of shoppers to make them viable. I've never seen a small town's economy crash because of a Wal-Mart opening. Indeed, the opposite has been true in every place I've ever seen, though stores that are too far away from Wal-Mart might not fare so well.

      The stores that rip people off and charge three prices for groceries are the ones most responsible for anti-Wal-Mart sentiment, from what I've seen. The superstores are kicking their butts. Yet most of those stores have larger purchasing power spread over a smaller geographic area than Wal-Mart. Anything Wal-Mart does, they could easily do better and cheaper because they have less distribution costs AND the same or better purchasing power. Therefore, if those companies keel over, it's their own fault. The good ones suddenly find that they can lower their prices to a more reasonable level and still make money. Surprise, surprise. Half the time, I wonder if they don't charge higher prices in anticipation of Wal-Mart moving in just to make a quick buck while they still can.

      With the possible exception of groceries, though, the key to economic survival among other merchants is to distinguish themselves by offering things that Wal-Mart doesn't. That's not hard in a specialty store. Wal-Mart caters to the mass market and can't carry everything you will need or want. Wal-Mart doesn't, for example, carry a large selection of screws. Want screws? Go to a hardware store. Want particular name brands of clothes? Go to a clothing store. Want to buy high-end jewelry? Jewelry store. Want to buy electronic components? Electronics store. Companies that figure this out will do just fine against Wal-Mart because they aren't really up against Wal-Mart. The ones that don't figure that out eventually go out of business.

      Oh, and gas stations. That superstore means my parents are paying $0.60 a gallon less than I am. Before they moved in, it was $0.30 a gallon less. Don't get me started on the blood-sucking leaches in the oil industry. Wal-Mart's pricing pressure is too good for them....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    16. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      Publicly traded companies are obliged to protect the investments of their shareholders. If Wal-Mart refuse to stock products that their customers clearly demand, they are depriving themselves and their shareholders of revenue.

      Wal-Mart's stated reason is that they don't want their suppliers to let Wal-Mart's competitors undercut them. Although we can debate whether that's a legally or morally acceptable thing to do, it sounds like a pretty legitimate financial decision.

      Sometimes the most economical action is the one that costs you money in the short term.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    17. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      When a small-towns economy has been bilking the local residents for years to such a degree that WalMart can completely wipe them out in a few months merely by establishing a presence in the area, you are talking about a band of merchants in said small town who SHOULD be driven out of business. From the mock-populist point of view popular with people who slag WalMart, they have been ripping the townspeople off for years

      All those storefronts will be filled up with more deserving merchants who have a niche or can compete in the marketplace.

      If the town's economy fails, it was a bloodsucking operation in the first place.

    18. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't like Walmart because if Walmart decides to stop selling your product your profits will fall down the toilet and if you are publically traded you die.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    19. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      The law does not create your rights. It can only ensure or infringe upon them.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    20. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Informative

      The law prefers a practical instead of a literal interpretation of "monopoly".

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    21. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What, because iTunes delivers movies tek-no-log-ee-cully ("oooh, shiny!"), all the brick-and-mortar operations that have pumped truckloads of money into the studios' pockets over the years are supposed to just roll over and cave?
      If they cannot compete fairly, and do not want to get into the new distribution channels business themselves, that is precisely the fate they deserve.
    22. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Millenniumman wrote:
      Even if there was a way to legally murder someone, you still have no right to do it

      So, I have to infer from this that you're definitely against the death penalty (a perfectly legitimate position to take of course) and killing in legitimate self defense, etc.
    23. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are correct.

      However, abusing your monopoly position or using your monopoly position to become a monopoly in another market is.

      Wal Mart can threaten all they want, but since Target, Costco, and well, every other retailer on the planet sells DVDs, their position is not exactly one that will get them more than a few blurbs in the press.

      See how Disney removed the episodes from iTunes after Wal Mart's stunt? Oh wait....

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    24. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      A practical interpretation is a company that people have to deal with to get an important product or service. Wal-mart isn't a monopoly in any manner.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    25. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      No and no. I said murder. The death penalty and self defense are not murder. Now, I understand that murder is generally defined legally, and "legally murder" is an oxymoron, but I was referring to the general definition under law, which is rather fundamental to society.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    26. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by xenocide2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Gosh, dern, there, Mister Studio Boss, shucks, we're just a simple uber-ultra-mega-chain from Arkansas, don't know nothing 'bout birthin' no downloads. Shure, we brung ya to the dance, bought ya dinner, drinks, and flowers, but it's OK if ya want to leave with that there Miss Apple. We understand, she shore is purty!"

      Of course, one could interpret them returning all that stock as an admission that itunes is a cheaper delivery system that they can't compete with. Or maybe an angry ex-girlfriend throwing all the crap you left at her place (physical DVDs) on your lawn. I'm not sure why walmart should be stuck with the cost of overproduction, if they had a contractual agreement that allowed them to return stock they won't expect to sell.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    27. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by richdun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wal-Mart is a monopsony, not a monopoly. It's theoretically not supposed to ever happen, unlike monopolies, which can exist quite readily in industries that have high costs to entry, are rapidly emerging markets, etc.

      Monopsonies are when one buyer has all or an unusually high portion of the market. Monopolies refer to one seller having all or an unusually high portion of the market.

      In theory, a monopsony shouldn't be able to exist for long, because in a free and efficient market, there will always be someone willing to pay just a little bit more for your product until there are a great number of them buying, thus ending the monopsony. Wal-Mart has found a hole in the market, and has been exploiting it for a long, long time. Their distribution channel efficiencies and unreal growth rate, coupled with the poor management of traditional department stores and other discounters (like KSearsMart), allowed them to build a ridiculous number of stores in areas where there is little to no other competition. It's remarkable when you think about how many large markets (i.e., big cities, like Chicago, New York, LA, San Fran, etc.) that Wal-Mart hasn't been able to get into, while Target and others have, yet they still command the market position from an almost all-rural and suburban penetration.

      Is what they do right? Maybe not. Will it eventually bring down the lower ends of economy? If let go, quite possibly - artificially or dramatically and unilaterally dropping consumer good prices and payrolls can have negative effects just like inflation. But would have they been able to get into this position had everyone else done their jobs, cut out such obviously inefficient distribution methods and such? Very unlikely.

      If the US had been in a different economic standing in the 1980s and early 1990s, when Wal-Mart was charging, a quick LBO of Kmart or one of the mega-department store chains could have easily fixed this. Kinda reminds of another area with obvious inefficiencies where one economic swing could bring an LBO on - though in the case of Microsoft, leveraging that much would be earth-shattering.

    28. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by rsborg · · Score: 1
      What is it with you litigious anti-Walmart goons? It's NOT a monopoly, as you stated

      No, it acts as a Monopsony. For the link lazy (courtesy of wikipedia):

      In economics, a monopsony is a market form with only one buyer, called "monopsonist", facing many sellers. It is an instance of imperfect competition, symmetrical to the case of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller facing many buyers..

      Wal-Mart has a known power, and does not act the same as your average free-market player. Note: being a monopsony isn't illegal per-se, and since reality != theory it can be argued that Wal-Mart is not a monopsony either.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    29. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      Sometimes the most economical action is the one that costs you money in the short term.

      s/Sometimes/Most of the time/g

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    30. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the moral of the story here is to not be a publically traded company and keep the fate of your company in your own hands, not in the hands of the unwashed masses that are only there for a quick profit that should be yours to begin with.

    31. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Even if you're not publically traded losing 40% of your profits will still damage you greatly.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    32. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success

      except that he is consistently funny here, and what you write is always strained and tedious.

      come back when you are entertaining, ok?

    33. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by Machtyn · · Score: 0

      Sure Wal-mart is not a monopoly, they've got competition. Microsoft is not a monopoly either... but I think we can all agree that they used monopolistic practices to force companies like Dell, HP, Compaq, etc., to not install Netscape on their PCs. Wal-mart may not be a monopoly, but they are certainly acting like one.

    34. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by NosTROLLdamus · · Score: 0
      I WIN.

      Cut and paste troll.

      http://www.guymacon.com/FUN/INSULT/INDEX.HTM - Last Paragraph.

      Picked due to subject's flailing emotional response to GP made him and his sympathizers perfect lulz-cows.

    35. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by masdog · · Score: 1

      So you think that Wal-mart can take on a cultural icon like Disney and force them to relent when 50% of parents are going to be looking for The Little Mermaid and Cars in the next two months?

      Can I buy some pot from you?

    36. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by tricorn · · Score: 1

      It's extremely unlikely that Walmart is responsible for a $0.60/gallon price differential in the cost of gasoline, or even a $0.30/gallon difference. Sure, they put some pressure on lowering prices, but not that much. There's plenty of competition between gas stations, Walmart doesn't have that kind of pricing power in that field.

      Around here, Sam's Club is usually about a penny cheaper than the Walmart pumps (but Sam's Club is member's only now), and Meijer (across from the Walmart) is usually a penny or two higher. Other gas stations still do plenty of business, with prices 2-10 cents higher. In other nearby towns, without a Walmart or Sam's Club, prices are sometimes higher, sometimes lower.

      Plenty of small town economies crash because of Walmart. Read The Walmart Effect for some interesting studies.

    37. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Yes. If I remember correctly, they even sell those things at a loss.
      And no, I don't take drugs. Go find someone else.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    38. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      At least in TN, there's no competition between gas stations. Almost all the stations buy from the same distributor that charges within 5-10 cents a gallon of what all the stations charge. The truck leaves the Raceway and drives over to the BP, and so on. I'm not saying the stations don't add additives somehow, but... it's usually coming from the same truck from the same place. Wal-Mart is their own distributor, so they actually introduce competition in the fuel market that otherwise did not exist....

      I've been told tales of the local gas station managers driving to nearby stations to see what their prices are, then setting their prices at the same price. I've almost never seen more than 2 cents a gallon variation in that town until Wal-Mart came in. It dropped from $2.70-ish to $2.24 overnight. The distributor then lowered their price to be able to sell any fuel at all, and the gas stations were able to lower their prices as a result. Until Wal-Mart came in as a disruptive influence, there was no real motivation to compete (a couple of price wars back in the early 80s notwithstanding). Since they moved into the region, prices have been 30-50 cents lower than here in CA. Since they added a second station in my hometown, prices there have been holding about 15 cents lower than neighboring towns (making them 60 cents cheaper than here in California.

      If gas station owners could really compete, Wal-Mart couldn't affect price much at all. Sadly, there hasn't been real competition in the gasoline market in a very long time. That's why we're all getting shafted.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    39. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by topham · · Score: 1


      Additives are often added to the fuel on the truck, before it leaves the yard. There may be a selection of 3 or 4 additives, or only one, depends on the requirements.

    40. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by tricorn · · Score: 1

      You make it sound as if all of TN and all of CA is just one simple market, and the only distinguishing feature is that one has Walmart and the other doesn't. Surprise, Walmart exists in California too! It's not like the reason California gas prices are so high is because they don't have enough Walmarts compared to the rest of the country.

      Small towns with one or two gas stations don't have much incentive to lower prices, depending on how close the next nearest place is. Lots of places have LOTS of gas stations, though, and price competition is quite high. In fact, your description of price variations being no more than 2 cents is quite common, and indicates that there IS competition. Sure, Walmart coming in and trying to be disruptive will shake things up for a bit, but not for long, just until a new equilibrium comes along.

      Prices here have dropped about 70 cents over the last 3 or 4 weeks, and it isn't because of Walmart moving in, they've been here all along, and their prices have been about the same as everyone else's, usually 1-2 cents less than most, about the same as a couple. Then there are those stations that charge 10-15 cents MORE than everyone else, and you wonder who's buying there.

      Using an instance of "well, in my hometown, Walmart came there and now prices are 30 cents less than they are more than halfway across the country" just doesn't stand up. There are way too many variations for way too many reasons to be able to just look at a few cases and think you understand what is going on.

    41. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WalMart, as a massive, country-wide chain of department stores, has more buying power, more negotiating power, and more sources of income to pad a slow month than the local mom & pop stores that get driven out of business when WalMart shows up. The mom & pop stores are often selling with prices set for a 10-15% gross profit (enough to pay the bills & make sure the employees get paid, but not much more). When WalMart, which is able to buy goods at 75% of what it costs the smaller store, moves in the mom & pop store goes out of business. Not because they've been gouging anybody, but because WalMart can price their stock at or below what it costs the mom & pop store to *get* their stock. If you want an idea of just how much negotiating power WalMart has with suppliers, read up on WalMart & pickles (Klausen IIRC). Suppliers have been known to go out of business because WalMart was 70% of their sales, and WalMart pushed the supplier's margins so slim that the supplier was essentially running on profits from 30% of their market while absorbing costs of selling to 100% of their market.

    42. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but in America you're innocent until convicted. In a Facio-Republican administration with a Republican House and Senate, every company is innocent of everything.

      They're a monopoly when a judge says they are.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  4. Good move for walmart by QuantumFTL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Walmart got where it is today by pressuring suppliers (often right out of business) and if anyone can break the will of the MPAA on something, it's Walmart. Considering that Walmart can't (currently) handle this kind of digital distribution model, and that they are often fueled by impulse/other buying when someone goes to purchase electronics and entertainment, it's in their best interest to stamp down a more convenient distribution system.

    I think it's a good move for Walmart (but not for us) because everyone knows that Walmart is "evil" (read: more able to use power in a negative fashion than most companies, which are relative lightweights) and most people don't give a damn because that's how they afford all their stuff. I doubt there will be serious backlash, come monday everyone will still be going to fill up their big boxes at Walmart.

    1. Re:Good move for walmart by JasonBee · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, but the post "I'm going to have to disagree with you now." is WRONG.

      A food company's subsidiary (that rhymes with "bestlee") in Germany capitulated to Wal-Mart on pricing for one of their premium product lines a few years ago, meaning Wal-Mart's prices were FAR lower than every grocery store's prices across the country. Eventually the smaller retailers did what they had to do...stop selling that product line, or demand the same prices...which of course would only mean Wal-Mart would ask for even lower prices.

      This subsidiary was the company's worst performing subsidiary across the world...despite operating in what is historically a large and strong food market. The only saving grace for the company was that Wal-Mart pulled out of Germany entirely saying they couldn't make a profit! The company likely tried very hard to prevent that happening anywhere else on the planet as far as Wal-Mart is concerned.

      Don't be mistaken - Wal-Mart tries to controls their suppliers with an iron fist. The food company mentioned above is always in a battle to maintain price and profit levels against Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart will and can destroy any smaller target it deems it must destroy in order to control pricing. It happens and if you work in marketing for ANY supplier that is a fortune 500 company you know what I mean.

      JB

    2. Re:Good move for walmart by wsxyz · · Score: 1

      A food company's subsidiary ... capitulated to Wal-Mart on pricing for one of their premium product lines a few years ago, meaning Wal-Mart's prices were FAR lower than every grocery store's prices across the country. ... Don't be mistaken - Wal-Mart tries to controls their suppliers with an iron fist.

      So what? Suppliers try to dictate prices to customers too. Will your local kebap stand allow you to negotiate a lower price for your Döner? Are they evil if they don't?

    3. Re:Good move for walmart by sm62704 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No reason to put "evil" in quotes; they ARE evil by any definition of the word you can come up with. If you own walmart stock, you're evil, too.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:Good move for walmart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What percentage of Walmart's income is from DVD sales? They didn't seem to have a problem with music sales on iTunes, or maybe they just never saw it coming and are now a bit scared.

      Online distribution will become more important in the future, but only for a limited number of products; just digital media: software, videos, music. There will always be a need for the local distributor of real goods. Products that have to be physically transported will always need a distributor like Walmart to deliver them to us inexpensively. Walmart's place is secure.

      The truth is; Walmart's cheap DVDs are still more attractive to me that an iTunes download. I recently purchased complete seasons of Futurama from them for $19 a piece, vs. $40 retail at a place like Borders. At those kind of prices, I'll take the physical media. No need for them to try strong-arming the media companies. Just have what I want at a good price.

