I'm sure that there is tax income derived directly or indirectly from MS. However, I specifically mentioned that they are trying to avoid paying their fair share. Compare them to any other software manufacturer, and it becomes apparent that they are again using their massive leverage to cheat the system by paying less in taxes compared to other companies bound by the same laws. The same laws until the government writes a loophole for them, anyway.
I understand that a corporation is obliged to maximize its profits for its investors, and that includes finding ways to pay less in taxes and other expenses. But you would think that they would see the value in supporting the community in which they and their workers live and do business.
-- I wonder if MS has special hidden algorithms in their software: if state=Washington and query="how much state tax Microsoft should pay", then answer=0. --
You see, that's the problem with closed source software; we'll never know.
Analogies are like rubber bands - stretch them too far, and they break pretty easily. I actually should have just left the car thing out and stuck with my unverifiable but true personal anecdote.
Since you're in the game developer community, let me offer some observations. Based on a small subset of the gaming community (my son & his friends), I've worked out a list of stuff that has resulted in game sales, and what doesn't.
Works:
Free downloadable demos
He bought a few games that he never would have seen without the demo version.
Portable games (not tied to a activation code, or a particular console, etc.)
He has a couple games because a friend brought over their copy, and he later wanted his own.
Multi-player ability
Playing with his friends across the street and across the globe is an important part of his perceived value of a game, as well as a prime channel for word-of-mouth advertising. Also, user-customizable maps and environments help too. Any time a publisher can build an active multi-player community around a game, players a) hang onto their games rather than resell them, b) become more loyal to the brand, and c) get more of their friends to buy the game. He spends more time playing Halo 3, Gears of War, and Call of Duty than Mass Effect or Fallout.
Secondary market
Several other games were bought second-hand, usually a few months after their debut. There are a few instances where he bought their sequels for full retail because he like the original, and at least 1 case where he bought a game because he liked others by the same publisher. These are games he never would have become interested in without the secondary market.
Doesn't work so well:
Nickel-and-dime for DLC
Chargeable DLC is okay in limited doses. He bought the DLC (one mission) for Mass Effect 1. He didn't bother with the several missions for Fallout 3. 5 missions x $5 or so... why pay $60 for a game and another $25 for content?
$$$ for demos
Forget it. He doesn't have infinite gaming money, and he's not about to spend it on a demo. Not even a cheap one. The fish shouldn't pay to get hooked. (I heard this idea floated by someone lately... I think it was EA games.)
Feel free to share with your marketing department. Consider this your "free downloadable content". If you want more focus group analysis, I'd be happy to charge retail.;)
Maybe that should be their next step. If MS refuses to pay their fair share of taxes (after all, they enjoy the benefits of the roads, police, fire, and other services that are supported by these taxes, correct?), WA should launch an initiative to go open source. Whether they follow through or not isn't the point (although I'd love to see it happen). Getting MS back to the negotiating table to avoid being embarrassed in their own backyard would be priceless.
You are assuming that the entire purpose of DLC is not to obliterate the secondary market for games
That's what kills me. You would think that the game companies would want a robust secondary market.
(Sorry in advance) A quick car analogy - High expected resale value on a car makes a high initial purchase price more justifiable. It also makes the consumer more likely to buy another new car sooner, rather than wait until he/she can afford another steep investment with no resale value. Buyers in the secondary market are often buyers that would not or cannot participate in the primary market. A good used car is a good way to get someone to try your product who otherwise would never would have been exposed to it, and may get them to buy a new one next.
Here's a perfect real-life example. My teenage son borrowed Mass Effect from a friend and liked it. Eventually he bought a used copy of it. When Mass Effect 2 came out, he was already in line for a new copy. That new sale would likely never have happened if he hadn't experienced the first game free, then cheap. If he can't sell one game to make cash for the next one, he will buy fewer games, and do so less often. Game designers are shooting themselves in the foot by reducing the value of their games on the secondary market. In the long run it will hurt them and the overall industry. Of course, they won't see it that way. If their sales drop because fewer people will pony up $60 - $80 for a game that is worth $0 in resale, they will find some way to blame it on someone or something else... downloaders... used games... anyone but themselves and their policies.
