In your report on the 1998 Consumer Profile, located at , you wrote:
> The continuing drop-off in the proportion of purchases accounted for > by 15 to 24 year-olds (32.2% in 1996 vs. 28% in 1998), once the > mainstay of the market, is puzzling. Potentially the rise of the > Internet as a free entertainment center, and the accompanying > availability of free MP3 music files, could be contributing factors.
The increasing proliferation of music files on the Internet cannot by itself be considered a significant factor to the decrease in music purchases by young people. Simply being able to listen to your favorite songs for free is not the only reason why music files are so popular now.
First of all, there is growing public dissatisfaction with the exceptionally high price of CDs, a disproportionately large portion of which is markup and not the cost of production. We all heard from the music industry about ten years ago that as soon as manufacturing plants recovered their costs that prices would decrease; prices kept increasing. I *rarely* buy new CDs anymore. Most people think your typical mall price of $14.99 or $15.99 is simply too much; the music industry should indeed be thankful for the existence of discount department stores that sell them for a few dollars less, and for used CD shops.
The product itself is also a factor. Ask almost any consumer how many times they felt cheated when they purchased a CD to find that they only like one or two songs on it. I've had this happen to me quite a few times. Generally speaking, we only hear one or two songs off an album on the radio so there is usually no easy way to see if you like an album before you buy it. More people (consumers and the industry alike) should see MP3 files as one way to accomplish this. If people are able to concentrate their purchasing power on only the material they like, the music industry would produce a larger amount of more quality material.
The radio industry itself is also a factor. Conceptually a radio station can serve very well as a vehicle to encourage people to purchase music (public-radio station WFPK in Louisville, KY is an excellent example). In reality most radio stations are doing a very poor job, and it's only getting worse. In very few communities does one have a decent choice of music formats to listen to, and most people haven't heard of but a very small fraction of the material that is available. Meanwhile, your typical classic rock stations are playing the same tired 1970s songs over and over again. Your typical oldies stations are playing the same tired 1960s songs over and over again. Your typical CHR and rock stations are playing the same artist every half-hour, when they could devote more of their time to other artists. They played artists like The Spice Girls, Hootie And The Blowfish, Metallica, and countless other artists way beyond the point of saturation.
Younger people, seeking a wider variety of material, are getting tired of radio stations that overplay The Spice Girls, CD prices that to them are a reflection of greed instead of production costs, and the products themselves that consistently fall short of their expectations.
All I'm asking is that you think of the increasing availability of music files not only as a cause of decreasing CD sales, but as a reflection of a far more serious problem. While the factors I talked about are probably as obvious to you as they are to many consumers, you need to keep those in mind.
Thanks for your time, Darren Stuart Embry owner of over 400 CDs
Why would Microsoft port Office to Linux in the first place? Why spend all the time, money, and effort on an operating system that you know they can't stand see get popular? I smell a rat...
Perhaps the proper question is this: Why would Microsoft want you to believe they're going to port their important application software to Unix platforms? The reason seems to be clear: to make people think Microsoft is genuinely committed to cross-platform environments. It's not like Microsoft is in a hurry to actually do anything. They'd much rather have everyone using Windows, and actually porting their application software to most popular Unix platforms won't exactly help that happen, even though they'll be more than happy to give lip service.
Witness their similar *cough* efforts *hack* at porting Internet Explorer and NetShow/Windows Media Player to Unix platforms.
Only recently, after a year of promising, did Microsoft actually produce versions of IE for HP-UX and Solaris (IE 5 Beta for HP-UX is actually available). You'd think they would be able port to other Unix platforms about as quickly. A few months ago I witnessed a friend loading the HP-UX version of IE on an HP 700RX (I think that's the model) X terminal connected to a HP 9000/780 (J- or K-series, methinks) workstation, and it took ten minutes to load and was pretty slow.
And Microsoft has been saying they would make a version of WMP for Unix available soon for months. A NetShow (predecessor to WMP) player for Linux and a few other Unix platforms is also available, but that page isn't linked from the WMP Download page anymore, and I actually tried the player on some videos that a company I work for produced but it wouldn't work.
To sum it up, they're not doing a very good job of developing cross-platform software, IMHO. And I guess this is your rat, unless you're smelling another rat.
Their windows monopoly comes from office. This is just to extend the office monopoly.
It's not as simple as that.
If I wanted to put it simply, I would say this: The Windows Monopoly came from their DOS Monopoly, which in turn, came from their Pretty High DOS Market Share and the unfair ways in which they took advantage of it (making programs like Windows not run (or give the appearance of not running) under other versions of DOS, licensing agreements which forbid or discouraged vendors from shipping competing versions of DOS, and other things that integrated together). This is what Caldera Thin Clients is suing Microsoft over.
The above sounds pretty reasonable and accurate, but it leaves out a lot of details. It does seem pretty complicated to explain precisely how Microsoft got its near-monopoly since they've done so many things that wouldn't do much for Microsoft without eachother to obtain it in the first place. A diagram with lots of circles and arrows and stuff might help.
I can't answer the question of whether you're going to see that kind of product, but he has brought the idea up. Did you read his book, The Dilbert Future? In the subchapter on ``Food in the Future'' (page 213 in my copy), Scott Adams . . . umm . . . predicts:
Someday, you will be able to buy a burrito-like meal that is engineered as scientifically as a can of motor oil. This burrito-like thing will have just the right combination of food to give you 100 percent of what your body needs. It won't require much invention, just combinations of existing foods and some clever packaging.