    5. Re:Good move for walmart by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you mean a Swiss conglomerate. They ain't German, snookums.

      Apropos Germany, Wal-Mart has given up for good its attempts to penetrate the cutthroat market there. They had the whole "American interloper" going against them, strong worker protection laws that hamstrung them and a niche that was already filled with homegrown discount chains. As I understand it, there are other EU countries where they haven't had the success they wanted.

      I think the defeat they suffered in Germany has made them paranoid, thus the preemptive attack on Apple. Amazon's Unbox system isn't as easy to slam due to the more draconic terms in Amazon's DRM and the fact that Amazon is partnered with Target. Attacking Amazon would be attacking a rival who would all too eagerly sell those titles that Wal-Mart drops.

    6. Re:Good move for walmart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just have what I want at a good price.

      When your company goes under and you lose your job because of off-shoring, just remember "Hey, at least somebody, somewhere is getting a good price."

    7. Re:Good move for walmart by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      Is driving companies that aren't as efficient as their competitors out of business evil? And am I an evil person if I shop via price comparison? Because they both have the same effect.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    8. Re:Good move for walmart by QuantumFTL · · Score: 1

      If you own walmart stock, you're evil, too.

      If you own a 401k or a mutual fund, you probably do too.

    9. Re:Good move for walmart by dangitman · · Score: 1
      A food company's subsidiary (that rhymes with "bestlee")

      No, it rhymes with "besslay" - notice that the "e" has an accent over it, and the "t" is silent.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    10. Re:Good move for walmart by dwightk · · Score: 1

      wait, so "evil" is having power?

      Is "evil" the same as just plain evil?

      would an all-powerful, benevolent being be "evil"?

      --
      Like anyone can even know that
    11. Re:Good move for walmart by JasonBee · · Score: 1

      I know...thatt's why they're called a "food company's subsidiary in Germany"

      I don't get to Vevey much...but I do know many who work there ;)

      JB

  5. Wal*Mart is the devil. by Roger+Wilcox · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Any organization whose stated mission is to take over the world shouldn't arouse suspicion or surprise when they use leverage to win over those who are weaker than they.

    1. Re:Wal*Mart is the devil. by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 1

      Any organization whose stated mission is to take over the world shouldn't arouse suspicion or surprise when they use leverage to win over those who are weaker than they.

      Wow... sounds like Chavez might have been right about Bush after all.

      --


      8==8 Bones 8==8
  6. Always low prices... by novus+ordo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    sometimes..?

    --
    "You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
    1. Re:Always low prices... by Bob_Villa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree with that, my wife and I used to always shop at Walmart Supercenters because we thought it was cheaper. We had been shopping at Kroger and going to Walmart just for items we couldn't get at Kroger. But I started to notice that Walmart's prices were different for the same items every time we came. We buy diapers, wipes, and we used to buy formula. On those three items the prices would vary by a few cents to 1.00 with each visit, almost randomly. Sometimes higher, sometimes lower. I started looking around the rest of the store on visits and noticed it was happening to many items we bought and sometimes our visits were more expensive than if we just went to Kroger and a nearby Target for the rest. Also, items marked 'Rolled back' are sometimes more expensive than they were the last week. Weird, isn't it?

      Target seems a little higher priced, but their prices stay the same, rather than changing from day to day, or they don't do it as frequently and I don't notice it. Now we just shop at our Kroger and Target and we buy only diapers and nothing else from Walmart because you can't trust their prices.

      I also don't like them strongarming companies like this or how badly they pay their workers. I also know people who work there or who have and the managers will fire you if you don't check enough people per hour, or don't do various other things as fast as you can, and they pay so low the workers have to take Medicare because they can't afford the prices on the more expensive policies. Walmart is definitely wrong for America. Their low prices gimmick is a sham and at some point this company will have to act more ethical, I hope. Shame on you, Walmart!

    2. Re:Always low prices... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      This is the major problem with shopping in 2006. To get the best price on everything, you have to go to about 7 different stores. Sometimes things are cheaper at walmart, other things are cheaper at the grocery store, and other things are cheaper when you buy them in bulk at Costco. I find Costco to be the worst for having things that are more expensive than anywhere else. Sure, some things are cheaper, but you really have to watch, because many things are much more expensive, and when you're buying a $30 6 Litre bottle of shampoo, you had better be sure you couldn't get 6 1 Litre bottles for $3 each at the grocery store (just a made up example). So you can either spend the extra gas and extra time to run around to the 7 different stores to save $10 a week, or just shop at 1 or 2 stores, spend less time shopping. I know people who drive 30 minutes just to save 40 cents on diapers. Me, I just walk to the pharmacy next store. Sure it costs a little more (sometimes less if they're on sale), but in the end, I don't have to spend 5 hours a week going around to different stores trying to get the best price on absolutely everything.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Always low prices... by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a major problem with shopping???

      Christ almighty, get out of the big box stores, and go shop around at conventional grocery stores and little vegetable shops.

      Maybe it's all stuff I learned from my father, but you save MORE money by shopping at a series of "normal" stores, buying a few items you need at the places that tend to offer the best prices (and I'm not talking about cherry-picking the specials each week, but just heading to the stores that tend to offer the best boneless chicken breat prices, or the best tomatoe prices). Not to mention you get the warm fuzzy of voting with your dollar, and supporting the little guy.

      There's no reason to purchase a huge cart of stuff at one particular store, and especially not at a Super Walmart or a Costco.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    4. Re:Always low prices... by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1
      Maybe it's all stuff I learned from my father, but you save MORE money by shopping at a series of "normal" stores

      I'm not sure that the savings are really the point. At least not to me.

      As a matter of fact, the local cheese shop may have 50% higher prices and half the selection of a supermarket. But the selection he has is "hand crafted", if you will. The guy knows his shit and works with the same, trusted suppliers for decades. He will also provide me with his honest opinion if a specific cheese is not quite up there and lets me taste if in doubt.

      Same goes for the butchery, or the vegetable shop. Or there's the immense pleasure of walking through a grocery market, check out the various vendors and mentally composing dinner with organically grown produce.

      Granted, I'm privileged enough to not have to turn every cent. But then again: How many eggs do I actually eat? And I rather pay three times the price for an egg from a happy, free roaming chicken compared to a battery egg. The taste is no comparision.

      --
      ich bin der musikant

      mit taschenrechner in der hand

      kraftwerk

    5. Re:Always low prices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no no. The prices are always low, relative to other places. They are not always the low*EST*. There's a lesson for you in advertising 101 - Always ambiguous phrases. Always.

    6. Re:Always low prices... by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Obviously, if you are paying 30 cents per egg, you are priveleged.

    7. Re:Always low prices... by EggyToast · · Score: 1

      Drive 30 minutes, using 1-2 gallons of gas, inevitably causing the items in question to cost MORE.

      Unless they buy in bulk.

      I usually just give up and order online, where I can check prices w/o wasting forever. And if I know I can get it at a store within walking distance or a 2 minute drive, I opt for that instead of the 30 minute commute out to the suburbs.

      Of course, it typically takes people in the suburbs 30 minutes of driving to get everywhere they need to, as well, because that new store that's so cheap is just a little over 7 miles away.

    8. Re:Always low prices... by SmlFreshwaterBuffalo · · Score: 1

      More like "Always low prices...or else".

    9. Re:Always low prices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, if you are paying 30 cents per egg, you are priveleged.

      $0.30 per egg is only $3.60 for a dozen. That really isn't that much by today's prices for the amount of actual food you get from it.

      Besides, I'd rather there be less money in my pocket (or less food in my belly) than be inflicting pain and suffering on other species. I don't eat meat/fish, so eggs and dairy are the only areas I have to worry about in that respect.

  7. I'm going to have to disagree with you now.,.,. by way2trivial · · Score: 2, Interesting

    from everything I've read, Walmart has a lot of cutting edge large system/enterprise technology and it staff,

    Why can't they handle this kind of distribution model? they have a music store, they have a on-line photo gifts store- they have-- gosh -every feature amazon has except panache...

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:I'm going to have to disagree with you now.,.,. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they want to, and by threatening studios they hope to get them to allow them to distribute media in this way.

      The difference between DVDs/music and photos is that the former are copyrighted (well so are the latter, but by the customer so if the customer wants to download them there is no issue). Walmart can't just choose to distribute movies over the net and then cut the studios a check. And they couldn't compete with Apple if they had to buy a boxed edition for every one they sell online (and even then courts might not like them unilaterally changing the format - even if it results in NO lost DVD sales).

      The problem is that copyright gives the studios a lot of control over HOW their movies are sold - and not just that they get the profits when they are sold.

    2. Re:I'm going to have to disagree with you now.,.,. by dubiousmike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Walmart has gotten their logistics to the point where they automatically make 2 to 3 percent more than anyone else for the same product even if Walmart and say Sears sell at cost. That means that no matter what Walmart makes more selling the same product.

      Walmart can't make the same money when the distribution model isn't physical, at least not yet.

      Walmart uses their selling power to get what they want from manufacturers. If your DVD doesn't get sold in Walmart, you automatically lose something like 15% of potential sales. Disney needs Walmart. Amazon doesn't.

    3. Re:I'm going to have to disagree with you now.,.,. by RalphBNumbers · · Score: 1
      Walmart can't just choose to distribute movies over the net and then cut the studios a check. And they couldn't compete with Apple if they had to buy a boxed edition for every one they sell online (and even then courts might not like them unilaterally changing the format - even if it results in NO lost DVD sales).


      If you think the studios charge more for wholesale DVDs than for wholesale download-rights, I think you've got things very much reversed.

      Wholesale DVDs can be had for a couple of bucks a disc for many older movies. Whereas, if Apple's cut of their movie sales is anything like their cut of music sales, they're sending somewhere around $7 to Disney for each of the older $9.99 movies they sell.

      --
      "The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
    4. Re:I'm going to have to disagree with you now.,.,. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Apparently those 2-3 percent didn't help them in Germany.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    5. Re:I'm going to have to disagree with you now.,.,. by QuantumFTL · · Score: 1

      Walmart has enough money to do just about any other company's job, and do it better. What they don't have is corporate leadership, experience, personelle, and culture to do ti better. They picked one thing and got good at it. That's what they are good at. Maybe some day they will be good at something else, but that day is not today.

  8. That's just great by bogjobber · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Nothing like watching a couple 500 lb. gorillas wrestle each other. Except of course if you're the consumer. Either way, they're sure to get screwed out of a possible format for viewing movies. Now that studios are finally coming around to digital distribution, Wal-Mart has to rain on everybody's parade.

    Way to go Wal-Mart! With all that positive propoganda coming out of Bentonville, some people were actually starting to like you again. Thanks for reinforcing negative images of your company.

    1. Re:That's just great by Xyrus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Agreed. This is like watching two inmates fighting it out for who gets the rights to your dumper.

      You can only hope they knock eachother out. :P

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
  9. Studios Testicularly Challenged? by GaryPatterson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can't help feeling that the studios should call the Wal-Mart bluff here.

    Wal-Mart may hate the idea and threaten and moan, but if all the studios jump onto the iTMS then Wal-Mart will buckle. They can't drop their entire DVD line unless they want to drop a whole market.

    The power rests with the studios here, but they're scared.

    1. Re:Studios Testicularly Challenged? by beaverfever · · Score: 1

      "Wal-Mart may hate the idea and threaten and moan, but if all the studios jump onto the iTMS then Wal-Mart will buckle. They can't drop their entire DVD line unless they want to drop a whole market."

      Walmart sells DVDs below cost, as a loss leader. This works for Walmart as it draws people into the store, and it works for Hollywood because they move tons of product at their normal wholesale price. Walmart could always find another loss leader to lure people into the stores, but Hollywood couldn't easily find an outlet willing to suck up millions in losses to move product.

    2. Re:Studios Testicularly Challenged? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Also, they're completely different products. If iTunes movies are anything like Amazon UnBox movies, then there will still be a strong market for movies bought at the store on DVD. The restrictions that they put in place, including the fact that you can't burn it to DVD to play on your TV, means that this will only make DVDs lose a minimal amount of sales, possibly lose no sales at all, because it's so restrictive and takes so long to download a movie that it's simply easier to go down to the store and pick up the physical product. It only takes me 15 minutes to walk to walmart, If I had a car, I could be there in under 5 minutes. Why would I want to spend an extra $20 for high speed internet (instead of high speed lite) and have to wait 8 hours for my movie to download, only not to have a physical copy.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Studios Testicularly Challenged? by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The question is whether or not the MPAA will do what it must do: Guarantee online distribution.

      The MPAA is the movie's industry cartel. They are SUPPOSED to strength the industries negotitating power when it comes to disputes like this. As a group, if the MPAA stood up to Walmart, not to say, "Fuck You", but instead to say, "Wally, we can't do that", it would change the market.

      Unfortunately, I truly believe that the MPAA spends all of its time pursuing piracy and the like, and couldn't be bothered to support innovative technologies.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    4. Re:Studios Testicularly Challenged? by Snarfangel · · Score: 1

      Wal-Mart may hate the idea and threaten and moan, but if all the studios jump onto the iTMS then Wal-Mart will buckle. They can't drop their entire DVD line unless they want to drop a whole market.

      You say that now, but wait until all the shelves are stocked with Japanese anime and Bollywood movies.

      Actually, considering the recent offerings from Hollywood, that wouldn't be such a bad idea. Stick to your guns, Wal-Mart!

      --
      This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
    5. Re:Studios Testicularly Challenged? by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      but it's not just about the work of finding another loss-leader. to make another item a loss-leader means that you're taking away all the profits on that line of items, which presumably is a good amount or else that item is not popular enough to be a good loss-leader that would draw people in. and are we really all assuming that just because Walmart may sell X% of all movies, that an enormous proportion of that X% of sales won't just move to some other store (where people may buy other things that they would have bought at Walmart?). if you ask me, all of this is just a big win for Target and Meijer

    6. Re:Studios Testicularly Challenged? by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      I can't help feeling that the studios should call the Wal-Mart bluff here.

      I'm with you on that. it's the beauty of capitalism. Wal-mart stops selling dvd's, and starts losing out to Target and K-Mart because honestly, many people don't want DRM infested video files.

      Personally, I buy previously viewed from Blockbuster anyway - I can usually score them for $9.99 if I wait long enough. A rental here at Blockbuster costs $6... Four dollars more and I own the dvd if I like...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    7. Re:Studios Testicularly Challenged? by novus+ordo · · Score: 1

      As much as I would like to believe that Walmart would buckle, I would put my money on the studios buckling. Walmart sells 40% of ALL DVDs sold in the US(at a loss) and I doubt studio X would like Y Million DVDs returned to the warehouse they don't have. And don't forget Joe Schmoe's confusion how to get this friggin DVD he just bought on AOL internets on his DVD player. (Oh please don't tell him anything about about him not "owning" it...)

      --
      "You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
    8. Re:Studios Testicularly Challenged? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      the MPAA likes power, i would be suprised if they backed down simply because they do enjoy having power, and it's ahrd to have much power once you are walmart's peg boy.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    9. Re:Studios Testicularly Challenged? by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      If people want to buy a DVD, and Wal-Mart doesn't have it they'll go somewhere else.

      At a small level, if a customer wants the X-Men III DVD but Wal-Mart refuse to stock anything from that studio, then the customer won't just buy another movie. They'll walk out of Wal-Mart, down the road and into a competitor. If there's no competing store nearby they'll order it by mail or online.

      People don't just decide not to watch a movie they're anticipating because some store doesn't keep copies of it. They'll use other methods to buy a copy, and there are plenty of other places who'll happily sell to them.

      At a higher level, if Wal-Mart becomes known for not stocking many DVDs, then people won't even try to buy a DVD from them. They'll be too unreliable.

      Wal-Mart can't afford to have their bluff called - they have to buckle. All it takes is for the studios to stick to their line.

