The idea of creating a focused beam of sound is not new. What the article refers to as "putting voices in people's heads" really is more like aiming an audio source at them that is so narrowly focused that only they can hear it. The science behind this has been around since the first attempts at sonar, though the technology to make practical use of it probably hasn't been around as long. I remember seeing some program on PBS about some audio company (Bose?) working on this to create speakers in cars that would direct sound to a specific seat.
In the OSS world, 6 months is a long time. If you haven't tried the recommended beginner linux distro at the version that has been released within the last 6 months, you shouldn't be asserting that modern linux distros are not mature. That would be like me taking a copy of windows 98, trying to install it on my 3 month old computer, and then calling Windows a bad OS because it didn't work. You wouldn't give an assessment of Vista based on your experiences with Windows 2000 would you? Then why does it make sense to say that current linux distros can be evaluated based on your experience with older versions.
You're forgetting that for most users, it takes YEARS for a new OS to arrive. Think about the time between Win98 and WinXP, or WinXP and Vista (I leave out 2000, ME, and NT as they were never really targeted toward home users as such). Joe User is accustomed to waiting years for new releases, so when he says he tried Linux 6 months ago, he THINKS that he tried the latest and greatest.
And which distro did you try? Mandrake? Mandriva? Red Hat? Fedora? Ubuntu? Which version? This is way more than the average user wants to think about! He'll say, "I don't know. My friend told me to try Linux. Which one of those is Linux?" Ubuntu is great... but in 6 months when another distro comes out will you be touting that instead? Most consumers would rather just use whatever new OS has the name "Windows" in front of it.
You make a valid point. Both companies are selling an "experience". In fact, Caribou's mission statement is "...an experience that makes the day better". That being said, I doubt people would come into an establishment and pay to have internet access and a seat without coffee (I'm disregarding internet cafes as the provide computers). A vast majority of our sales is either coffee beans or prepared drinks. Starbucks is probably the same, though they may have a larger percentage of merchandise sales that sell the "lifestyle".
I suppose I was a bit ranty (word?) before. Stressful day + open forum = free for all.:)
And I like you're idea about throwing bleach on the campers. Wait, that was what you were suggesting, right? (kidding)
Offering free wi-fi will most likely attract those customers who would ordinarily chose another establishment that already offers free wi-fi. I work at Caribou Coffee, where we already offer one free hour of wi-fi. If you need more time, you have to make a purchase (anything over $1.50) and you'll get a passcode for another hour. I've heard so many people complain about S'bucks and how they "rip you off" by charging you for wi-fi. I'm sure that we will lose some business when S'bucks goes with the free wi-fi, but they will inherit our problems along with our customers.
It's not uncommon for our the seating in our store to fill completely up with people sitting at their laptops clickity-clacking away. People will buy a cup of regular coffee (~$2.00) and camp out for, I kid you not, 8 hours! These same people will demand a new card every hour as if they are entitled to it because they "support our store". Unfortunately, this costs the store business. People will walk in the door to sit down and have a cup of coffee, see that there isn't an open seat in the place, and turn around and walk back out.
You might say I should do a better job enforcing the policy of only handing out cards when the guest makes a purchase. Well, I had a lady nearly bite my head off just for telling her what the actual policy was (I was handing her a card anyway, and just letting her know for the future). It's not worth the headache.
rant...Come on people, this isn't your office or your home. We aren't your ISP. We are in the business of selling coffee, not giving away internet access. It's provided as a courtesy and convenience. If one hour (in the case of S'bucks, 2 hours) of free access without having purchased a single thing isn't good enough for you, then you need to get your sense of entitlement in check./rant
Starbucks is going to find that their patrons stay longer and may end up buying more, but any profit will be negated by other customers not being able to find seating. The seating in most S'bucks is sparse already...
AT&T (The Bells): Phone/Telecom monopoly. Is there a phone/telecom monopoly today? No.
You failed to mention that the telecom monopoly was broken up by government intervention, not the free market.
IBM: Hardware monopoly. Is there a hardware monopoly today? No.
IBM did have the hardware monopoly until Apple released a personal computer with their proprietary OS. In order to compete with Apple, IBM rushed out a PC made of generic (thus easily reproducible) parts. When the PC took off, it was easy for other manufacturers to jump into the market. The hardware monopoly was broken not by innovation by other hardware manufacturers, but by software innovation and IBM's own shortsightedness.
