If you had any, you would know that the conversation is about software development and whether it is "worth it" for a company to develop for the operating environment that possesses greater than ninety percent of the overall market share or for other, less-widespread operating environments.
If you notice, I've posted the exact same thing in this thread already.
"Every self-respecting tenured faculty member in economics this country, almost without exception, would laugh [the gold standard] out of court."
"Most economists agree that the gold standard was one of the causes of the Great Depression."
"The world only emerged from the Great Depression when countries started going off the gold standard. And he rattles off this long list of countries — Britain, the U.S., Japan, France and others — that started to recover from the Depression just after going off the gold standard"
Just because I am not poor like people who say stupid shit like "he has more money than sense" doesn't mean I'm stupid for buying something that is expensive and that I like.
If Toyota is cruising along at its current 14% marketshare in the US and suddenly FORD/GM/Chrysler make a mega-merge and suddenly garner 60% of the market, Toyota still has 14% of the market, with all the same profits and sustainability they currently enjoy. Why would the emergence of one monolithic competitor change that?
If more people would just worry about their own business, ridiculous claimes of "irrelevance" would become irrelevant.
Better yet, when measured by number of happy customers, many companies are giant successes. It's not until you change the metric to percentage of happy customers of all potential customers do you start getting silly indices of success.
My company probably has less than.01% of the market, yet it provides rewarding careers to 400 employees and appeases all the old rich white guys (board of directors). We are hardly "irrelevant", even on the grand scheme, or even compared to our next-door-neighbor (AMD).
The best thing about Steam (and all Windows apps should pay attention) is that it stays out of my way. I don't even know it's running in the background. It doesn't bog my system down, it doesn't tie up bandwidth when I'm not actively using it, and it's not constantly bugging me for updates/reboots, etc.
While I agree with your post, I'm just waiting for the hordes of nay-sayers who will bitch and moan about how the day Steam goes out of business, they take all your content with them.
I remember this argument from the mid 90s and Macintosh gaming. I worked for a company that ported games to Mac. It was profitable because it was cheap to do, and nobody else was doing it. THAT's what's in it for game companies...they can get more customers for very little more effort. Sure, the Mac version has additional expense, but if my profit is only 10% on the Mac version as compared to 25% for the PC version (completely made up for discussion), 10% profit is still more than NO profit.
The only time it doesn't make sense to port code to other platforms is when it costs more to develop and support the new platform than the amount of profit it can bring in. And even then, sometimes it makes sense to operate at a small loss if for anything to be "in" on the ground floor when something does take off.
I can't imagine any meetings at Blizzard where they say something like, "you know, we really need to stop supporting a Mac version of WoW because we only have 2 million repeating subscribers".
It's a discussion FORUM, not a one-on-one conversation.
I'm simply afraid they won't see it; I usually notice new replies to my post by going to ~username/comments.
Well that explains a lot then. I'm not here to bicker semantically with random slashdot guy. I'm here for the totality of the conversation, which entails expanding the entire thread and reading/responding accordingly.
Arguing the semantics of the word value is not helpful.
Then why did you do it in your previous post?
I didn't. I used ONE acceptable definition of the world "value" in my post, then you argued semantically by applying the OTHER acceptable definition of the term.
My children are valuable to me. They have no price. Air is not for sale, has no price, and is valuable.
\
We were talking about cost and value, not price. Why bring it to the discussion?
More semantics. You asked what the cost of air is, to which I respond, air costs nothing and has no price because it's not for sale. You used the word cost in the context of what it costs a consumer, not what it costs the producer...semantics. You inferred that I should derive a value of air based on its cost to me..not its cost to produce.
This is a really stupid semantical discussion. We can either discuss price, cost, and value based on your link, or we can discuss the meanings of those things how people talk colloquially, which is what I am doing.
Well, it's not my argument, so maybe you should reply to whoever said that.
It's a discussion FORUM, not a one-on-one conversation.