    10. Re:Studios Testicularly Challenged? by beaverfever · · Score: 1

      "If people want to buy a DVD, and Wal-Mart doesn't have it they'll go somewhere else."

      Well, yes and no... the people who are looking for a specific title might do that, but to a large degree Hollywood allows movies to be a commodity - look at all the absolutely garbage movies which sell millions of copies - and in a commodity market, price is all the matters. A lot of people simply browse what's on the shelf, and people who want to browse will browse where prices are lowest.

      Having said that, if one studio did lose distribution with Walmart, I'm sure Walmart would recognise the hole in its loss leader and switch to a different form of sucker bait.

    11. Re:Studios Testicularly Challenged? by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1
      Wal-Mart may hate the idea and threaten and moan, but if all the studios jump onto the iTMS then Wal-Mart will buckle. They can't drop their entire DVD line unless they want to drop a whole market.
      They've done it before, like when their deli people unionized.
    12. Re:Studios Testicularly Challenged? by tricorn · · Score: 1

      Walmart may sell 40% of ALL DVDs sold in the US, but that doesn't mean that if they stop selling all or a subset of DVDs, sale of those DVDs will drop by 40%. It will certainly drop some, but if that is offset by the on-line distribution sales, so what? Walmart's prices on DVDs aren't that good; they beat Amazon by about 11 cents per title. If Walmart isn't carrying a movie, people will just buy it somewhere else. People who aren't looking for a specific title, are just browsing for "a DVD", will probably either be buying the bargain basement titles or renting them. Walmart may even lose sales on the DVDs they do choose to carry, from the people who are no longer coming in to get those titles they no longer offer. Amazon may be the big winner here, not from Unbox, but from selling DVDs that Walmart won't carry.

  10. What I'd like to know by Paul+Carver · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article conspicuously fails to state whether Wal-Mart was correct or not.

    The article assumes that Wal-Mart sent DVDs back to Disney out of spite, but what if Wal-Mart merely made an accurate assessment of the situation? Did Wal-Mart sell out of the whatever titles they returned? Were there customer complaints about lack of these titles? Or was Wal-Mart correct in its assessment that the demand would be lower?

    I don't know if it's right or wrong, but from what I've read Wal-Mart requires its vendors to agree that they'll take back overstock if demand is less than expected. If Wal-Mart can send back "cases and cases" of DVDs and still keep the titles on the shelves than they're simply behaving sensibly.

    If they can't keep the titles on the shelves then this seems to be a classic case of "cut off your nose to spite your face". We're talking purchase here, right? Not rental? If you're renting a DVD and they don't have the one you want you might rent a different one. If you're shopping to buy a specific DVD, I can't imagine that you'd simply buy something else if the store doesn't have the one you're looking for.

    We're not talking about interchangeable products here. If you want "Lost" on DVD and Wal-Mart doesn't have it you'll go elsewhere. Personally I find deepdiscountdvd.com to be a great source, but there are countless others. What percentage of the US is really so cut off from civilization that if Wal-Mart doesn't carry "Lost" they can't get it some other way?

    1. Re:What I'd like to know by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As for "What percentage of the US is really so cut off from civilization that if Wal-Mart doesn't carry "Lost" they can't get it some other way?", well I happen to have done some travellign around my state recently (Pennsylvania) and in alot of small towns all there is to buy such things (heck most things) from is Wal-Mart! Wal-Mart killed the mom & pop stores there and no big companies want to come play there, so Wal-Mart is it... For just about everything.

      The sad part is most people don't seem to care... I needed to get gas while driving through one small city (about 6-9k people live there) and since all I'd seen whiel coming through town to shop at was a Wal-Mart, I aksed if their was anywhere else to pick up a few items. The reply was "Why would we need anything except Wal-Mart? They carry everything we'd ever need." It took cities with a population of at least 20k people to interest most other bussiness to be there and this still didn't offer much choice (2 large chain stores, isn't much better than 1). A significant portion of my state is filled with little sub-20k pop cities (I'd guess upwards of 60% of the state in area), figuring the same thing holds true for areas I didn't pass through while travelling around that's alot of people beholden to Wal-Mart for all there needs...

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    2. Re:What I'd like to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're not talking about interchangeable products here. If you want "Lost" on DVD and Wal-Mart doesn't have it you'll go elsewhere. Personally I find deepdiscountdvd.com to be a great source, but there are countless others. What percentage of the US is really so cut off from civilization that if Wal-Mart doesn't carry "Lost" they can't get it some other way?

      For those of us who live in major metropolitan areas (where Wal-Mart is only just now beginning to gain a foothold), it may seem hard to believe that there is a significant part of the American population that for whom Walmart is the only major (if not THE ONLY) retailer available to them. Large percentages of of Americans live in small town America (where significant parts of the population do live) is where Walmart made their bread and butter (while putting locally owned businesses out of business. In most small towns, especially those with a Walmart, there isn't another retailer. It seems strange, but it is often the case.

  11. Let Wal-Mart Go by alchemist68 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wouldn't mind seeing Wal-Mart suffer a little - after all, most of its merchandise comes from COMMUNIST CHINA! Is *THIS* the new American Way?!!! I think NOT!

    Boycott Wal-Mart!

    Boycott Sam's Club!


    Girlcotting is not the same thing!

    1. Re:Let Wal-Mart Go by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Does more of Walmart's products come from china than other large department stores like Target? I live in Canada, and my brother refuses to shop at walmart because they are an "evil american corporation, where everything is made in China". So he shops at Zellers, which is the Canadian equivalent. Problem is, is that they sell the exact same stuff. Sure they have the their store brands that aren't carried by the other store, but those products are all made in China/India/Pakistan/Bangladesh anyway. It's not like any of the other department stores are any better. Why does walmart always get bashed when all the department stores are the same. Just for kicks I do a survey of the stuff I buy from walmart when I go there, and it's about half make in North America (canada/us) and half made elsewhere (mostly Asia). That's a pretty good mix if you ask me. Just for argument I asked my brother to name a store where he buys his Canadian made clothes, which are almost impossible to find, and the store he mentioned was Bluenotes. I checked something I had bought 2 months earlier from the store and it was made in Bangladesh. If you're going to bash the stores, then bash them all, because they are equally guilty, unless you only buy food from the local market, and only buy clothes at American Apparel. If i'm going to buy shoddy products made in Asia, I might as well pay less for them and shop at Walmart.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Let Wal-Mart Go by canuck57 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Boycott Sam's Club!

      I will boycott neither Wal-Mart nor Sam's Club. In fact looking forward to Sam's club coming to our city to kick some stupid price gouging by the local business.

      What convinced me is I had to get a set of tires fast from Sam's in the US. Later we had a flat, took it into a local Canadian Walmart and when they fixed it free! This was the only tire purchase I ever had go right. I purchased from a Canadian company years earlier and it took me two years, 4 wheel alignments and tire replacements later to get it settled. On top of that it cost me more.

      Judge a company on its quality, price, service and how many people it employs, not on local political BS as local rich get upset that they can no longer charge 3-4 times the price. In part why Sam's/Walmart is successful. BTW, they sell the same stuff as everyone else.

    3. Re:Let Wal-Mart Go by schon · · Score: 1

      Why does walmart always get bashed when all the department stores are the same.

      Please back up that statement with links to HBC (Zellers) strongarming their suppliers and driving them out of business.

    4. Re:Let Wal-Mart Go by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      China created walmart, and China will destroy it. Look at how easy (and cheaper) it is now to get chinese stuff on ebay. Once the chinese figure out how to drop ship to the US cheaply, walmart is doomed.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    5. Re:Let Wal-Mart Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to kick some stupid price gouging by the local business
      *WRONNNNGO*

      Wal-mart does its homework. It looks at the local market then undercuts prices by a very small amount. Take for example where I am from Nebraska. There is a rather large local chain of grocer stores there called super saver. Take your regular pepsi/coke 2 dollars for a twelve pack most of the time in lincoln. Why? Super Saver cut a deal and moves a BOAT load of pop because its semi cheap. Wal-mart is usually within a nickel of the local 'mom and pop' stores.

      Now take where I live now. No real local mom and pop stores but plenty of big chains including Wal-mart. Is pop 2 dollars for a 12 pack here? No it is about a nickel less than all the other 'big chain' stores here (4-5 dollars). Yet Wal-mart can get it cheaper. They set the price to what the local market will bare.

      Wal-marts power comes from its distrubution chain managment. It really is run like a large Dell. They do not own anything on the floor, except a few small 'store brands'. The rest is 'owned' by the vendor. Vendor is Wal-marts term for anyone they work with. The vendor pre packs all the boxes for EACH store. Meaning many boxes ship out with 'half empty' boxes. Not a idea situation for a manufacture of goods as packing costs money. Yet the prices that Wal-mart holds vendors to is 'full boxes shipped'. So vendors start loosing money right away.

      Many vendors (including the tire thing you are talking about) have told Wal-mart to stuff it. For example the tire one you are talking about the manufacture does test the tires when the get them back to figure out what went wrong and if they have to do a recall. Walmart was just popping ALL the tires off and sending them back if it needed it or not. This is good for the consumer short term as 'hey cool I got new tires' but long term 'hey I cant get those tires anymore'.

      Wal-mart is currently on top of the heap. It will be for awhile until someone beats them at their own game or comes up with a better game.

    6. Re:Let Wal-Mart Go by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The public relations department of a group of powerful Trade Unions isn't generating that sort of propaganda against any of the other chain stores.

    7. Re:Let Wal-Mart Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I will boycott neither Wal-Mart nor Sam's Club. In fact looking forward to Sam's club coming to our city to kick some stupid price gouging by the local business.

      I look forward to your employer lowering your pay in order to pay for lower prices/rates charged by your employer. Who do you work for by the way. I want to be sure to tell your boss to cut your pay since you won't need so much money when Wal-mart and Sam's Club come into town.

      All of a sudden the price gouging as you call it does not seem so bad eh? It is funny how things look different when lower prices affect your livelihood directly eh?

    8. Re:Let Wal-Mart Go by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      target and costco have already beat walmart, walmart just doesn't know it yet. like the end of the roman empire walmart is quite hollow. by relying on the race to the bottom, they have stimulated demand for quality goods from other stores, since walmart dominates the "cheap shit" market so well, nobody else can do well in that market. however medium and high quality goods can easilly compete with cheap goods when factoring in multiple replacements, inferior functionality, and the loss of functionality in between losses.

      something similar is getting them on the employment side. by being so notorious for bad wages, bad benefits, and bad treatment of workers they end up mostly with the lowest quality workers around and their drug testing policy hurts them in hiring high school and college students who do drugs, but also do good work.

      walmart has been racing to the bottom for quite some time, and things will get quite messy once they finally hit the bottom.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    9. Re:Let Wal-Mart Go by macshit · · Score: 1
      Judge a company on its quality, price, service and how many people it employs, not on local political BS as local rich get upset that they can no longer charge 3-4 times the price. In part why Sam's/Walmart is successful. BTW, they sell the same stuff as everyone else.

      They're also a soul-searingly depressing place to shop.

      I judge a store on your criteria, but I also judge it on whether
      1. it's a nice place to shop, which includes more than just lighting or whatever -- a giant warehouse in the middle of an immense parking lot is a great deal more horrible than a small store on mainstreet
      2. it positively or negatively affects the community it's in

      Walmart and its ilk score basically a zero on these criteria. No thanks. There are more important things in life than getting the lowest conceivable price.
      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    10. Re:Let Wal-Mart Go by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Of course it's the American way. China can produce things of adequate quality for less money. They have a competitive advantage, so they win in the marketplace.

  12. Yeah, but it's the NY Post by Swift2001 · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Yeah, but it's the NY Post by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Ok, I read your alternate story. It had the expected Walmart response that they were not trying to bully anyone. However the second story did not dispute report of Walmart suddenly returned Disney DVDs, nor does it offer any alternate explanation for it. I won't deny the possibility that the initial story *could* be wrong, but I see nothing in your link to indicate it actually *was* wrong.

      IMO a boilerplate corporate denial of any wrong doing counts for exactly zero when the corporation does in fact have a clear financial motivation to do what they are aledged to have done and the PR response entirely fails to deny or explain the aledged facts of the case.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  13. Comment count on the front page? by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is completely offtopic

    That's odd, all the stories after Microsoft Vista User Interface Guidelines Published don't show the comment count...

    1. Re:Comment count on the front page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe /. tried to invent rule #13.

    2. Re:Comment count on the front page? by mulhollandj · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why are people always complaining about Vista breaking everything?

    3. Re:Comment count on the front page? by zecg · · Score: 1

      The comment numbers were confusing Slashdot's users and will be replaced by glass panes.

      --
      .i lu doi ringos.star. xu do puku'aroroi dunli dopecaku leni virnu li'u
  14. will go downhill... by marcuz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    burn down wallmart, its evil! just ask rubbermaid. i hope it will be soon that everybody will buy movies online and skip another part in the chain of greediness.

  15. Walmart is evil by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they run around threatening suppliers like this, they should be shut down for improper business practices, or at the least boycotted by america for being jerks..

    Yes, i realize that until they are declared a monopoly that they have a right to choose who they do business with, but it doesnt make it right.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Walmart is evil by DigiDarkCloud · · Score: 1

      I found it very ironic that Wal-Mart is worried about people undercutting their prices. How dare someone else steal their business model!

      Their entire modus operandi is about finding the absolute cheapest stock they can crank off on a factory line for negligible incremental cost, flooding their shelves with it, and using the massive profits from that to repeat the process. People storm their stores for this substandard schlock because it's so much cheaper than anything anyone else sells (not caring that the quality AND variety are both better elsewhere), and thus the smaller companies that literally can't afford to sell their wares at Wal-Mart prices end up having to close down.

      I'd say the chickens are coming home to roost, and I'd love to see Wal-Mart crushed by their own style of underhandedness. Unfortunately, they (unlike any competition they have yet to kill) have enough money and market clout to scare any other company in the world into submission. I predict that the studios being threatened will bend over to Wal-Mart's demands (perhaps encouraged by a frivolous lawsuit), rather than lose their biggest retailer, and that no movies will appear in iTunes as a result.

      --
      SIG: 11
    2. Re:Walmart is evil by jonwil · · Score: 1

      In this case, I dont think the studios will buckle.
      If this was walmart threatening a manufacturer of TV sets or lawnmowers or underwear or whatever, those companies would play ball because they know that if they dont, walmart would buy the underwear or the TV sets or the lawnmowers from one of their competitors.

      Unlike those companies however, the movie studios have a monopoly on their product. They know that walmart needs to sell their product because if they dont, walmart will loose sales as everyone who wants those moves goes to somewhere other than walmart. And those people who go somewhere else will probobly buy stuff other than the movies at that other store too. (stuff that they would have bought at walmart if walmart had the movie they wanted)

      DVD sales are too big a chunk of walmarts business for them to take any real action against the movie studios and the studios know that which is why they wont buckle to walmart.

    3. Re:Walmart is evil by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Funny
      If they run around threatening suppliers like this, they should be shut down for improper business practices, or at the least boycotted by america for being jerks..

      Just as it should be illegal for you to tell your boss "Give me a raise or I quit." It is immoral for two parties to try to negotiate things without there being a guarantee that the transaction will happen, no matter how much the parties disagree about the terms. We need the central committee to step in and make sure that no one ever threatens to not do business with someone else.

      I mean, it's right there in the 5 year plan: hard-working Hollywood actors are assigned the job of making movies, and Wal-Mart is assigned the job of reselling those movies so that our comrade actors can have food on their tables. If Wal-Mart doesn't sell the movies, how will our actors eat, and how will our comrade workers get such a critical entertainment resource? Such arrogant defiance of The Plan should not be tolerated.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    4. Re:Walmart is evil by naoursla · · Score: 1

      Isn't it more like someone saying, "I represent 70% of your employees. Give everyone a raise or we all quit."

      Or maybe, "I have teamed up with 70% of the companies in your chosen field. Take a pay cut to work for me or you are fired and I've seen to it that no one else will hire you."