Microsoft: Software monopoly. Is there a software monopoly today? Yes. Is it shrinking? Yes. I hope so.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea of creating a focused beam of sound is not new. What the article refers to as "putting voices in people's heads" really is more like aiming an audio source at them that is so narrowly focused that only they can hear it. The science behind this has been around since the first attempts at sonar, though the technology to make practical use of it probably hasn't been around as long. I remember seeing some program on PBS about some audio company (Bose?) working on this to create speakers in cars that would direct sound to a specific seat.
Read here for a fairly simple explanation.
You're forgetting that for most users, it takes YEARS for a new OS to arrive. Think about the time between Win98 and WinXP, or WinXP and Vista (I leave out 2000, ME, and NT as they were never really targeted toward home users as such). Joe User is accustomed to waiting years for new releases, so when he says he tried Linux 6 months ago, he THINKS that he tried the latest and greatest.
And which distro did you try? Mandrake? Mandriva? Red Hat? Fedora? Ubuntu? Which version? This is way more than the average user wants to think about! He'll say, "I don't know. My friend told me to try Linux. Which one of those is Linux?" Ubuntu is great... but in 6 months when another distro comes out will you be touting that instead? Most consumers would rather just use whatever new OS has the name "Windows" in front of it.
You make a valid point. Both companies are selling an "experience". In fact, Caribou's mission statement is "...an experience that makes the day better". That being said, I doubt people would come into an establishment and pay to have internet access and a seat without coffee (I'm disregarding internet cafes as the provide computers). A vast majority of our sales is either coffee beans or prepared drinks. Starbucks is probably the same, though they may have a larger percentage of merchandise sales that sell the "lifestyle".
:)
I suppose I was a bit ranty (word?) before. Stressful day + open forum = free for all.
And I like you're idea about throwing bleach on the campers. Wait, that was what you were suggesting, right? (kidding)
Offering free wi-fi will most likely attract those customers who would ordinarily chose another establishment that already offers free wi-fi. I work at Caribou Coffee, where we already offer one free hour of wi-fi. If you need more time, you have to make a purchase (anything over $1.50) and you'll get a passcode for another hour. I've heard so many people complain about S'bucks and how they "rip you off" by charging you for wi-fi. I'm sure that we will lose some business when S'bucks goes with the free wi-fi, but they will inherit our problems along with our customers.
It's not uncommon for our the seating in our store to fill completely up with people sitting at their laptops clickity-clacking away. People will buy a cup of regular coffee (~$2.00) and camp out for, I kid you not, 8 hours! These same people will demand a new card every hour as if they are entitled to it because they "support our store". Unfortunately, this costs the store business. People will walk in the door to sit down and have a cup of coffee, see that there isn't an open seat in the place, and turn around and walk back out.
You might say I should do a better job enforcing the policy of only handing out cards when the guest makes a purchase. Well, I had a lady nearly bite my head off just for telling her what the actual policy was (I was handing her a card anyway, and just letting her know for the future). It's not worth the headache.
rant...Come on people, this isn't your office or your home. We aren't your ISP. We are in the business of selling coffee, not giving away internet access. It's provided as a courtesy and convenience. If one hour (in the case of S'bucks, 2 hours) of free access without having purchased a single thing isn't good enough for you, then you need to get your sense of entitlement in check./rant
Starbucks is going to find that their patrons stay longer and may end up buying more, but any profit will be negated by other customers not being able to find seating. The seating in most S'bucks is sparse already...
AT&T (The Bells): Phone/Telecom monopoly. Is there a phone/telecom monopoly today? No.
You failed to mention that the telecom monopoly was broken up by government intervention, not the free market.
IBM: Hardware monopoly. Is there a hardware monopoly today? No.
IBM did have the hardware monopoly until Apple released a personal computer with their proprietary OS. In order to compete with Apple, IBM rushed out a PC made of generic (thus easily reproducible) parts. When the PC took off, it was easy for other manufacturers to jump into the market. The hardware monopoly was broken not by innovation by other hardware manufacturers, but by software innovation and IBM's own shortsightedness.
Microsoft: Software monopoly. Is there a software monopoly today? Yes. Is it shrinking? Yes.
I hope so.