I worked at best buy for a long time, and I vividly remember a sign at the entrance door saying something along the lines of "Upon entry you give store employees the right to look through personal packages/parcels in order to determine that you rightfully possess all items taken out of the store" Not word for word but the idea is there, doesn't that mean by entry into the store you consent to a potential search of your purchased bags? With or without significant probable cause.
Once the law enforcement officer had searched his bags however all bets are off, that seems about the extent of their rights. IMHO.
If a sign clearly was posted is it constitutional? Any lawyers out there know?
Part of the issue with a site such as facebook is that their business model is not specifically oriented toward making money, it seems that even though facebook offers space for advertisers to buy, there is not cost based usage, and thus no way to net profit after their immense operating costs. (Bored college students clicking refresh waiting for messages does a number on a server). To turn a profit companies such as facebook have to offer a service that isn't available anywhere else for free, and unfortunatly for them there are plenty of clones.
In addition to offering unique services the target audience is not one that typically is willing to pay for these services, college students and high schoolers which make up a majority of facebook's userbase just don't have the disposable income to spend on an online service like this.
As to the article about Web 2.0, if companies dont come up with a unique offering (being the first to develop it) and get out before their operating costs well overrun the profits gained, they will bust and the "bubble" will pop, it is an inherently flawed system, because as any economics student would know, for a social network the most significat barrier to entry is going to be gaining a "street hype", the rest is easy.
Microsoft created the IE admin pack for exactly this reason, I'm sure they are not thrilled about Google's release of a branded "product", however it fits the business model of creating custom browsers. I'm sure the intention of this package is for individual manufactors to customize the products on their computer products and google has just as much a right to do this as Yahoo, HP, Dell, or any other manufacturer. Then again I'm sure Microsoft is not happy that their tools are being used to advance googles agenda, but Google is a smart business model and they saturate the market with their brand name (google is practically a verb).
I think a major part of the dilemma is when you order a computer from a manufacturer you at least have a few options for graphics cards (as an example), maybe not every option but at the very minimum 2-3 alternatives that spread over a price range. I think the major issue is that there is no choice given, if you order from HP you may as well be ordering from MS.
For other items mentioned (such as iPods) that depend on firmware to operate there is no other options for the functioning of the device, with a computer there are MANY other operating systems, and many manufacturers do offer options. Even if HP didn't offer every option out there a small spattering of options allows for compliance with a law like that.
Thats just my two cents, but why pay for something you don't use.
Slashdot Mirror
I worked at best buy for a long time, and I vividly remember a sign at the entrance door saying something along the lines of "Upon entry you give store employees the right to look through personal packages/parcels in order to determine that you rightfully possess all items taken out of the store" Not word for word but the idea is there, doesn't that mean by entry into the store you consent to a potential search of your purchased bags? With or without significant probable cause.
Once the law enforcement officer had searched his bags however all bets are off, that seems about the extent of their rights. IMHO.
If a sign clearly was posted is it constitutional? Any lawyers out there know?
Part of the issue with a site such as facebook is that their business model is not specifically oriented toward making money, it seems that even though facebook offers space for advertisers to buy, there is not cost based usage, and thus no way to net profit after their immense operating costs. (Bored college students clicking refresh waiting for messages does a number on a server). To turn a profit companies such as facebook have to offer a service that isn't available anywhere else for free, and unfortunatly for them there are plenty of clones.
In addition to offering unique services the target audience is not one that typically is willing to pay for these services, college students and high schoolers which make up a majority of facebook's userbase just don't have the disposable income to spend on an online service like this.
As to the article about Web 2.0, if companies dont come up with a unique offering (being the first to develop it) and get out before their operating costs well overrun the profits gained, they will bust and the "bubble" will pop, it is an inherently flawed system, because as any economics student would know, for a social network the most significat barrier to entry is going to be gaining a "street hype", the rest is easy.
Microsoft created the IE admin pack for exactly this reason, I'm sure they are not thrilled about Google's release of a branded "product", however it fits the business model of creating custom browsers. I'm sure the intention of this package is for individual manufactors to customize the products on their computer products and google has just as much a right to do this as Yahoo, HP, Dell, or any other manufacturer. Then again I'm sure Microsoft is not happy that their tools are being used to advance googles agenda, but Google is a smart business model and they saturate the market with their brand name (google is practically a verb).
My two cents at least.
I think a major part of the dilemma is when you order a computer from a manufacturer you at least have a few options for graphics cards (as an example), maybe not every option but at the very minimum 2-3 alternatives that spread over a price range. I think the major issue is that there is no choice given, if you order from HP you may as well be ordering from MS. For other items mentioned (such as iPods) that depend on firmware to operate there is no other options for the functioning of the device, with a computer there are MANY other operating systems, and many manufacturers do offer options. Even if HP didn't offer every option out there a small spattering of options allows for compliance with a law like that. Thats just my two cents, but why pay for something you don't use.