    5. Re:Walmart is evil by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Parse your own sentence, thimblebrain.

      "Yes, i realize that until they are declared a monopoly that they have a right to choose who they do business with, but it doesnt make it right." Emph mine.

      So, they have a right to do business with whomesoever they choose. But, if they exercise that right, it chaps your ass and you think it's not right .

  16. Funny, I just finished reading a book..... by 8127972 · · Score: 3, Informative

    .... On this topic called the Wal-Mart Effect:

    http://www.amazon.com/Wal-Mart-Effect-Powerful-Tra nsforming-American/dp/1594200769

    Basically, the author looks at Wal-Mart's tactics in terms of squeezing it's suppliers to get the absolute lowest price and figures that while consumers benefit from this (even if they don't shop there), it doesn't exactly make Wal-Mart "evil." But there are troubling aspects to their behaviour that gives one cause to pause so to speak (like how they treat offshore workers for example).

    Having said that, I think they'll find that Apple may be a different sort of challenge. I don't think studios will cave the same way that Wal-Mart's suppliers usually do.

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
    1. Re:Funny, I just finished reading a book..... by Kamel+Jockey · · Score: 1

      the author looks at Wal-Mart's tactics in terms of squeezing it's suppliers to get the absolute lowest price and figures that while consumers benefit from this (even if they don't shop there), it doesn't exactly make Wal-Mart "evil."

      Wal-Mart is doing this mainly because the consumers are evil. We live in a society where a consumer will happilly march down to the other side of town to save a nickel on a given purchase (even if it means spending more money in gas, but that's a different topic). If Wal-Mart wasn't doing this, some other company would happilly step in and fill the void.

      --
      In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
    2. Re:Funny, I just finished reading a book..... by mgblst · · Score: 1

      I don't think this has anything to do with Apple, but more the fact that the movie studios are united under the MPAA, so it will be all the studies vs Walmart, as opposed to one company.

  17. Made with Pride... by Bayoudegradeable · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone remember the days when Sam Walton was alive? MADE WITH PRIDE IN THE USA! You used to see that all over the store... there was an entire movement based on this, it wasn't just a Wal-Mart thing. My father's textile manufacturing company was part of this as well. Don't need to tell you that his business went under a few years back. Anyway, go through Wal-Mart today. Made with pride in the USA? What a joke! Poor Sam must be rolling over in his last-ever-made-in-America pine box. Wal-Mart has gone so China that as an entity Wal-Mart is China's #4 buyer of goods... Wal-Mart, in a top ten list of COUNTRIES, comes in at #4. And if you think Wal-Mart plays hardball with suppliers here... In China the labor movement doesn't exist; workers rights, workers comp (ha!) and such don't exist. Lose an arm... so sorry, no job for you. Given those conditions one can only imagine what factories, suppliers to Wal-Mart, do when Wal-Mart says lower prices. If there were two factories that made plastic bowls and both wanted to sell to Wal-Mart. The cost cutting, the near slave labor conditions that would emerge to give one factory an "edge" can't paint a pretty picture. To think that Wal-Mart actually influences working conditions and helps to suppress rights and compensation for workers in China is dreadful. Made with pride in the USA? Hardly.

    --
    Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
    1. Re:Made with Pride... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      See my reply to a similar post here.

      Walmart isn't any worse than any other department store. Just because they sell more product, does not make them evil. No more percentage of their product comes from China than any other department store.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Made with Pride... by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

      Anyone remember the days when Sam Walton was alive? MADE WITH PRIDE IN THE USA!

      Well if there's any accuracy behind this article, I'm glad someone is sticking it to Wal-Mart. The only thing that could be better would be if they relocated their hardware production to The States and started using Wal-Mart's old slogan. HA HA!

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    3. Re:Made with Pride... by aussersterne · · Score: 1

      Walmart isn't any worse than any other department store. Just because they sell more product, does not make them evil.

      Um, yes, yes they are/yes it does. This is not a response about the ethics of the situation, but about mere language and quantity.

      "Just because Stalin buried more bodies, does not make him more deadly." Wrong.
      "Just it has more pages, does not make it longer." Wrong.
      "Just because it has more hair, does not make it hairier." Wrong.

      If poor labor practices are to you an evil, and Wal-Mart sells (and thus produces using such labor practices) more goods than anyone else, then it does indeed make Wal-Mart more evil, by any common-sense definition of "more."

      With that said, I do wish Americans would learn the truth about the entire basis of their consumer society, i.e. all major department stores and the ethical vacuum in which they work, both within borders and without.

      --
      STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    4. Re:Made with Pride... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      The thing is, is that al the stores sell the same crap, and people don't buy more just because Walmart exists. If they weren't buying it at walmart, then they'd be buying it at target or some other store. Just because people choose to shop at walmart, does not mean that walmart is evil. Walmart has lower prices because they strong arm the manufacturers. They also have lower prices because they've streamlined the process of getting stuff into the hands of consumers. Many times they've convinced manufacturers to go around their regular distribution chain, and sell directly to walmart. In the process the manufacturer makes more because they get all the market, or at least a percentage of the markup, that would have gone to the distributor in the first place. I also have no doubt that KMart and Target work quite hard with manufacturers to try to get their prices as low as possible. I don't think that any of them have any ethics. The reason walmart is cheaper is because they've streamlined the process, not because they've bullied all the manufacturers (although they have bullied some).

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:Made with Pride... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      In China the labor movement doesn't exist; workers rights, workers comp (ha!) and such don't exist. Lose an arm... so sorry, no job for you.

      Have you read a book critical of the Industrial Revolution era treatment of workers? Sounds exactly the same.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    6. Re:Made with Pride... by aussersterne · · Score: 1

      The thing is, is that al the stores sell the same crap,

      Yes, and whoever is selling the most of it is the most evil. Quite simple.

      --
      STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    7. Re:Made with Pride... by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      So why is selling people products that they want, evil?

      I don't get it--is this some kind of elitism? Is Wal-Mart too "low class" or something? Such anti-Wal Mart comments on slashdot always interest me, as polls (such as by Rasmussen and I believe Zogby too) have consistently showed Wal-Mart with approval ratings around 70%--higher than just about any politician arround!

    8. Re:Made with Pride... by hacker · · Score: 1
      With that said, I do wish Americans would learn the truth about the entire basis of their consumer society, i.e. all major department stores and the ethical vacuum in which they work, both within borders and without.

      Here's a tip: Stop referring to customers as consumers . We don't "consume" goods, we are customers of those goods. As long as we are seen as some ever-hungry bacteria that simply exists to "consume", we will continue to be treated as such.

      We are CUSTOMERS , not consumers. Repeat that 10 times, every time you want to use the word "consumer" incorrectly.

    9. Re:Made with Pride... by ZombieRoboNinja · · Score: 1

      From my understanding, the "Made in the USA" thing was just another publicity tactic to raise Walmart's profile, because even then everybody hated them.

  18. Except they say they aren't... by BMonger · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. Re:Except they say they aren't... by tgd · · Score: 1

      Plus any Walmart exec who says that ought to take a stroll through their stores. In fact Jobs should, too. They'd both notice the prices at Walmart are better, anyway.

  19. So let me get this straight by AC-x · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wal-mart are worried that they'll sell less DVDs, so they counter this by pulling DVDs off the shelves...

    Good one Wal-mart.

    1. Re:So let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Walmart probably has a policy of being able to return overstock to the supplier, and to let the supplier find some way to handle the returns. When you return merchandise to the store, it is the supplier that has to absorb the return as a loss.

      Walmart acted as it should, if you were them. You cannot sell the DVDs because of pricing, so return them, and stop carrying them,

      In Canada, we have Dollarama, and whatever I find in WalMart, I find cheaper in Dollarama. Walmart are not the best price offerers in most of the items they sell. They may have been, but now they need that extra profit to pay for new store openings. Oh yes, employees low salaries are a contribution to new store openings too.

  20. Walmart wants something else by hellfire · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Walmart wants attention or something else they aren't telling the general public. Neither side wants to stop selling disney stuff. Disney could easy turn around and go somewhere else and exploit all other retailers, but that would require work Disney doesn't want to do, and ost them money they don't want to spend, and Walmart doesn't want to get rid of ~20% of their media sales just because they don't like the iTunes store. Disney would come out on top of a silly thing like this if they actually wanted to fight it out in the market, but not without losing a little share price.

    My bet is someone at Walmart asked to talk with the Board of directors at Disney, and the board snubbed them. So Walmart punched them in the arm with this little stunt like a petulant child and is demanding attention. The real life answer to this is to ignore it, but I'm sure they'll have a meeting now and work something out.

    Personally I hope they eat each other alive but whatever, that won't happen.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

  21. Wal-Mart has no leverage by foo+fighter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wal-Mart, for once, has no leverage here. If customers can't get The Little Mermaid super platinum eternal edition from Wal-Mart, they'll go down the street to Target or Kmart or Amazon.

    I can't imagine studios would lose money if Wal-mart didn't carry their albums, especially if they replace physical sales revenue with digital. Of course the studios would like to keep physical and digital revenue flowing, but steady revenues are better than declining revenues.

    If the studios did cave to this threat they are short sighted and craven.

    --
    obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
    1. Re:Wal-Mart has no leverage by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      You really have a head up your ass. How many people that shop at walmart use itunes? I don't and I am a software engineer. What about the trailer trash in arkansas? Maybe 2%?

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    2. Re:Wal-Mart has no leverage by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      If the studios did cave to this threat they are short sighted and craven.

      So, taking that as a given, how long do you think it will be 'til they cave in?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Wal-Mart has no leverage by Joey7F · · Score: 1

      How is that possible? If Itunes doesn't pose a threat to Walmart, they would never have done this. In general, Walmart can't/won't serve the anything past the 1-sigma consumer.

      I will give you a local example. I shop at Walmart (among other stores) but when I buy beer, it ain't from there. Why? The best beer they carry is Sam Adams or, recently. Sierra Nevada Pale Ale. Well, if I want any selection (read: more specialty) I need to go to Total Wine, or a locally owned place. That decision is based entirely on where I am in town or how much I am getting (the local place is 25% more expensive).

      If someone can be entirely satisfied by Walmart, they aren't/can't-afford-to-be demanding consumers. This is okay! Either way, Walmart serves a role.

      --Joey

    4. Re:Wal-Mart has no leverage by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      You don't need to make beer anologies to see why they are doing this. Just run some numbers.
      We will approximate that 50% of customers are locked into walmart. They might not have broadband, might not care to use itunes or something like that.
      Guess that 50% of non-locked in customers go to some itunes (or other) video service.
      Okay that means a loss of 25% of video sales, a guess would be $100 million.
      Wal mart still has 300$ million in sales it can hold over the studios head. Of course they (studios) are worried.
      If walmart can delay the transition a couple of years, it saves them 200m in sales. Perhaps they have they're own service in the works...

      Its just business.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    5. Re:Wal-Mart has no leverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, I would think that most (though not all) iTMS users would be of either the "trailer trash" variety or the "frat boy" variety -- the very kind of technologically ignorant people who buy iPods and don't understand the cost of DRM.

      Wal-Mart is trying to fight Apple precisely because their markets overlap so much.

    6. Re:Wal-Mart has no leverage by foo+fighter · · Score: 1

      You missed my point that if Wal-Mart doesn't carry a DVD, the customer will just go to another physical store. The studios don't lose any money in this case, but Wal-Mart does.

      --
      obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
    7. Re:Wal-Mart has no leverage by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      Except for the impulse buyer factor, which is not inconsiderable. People will go to Wal-Mart for food or clothes or something, then decide to buy a DVD they happen to see. They won't be doing that with iTunes (the overlap won't be as large, at least).

    8. Re:Wal-Mart has no leverage by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      Like i said there is no where else to go in rural america. This is their monopoly.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    9. Re:Wal-Mart has no leverage by foo+fighter · · Score: 1

      Really? I don't know of anywhere in the rural US (where I live) that has a Wal-Mart but doesn't have at least a K-Mart.

      --
      obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
  22. Re:I'm going to disagree with you now.,.,. REDUX by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    do you know of which you speak?

    have you seen the per track prices in their online music store?

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  23. "shopping your way out of a job" by zogger · · Score: 1

    That's what they call it anyway. Entire industries are closing in the US because of the walmart effect, and becoming just importers or almost entirely just importers. The alleged boon to the consumer will eventually backlash to a major recession. There's only so much of a perpetual balance of trade deficit any nation can handle, even the US.

    As to the filing of complaints, some local governments have found they have a way to fight back-just not allowing them to build stores with zoning regs. Granted, not a perfect solution, but it's something that can be done. Say some area does it, some of the people local will still travel to the next town over. But if THAT town does the same, eventually the distance travelled means the consumers will stay put locally and use the smaller stores.

    The globalist-bent economists (the ones only loyal to money and making billionaires out of millionaires) like to talk the cheaper prices, etc, but they always conveniently forget (even though they were taught this early on in biz school) that the monetary unit stays more valuable the more times it changes hands locally-in this case inside the local community then up to the national level. Over the past two decades in particular we have been swapping a number of good paying manufacturing jobs (some millions, a large number) per single lower paying retail sales job-that is unsustainable long term and rather..lame, it's just lame.

    1. Re:"shopping your way out of a job" by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Huh? Companies were moving production overseas decades before Wal-Mart became popular. They would keep doing that even if Wal-Mart died overnight. Blaming off-shoring of manufacturing on Wal-Mart is like blaming off-shoring of technical jobs on Fry's. It's quite possibly the silliest logic I've ever heard.

      Wal-Mart started really being able to apply price pressure by the 1980s. By that time, Japanese automobiles were more popular than American, every toy I bought by then was made in China/Taiwan/Singapore, etc., and this had been true for a couple of decades. The big push towards manufacturing of products overseas began shortly after WWII in the 1950s and 1960s. Wal-Mart didn't even open its first store until 1962.

      I'm not saying Wal-Mart hasn't encouraged some companies to do this, but the fact remains that they would have done so eventually anyway to make a greater profit. Expecting them to do otherwise is like believing in the tooth fairy.

      As to the filing of complaints, some local governments have found they have a way to fight back-just not allowing them to build stores with zoning regs. Granted, not a perfect solution, but it's something that can be done. Say some area does it, some of the people local will still travel to the next town over. But if THAT town does the same, eventually the distance travelled means the consumers will stay put locally and use the smaller stores.

      It's a terrible idea. Most of those local stores are already thoroughly screwed by availability of products on the internet. So now in ten years when they find themselves unable to survive (Ace Hardware and K-Mart in Santa Cruz, anyone?) even without Wal-Mart, those towns will find themselves without any way to buy the things they need to survive and will have to drive large distances to buy basic products.

      Further, lower prices are better for everyone in the long term. All the knee-jerkers say "Oh, look at all the stores that will close" and forget that Wal-Mart brings consolidated shopping, which causes stores to be able to survive that otherwise could not. It brings down prices of groceries and gasoline dramatically. It brings down the overall cost of living dramatically.

      And small stores can survive and even thrive with Wal-Mart because of the proximity effect. Stores physically close to Wal-Mart actually get more business after Wal-Mart moves in. Stores do, however, have to specialize and carry the stuff that Wal-Mart doesn't. Wal-Mart has to cater to general audiences, so it can only provide the most common basic needs in any category. A hardware store does just fine with Wal-Mart next door because it carries lots of stuff that Wal-Mart doesn't and can't---screws and fasteners, higher quality tools, possibly building materials, etc. A clothing store does just fine because teenagers want brand names. And so on.

      The most important thing, though, is that the store owners have to do exactly the opposite of what they usually do. Most of them try moving away from Wal-Mart thinking that they can be closer to the population and thus people will go there instead. Doesn't work that way. People will drive 20 minutes to a Wal-Mart store. That means that the best place for any store to be is within a block or two of Wal-Mart. That's why zoning laws to block Wal-Mart don't work. The end result is that the vast majority of people drive there anyway, then bitch about how much fuel costs.