Arguing the semantics of the word value is not helpful. My children are valuable to me. They have no price. Air is not for sale, has no price, and is valuable.
I find it entertaining that you are lecturing me via a URL about cost vs. value when my job title is Control Account Manager in an earned value management system, but that's beside the point.
My quip about "not free to make copies" came from another part of this thread where somebody claimed that musicians should be required to re-record their music for every copy, or re-record a movie for every copy they want to sell. Ridiculous arguments like that are what make slashdot so fun..I guess?
Fixed that for you. It means you can see 60 seconds of clips on TV or online, plus raving reviews, and the actual movie is still excrement. It means there is NO way to know if the product is good or not until you actually see it for yourself.
And once you see it for yourself, the cost of the product is no more or no less based on your opinion of it. You got what you paid for, regardless if you liked it or not.
Why is it that those who supposedly support the Constitution (Tea Party, Libertarians) are so against what is actually in the Constitution?
Examples:
Tea Partiers in Texas want to force children born in Texas to parents not from Texas to go to their home country or State to get their birth certificates. Tea Partiers want to amend the 14th. They think cops in AZ have Constitutional rights greater than those enumerated.
Libertarians like Rand/Ron Paul believe the government should leave us alone, except in the cases of abortion and gay marriage. Government should be used to prevent those things! Intellectual Property is BAD, even though it is enumerated in the Constitution it must be protected!
Hey, I'm all for amending that in the Constitution which might make less sense today, or has actually taken on the opposite effect of its intentions (18th). But declaring ones undying love for the Constitution (and the little copy the Tea Partiers carry in their pockets) is exactly that...you don't get to pick and choose which parts of it you love so much, and not everyone who disagrees with you is less patriotic than yourselves.
Buy Transformers2. Watch it: "Man I should have known that was going to be shit."
Goto store: "Sorry you were so stupid to have purchased a movie that everyone on the planet knows is shit."
Later: "Man, I think I probably shouldn't buy a movie unless I know it's one I want to keep and watch several times." (runs off to download bootleg Transformer3 dubbed in Japanese with Turkish subtitles from a hand held camera in a theater in the Ukraine)...
I buy all kinds of music that has no connection to rational world views (System of a Down, Rage Against the Machine, anyone?) because it, well, rocks. Whatever they want to sing about, I don't care as long as I like the music. It doesn't bother me one bit thinking that my dime is going to some crazy marxist advocates of overthrowing capitalism (oh the irony of those two bands raging against the machine, all the while making their fortune via the machine).
Each beer or meal has a real cost to produce. A piece of electronic content has fixed costs, but each copy is free.
This is only true if you think cost is derived solely from manufacturing costs. I personally feel cost is derived from the value of that which you are purchasing. If a song is very valuable to me, a copy of it is definitely not "free", because it has value. If I get a copy of it, it is valuable and has a cost associated with its value.
That, and it's not free to make copies of music. It's actually quite expensive to print masters and distribute copies. It's not free to distribute online either...those servers and all the smart peoples' salaries to make them available electronically don't just pay for themselves.
Lemme guess: it's not stolen (lost revenue), because you would have never purchased the song on your own anyway and the owner still has his copy, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Reading comprehension is a wonderful skill.
People skills are a wonderful skill as well.
If you had any, you would know that the conversation is about software development and whether it is "worth it" for a company to develop for the operating environment that possesses greater than ninety percent of the overall market share or for other, less-widespread operating environments.
If you notice, I've posted the exact same thing in this thread already.
Fiats are indeed rare in the US, but not too rare, and easy to identify by their cheap-yet-econmical styling.
Also from NPR on Gold:
"Every self-respecting tenured faculty member in economics this country, almost without exception, would laugh [the gold standard] out of court."
"Most economists agree that the gold standard was one of the causes of the Great Depression."
"The world only emerged from the Great Depression when countries started going off the gold standard. And he rattles off this long list of countries — Britain, the U.S., Japan, France and others — that started to recover from the Depression just after going off the gold standard"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/15/133662179/a-wingnut-argument-for-the-gold-standard
These are different conclusions than your summary.