The fault of the transgression lies with the transgressor. But in a world known to be inhabited by morally flexible individuals, it is reasonable to expect people to secure themselves and their property to some degree, and to continue to take reasonable actions to avoid/deflect/counter attacks by the unscrupulous.
For example, take this other discussion. People are still taking a lax attitude towards PC security despite known risks. Obviously, the spam is a direct result of the spammers's actions. However, knowingly allowing yourself to be insecure is asking for trouble, and it does contribute to the problem.
What is surprising is that out of the 6+ billion people on earth, only this guy seems to have had the motivation (if, indeed, you can calla 24-year old living with his mother "motivated") and imagination to do this. You would think that someone would have done this already either for shits-n-giggles, or possibly more sinister purposes.
Yeah, and chances are they don't use (or don't know how to use) anything else that might prevent infection. What is it about using computers that makes people think "It won't happen to me"?
Really! CSI and NCIS too. I like it when McGee says something that is completely out of left field, like Well boss, he used 256 bit TCP encryption on his hard drive, so I had to rewrite the protocols in order to read it.
We do in fact bomb countries, and even specific people, but we normally have a higher threshold than "disagree". See for yourself... you just posted something that the US government would likely "disagree" with. Are there any bombs falling on you at the moment? Are stormtroopers kicking down your door? Are we proposing that your right to freely speak your mind be limited? Are we attempting to block or filter your internet access? No? Hmm. Looks like we can tolerate disagreement then. Of course, that wasn't your real point, was it? You were just out to score some easy anti-American points.
We're actually okay with that. The whole point of my post was that we as a country tolerate dissent, and as a matter of fact we have built a culture (or counter-culture, if you will) that values disagreement and criticism, whether it be of each other or the of the government. You would fit right in around here.
I don't think you've been paying attention to our news and politics lately. Criticizing the government has almost replaced baseball as our national pastime. Of course, the reason it has become so popular probably has to do with the fact that we can do it without getting arrested and interned in a re-education facility. Unlike in, say, China.
Think of this as a verbal fight escalating to a fistfight. AFAIK/IANAL, where I live, if you taunt a person into punching you, you share responsibility for the physical assault.
I'm reminded of the saying "writing about music is like dancing about architecture", because comparing political systems, economic systems, and software development & licensing models just doesn't add up.
I can understand the desire to view open source like a democracy, because it empowers the individual. However, the key tenet of democracy is majority rule. You don't build software that way, and despite the Windows hegemony, we don't choose our OS that way either. Rather than creating a single democracy, open source enables every individual either to create their own sovereign dictatorship, or choose to live within the (hopefully benevolent) dictatorship someone else has set up.
I can understand those who compare open source to communism, because of its free-to-everyone aspects, but the successful capitalist business models built around open source projects pretty much disprove that theory. Furthermore, communism is based on the premise that the fruits of labor belong to all. Open source code has specific owners; we benefit from their labor strictly because of how they license their property. The freedoms accorded by FOSS licensing do not imply the sharing of code ownership.
Never underestimate the economic power of a vast user base, some of whom will buy support contracts, and perhaps upgrade to your flagship product in the future. OpenSSO didn't have a following (or upgrade path) anywhere near as large or lucrative, which made them vulnerable.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure that there is tax income derived directly or indirectly from MS. However, I specifically mentioned that they are trying to avoid paying their fair share. Compare them to any other software manufacturer, and it becomes apparent that they are again using their massive leverage to cheat the system by paying less in taxes compared to other companies bound by the same laws. The same laws until the government writes a loophole for them, anyway.
I understand that a corporation is obliged to maximize its profits for its investors, and that includes finding ways to pay less in taxes and other expenses. But you would think that they would see the value in supporting the community in which they and their workers live and do business.
I did. Of course, that was years ago, and the price was next to nothing as a piece of dealer demo software.