      It's a shame to see the fraction of a percent of people who are so anti-Wal-Mart spoil it for the rest of us. *Sigh* I guess the loudest voice really is the only one heard... but it shouldn't be.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:"shopping your way out of a job" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude,

      You are shockingly naive about Walmart. Peep PBS sometime...

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walm art/view/

      Walmart is total crap and they know it. Inherantly in their business model, they *must* eventually sell an inferior product. When you compete on price and nothing else there is nowhere else to go. Oonce the cost cannot be lowered by any other means quality must be lowered.

    3. Re:"shopping your way out of a job" by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      And small stores can survive and even thrive with Wal-Mart because of the proximity effect. Stores physically close to Wal-Mart actually get more business after Wal-Mart moves in. Stores do, however, have to specialize and carry the stuff that Wal-Mart doesn't. Wal-Mart has to cater to general audiences, so it can only provide the most common basic needs in any category. A hardware store does just fine with Wal-Mart next door because it carries lots of stuff that Wal-Mart doesn't and can't---screws and fasteners, higher quality tools, possibly building materials, etc. A clothing store does just fine because teenagers want brand names. And so on.

      Ace Hardware sells tools that are usually a lot better in quality than Wal-Mart. It's interesting how Target has competed by offering many of the same brands as Wal-Mart, but unfortunately usually at higher prices. I get most all my food at ALDI which is close by to the local Wal-Mart here that sells food at prices cheaper than Wal-Mart. They do so by cutting overhead costs even more than Wal-Mart with the use of some smart tactics. Their selection isn't as big, so I go shopping at Wal-Mart for the things I want that I can't buy there. Yay for competition that's unhindered by the government! Now, if only the RIAA would learn they're going to have to change their business model and can't rely on Uncle Sam to wage the losing war to save their dying market nitch.

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
  24. And Everyone is Worried About Google... by eno2001 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Sorry, but it looks like Wal-Mart is the more apparent threat to your freedoms than Google. I don't and WON'T shop at Wal-Mart unless they succeed at infiltrating my neck of the woods. But I doubt it. I live in an inner-ring suburb (probably too many black and poor people for their tastes) of a mid-sized city. And IF they do put one of their monstrous stores in the neighborhood, I'll bet they'll do what I've seen in other areas where there aren't more white folk than black folk... They'll put cops in the store (you don't see that in the burbs) and make sure the stock is of a lower quality compared to their suburban or boonie branches. Amazing that people rail on about the evils of Google while very few actually talk about the cancer that is Wal-Mart. Just like one of my high school classmates said back in the 90s, "Stop the 'Mart Bart"! Wal-Mart IS evil.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    1. Re:And Everyone is Worried About Google... by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      Ah yes... the sound of people who disagree with me modding me down. If you read the parent post carefully, you'll see that I speak the truth. Unless you LIKE living in the burbs or the boonies and worshipping at the church of the almighty dollar...

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    2. Re:And Everyone is Worried About Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in western ny and shop at 6 different walmarts ranging from 1 very rural to 1 next to a college town to 2 suburban to 2 urban. The first two are mostly white folks, the suburban ones are probably about 60% white and the two urban ones are probably 20% white. I haven't seen a cop or any type of security guard hanging out at any of them since they first came to the area 15 years or so ago. Ditto for Sam's Club.

      As for the stock, it seems to be the same stuff in all the stores. In fact, it's cheaper for walmart to buy bulk on one item than it is to carry slightly different grades of the same item to shuffle around to different neighboring stores. I think you simply want to see a difference in quality.

      Wait, rereading your post, you "don't and won't shop at walmart" so your anecdote is probably just what other people have told you (who may or may not have an axe to grind) rather than your personal experience.

    3. Re:And Everyone is Worried About Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But I doubt it. I live in an inner-ring suburb (probably too many black and poor people for their tastes)

      apparently you have never been in a wal-mart...
    4. Re:And Everyone is Worried About Google... by thrashaholic · · Score: 1

      Too bad most of the better cities are suffering (IMO) at the hands of gentrification.

      Living in downtown Atlanta 4 years ago was a dangerous, thrilling experience; I was the only white person in my neighborhood for years. (how I like it)

      Now, however, it seems that I might as well have moved to the fucking suburbs with all the luxury SUVs / Audi wagons and BMW's parked on the other side of those cute little white picket fences they all put up.

      And don't even get me started on housing costs in the city. $280K for a thousand square foot, half century old, shotgun house next to a train yard? Blow me.

      So now I do live in the burbs; in a nice, quiet mixed neighborhood. You can keep your crack heads, inflation on goods, invading white people, and fascist cops; I don't want 'em anymore.

      Oh yea, I can actually see *stars* when I look up at night, or do you prefer that constant orange glowing haze?

      --
      militant gun owning 'liberal'
  25. I say let them do as they wish by Ka+D'Argo · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Ok so maybe I don't want to anger the sleeping giant so to speak, but people shouting "Omg, boycott Walmart!" have to release for some people in middle and lower class America, Walmart is a lifesaver.

    Sure you can say such expensives aren't really translated to entertainment or electronics. I mean, when you're poor and shoping for house hold items, medicine etc that brand new DVD isn't a top priority. But some people can't really afford to boycott it. Not all towns/cities have other discount stores that are cheaper or equal to Walmart, and those that do often aren't as cheap as Walmart for some items.

    For example, a family doctor recommended some over the counter vitamins and supplements for my grandparents. At a pharmacy they cost around $10 a bottle. At a grocery store it's slightly less. And then at places like Target, K-Mart, it's again slightly less than the pharmacy. Now Walmart? That same $10 bottle of vitamins is now like $2.50 or $3.00 at most. Name brand. They end up saving like 2/3 the cost. That's just medicine that's not crucial for day to day living too. Imagine how much you save on every day stuff like pet food, paper towels, etc

    People on fixed incomes, low income jobs, and people living pay check to pay check depend on Walmart. People think it's silly that you buy groceries at Walmart/Super Walmart but hey, when it's cheaper on bread, eggs, soda etc at Walmart than it is at a grocery store, you buy there.

    --
    Aw Frell this
    1. Re:I say let them do as they wish by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      it seems the majority of /. fails to think about rural america. In most of these places kmart or target simply don't exist.

      This is where walmart started, and this is the 'can of whoop-ass' that walmart has pointed at the manufacturers.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    2. Re:I say let them do as they wish by swordgeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're missing an important point. Walmart is a source and cause of the lower class. When Walmart enters an area--especially a lower-middle class area--they drive wages down. They FORCE people to shop there, because they have no choice after their buying power has been reduced.

      Furthermore, they way that they can afford such low prices is by squeezing the suppliers and producers. How's the farming industry in the US right now? Most farmers can barely afford to make ends meet, and it's not because they're buying premium goods at premium stores, it's because they're being told "we'll pay you 70% of fair market value, and you have no choice since we're the biggest buyer in the nation."

      Consider how well they've benefited Vlassic, as laid out in this article:
      http://www.fastcompany.com/online/77/walmart.html

      Walmart isn't about savings--it's about false savings, and short-term cash in pocket driving long-term economic ruin.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    3. Re:I say let them do as they wish by sheldon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, Wal-Mart is more expensive on many goods. Or they have limited selection and don't have the item you want.

      I prefer Target. I've found them to be cheaper for soap, paper towels, etc. The stores are clean and the clerks are friendly. Unlike wal-Mart. Hell, even 40 year old K-Mart stores look cleaner than Wal-Mart.

    4. Re:I say let them do as they wish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing an important point. Walmart is a source and cause of the lower class.

      Posts like this are a source and cause of crack smoking in the U.S.

    5. Re:I say let them do as they wish by mike2R · · Score: 1
      You're missing an important point. Walmart is a source and cause of the lower class.
      Posts like this are a source and cause of crack smoking in the U.S.
      More like the result of it.
      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    6. Re:I say let them do as they wish by Azoth's+Revenge · · Score: 1

      I stopped shopping at Wal*Mart for groceries when I realized that they would overcharge almost everytime on goods such as apples or tomatoes etc... Pretty much anything that doesn't have a barcode has a good chance of being improperly entered into the register. That and the prices on the store floor for such goods are different than those in their computers anyways.

    7. Re:I say let them do as they wish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your comment shows your ignorance. Wal-Mart as the reason there are low prices for crops and farmers don't do well? For the last 90 years farmers have faced falling prices. Also, it is a commodity market, so Walmart doesn't pay much less for an ear of corn than anyone else. The reason prices are low is because the government continues to subsidize farmers (with most of that going to the corporate run, largest, most-efficient farms), keeping production higher than demand. Prices thus fall, hurting the farmers that don't receive the generous subsidies.

      The idea that Wal-Mart drives wages down is insane, too. Have you ever worked in retail? How about at an independent retailer? When I worked retail at Walgreens (another big evil chain) I got as much money as when I worked at an independent place. And the big evil chain had a lot more room for promotion. Look up how much the Target workers or grocery store workers make and you will start to see that Wal-Mart does not harm wages.

      Wal-Mart creates the lower class? They've been around for a lot longer than Wal-Mart! Wal-Mart gives them a chance to buy decent products at dirt cheap products and you think they do a disservice to all those poor people? If shopping at Wal-Mart is so bad for them, how come in my area (St. Louis) people drive for miles to go to the Wal-Mart, bypassing Sears and Target and independent stores on the way? They do it because Wal-Mart has better prices.

    8. Re:I say let them do as they wish by asuffield · · Score: 1
      How's the farming industry in the US right now? Most farmers can barely afford to make ends meet


      Barely? Most farmers operate at a significantloss, and rely on government subsidies to remain in business (if the government did not subsidise farming, you would not eat). Walmart has been exploiting this for some time - essentially, they're using creative marketing techniques to force the government to spend tax dollars on them. In the past they've been caught paying some employees so little that they're still entitled (and basically have to) draw unemployment benefit, which is another form of the same thing (I don't know if they still do that).

      They escape monopoly charges by spending money on political cover.
    9. Re:I say let them do as they wish by don.g · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ...if the government did not subsidise farming, you would not eat...


      If the US government did not subsidise farming, then the US domestic prices of farmed goods would rise, and US farmers would be less competitive against imports. Subsidies distort the market, and they don't save you money -- you end up paying for the subsidies through your taxes.

      Our (New Zealand's) farmers are not subsidised, and we seem to survive.
      --
      Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
    10. Re:I say let them do as they wish by asuffield · · Score: 1
      Subsidies distort the market, and they don't save you money -- you end up paying for the subsidies through your taxes.


      This is very true. Never let it be said that the US farming industry is not a really stupid way to run things.

      Our (New Zealand's) farmers are not subsidised, and we seem to survive.


      You don't have Wal-Mart in every town, obliterating all the competition. They are quite willing to risk market devastation next year in order to make another dollar this year.
  26. What damage would it do if .... by unity100 · · Score: 1

    .... people boycott wal-mart dvd stands ? Huh ?

    One has to think thrice before taking a stance against 'the people', in which case, 'the people' are the internet.

  27. Re:I'm going to disagree with you now.,.,. REDUX by dubiousmike · · Score: 1

    Uh yeah, I do. My wife's theisis was on Walmart's Distribution. Regardless of their prices on digital ditributed products, they don't make the same margin from that as they do physically distributed products. They would much rather compete on the physical end and will "encourage" manufacturers to continue to push forward more so int he physical areana for now.

  28. If I were CEO of Disney ... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

    Anne? Charlie? Brian? Diane? Martin? Cynthia? Terry? Bob here. Good of you to join me for this quick, impromptu teleconference. I wanted to encourage you to do one investigative report on WalMart's employment and business practices EVERY DAY. That's right, every single day. For how long? Until the effers go under, that's how long! Eff with a media outlet will they . . .

  29. Better news links by PsychosisC · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm sorry... but this article is drivel. I mean, this is bad for slashdot. It's a month old story, from a joke of a newspaper source.

    This is a bit of an old story... CNN.com allready has a story about how Wal-Mart is looking into opening its own movie downloads. It makes sense, seeing as they allready have a working music download service.

    The article posted is a bit... Let's just say that the Businesweek article covering this has a much less "Wal-Mart is EEEEVIL" ring to it. I know it feels good to pat yourself on the back with the Coorporate hate feelings, but this NY Post article has a pretty blatant and nasty slant that shouldn't have make it to the slashdot front page.

    1. Re:Better news links by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      True enough... but I wouldn't call Wal-Mart's music download service "working".... more like "existing". ;)

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    2. Re:Better news links by qzulla · · Score: 1
      From the CNN article:

      The retailer is still apparently debating price models. One option Wal-Mart is considering is a free digital download of the movie along with a purchase of the DVD version at a Wal-Mart store. Another option is letting customers purchase a download of the movie for a few extra dollars when they buy the DVD version at the store.

      Maybe I am missing something here but if you own the DVD why download a copy? Most computers have DVD players. Just shove it in and watch. And you just know the download version will have DRM.

      qz

  30. My kingdom... by rah1420 · · Score: 0

    ...for a mod point.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
  31. hey, fine, Wail-Mart, don't sell movies then. by swschrad · · Score: 1

    losers.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  32. That was a lesson by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1
    in bad business blunders.

    Apparently those 2-3 percent didn't help them in Germany.

    For such a large and apparently savvy company they did everything wrong, according to The Economist. For starters: They instated a country manager, who couldn't speak a word German and insisted that all communication is in English.

    While it's true that the corporate language of major companies from the German speaking world (Deutsche Post - DHL, UBS, Zurich Financial Services, etc) is English and for good reasons too, it's a bad idea to cowboy your way in and allienate just about everybody. Especially in retail, which traditionally has a lot of regional idiosyncrcies.

    While this may go through in Switzerland, which is more internationally oriented, this is a bad mistake in Germany, and bloody arrogant to boot.

    Then again, Walmart was never famous for modesty. Now they payed the price in Germany.

    --
    ich bin der musikant

    mit taschenrechner in der hand

    kraftwerk

    1. Re:That was a lesson by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      That and they tried to take on the super/hypermarkets and discounters at the same time. Aldi is just plain cheaper. From what I've heard (never been to a Walmart beyond a quick peek into the games section) they tried to sell mostly imported American goods which not only have the perception of low quality (since when is "Made in America" a seal of quality?) but also zero advertising presence.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    2. Re:That was a lesson by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      Walmart seems to be doing pretty well against Aldi in America. ;) BTW, never buy a television from Aldi. It was some weird German brand that stopped working right rather quickly and works with no universal remote controls.

    3. Re:That was a lesson by demondawn · · Score: 1

      In the U.S., of course. Americans tend to think their products superior to anything else.

  33. admission of monopolistic practices by oohshiny · · Score: 2, Insightful

    WalMart is threatening to hurt a competitor by reducing the amount of business they do in specific ways. This is pretty much a clear admission of monopolistic practices, because only in a monopoly situation does this sort of behavior lead to a better financial outcome.

  34. What a crock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't stand how walmart is destroying small town america, but I can't believe the idiots here that think that Walmart should keep thousands of DVD's they bought yet don't think they will sell due to less demand. It's not like Walmart said, hey you sell to those on itunes, we won't sell any of your stuff. They just sent back their overstock.

  35. Squeezing Wall-Mart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Wal-Mart, worried that offering the shows for viewing on iPods would cut into DVD sales at its stores, sent 'cases and cases' of DVDs back to Disney, according to a source familiar with the matter."

    Perhaps Disney should have played 'hardball" and supplied those "cases and cases" to competing stores near Wall-Marts, under the condition that they sell them at steeply discounted prices and with heavy advertising as loss leaders, particularly around Christmas.

    Wall-Mart wouldn't be in such a dither over this if the Internet didn't offer some serious competition to their particular marketing channel, so that should be a clue to Hollywood that they can use iTunes to squeeze back.