Just because I am not poor like people who say stupid shit like "he has more money than sense" doesn't mean I'm stupid for buying something that is expensive and that I like.
Geting out of mom's basement is the first step.
If Toyota is cruising along at its current 14% marketshare in the US and suddenly FORD/GM/Chrysler make a mega-merge and suddenly garner 60% of the market, Toyota still has 14% of the market, with all the same profits and sustainability they currently enjoy. Why would the emergence of one monolithic competitor change that?
If more people would just worry about their own business, ridiculous claimes of "irrelevance" would become irrelevant.
Better yet, when measured by number of happy customers, many companies are giant successes. It's not until you change the metric to percentage of happy customers of all potential customers do you start getting silly indices of success.
My company probably has less than .01% of the market, yet it provides rewarding careers to 400 employees and appeases all the old rich white guys (board of directors). We are hardly "irrelevant", even on the grand scheme, or even compared to our next-door-neighbor (AMD).
The best thing about Steam (and all Windows apps should pay attention) is that it stays out of my way. I don't even know it's running in the background. It doesn't bog my system down, it doesn't tie up bandwidth when I'm not actively using it, and it's not constantly bugging me for updates/reboots, etc.
Not sure what the grammatical term is, but "Valve Beats Google, Apple" is perfectly acceptable "news headline" style of writing.
Profit per employee is a ridiculous measure to go by anyway.
Exactly. I'd rather work for a company that pays me more, which in turn lowers their profit-per-employee metric.
Interesting, but I don't believe it. Do you have any reliable sources that can back up this claim?
While I agree with your post, I'm just waiting for the hordes of nay-sayers who will bitch and moan about how the day Steam goes out of business, they take all your content with them.
Considering iOS is double Linux distro marketshare, and OS/X is more than double iOS, Linux has a long way to go.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8
I remember this argument from the mid 90s and Macintosh gaming. I worked for a company that ported games to Mac. It was profitable because it was cheap to do, and nobody else was doing it. THAT's what's in it for game companies...they can get more customers for very little more effort. Sure, the Mac version has additional expense, but if my profit is only 10% on the Mac version as compared to 25% for the PC version (completely made up for discussion), 10% profit is still more than NO profit.
The only time it doesn't make sense to port code to other platforms is when it costs more to develop and support the new platform than the amount of profit it can bring in. And even then, sometimes it makes sense to operate at a small loss if for anything to be "in" on the ground floor when something does take off.
I can't imagine any meetings at Blizzard where they say something like, "you know, we really need to stop supporting a Mac version of WoW because we only have 2 million repeating subscribers".
Windows has 90 percent of the market. All other desktop/laptop OSes combined are, quite frankly, irrelevant.
Toyota has a 14% market share in the US. Nobody considers them irrelevent. Honda is 9%. Irrelevant?
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
GM, Ford, Chrysler...all fighting for irrlevancy, based on your criteria.
Wash, rinse, repeat for any other industry, to include the desktop OS market. 5% is not irrelevant, unless you write malware for a living, I suppose.
It's a discussion FORUM, not a one-on-one conversation.
I'm simply afraid they won't see it; I usually notice new replies to my post by going to ~username/comments.
Well that explains a lot then. I'm not here to bicker semantically with random slashdot guy. I'm here for the totality of the conversation, which entails expanding the entire thread and reading/responding accordingly.
I don't disagree with your logic, but the rule of law does.
Arguing the semantics of the word value is not helpful.
Then why did you do it in your previous post?
I didn't. I used ONE acceptable definition of the world "value" in my post, then you argued semantically by applying the OTHER acceptable definition of the term.
My children are valuable to me. They have no price. Air is not for sale, has no price, and is valuable.
\
We were talking about cost and value, not price. Why bring it to the discussion?
