Do people fundamentally change when they have more than one option to choose? I would have guessed rarely.
I think you're right about people up to a point. The basis for the long tail was economic theory; for Amazon the marginal cost of stocking an album with a run of a couple of thousand by a small indie band in London is much lower than the same for, say, the Zavvi on Oxford street, because the opportunity cost is nill. This fundamental a change in the retail model will have some effect.
Nevertheless, Amazon still has virtual store front (the homepage) on which this hypothetical album will not appear. The majority of people will not even know of its existence. But it is now much easier for people who do to get it. I think this will create a tail.
Amazon clearly believes in the long tail (this is what their self-publishing business is trying to exploit), and New Scientist (to which I am a subscriber) is not hot on economics. About six months ago they had an issue in which they revealed that...shock horror...a free market gives the most efficient management of chaotic, complex systems.
It does say 'may'. Many things 'may' happen. Ultimately, that's one of the greater problems with calculating it. Something like Barbie Horse Adventures will be in a bargain bin within six months and will probably be at a price to capture all of its potential market at some point*.
This will probably never happen for Windows on the other hand.
*Once items head below about £3 ($5, â3) people tend to stop acting like rational consumers and act on impulse instead. You can see this in the pricing strategies for items at the tills of any store. HMV in the UK is especially good at this.
This is actually a major problem for me. Steam used to be my first port of call (before the recent run on the pound) because it was always less than half the price of the high street (because of the $2 pound).
In converting $1 to £1 they are merely following standard practice for the games industry and ripping off the Brits.
As I posted above, if you don't believe that Murdoch interferes with the editorial line of his titles then you should really read the Private Eye.
Of course, all proprietors do this to some degree. The sheer extent of Murdoch's media empire makes his manipulations more dangerous, as they are often driven by commercial interests of other arms of his empire (see the Sun's constant promotion of Sky and criticism of the BBC as an example).
This is not to say that I think that Google can do no evil. I don't particularly like the BBC's frequent naked bias either. But when reading a Murdoch paper one must be very aware of the inevitable conflicts between your interests (as a consumer) and his (as a media mogul with an eye on monopoly).
The WSJ is now owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns ISPs in Europe. For him net neutrality is a threat to a potential revenue stream. All we're seeing here is the 'editorial independence' of the Murdoch press.
Slashdot Mirror
Do people fundamentally change when they have more than one option to choose? I would have guessed rarely.
I think you're right about people up to a point. The basis for the long tail was economic theory; for Amazon the marginal cost of stocking an album with a run of a couple of thousand by a small indie band in London is much lower than the same for, say, the Zavvi on Oxford street, because the opportunity cost is nill. This fundamental a change in the retail model will have some effect.
Nevertheless, Amazon still has virtual store front (the homepage) on which this hypothetical album will not appear. The majority of people will not even know of its existence. But it is now much easier for people who do to get it. I think this will create a tail.
Amazon clearly believes in the long tail (this is what their self-publishing business is trying to exploit), and New Scientist (to which I am a subscriber) is not hot on economics. About six months ago they had an issue in which they revealed that...shock horror...a free market gives the most efficient management of chaotic, complex systems.
Or maybe you've just aged and your tastes have changed as they've become more refined
Or ossified...
The major labels have released some interesting new stuff, but normally after indie labels have pioneered it. They adopt a low-risk business model.
At least Italy had the guts to issue an arrest warrant on the CIA goons.
Europe is the US's ally, not its playground.
...have tried to craft their DRM to have minimal interference with those use cases.
I love how you list this as a criticism. If DRM doesn't stop your normal use of your music, is it really a bad thing?
I don't like it, because I don't like vendor lock-in. But if people don't care about DRM isn't it possible that they're doing it right?
This reminds me of an old joke.
An American couple walks into the Bodleian. They have a quiet but heated conversation until the woman gets fed up and walks to the help desk.
"Excuse me, my husband and I couldn't decide...is this building pre-war?"
"Madam, it is pre-America."
It does say 'may'. Many things 'may' happen. Ultimately, that's one of the greater problems with calculating it. Something like Barbie Horse Adventures will be in a bargain bin within six months and will probably be at a price to capture all of its potential market at some point*.
This will probably never happen for Windows on the other hand.
*Once items head below about £3 ($5, â3) people tend to stop acting like rational consumers and act on impulse instead. You can see this in the pricing strategies for items at the tills of any store. HMV in the UK is especially good at this.
/me mods +1 whoosh.
I'm more worried because it raises the prospect of private nuclear missile subs. As though ones running Windows weren't bad enough.
This is actually a major problem for me. Steam used to be my first port of call (before the recent run on the pound) because it was always less than half the price of the high street (because of the $2 pound).
In converting $1 to £1 they are merely following standard practice for the games industry and ripping off the Brits.
Oh for mod points...
Won't do you any good. I'm sitting a couple of miles away from White City and I can't get it working.
What makes you think they don't do that too?
...I know a pint...
Ah, a fine university education at work.
That's really interesting, I didn't know that.
Is the effect too small to notice or do our brains compensate?
(Hint: Just because something doesn't interact with photons doesn't make it pseudo-scientific.)
*cough*
Air does interact with photons. Just not ones we've evolved to see. Because, you know, what would be the point otherwise?
Top hit on google.co.uk. I don't know whether the guys across the Pond have anything similar. In any case;
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/
As I posted above, if you don't believe that Murdoch interferes with the editorial line of his titles then you should really read the Private Eye.
Of course, all proprietors do this to some degree. The sheer extent of Murdoch's media empire makes his manipulations more dangerous, as they are often driven by commercial interests of other arms of his empire (see the Sun's constant promotion of Sky and criticism of the BBC as an example).
This is not to say that I think that Google can do no evil. I don't particularly like the BBC's frequent naked bias either. But when reading a Murdoch paper one must be very aware of the inevitable conflicts between your interests (as a consumer) and his (as a media mogul with an eye on monopoly).
Then you should really read Private Eye some.
It's a pretty thin article.
The WSJ is now owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns ISPs in Europe. For him net neutrality is a threat to a potential revenue stream. All we're seeing here is the 'editorial independence' of the Murdoch press.
Emergency wards on the NHS are often referred to as 'casualty'. This is not a comment on death rates in British hospitals.
...an hour of MP4 video entertainment...
Now that's a euphemism.
Post to cancel mod.
Wow. This is a new level of Slashdot crazy. Can I borrow your tin foil hat?
I believe there's an entire amendment to your constitution about not having to say a damned thing to the police if you don't want to.