    And if everyone in Hollywood ends up having to accept lower prices, so much the better. It'd be payday for circa 1998, when Hollywood bought an absurd 20-year extention of copyright from Congress. Those movie monguls want to get rich off the creativity and labor of people who're long dead. A cut in their more-than-ample paychecks would seem to be in order.

  36. Is the Vitriol added? by Marc_Hawke · · Score: 2, Informative

    Are you sure they're 'threatening?' Are you sure they are trying to 'use their muscle.' Are you sure they aren't just reading the market?

    If I was a retailer and I saw 'supply' magically expanded at a HUGE rate while demand stayed mostly the same, I would want to get rid of some of my inventory quick. If I had the option of giving it back to someone else I'd do that. I might be a little angry at the lost revenue, but it doesn't mean I'm using dirty tactics or, 'trying to send a message.' I'm just evaluating the market and adjusting supplies.

    Saying "Selling movies online will cut into DVD sales" is like saying, "If you open another McDonalds across the street, the existing McDonalds won't have as much business." That's not a threat.

    They could have put a little heat on it. "Excuse me, we had a deal, you sent me this amount of product under false pretenses." That still seems complete reasonable, rational, and not in the least bit 'monopolistic' or 'threatening.'

    After reading the article, I'm even more sure that Wal-mart wasn't trying to force them into anything. It was just letting them know that demand for DVD's would drop if they started selling music online. It sounds like Wal-Mart is thinking clearly, and Hollywood is wanting their cake and to eat it to.

    --
    --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
    1. Re:Is the Vitriol added? by popsicle67 · · Score: 1

      That is exactly it. Trying to maximize distribution is starting to soften the market which means we either need to get to work and make more customers or the distributors need to be less greedy and quit saturating the market.

  37. The reason why nearly everything comes from China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is because we've shrunk our manufacturing base to rock bottom.

    It certainly has nothing to do with not being able to compete at the cheap end because of labour costs (as it used to), because automated robot plants can produce things even cheaper for the huge global market than the old Chinese sweat shops. And anyway Chinese products have been encroaching at the mid and high end end for some years now too.

    But notice that we have enormous numbers of lawyers, because despite producing no actual wealth, they still produce profit parasitically from the effort of others. And that is perfectly adequate in the profit-motivated nation that we are.

    So get used to seeing the label "MADE IN CHINA".

  38. Compare to Costco by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Costco's also cheap but pays their workers enough for some measure of dignity.

  39. In this case by sensei+moreh · · Score: 2, Funny

    the enemy of my enemy is my enemy

    --
    Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
  40. The battle has started for Middle Earth by Sassinak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems that everyone has it in for apple. From the people on the street that say "Don't go ipod, buy something else" (ummm.. no one is making a public move relating to windows on that.. and there are FAR more windows users than podHeads).

    To the music business that keeps wanting to raise prices because they feel they are not getting "enough" money.. (dispite the fact that they actually save money from the elimination of the distribution/packaging/shipping/retail costs.. but oh well, sure, they need another solid gold toilet)

    To the movie business (ditto above, except its a solid gold dildo)

    And now walmart is scared because someone might out-price them. Forgetting the simple fact that a sizable chunk of the people that shop in walmart are not heavy on-line purchasers (for other goods and services) so they loose a little money in one department but make it up in another. (it would be better for them to partner with apple, like they do now with the itunes credits) and clip a little off the top for those impulse purchases, than whine that we are not making enough money because the big bad apple (funny huh?) is taking our lunch money.

    Give me a break wal-mart, so you lost a little ground in a particular market because of a different distribution channel. Big Whoop.

    Its been that way all throughout history. (the milkman lost his job because of the grocery store, the news paper boy lost his job because of mailing lists, the indie bands lost their money because of the RIAA, etc...)

    --
    God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
  41. Re:The reason why nearly everything comes from Chi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad that it IS all about labor costs. I find it funny that so many people are naive enough to make the argument that "robot plants can make products so much faster and cheaper"... and forget that automated production plants are a) extemely expensive and b) extremely expensive. Plus maintenance costs, programming costs, etc. Automation is not the cake walk 21st century society would love you to think it is, why do you think it's rarely used and if it is, it's used by major manufacturers with HUGE economies of scale. Robots are only efficient when the average variable and fixed costs are very, very low (ie, at very high level of production). My point is that labor is WAY cheaper, especially in China, where the supply of labor dwarfs the demand for labor, so labor stays very cheap. This is why, unfortunately, China will double, at the least, U.S. GDP within 50 years.

  42. Hey, It's *Walmart* by fm6 · · Score: 1

    Very true. However, Walmart is a special case because of their unprecedented ability to influence the marketplace — and their extreme lack of social ethics.

    1. Re:Hey, It's *Walmart* by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Lack of social ethics? I could have sworn that they're part of the moralistic crusade to kill music with cuss words in it. Oh wait, you're talking about actual ethics and not moralistic bullshit.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    2. Re:Hey, It's *Walmart* by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Walmart's crusade against cusswords has nothing to do with moralism. It's a business decision, like everything they do.

  43. Welcome to the First Battle... by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...of the Age of The Replicator.

    Today, I can download a perfect image of a DVD. I can burn it to a blank DVD that will work in my DVD player, just like the storebought version.

    I can also take that DVD, and, if I have the right printer, print a full color "label" right onto it, just like the storebought version.

    I can also download the keepcase cover insert and print that as well, so that the keepcase from the stack of empty AOL CD keepcases in my closet will look just like the storebought version.

    Tomorrow, I will be able to legally download the DVD, the DVD "Label" and the DVD case cover insert and make my own DVD with case, with the blessings of the movie studio. (They're taking the halting baby steps already, via iTunes. They'll eventually see that there's money to be made by letting the consumer do all the work of making the DVD.)

    Essentially, I have a replicator that takes data and makes a product in my home at my demand. A DVD in a keepcase.

    While I don't think I'll live to see a "Transmetropolitan"-esque 'maker' in every home, it IS coming. I regret that I won't be around to hear the howls of outrage from WalMart over that leap of technology.

    I won't regret, however, the societal upheaval that will occur when anyone can have anything, as long as they pay the power bill and can keep the source matter bin full.

    Oh, and the lawsuits over cracking the DRM for the makers will be hysterically entertaining. I'll miss following them, as well.

    Seriously, though. Who neds Gap, Old Navy, Victoria's Secret, Bananna Republic or Levi as a physical place to go and buy something, when you can download the maker source code for a fee, tweak that code for yourself for size and color, and push a button to have that garment drop down the chute 30 minutes later?

    Go to Apple.com, pay a fee, get the source for the new iPod, and there it is the next day, courtesy of your home maker.

    What need have you for the Apple Store? And what need has Apple for factories in China?

    Yeah, the world economy is going to get very sporty for a while once the maker is perfected.

    And if it can make anything, why, I can have ALL THE HEROIN AND POT AND E that I want!

    I can have all the prescription medicines I want!

    I can have all the Coca-Cola I want!

    Imagine THAT table full of lawyers. The PRC, The Taliban and Colombian govts (Opium and Cocaine), EVERY pharm hypercorps, and Coca-Cola, INC.

    All trying to maintain their monopolies over atoms and molecules that have been stitched together in a particular manner and that, by tradition, belong to them and them alone.

    Good luck, guys. You'll need it.

    --
    Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    1. Re:Welcome to the First Battle... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Why the hell would you bother making a physical DVD copy of your purchased movies? It's data. If you want a backup copy of your data, then back up all of your data on a regular basis (you should do this already). The reason that music and movies are sold as physical objects is because, until now, you got higher bandwidth shipping the data on read-only disks on trucks than you could by actually downloading the data. The problem with this model is that you have to produce billions of plastic disks, consuming unrenewable natural resources and cluttering up people's homes. Now that we have an alternative to that--i.e. downloading the data directly--why on earth would we turn around and use that ability to produce our own obsolete 20th-century products at home?

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    2. Re:Welcome to the First Battle... by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      It's an analogy. There is ALWAYS someone who thinks that the parable really IS ALL ABOUT sheep.

      Everyone knows what a DVD is, what it looks like and what the packaging is.

      The point I was making is that were are on the brink of an economic transistion where the brick and mortar establishment will be rendered obsolete.

      Yes, I can indeed, rip all my DVDs to DivX and keep them on a computer and network the TV to the computer.

      Now, try and grasp this concept (I'll use words of one syllable.):

      I.Don't.Want.To.Do.That.

      I prefer the DVD as physical entity, not as a data stream.

      I know, I know. You cannot wrap your 31337 mind around that, can you.

      Such is life. I'll try and cope with your disdain for my old fashioned ways.

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    3. Re:Welcome to the First Battle... by hacker · · Score: 1
      The problem with this model is that you have to produce billions of plastic disks, consuming unrenewable natural resources and cluttering up people's homes.

      You're still consuming unrenewable resources by storing that data as bits and bytes on electronic and rotating storage medium. Where do you think the power comes from that powers the computers and the hard drives and the DSL/Cable/whatever modems, routers and switches that delivered it to you?

      That's right... coal and natural gas. Unrenewable, natural resources.

      This is the same argument that using battery-powered cars and electric cars are more efficient than using petroleum-based fuels. They're not. Just because you're "recharging" at the pump less, doesn't mean it costs less. You're just transferring costs from the local station the regional power grid... who uses petroleum, natural gas and coal to deliver that power to the "recharging" station.

      We still aren't solving the problem.

    4. Re:Welcome to the First Battle... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      If you use one metallic rotating disk drive instead of multiple plastic rotating disks, you're using more recyclable and renewable materials (metal vs. plastic) and fewer materials total. If I have multiple, compressed, DVD quality movies on a 500GB or 1TB external drive, I'm wasting far fewer resources than someone with that quantity of DVD's. And since DVD drives *also* require electricity, it's not like keeping the data on a drive is more wasteful. I'm not even going to discuss the energy difference between downloading and shipping discs on trucks. Furthermore, the more that energy generation is centralized, the easier it will be to replace those methods of generation with cleaner methods.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  44. Yeah, like my Cheerios are made in China by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    I know its fashionably correct on /. to bash Wal-Mart. Actually it seems the domain of sites like this to bash any big company. Microsoft, Starbucks, Wal-Mart, Amazaon, and now even Valve. I guess once you become successful you no longer to be lauded but instead picked on for any little thing that can be found. Better yet throw in buzzwords, hearsay, parrot what others say, and you can score big on /.

    Yeah, as my subject line reads, my Cheerios must be from China too. Whats next? Claim that Wal-Mart put all the mom & pop grocery stores out of business? Sorry, I don't buy that line. I love Wal-Mart superstores. Why? Because they cut my grocery bills from 20-40% depending on what I am buying. Kroger, Publix, Ingles, and the rest can go to hell. I have seen the identical item a third less at Wal-Mart. Who are you going to claim they are exploiting by selling Cereal for less? What about orange juice and milk?

    Wal-Mart leverages scale to bring prices down. They don't cater to the snobbish high end crowd with their general goods. The provides goods to people who don't have the luxury of wasting money at a coffee shop, buying PCs, and the latest hybrid-car. The grocery side is a whole 'nuther business as they sell exactly what I can buy elsewhere from the big chain supermarkets, just for a lot less.

    If Wal-Mart can keep the prices of DVDs and similar down then by all means I hope they do. The first key to having money is not wasting it. If you want to pay 17-24 per DVD just so you don't have to buy it at Wal-Mart then by all means do so. I will buy it and take that extra money and use it where I want it, not just give it to ANOTHER corporate interest.

    Wal-Mart isn't perfect but neither is any other retailer. Go find retailers that market American made items exclusively... I can go to Sears, Penny's, Macys, and other big chains and find items made in China as well. Why not bash them for doing what you bash Wal-Mart for?

    Better yet, why not jump on the governments that deal with China as well? USA, Canada, and members of the EU all treat China with kid gloves. Yet who is held more accountable? A business? I mean, get real. Who could have a bigger influence? The world caved and gave China the 2008 Olympics. Before we start bashing a business for dealing with China maybe we should look towards our own governments and ask why its okay for them to ignore all these issues and its not okay for a business.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Yeah, like my Cheerios are made in China by hacker · · Score: 1

      Let's go with your flawed theory for a moment here...

      Yeah, as my subject line reads, my Cheerios must be from China too. Whats next? Claim that Wal-Mart put all the mom & pop grocery stores out of business? Sorry, I don't buy that line. I love Wal-Mart superstores. Why? Because they cut my grocery bills from 20-40% depending on what I am buying. Kroger, Publix, Ingles, and the rest can go to hell. I have seen the identical item a third less at Wal-Mart. Who are you going to claim they are exploiting by selling Cereal for less? What about orange juice and milk?

      Let's say your mother worked at one of those mom-n-pop stores, which was forced to close down, because everyone started getting their groceries and tire changes at the Wal*Mart down the block. Now your mother is out of work, and Wal*Mart is already full-staffed with their Latino and Mexican and other employees. No jobs open for her and the other 500 people in town that Wal*Mart displaced.

      Now who buys your Cheerios, at 1/3 of the price she was used to getting them at? Oh sure, she might get that job at Wal*Mart, but she'll also be making 1/3 less, because Wal*Mart can't afford to pay her what they're paying their other high-school graduate staff. Will you be able to afford those 1/3 off Cheerios (and other necessities such as soap, toothpaste, toilet paper and so on) when she's making 1/2 of what she used to? Will you have to work at Wal*Mart too, just so you can maintain the same standard of living that you did before they moved into town?

      Let's try another analogy: When Wal*Mart is driving down prices, the non-local customers will benefit from the price drops, but what about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that Wal*Mart just erased, by opening up shop in town? Where do those people find new jobs?

      This is where the system doesn't work. Sure, this forces everyone to be more frugal, work harder for less. But what if they dropped their prices by 90%, and were the ONLY place to get certain products? What now? Work for free?

      I agree that here in the US of A, many people are fat and lazy and used to their 3 cars and $500k/year incomes, but for those of us already struggling making $50k to $60k and STILL just a sliver above the poverty level, it doesn't work. When the system costs 30% more than what they're willing to pay their citizens for, what do you do?

      We can't afford to live and thrive, because they can't pay us enough to just meet the minimal standard of living.

      They can't afford to pay us enough to just survive, because the jobs are moving overseas and to other countries.

      We can't find jobs, because there are no jobs left, and the cost of living is steadily rising.

      So seriously, what do you do? What is your "Cheaper Cheerios" answer? How do I feed my family and provide for my infant daughter?

  45. "Made with pride" was a joke by sgent · · Score: 4, Informative
    my father was a supplier (actually negotiated the contracts) to Sam's Club & Walmart during that time period.

    Wal-Mart's made with pride campaign meant that if your product was the exact same price or cheaper than the Chinese or Mexican product, it would be carried. One penny more and it was out.

    Wal-Mart was forced to discontinue the campaign after a slew of state AG's sued them for misleading advertising.

  46. Walmart, I have one word for you: by kimvette · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Competition.

    You got where you are by competing and undercutting everyone else, even going to extents such as forcing your suppliers to fire Americans and offshore manufacturing, forcing them in cases to decrease product quality and/or create "budget" models to meet your pricing strategy, and you've pretty much driven other big-box discount stores out of business.

    Now you get miffed when not only are you getting undercut, but you're being undercut by an honest player who isn't bullying the suppliers to the extent that you do?

    Competition. You got where you are through competition, and now that Apple is beating you at the movie game and Target is rabidly nipping at your heels by offering similar pricing and better quality, you're crying wolf? WTF?

    Competition. Sucks for you, but it's good for us.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:Walmart, I have one word for you: by mactari · · Score: 1

      Wal-Mart's not crying; they're competing. Predatory? Perhaps. Legal? I have no idea. Imagine debatably so.

      Want more? Frontline has a pretty good episode on how they treat their suppliers. Almost reassuring to know Disney doesn't get special treatment.

      Wal-Mart's not crying wolf, they're playing the game like one.