More semantics. You asked what the cost of air is, to which I respond, air costs nothing and has no price because it's not for sale. You used the word cost in the context of what it costs a consumer, not what it costs the producer...semantics. You inferred that I should derive a value of air based on its cost to me..not its cost to produce.
This is a really stupid semantical discussion. We can either discuss price, cost, and value based on your link, or we can discuss the meanings of those things how people talk colloquially, which is what I am doing.
Well, it's not my argument, so maybe you should reply to whoever said that.
It's a discussion FORUM, not a one-on-one conversation.
Arguing the semantics of the word value is not helpful. My children are valuable to me. They have no price. Air is not for sale, has no price, and is valuable.
I find it entertaining that you are lecturing me via a URL about cost vs. value when my job title is Control Account Manager in an earned value management system, but that's beside the point.
My quip about "not free to make copies" came from another part of this thread where somebody claimed that musicians should be required to re-record their music for every copy, or re-record a movie for every copy they want to sell. Ridiculous arguments like that are what make slashdot so fun..I guess?
Yes, your post was well stated. I'm guessing we disagree somewhere else? Because I don't get the "agree with me now" part.
Fixed that for you. It means you can see 60 seconds of clips on TV or online, plus raving reviews, and the actual movie is still excrement. It means there is NO way to know if the product is good or not until you actually see it for yourself.
And once you see it for yourself, the cost of the product is no more or no less based on your opinion of it. You got what you paid for, regardless if you liked it or not.
Why is it that those who supposedly support the Constitution (Tea Party, Libertarians) are so against what is actually in the Constitution?
Examples:
Tea Partiers in Texas want to force children born in Texas to parents not from Texas to go to their home country or State to get their birth certificates. Tea Partiers want to amend the 14th. They think cops in AZ have Constitutional rights greater than those enumerated.
Libertarians like Rand/Ron Paul believe the government should leave us alone, except in the cases of abortion and gay marriage. Government should be used to prevent those things! Intellectual Property is BAD, even though it is enumerated in the Constitution it must be protected!
Hey, I'm all for amending that in the Constitution which might make less sense today, or has actually taken on the opposite effect of its intentions (18th). But declaring ones undying love for the Constitution (and the little copy the Tea Partiers carry in their pockets) is exactly that...you don't get to pick and choose which parts of it you love so much, and not everyone who disagrees with you is less patriotic than yourselves.
Let me simplify further:
Buy Transformers2. Watch it: "Man I should have known that was going to be shit."
Goto store: "Sorry you were so stupid to have purchased a movie that everyone on the planet knows is shit."
Later: "Man, I think I probably shouldn't buy a movie unless I know it's one I want to keep and watch several times." (runs off to download bootleg Transformer3 dubbed in Japanese with Turkish subtitles from a hand held camera in a theater in the Ukraine)...
I buy all kinds of music that has no connection to rational world views (System of a Down, Rage Against the Machine, anyone?) because it, well, rocks. Whatever they want to sing about, I don't care as long as I like the music. It doesn't bother me one bit thinking that my dime is going to some crazy marxist advocates of overthrowing capitalism (oh the irony of those two bands raging against the machine, all the while making their fortune via the machine).
Each beer or meal has a real cost to produce. A piece of electronic content has fixed costs, but each copy is free.
This is only true if you think cost is derived solely from manufacturing costs. I personally feel cost is derived from the value of that which you are purchasing. If a song is very valuable to me, a copy of it is definitely not "free", because it has value. If I get a copy of it, it is valuable and has a cost associated with its value.
That, and it's not free to make copies of music. It's actually quite expensive to print masters and distribute copies. It's not free to distribute online either...those servers and all the smart peoples' salaries to make them available electronically don't just pay for themselves.
Lemme guess: it's not stolen (lost revenue), because you would have never purchased the song on your own anyway and the owner still has his copy, right?
I heard the same argument worded this way: "so what if I pirate a song? The owner still has his copy, so it's not like I stole anything".