-- I wonder if MS has special hidden algorithms in their software: if state=Washington and query="how much state tax Microsoft should pay", then answer=0. --
You see, that's the problem with closed source software; we'll never know.
Not to the state, unless their personal accountant screwed up big time. No income tax in WA.
Analogies are like rubber bands - stretch them too far, and they break pretty easily. I actually should have just left the car thing out and stuck with my unverifiable but true personal anecdote.
Since you're in the game developer community, let me offer some observations. Based on a small subset of the gaming community (my son & his friends), I've worked out a list of stuff that has resulted in game sales, and what doesn't.
Works:
He bought a few games that he never would have seen without the demo version.
He has a couple games because a friend brought over their copy, and he later wanted his own.
Playing with his friends across the street and across the globe is an important part of his perceived value of a game, as well as a prime channel for word-of-mouth advertising. Also, user-customizable maps and environments help too. Any time a publisher can build an active multi-player community around a game, players a) hang onto their games rather than resell them, b) become more loyal to the brand, and c) get more of their friends to buy the game. He spends more time playing Halo 3, Gears of War, and Call of Duty than Mass Effect or Fallout.
Several other games were bought second-hand, usually a few months after their debut. There are a few instances where he bought their sequels for full retail because he like the original, and at least 1 case where he bought a game because he liked others by the same publisher. These are games he never would have become interested in without the secondary market.
Doesn't work so well:
Chargeable DLC is okay in limited doses. He bought the DLC (one mission) for Mass Effect 1. He didn't bother with the several missions for Fallout 3. 5 missions x $5 or so ... why pay $60 for a game and another $25 for content?
Forget it. He doesn't have infinite gaming money, and he's not about to spend it on a demo. Not even a cheap one. The fish shouldn't pay to get hooked. (I heard this idea floated by someone lately ... I think it was EA games.)
Feel free to share with your marketing department. Consider this your "free downloadable content". If you want more focus group analysis, I'd be happy to charge retail. ;)
Maybe that should be their next step. If MS refuses to pay their fair share of taxes (after all, they enjoy the benefits of the roads, police, fire, and other services that are supported by these taxes, correct?), WA should launch an initiative to go open source. Whether they follow through or not isn't the point (although I'd love to see it happen). Getting MS back to the negotiating table to avoid being embarrassed in their own backyard would be priceless.
You are assuming that the entire purpose of DLC is not to obliterate the secondary market for games
That's what kills me. You would think that the game companies would want a robust secondary market.
(Sorry in advance) A quick car analogy - High expected resale value on a car makes a high initial purchase price more justifiable. It also makes the consumer more likely to buy another new car sooner, rather than wait until he/she can afford another steep investment with no resale value. Buyers in the secondary market are often buyers that would not or cannot participate in the primary market. A good used car is a good way to get someone to try your product who otherwise would never would have been exposed to it, and may get them to buy a new one next.
Here's a perfect real-life example. My teenage son borrowed Mass Effect from a friend and liked it. Eventually he bought a used copy of it. When Mass Effect 2 came out, he was already in line for a new copy. That new sale would likely never have happened if he hadn't experienced the first game free, then cheap. If he can't sell one game to make cash for the next one, he will buy fewer games, and do so less often. Game designers are shooting themselves in the foot by reducing the value of their games on the secondary market. In the long run it will hurt them and the overall industry. Of course, they won't see it that way. If their sales drop because fewer people will pony up $60 - $80 for a game that is worth $0 in resale, they will find some way to blame it on someone or something else ... downloaders ... used games ... anyone but themselves and their policies.
The fault of the transgression lies with the transgressor. But in a world known to be inhabited by morally flexible individuals, it is reasonable to expect people to secure themselves and their property to some degree, and to continue to take reasonable actions to avoid/deflect/counter attacks by the unscrupulous.
For example, take this other discussion. People are still taking a lax attitude towards PC security despite known risks. Obviously, the spam is a direct result of the spammers's actions. However, knowingly allowing yourself to be insecure is asking for trouble, and it does contribute to the problem.