      --

      It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
  47. One thing I don't Get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Wal-Mart has it in for Apple so bad, why does the Walmart SuperCenter up the street from my apartment sell
    iPods? I suppose this could be another case of Right and and Left Hand politcs in the corporate top level... but still if Apple is such a competator to Wal-Mart then they should not carry those iPods.

    Not that it matters to me though, I have a Creative Zen V mp3 player =D

  48. Re:Egads!! - what is itunes by klubar · · Score: 1

    I think the same comment could be made about iTunes. What is iTunes other than another distribution channel? Itunes doesn't create any content, they just repackage it in a faster (but somewhat less valuable format). There's no real innovation in itunes ... any more than there is in a highly efficient distribution channel. It's just that itunes is a bright and shinny object... where a distribution channel is kind of gritty and back room.

  49. Force to buy...No. Force not to sell...YES! by jscotta44 · · Score: 1

    You are correct. No one forces anyone to purchase product from WalMart. However, actions like what WalMart is doing to the video suppliers is an attempt to force suppliers to sell to no one but them. If a better model does come up, rather than work out agreements, they throw a temper tantrum to try to force the new model to go away.

    Too bad for WalMart, the tactic rarely seems to work.

    1. Re:Force to buy...No. Force not to sell...YES! by WebCrapper · · Score: 1

      I agree, I don't think it will work either. If I remember right, Lowes or Home Depot tried the same thing back in 2003/2004 with their suppliers and most of them are doing ecommerce right now as well.

  50. Dollar General?!? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

    Maybe you have different Dollar General stores where ever you are, but here in IL they cannot compete with Walmart, only other stores with "Dollar" in their name. Walmart is higher quality ( surprising to say that), more selection, more convieniet( open 24-7), and alo gives their employees benifits. I don't see how they could compete, much less slash the throat of a giant like walmart.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  51. Good idea by aztektum · · Score: 1

    Hey Wal*Mart, why don't you ship back everything you put in your stores to boycott someone stealing your sales! Because a shit load of empty stores will certainly help you sell more product!

    I know Wal*Mart probably sells 9 of 10 DVDs and CDs sold in the US, but whenever the entertainment industry realizes that in reality THEY'RE the ones that can make demands of Wal*Mart once they embrace digital downloads, I don't think Disney will be getting case loads of anything back.

    At some point I'm sure most entertainment will be all digital, music, movies, even books and magazines will probably end up being nothing but 1's and 0's. Then Wal*Mart will be back to shoveling crappy trinkets and C-List celebrity clothing lines.

    If they weren't busy being stupid, they'd launch Wal*Mart Online Store and sell downloads. But no using time and money to pitch a fit is way more profitable.

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
  52. Earth to Walmart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of pissing and moaning, how about you offer your own movie download service?

  53. Hah! Wal-mart.. by Khyber · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is the same company that has the "integrity" to take a guitar, and where it flat-out says on the box "Suggested Retail Price $99" and mark it up to $129. They have no reason to bitch about other companies beating their "low prices" when they can't even hide the fact they're over-charging you. Fuck Wal-Mart and anyone associated with them.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  54. Of course Wal-Mart is evil, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...if Wal-Mart started being less evil, then other large retailers would become more evil to take up the slack.

    I would like to recommend the fine book "What's the Matter With Kansas?" which talks about how many Republicans long for an idealized prior image of American, and yet ironically it has been largely the Republican / big business agenda that has been slowly destroying that.

    - TWR

  55. What a lame... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    retort. You claimed his logic is flawed. You also claimed he was rude and insulting. You then failed to elaborate on his illogic, and proceded to be rude and inconsiderate. Words like poser and hypocrite come to mind, but I'll settle on lame. Your response was lame.

  56. Thanks for the info.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    zealot.

  57. Undercut? by msimm · · Score: 1

    Retards. Their comparing apples to oranges and crying like a baby about it. DRM'ed digital downloads that art tied to your computer, at least for now, can not be taken as a serious competitor to the bagged and boxed market. This sounds more like a case of the stupid, oversized bully over reacting to something his pea-brain can't fully take in. Who should be concerned is the video rental martket. They are the one's that are being circumvented.

    If I want to OWN something. As in be able to watch it. Lend it to a friend. Take it with me when I move. Etc. I go online to Amazon or drive down to Wallmart. If I want to WATCH something, like Battlestar Galactica before its available or without having to trundle accross the street (sure, when I'm sick I can be lazy) I iTunes something. Do I consider those Battlestar episodes something *I* really own? No, Apple *owns* them. They are just letting them reside on my computer.

    So Wallmart can get all pissed off if it wants, but for now, they are seriously barking up the wrong tree. Apple is selling Music. Music I can burn to CD. Music I then don't/won't buy from Wallmart, Amazon or any other retailer. But they are lending me their videos.

    --
    Quack, quack.
  58. nonsense by zogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every economic indicator shows that globalism and offshoring has hurt the economy. The proof is in the stats, and we have many years to look at now. And they even have to keep fudging them to make it look better than what it really is, I mean really, having to call burger flipping *manufacturing*? c'mon! that's a clue. We are now the largest debtor nation when before the largest creditor nation. that's a clue. The dollar keeps dropping in international value. that's a clue. We have a huge rate of bankruptcy and people staring at losing their pensions.that's a clue. Largest trade deficit ever and growing, sets new records about every quarter. That's a clue. The numbers of people with better paying jobs with benefits keeps dropping, not rising. That's a clue. Savings rates are the worst for more than a full generation. That's a clue. Ya, it started back then, and a lot of us "back then" warned that this is exactly what would happen, and it has. And that's because some of us really *had a clue*. "Back then" I warned folks-anyone who would listen-that the combination of crap built and being too greedy would bork the auto industry (I was in the UAW then). I got laughed at, ridiculed, got told in person and by proxie in print from all the "economic experts" that "it will never happen, no one will buy them cheap little cars". They were wrong, I was right. Yes, it started back then, listening to the coke addled and drunk economic experts and following the captains of industry advice as a nation. Rubbish, and it was *clear* to see, abundantly clear to anyone who can think more than two steps ahead or some years ahead and run some common sense extrapolation scenarios.. Both management and labor needed several good bashes with the clue stick back then, but they kept dodging, about the only thing they are good at.

    You make money by manufacturing wealth, and having it be good quality and fair priced, not over priced ridiculous stupid crap or the cheapest possibly falling apart crap. Wealth is grown, mined, manufactured or a combination of that, everything else is wealth re arrangement or wealth service.

    We have swapped making wealth to trying to just manage it and service it. Nuts! Insanity! It will not work for the long run. It can for the short run,then you'll see it starting to crumble in the medium run (now, today) and it will eventually collapse in the long run. They can run their printing presses all they want, it won't matter. It's been tried before, it doesn't matter.

    We have forgotten the middle ground, the middle ground which at one time had the strongest middle class with real wealth ownership in the world, now we have the largest class of debtors ever. Only took one generation to pull that off. BUT, we sure do have a lot more billionaires now! Damn funny how that worked out....

    Yep, you can show a ton of paper profit by being a tradesman and selling off your tools friday night,and getting a loan on your work truck and handing over the keys and parking it at the lot, but come monday morning you are going to be hurting. Sure, you'll seem "rich" over the weekend,you can go out and buy all sortsa stuff with that flush cash, but it won't last.

    That's all we have been doing for a long time now and they are running out of options, and I don't care how much the goons at the Fed try to tweak things, eventually we won't have a dang thing that other folks want and then they'll even stop buying up your grandkids debt. Aren't you just a teeny bit ashamed that little babies not even born yet will be born into debt? Just a little?

    And walmartization is a big part of it. When they first started, and I remember it clearly as well, it was buy american there, keep you and your neighbor working, and it was fine. then..well, he passed on and now it is FU america, we are gonna milk this baby out and retire multibillionaires and go pound sand. sure, they got cheap crap now, and people with some money to buy it, but it won't last. It just can't

  59. Torn by hpcanswers · · Score: 1

    As a /. reader, I don't know how I'm supposed to feel about all of this. I mean, it's Wal-Mart vs. the movie studios. That's like taking sides in a battle between Microsoft and SCO.

  60. DON'T MOD GP DOWN by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

    I was talking about Wendy's. I was saying that Wendy's uses microwaves, in response to the person who said Wendy's didn't. I don't know anything about In-n-Out.

    1. Re:DON'T MOD GP DOWN by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      That might explain the problems thier having locally.
      When I worked for Wendy's in the early 90's they MEANT old fashioned in the worst way sometimes.
          I can still remember pulling everyone's time-card (yes, mechanically stamped time cards!) and calculating labor manually, manually figuring out food usuage based on LONG tape printouts from each register.
          And if you wanted to figure these out with a calculator it wouldn't be with one the company provided (though GM's usually bought a few out of pocket for a buck each or so).
          A microwave would be an odd sight in a wendy's to me. Indoor plumbing was probably only due to health regs.
        Of course the upsides were things like fresh (never frozen) meat and simular food quality requirements. Looks like after the founder passed away things changed and not all for the good.
          I believe this is also what happened to Wallmart, once Sam Walton died the company went to crap, just ask any employee who survived the transition.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    2. Re:DON'T MOD GP DOWN by grendel03 · · Score: 1

      Actually their not supposed too. Wendy's isn't supposed to even have a "real" microwave, just something for warming thawed buns. Of course many people don't like to follow the rules, I've seen the bun warmer used for various things.

  61. Wal-Mart Threatens bla bla bla by hisstory+student · · Score: 1
    Geez! Doesn't anybody RTFA?

    The studios generally charge Wal-Mart a wholesale price of $17.95 for new DVDs, while Apple is paying Disney a wholesale price of about $14.50 per film, according to a studio source.
    With that kind of shafting, I'd be pissed off too!
    As for me, I've found that the local Bi-Mart here has DVD movies for half that amount normally, and occasionally has sales on popular DVDs for like $6.99.
    Moral of the story - shop around.
    --
    Heard any good sigs lately?
  62. I hope they call Wal-Mart's bluff.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was talking to a company that supplies equipment for Wal-Mart and Target stores (e.g., the stuff that goes into building a store, not the items they sell.) Here's how a meeting with Wal-Mart went:

    Company: Hello! Wal-Mart buyer: You fucked us in June. You fucked us in July. You ain't fucking us in August.

    And this was a supplier they liked.

  63. This is globalisation in action by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Not really Walmart in particular. It has far more to do with oversupply.

    Ok so the US farmer is concerned about competing against the EU farmer for corn, he goes to his representative and demands a subsidy to make things fair, which he gets, EU farmer goes to his representative and gets a similar subsidy, both farmers are now producing corn at below the true market value. It gets worse, in order to obtain the maximum subsidy, the US and EU farmer maximise their yields of corn, in addition, seeing large subsidies, lots of other farmers begin producing corn to take advantage of subsidies. The result is huge oversupply and with that a lower and lower market value. Eventually the unwanted corn mountain is dumped on the third world as aid and decimates the agricultural markets there as well causing famine, civil war and millions of deaths.

    Walmart, as sociopathic as their organisation may or may not be has relatively little to do with the problem, they just take advantage of it. The solution to low prices for farmers is for subsidies to be removed and for a significant proportion of them to stop farming and do something else instead.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:This is globalisation in action by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      "Walmart, as sociopathic as their organisation may or may not be has relatively little to do with the problem, they just take advantage of it."

      No argument there. The only thing is that they are such a huge buyer that they can strongly influence the status quo. With their political and economic pressure, they can keep things pretty much the way they are.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  64. How to make In'n'Out burger more profitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In'n'Out Burger is highly profitable .. To me this proves that you don't have to fuck your suppliers, employees and ultimately customers left right and center in order to turn a buck.
    Wow, if they can make a profit by not fucking people, imagine how profitable they would be with a little fucking.
  65. Try and spot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..the wal-mart shills that will inevitably try and whitewash anything bad that appears under this topic.

  66. It doesn't really matter by vux984 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Walmart, unlike the RIAA/MPAA is NOT in any danger whatsoever.

    Walmart, worst case, will just stop selling movies if (when?) the 'digital download thing' takes off and surpasses retail sales. Big flipping deal. What' the real issue here? Walmart frees up a few hundred square feet in a 100,000 sq foot store which they can fill with:

    Q-tips, Toothpicks, Bathroom scales, Can-openers, Kids shoes, String, Universal Remote Controls, Watering Cans, Aspirin, Spoons, USB cable, Coca-Cola, Ker-Plunk, Pregnancy Test Kits, Bicycles, and ten billion other items that will never be delivered as digital downloads...

  67. anti-competetive anti-trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know why anyone hasn't said it, but anti-competetive moves like this, where you modify your buying habbits by who's dealing with your competition, is clearly a violation of rules that I believe are terms anti-trust rules.

  68. What shafting? by argent · · Score: 1

    With that kind of shafting, I'd be pissed off too!

    What shafting?

    Walmart is getting a physical object that the studios have to package for DVD, produce, warehouse, distribute, and take back if defective. Walmart is getting extra content specially produced for DVD sales. Walmart is getting free standups and other advertising material.

    Apple is getting a right-to-copy, they're taking on the costs of format conversion and QC, and they're not getting any extra content or marketing support.

    I don't know whether $3.50 is a good or bad price for all that extra material, but I'm sure that if Walmart wants to take on the production, marketing, and distribution they'll be welcome to a cut rate.

    1. Re:What shafting? by hisstory+student · · Score: 1

      Well, as far as I'm concerned, both "wholesale" prices are waaaay overpriced.

      --
      Heard any good sigs lately?
  69. Rubbermaid by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A few years ago Walmart forced Rubbermaid to close down US plants and begin manufacturing overseas. Now this wasn't because people were not buying Rubbermaid goods. They did this at a time when Rubbermaid was extremely profitable and people were more then willing to buy their products as priced.

    However, Rubbermaid became reliant on Walmart for distribution, and Walmart wanted cheeper supply. At first Rubbermaid wouldn't fold, but then Walmart stopped carrying Rubbermaid products. By doing that Walmart almost crushed an incredibly successful company. Rubbermaid has since outsource manufacturing and, as I recall, now have products back in Walmart stores.

    Among other things, they've done also done this with "tipper stickers" and "clean" CDs.

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    1. Re:Rubbermaid by dthree · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because of walmart throwing a tantrum at rubbermaid and refusing to accept a price increase due to the cost increase of raw materials, Rubbermaid had to close factories, fire people and eventually was bought out by the Newell corp or risk chapter 11.

      Here is a bit more detail:
      http://www.sprawl-busters.com/search.php?readstory =646

      Newell tried to keep the company afloat, but walmart continued to turn the screws on them, forcing more factory closings, more layoffs, and like you mentioned, manufacturing outsourcing.

      --
      "I forgot my mantra."
  70. so many ERRORS, so little bandwidth... by Travoltus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Huh? Companies were moving production overseas decades before Wal-Mart became popular. They would keep doing that even if Wal-Mart died overnight. Blaming off-shoring of manufacturing on Wal-Mart is like blaming off-shoring of technical jobs on Fry's. It's quite possibly the silliest logic I've ever heard.

    -1, reading comprehension problem.

    No one was blaming the off-shoring of manufacturing on Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is blamed for grossly accelerating it. There's a major difference there.

    It's a terrible idea. Most of those local stores are already thoroughly screwed by availability of products on the internet. So now in ten years when they find themselves unable to survive (Ace Hardware and K-Mart in Santa Cruz, anyone?) even without Wal-Mart, those towns will find themselves without any way to buy the things they need to survive and will have to drive large distances to buy basic products.

    -1, worst example EVER

    Wait, people are going to pay shipping and wait x days to purchase a drill & batteries online (which they may need today) instead of going to Ace Hardware/Home Depot/Lowe's? Exactly what planet is this version of Santa Cruz located on?

    Further, lower prices are better for everyone in the long term. All the knee-jerkers say "Oh, look at all the stores that will close" and forget that Wal-Mart brings consolidated shopping, which causes stores to be able to survive that otherwise could not. It brings down prices of groceries and gasoline dramatically. It brings down the overall cost of living dramatically.