You thought his books were a mere vehicle for cynical workplace humour, but he does sneak some common sense and . . . umm . . . interesting ideas in. Methinks every single PHB should read the ``OA5'' chapter of The Dilbert Principle.
Slashdot Mirror
In your report on the 1998 Consumer Profile, located at
, you wrote:
> The continuing drop-off in the proportion of purchases accounted for
> by 15 to 24 year-olds (32.2% in 1996 vs. 28% in 1998), once the
> mainstay of the market, is puzzling. Potentially the rise of the
> Internet as a free entertainment center, and the accompanying
> availability of free MP3 music files, could be contributing factors.
The increasing proliferation of music files on the Internet cannot by
itself be considered a significant factor to the decrease in music
purchases by young people. Simply being able to listen to your
favorite songs for free is not the only reason why music files are so
popular now.
First of all, there is growing public dissatisfaction with the
exceptionally high price of CDs, a disproportionately large portion of
which is markup and not the cost of production. We all heard from the
music industry about ten years ago that as soon as manufacturing
plants recovered their costs that prices would decrease; prices kept
increasing. I *rarely* buy new CDs anymore. Most people think your
typical mall price of $14.99 or $15.99 is simply too much; the music
industry should indeed be thankful for the existence of discount
department stores that sell them for a few dollars less, and for used
CD shops.
The product itself is also a factor. Ask almost any consumer how many
times they felt cheated when they purchased a CD to find that they
only like one or two songs on it. I've had this happen to me quite a
few times. Generally speaking, we only hear one or two songs off an
album on the radio so there is usually no easy way to see if you like
an album before you buy it. More people (consumers and the industry
alike) should see MP3 files as one way to accomplish this. If people
are able to concentrate their purchasing power on only the material
they like, the music industry would produce a larger amount of more
quality material.
The radio industry itself is also a factor. Conceptually a radio
station can serve very well as a vehicle to encourage people to
purchase music (public-radio station WFPK in Louisville, KY is an
excellent example). In reality most radio stations are doing a very
poor job, and it's only getting worse. In very few communities does
one have a decent choice of music formats to listen to, and most
people haven't heard of but a very small fraction of the material that
is available. Meanwhile, your typical classic rock stations are
playing the same tired 1970s songs over and over again. Your typical
oldies stations are playing the same tired 1960s songs over and over
again. Your typical CHR and rock stations are playing the same artist
every half-hour, when they could devote more of their time to other
artists. They played artists like The Spice Girls, Hootie And The
Blowfish, Metallica, and countless other artists way beyond the point
of saturation.
Younger people, seeking a wider variety of material, are getting tired
of radio stations that overplay The Spice Girls, CD prices that to
them are a reflection of greed instead of production costs, and the
products themselves that consistently fall short of their
expectations.
All I'm asking is that you think of the increasing availability of
music files not only as a cause of decreasing CD sales, but as a
reflection of a far more serious problem. While the factors I talked
about are probably as obvious to you as they are to many consumers,
you need to keep those in mind.
Thanks for your time,
Darren Stuart Embry
owner of over 400 CDs
--
SaDan wrote:
Perhaps the proper question is this: Why would Microsoft want you to believe they're going to port their important application software to Unix platforms? The reason seems to be clear: to make people think Microsoft is genuinely committed to cross-platform environments. It's not like Microsoft is in a hurry to actually do anything. They'd much rather have everyone using Windows, and actually porting their application software to most popular Unix platforms won't exactly help that happen, even though they'll be more than happy to give lip service.
Witness their similar *cough* efforts *hack* at porting Internet Explorer and NetShow/Windows Media Player to Unix platforms.
Only recently, after a year of promising, did Microsoft actually produce versions of IE for HP-UX and Solaris (IE 5 Beta for HP-UX is actually available). You'd think they would be able port to other Unix platforms about as quickly. A few months ago I witnessed a friend loading the HP-UX version of IE on an HP 700RX (I think that's the model) X terminal connected to a HP 9000/780 (J- or K-series, methinks) workstation, and it took ten minutes to load and was pretty slow.
And Microsoft has been saying they would make a version of WMP for Unix available soon for months. A NetShow (predecessor to WMP) player for Linux and a few other Unix platforms is also available, but that page isn't linked from the WMP Download page anymore, and I actually tried the player on some videos that a company I work for produced but it wouldn't work.
To sum it up, they're not doing a very good job of developing cross-platform software, IMHO. And I guess this is your rat, unless you're smelling another rat.
It's not as simple as that.
If I wanted to put it simply, I would say this: The Windows Monopoly came from their DOS Monopoly, which in turn, came from their Pretty High DOS Market Share and the unfair ways in which they took advantage of it (making programs like Windows not run (or give the appearance of not running) under other versions of DOS, licensing agreements which forbid or discouraged vendors from shipping competing versions of DOS, and other things that integrated together). This is what Caldera Thin Clients is suing Microsoft over.
The above sounds pretty reasonable and accurate, but it leaves out a lot of details. It does seem pretty complicated to explain precisely how Microsoft got its near-monopoly since they've done so many things that wouldn't do much for Microsoft without eachother to obtain it in the first place. A diagram with lots of circles and arrows and stuff might help.
I can't answer the question of whether you're going to see that kind of product, but he has brought the idea up. Did you read his book, The Dilbert Future? In the subchapter on ``Food in the Future'' (page 213 in my copy), Scott Adams . . . umm . . . predicts:
You thought his books were a mere vehicle for cynical workplace humour, but he does sneak some common sense and . . . umm . . . interesting ideas in. Methinks every single PHB should read the ``OA5'' chapter of The Dilbert Principle.