Yes, but the White House has better security than John Q. Public's house, and for good reason.
What is surprising is that out of the 6+ billion people on earth, only this guy seems to have had the motivation (if, indeed, you can calla 24-year old living with his mother "motivated") and imagination to do this. You would think that someone would have done this already either for shits-n-giggles, or possibly more sinister purposes.
Yeah, and chances are they don't use (or don't know how to use) anything else that might prevent infection. What is it about using computers that makes people think "It won't happen to me"?
Really! CSI and NCIS too. I like it when McGee says something that is completely out of left field, like Well boss, he used 256 bit TCP encryption on his hard drive, so I had to rewrite the protocols in order to read it.
Microsoft was smart and picked very unambiguous names for everything on the desktop, and this terminology started in 1995.
And that's why you have to click "Start" when you want your computer to stop ...
Thank you for the first truly new twist on that meme in a long, long time.
That's because most of those movies perpetuate ridiculous myths, like how ubergeeks can compromise a password in 60 seconds while simultaneously being threatened and fellated.
Upload it to bittorrent and find out.
We do in fact bomb countries, and even specific people, but we normally have a higher threshold than "disagree". See for yourself ... you just posted something that the US government would likely "disagree" with. Are there any bombs falling on you at the moment? Are stormtroopers kicking down your door? Are we proposing that your right to freely speak your mind be limited? Are we attempting to block or filter your internet access? No? Hmm. Looks like we can tolerate disagreement then. Of course, that wasn't your real point, was it? You were just out to score some easy anti-American points.
We're actually okay with that. The whole point of my post was that we as a country tolerate dissent, and as a matter of fact we have built a culture (or counter-culture, if you will) that values disagreement and criticism, whether it be of each other or the of the government. You would fit right in around here.
I don't think you've been paying attention to our news and politics lately. Criticizing the government has almost replaced baseball as our national pastime. Of course, the reason it has become so popular probably has to do with the fact that we can do it without getting arrested and interned in a re-education facility. Unlike in, say, China.
If I had a lazy eye, I'd leave it on just to mess with the automated eye-tracker.
Unless the Chinese government declares them a terrorist organization for subverting the government.
Think of this as a verbal fight escalating to a fistfight. AFAIK/IANAL, where I live, if you taunt a person into punching you, you share responsibility for the physical assault.
I'm reminded of the saying "writing about music is like dancing about architecture", because comparing political systems, economic systems, and software development & licensing models just doesn't add up.
I can understand the desire to view open source like a democracy, because it empowers the individual. However, the key tenet of democracy is majority rule. You don't build software that way, and despite the Windows hegemony, we don't choose our OS that way either. Rather than creating a single democracy, open source enables every individual either to create their own sovereign dictatorship, or choose to live within the (hopefully benevolent) dictatorship someone else has set up.
I can understand those who compare open source to communism, because of its free-to-everyone aspects, but the successful capitalist business models built around open source projects pretty much disprove that theory. Furthermore, communism is based on the premise that the fruits of labor belong to all. Open source code has specific owners; we benefit from their labor strictly because of how they license their property. The freedoms accorded by FOSS licensing do not imply the sharing of code ownership.
Never underestimate the economic power of a vast user base, some of whom will buy support contracts, and perhaps upgrade to your flagship product in the future. OpenSSO didn't have a following (or upgrade path) anywhere near as large or lucrative, which made them vulnerable.
if ($obscurity == $security) {
$publish_whistleblower = "false";
echo "We're good! They'll never figure it out!";
} else {
$publish_whistleblower = "true";
}
if ($publish_whistleblower == "false") {
$internal_correction = "never";
$external_oversight = 0;
} else {
echo "Holy shit, the emperor really isn't wearing any clothes!";
$external_oversight = $external oversight ++;
$internal_correction = 1;
}
as the gun mostly is used for illegal things anyway/quote> Uh, you're being facetious, right?