    -1, tunnel vision

    It also brings down the wages, too. And cheaper gasoline & groceries mean nothing when you're out of a job because your store closed down. Also, Mom & Pop music stores had employees who knew their product; ever asked a Wal Mart employee where the industrial rock/pop/hip hop/country/etc. section is, or who's the new up&coming artist in that genre? Try it sometime.

    Also, consolidated shopping is even more fun for superior products that Wal Mart decides they don't want to carry. So instead of you getting your favorite brand that you want, now you're railroaded into buying whatever Wal Mart dictates is okay to sell, because no one else is around to compete and sell other brands. So much for consumer choice there.

    Also, so much for employee choice. The old adage, "if you don't like the working conditions here, QUIT!!! and find another job" doesn't work as well in a city with a Wal Mart store. By the time they're done, there's not many other places to work, except Burger King.

    Oh, and Wal Mart stores are also known to close down from time to time; leaving an entire town without a department store at all. You want to talk about driving times?

    And another thing: Wal Mart is also known for refusing to sell some artists' music because it's "objectionable". Where do you go to get those artists, then? Cue this article. Now, Wal Mart wants to cut out your online alternatives to preserve their outdated business model. And the consumer gets hurt if Wally World gets their way.

    And small stores can survive and even thrive with Wal-Mart because of the proximity effect. Stores physically close to Wal-Mart actually get more business after Wal-Mart moves in. Stores do, however, have to specialize and carry the stuff that Wal-Mart doesn't.

    -1, Theory conflicts with reality

    Yes, but few stores can survive just on selling the things that Wal Mart doesn't. Wal Mart's strategy is to sell the lowest common denominator products at the lowest common denominator prices, to maximize foot traffic (and sales). There simply isn't enough profit to sell other products to uphold a store.

    Yeah, yeah, I know what you're thinking... if there isn't enough profit to uphold a store selling product B, C and D, then product B, C and D don't deserve to exist. That's the worst lo

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    1. Re:so many ERRORS, so little bandwidth... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      The Ace/K-Mart example was a great example. Those are two stores that WENT OUT OF BUSINESS ALREADY because they couldn't compete. What were they competing with? NOTHING! There wasn't a competing hardware store that I can find, and there isn't a single discount store other than a K-Mart fifteen minutes away!

      Yes, but few stores can survive just on selling the things that Wal Mart doesn't. Wal Mart's strategy is to sell the lowest common denominator products at the lowest common denominator prices, to maximize foot traffic (and sales). There simply isn't enough profit to sell other products to uphold a store.

      Maybe in your reality. I lived for 22 years in an area where Wal-Mart was in every town. I can't think of any stores that closed because of Wal-Mart (except Fred's and K-Mart, both of which are comparable big-box discount stores). The stores that I've watched close have clsoed for one of two reasons: A. the owners retired, B. the store opened after Wal-Mart entered the area, found the market was too small, and died off. These aren't established local stores. Those rarely close because of Wal-Mart.

      Having a surviving Target store in the area, on the other hand, means Wal Mart has to compete, and if they only want to sell ubercheap DVD players that die in 2 weeks, Target has better ones to sell, and they have the muscle and bone to survive the hits from Wal Mart. But make no mistake, if Wal Mart could force Target out of business, they would; just like they are trying, right now with studios doing business with iTunes.

      Guess what? Target sells the same crappy imported junk electronics that Wal-Mart and everybody else does. The only difference is that Wal-Mart does direct importing and sells the goods under a house brand, while many of the other companies like Target pay importers who stamp it with the importers' brands. You'd be amazed how many names some of those junk players go under (for exactly the same hardware, built at the same plant).

      Case in point: the cheapest TV set I ever saw was $15. It was not at a Wal-Mart. It was at a CVS pharmacy. Wal-Mart isn't the only company selling cheap junk. :-)

      Allow me to dumb it down: go visit a city with a Wal Mart and ask yourself why so many stores closed down right afterwards, and why so few new ones came up, and then ask yourself where are all the newly unemployed people going to work, since Wal Mart typically closes down 5000 jobs in a city, in exchange for about 500-1000?

      Um... No. Studies show that Wal-Mart has no statistically significant effect on the number of retail jobs in an area, though at least two studies have shown very slight (but again, statistically insignificant) retail job GROWTH as a result of Wal-Mart moving into an area.

      In fact, your numbers are so wrong, they're laughable. The average place where Wal-Mart moves into doesn't even HAVE 5000 jobs TOTAL. Your incorrect statistics are starting to make me laugh out loud.

      Did you know that wherever Wal Mart opens up shop, the taxpayers wind up picking up the extra burden of many of their workers' health care costs?

      Did you know that five out of every six Wal-Mart employees have health insurance? That's better than almost ANY non-unionized retail sector employer. It is better than K-Mart and Target. Get your facts straight.

      Our health care system would be better off if these Wal Mart workers just accepted their lot and dropped dead instead of trying to get medicaid when they can't afford cancer treatment or antibiotics for a bacterial infection on a Wal Mart salary.

      Funny that you should mention that. Wal-Mart just announced a plan to reduce prices from 20-90% on various generic prescription drugs.

      Reality: Wal-Mart is not evil. The people who try to scare people into chasing Wal-Mart out to protect the price-gouging of major supermarket chains are evil. Don't fall for it. Do the research and get the facts for yourself.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:so many ERRORS, so little bandwidth... by The_Honkey · · Score: 1

      You're right, taxpayers shoudn't have to pay for health care costs! I also think the GP was right about using zoning regulations against Wal Mart. The government seems to be a bad vehicle for effecting change on the private market in this instance. You should tell your story more loudly and hopefully people will shop at Target instead.

      --
      I am what I am and thats what I am -Popeye
    3. Re:so many ERRORS, so little bandwidth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Allow me to dumb it down: go visit a city with a Wal Mart and ask yourself why so many stores closed down right afterwards, and why so few new ones came up, and then ask yourself where are all the newly unemployed people going to work, since Wal Mart typically closes down 5000 jobs in a city, in exchange for about 500-1000?

      Um... No. Studies show [maine.edu] that Wal-Mart has no statistically significant effect on the number of retail jobs in an area, though at least two studies have shown very slight (but again, statistically insignificant) retail job GROWTH as a result of Wal-Mart moving into an area.

      Um... You've just confirmed what he said. I'll give you an example so you can understand it. You have a town with a total of 500 retail jobs. WalMart moves in, and a year later, you've got a town with a total of 505 retail jobs. The local WalMart has 50 employees. What you've got is 5 new jobs and 45 people who used to work somewhere else that isn't in business any more. The average mom & pop store has on the order of 5-10 employees, so those 45 people represent somewhere between 5 and 9 local stores that are no longer in business. The local economy has taken a hit. There are a few towns out there where WalMart moved in, and the number of retail jobs went from 500 to 300, with WalMart providing 50 of them. That means the town *lost* half of its stores because they can't compete with WalMart's pricing without going out of business. I watched it happen to the town where my wife lived when she went to college. WalMart moved in, and the local florist (a family-owned business that had been there for nearly 90 years), the local electronics store (another family-owned business), and several others went under because WalMart's prices were below what it cost *them* to buy from their distributers (in some cases, the same distributers that WalMart was buying from). I also watched a local distributor go under because most of the stores they sold to went under, and WalMart didn't need them. The lucky 50 who ended up working for WalMart were making 2/3 to 3/4 what they used to. I know one couple who lost their house.

      It's not because WalMart is evil, or does illegal things. It's because WalMart (like most American companies today) is so focused on achieving short-term profit that they don't pay attention to anything else. Often times, the short-term 'great' leads to long-term bad, where aiming for 'good' in the short-term leads to long-term 'better'.

      Wonder why Japanese auto companies have been handing US auto companies their shirts? The Japanese have 1-year, 5-year, 10-year, and 20-year plans. The US companies have 1-year, 3-year, and (sometimes) 5-year plans. Anything past that is too far away to care about.

    4. Re:so many ERRORS, so little bandwidth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, taxpayers shoudn't have to pay for health care costs!

      Um, they are paying for it. Through the nose.

  71. Walmart vs Apple, surely. by argent · · Score: 1

    it's Wal-Mart vs. the movie studios

    Walmart vs Apple, Shirley.

  72. Availability by phorm · · Score: 1

    It's also there for people that want stuff they can't get elsewhere, or at the same hours. I'm not a huge fan of Wal-Mart either, but short of ordering on ebay (which can have its own evils, and there's shipping delays etc) sometimes there are just things I can't easily find in other places, especially not at later hours (WalMart here closes at 10pm, in many USA locations it 24-hour).

  73. Good. Let them continue. by irving47 · · Score: 1

    Sure why not? Let them continue to adopt monopolistic and anti-competitive practices that got Microsoft in so much trouble a few years back. A couple more maneuvers like this (threatening their suppliers for dealing with others) on a scale that large, and they WILL attract attention from the Justice Department, republican-controlled, or not. Or so I'd like to think.

    I don't really buy the "wal-mart is evil" mentality on the surface, but I sure don't side with them when they pull stunts like this.

    --
    I had a sucky sig.
  74. This just in! by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

    Free market competition criticized!

    Oh wait, we don't have a free market or competition. Never mind.

    --
    Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
  75. Close, but no cigar. by raehl · · Score: 1

    but the fact remains that they would have done so eventually anyway to make a greater profit.

    Companies do this to avoid going out of business entirely, because if they competition does it and they don't, they can't compete.

    And this is a GOOD thing. We have been shipping jobs overseas for decades. We have shipper far more jobs overseas than we even have people living in this country.

    IF you believed the Unions, everybody would be unemployed - but this obviously isn't the case. Unemployment has remained relatively constant for decades. Everytime we ship a job overseas, *WE* get more stuff, for less money, and we get new jobs to replace those old jobs.

    I like more stuff, so bring offshore labor on.

    1. Re:Close, but no cigar. by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      And this is a GOOD thing. We have been shipping jobs overseas for decades. We have shipper far more jobs overseas than we even have people living in this country.

      Creating jobs overseas is a good thing. Destroying American jobs to make those overseas jobs is not a good thing.

      IF you believed the Unions, everybody would be unemployed

      Straw man.

      Unemployment has remained relatively constant for decades.

      Sure the economy is flush with jobs - just not well paying jobs. Housing, health and fuel costs have skyrocketed, while middle class earning power is at the lowest it's been in 60 years. Low unemployment is nothing to crow about when a large part of the population has to work a full and a part time job to maintain the same standard of living.

      Everytime we ship a job overseas, *WE* get more stuff, for less money, and we get new jobs to replace those old jobs.

      Yeah we get more jobs - shitty ones working at Wal-Mart or Burger King, which are no replacements for blue collar manufacturing that has been destroyed by offshoring.

  76. Accelerating their own demise. by Divebus · · Score: 1

    Oh, yeah, that'll stop the march of technology, eh? What a stupid move. So if General Electric sells lightbulbs online or Sherwin Williams sells paint online, are they going to send all that merchandise back as well? Close it up now in that case. Hey, if Wal-Mart wants to put themselves out of business faster, that's their prerogative. Luddites.

    --

    Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
  77. Leaving "more risky" people to die? by tepples · · Score: 1
    and then you shift onto less risky people the cost of caring for more risky classes

    Should the more risky classes not be cared for at all if the family cannot afford it? Without life, there is no chance for liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

    1. Re:Leaving "more risky" people to die? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Try to pay attention if you would. If you had spent half as much time making trite value comparisons as you did reading others' posts, you woule have seen that one of my points was that: even accepting that riskier health insurees (or people who got a medical problem before buying insurance) should received some subsidized care, it doesn't follow (despite the lazy thinkers on this thread) that it should be paid for purely by the sucker who happens to hire him, making him effectively unemployable. That is one of the problems with shoveling all of the costs onto employers.

      But if you prefer to ignore all that to make your witty little remarks, rather than learn something, I guess that's fine too. I have another one for you to use in the future: "I thought one of the fundamental tenets* of democracy was that all people had an equal right to participate, which you can't do if you're dead." Nice, eh?

      *Make sure to say "tenets" not "tenants" or people will point and laugh at you. Well, more than they already do.

  78. Ah, if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be great if Disney wasn't just a media whore and would respond to walmarts action by offering their entire library of movies on iTunes?

    We don't live in an age where people stand up to companies like Walmart. No one is willing to lose a few dollars for a principle. And maybe thats the effect of being a public company and being accountable to people who only think about money, your stockholders. I hate the commercial world we live in.

  79. Generic antibiotics? Good luck. by tepples · · Score: 1
    Our health care system would be better off if these Wal Mart workers just accepted their lot and dropped dead instead of trying to get medicaid when they can't afford cancer treatment or antibiotics for a bacterial infection on a Wal Mart salary.
    Funny that you should mention that. Wal-Mart just announced a plan to reduce prices from 20-90% on various generic prescription drugs.

    I applaud Wal-Mart for making medication affordable in general, but grandparent has a point about cancer and antibiotics in particular. Cutting prices on generic antibiotics won't help victims of a Staphylococcus aureus infection, as a few strains of staph have become resistant to all the cillins, some even to vancomycin. And have the cancer drugs gone generic yet? How do Wal-Mart's prices on newer prescription drugs compare to those of Walgreens and CVS? Besides, can Wal-Mart associates[1] easily afford cancer treatments other than prescription drugs, such as surgery and radiotherapy?

    [1] Couldn't bring myself to use the staff==staph pun.

    1. Re:Generic antibiotics? Good luck. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Like I said. 5 out of 6 have health insurance. So for the most part, yes. They can afford cancer treatments---at least to the same degree that any other retail sector worker could. Admittedly, this isn't saying a lot, but....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  80. Re:Labor Cartel by flimflam · · Score: 1
    Union Bosses who want to be the main 'big guys' and maintain their industry-wide labor cartel.

    Never mind that the members of the "labor cartel" are the actual consumers buying products. What happens to our society when everyone gets paid Wal-Mart level wages and receives Wal-Mart level benefits? Who's going to be buying iPods and DVDs then?
     
    --
    -- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
  81. Re:Labor Cartel by Fred_A · · Score: 1
    What happens to our society when everyone gets paid Wal-Mart level wages and receives Wal-Mart level benefits? Who's going to be buying iPods and DVDs then?
    The owners of WallMart of course !

    "Trends look good for this year's new iPod femto with an estimated sale of 7 units, a 16% increase over 2022's record figures."
    --

    May contain traces of nut.
    Made from the freshest electrons.
  82. Re:Labor Cartel by PhoenixK7 · · Score: 1
    OT & trollish, but I can't resist:
    -- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!


    Hadn't heard that they'd made decerebrating into such a quick procedure!
  83. Re:Labor Cartel by bursch-X · · Score: 1

    The Wal-Mart managers?

    --
    There are two rules for success:
    1. Never tell everything you know.
  84. Re:Labor Cartel by Ashen · · Score: 1

    Funny, that's exactly what small retailers said in the 1920's and 1930's when big retail merchandise stores started to open up shop all over the country. And yet most American's make above the low wages these places pay.

    When will you idiots stop repeating this tired line?

  85. WalMart - The best buggy whips you can buy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is this new thing called the combustion engine, WalMart might want to look into it...

    Oh, and CD / DVD sales are so 1900's - forget about trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle.
    It's done, stick a fork in it.

    There is another new fangled thingy called the 'intranets' connected to some sort of computational adding machine,
    the retail giant might want to look into that too. (It uses electricity to make moving words, pictures, and sounds!)

  86. Re:nonsense - yes lacking in business sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only economy that matters to investors is their own bottom line.

    In that sense, WalMart is good for the economy.

    Sure, all you blokes will be out of job, homeless, and hungry
    - because the USA is rapidly deteriorating into a 3rd world nation of debtors.
    Record foreclosures, bankruptcy, and businesses going out of business...

    But for the top 10% of capital holders, the sky is the limit!
    Power to the (wealthy) People, Brother!

    Do you understand capitalism yet, or do I needs to draws you a picture?