I'm not sure I agree with the dire predictions of a Swiss watch "Ice Age" on this one. Traditional high end Swiss watches are primarily jewelry and, in certain cases, status symbols. Yes, it's jewelry with a function, but you can get that function dirt cheap and not pay $8000 dollars for that Rolex Submariner. The Apple watch is primarily a function play that has some design elements to keep it from looking loathsome like what you would have likely gotten out of someone other than Apple. It just doesn't strike me as something that is primarily a jewelry item.
I think you have different market segmentation here where you will likely have Apple watch appealing to people who don't even normally see the need for a watch. Some market segments (younger people, for example) seem less prone to wear watches especially since smart phones are ubiquitous and tell time just fine. Those people probably weren't going to be prone to spending thousands of dollars on something that essentially is jewelry. I'm sure you have some market segmentation overlap, but I think the bigger threat to the Swiss watch market remains the strong Swiss currency compared to the dollar and the euro.
Valve is smart in that they are in the business of content creation (it's own inventory of Valve games) as well as content delivery (Steam). They've made the decision to give up some revenue on the engine sales side to almost certainly gain more future income on the content delivery side. It also seems wise from the standpoint of just having more cool games out there which expands the market for gaming in general and that certainly benefits Valve's Steam product. It's like when Elon Musk offered his patents up for use by others. It's a nice thing to do, but it was also smart from a business standpoint to grow the electronic car market from a niche market to something more broad based (and profitable to be in).
The fundamental truth of our time when it comes to mobile devices is that they are spy devices. It's a device that had a camera, microphone, GPS abilities, and we frequently use to communicate our most private thoughts with other people. If you want true privacy for particular content, don't use a mobile device.
If I'm running a nation-state intelligence service unit devoted to mobile device intelligence gathering, I'm thinking BlackPhone is pretty awesome if it gets a solid adoption rate of people who are concerned about privacy. I'm going to get a pretty large subset of people who I probably want to spy on in the first place standardizing on a particular platform where I just need to develop one or two decent exploits. It allows me to concentrate my team's efforts on a much narrower technological problem than before and I'm looking good for getting an awesome annual performance review.
I understand what you are saying. Apple certainly adds some additional software, but it's basically stuff that it's giving away that is part of it's ecosystem rather than some really awful third-party product like Superfish. It's easy enough to get rid of those programs compared to some of these third-party programs for the PC where you, for example, still get the program's tendrils in the Microsoft Windows registry files even though you thought you deleted the whole darn thing.
I've heard about that. How much more does the "Signature Edition" cost? It would be worth it to me to go that route to have to avoid scraping down a new PC laptop, for example, down to bare metal and reinstalling the OS.
...if you read the press release, it's almost like Lenovo is saying that are shocked that Superfish was on their products. This would have been a lot more laudable if they had come to this road to Damascus experience for altruistic reasons rather than as flagrant corporate damage control for getting caught doing something pretty awful to their customers.
One of the biggest points of friction that they are going to have is that the games market is much more oriented towards digital delivery of goods than it was a half decade ago.
It's not that the game industry can't be successful in selling physical add-ons. I think VR equipment will have a strong market once it matures and the prices become more approachable, but those are devices that will work for multiple games. I suspect selling a physical add-on to gamers, especially casual ones, that only works for one game might be harder now than it was the last time since people are so used to digital delivery and near instant consumption once a game purchase is made.
It's not quantity that makes a product a commodity. Commoditization appears when the market gets to the point where there no or little differentiation in the market so competition becomes one of price.
Mobile phones are created in very large quantities (Samsung, Apple, etc), but still command high prices (so high that the cost is hidden inside of subsidized mobile phone plans. We pay a lot of money for these devices).
PC computers, on the other hand, are also created in large quantities and have become a commodity market because competitors haven't figured out a good way to differentiate other than on price.
Air travel is working the same way. High quantity and low price. Airlines are trying to do some differentiation (SouthWest's boarding policies, selling more leg room, etc) but the market really doesn't seem to be responding and it's still largely a price game.
Producing more product that demand does impact price, but it's not because it's a commodity. It's because you screwed up your forecasting and now you have to wait for the market to go back to equilibrium.
And it shows the benefits of the wealth transfer system. As the country at the bottom (China) gets an influx of wealth, they are able to rebuild their economy and the employees that save have the opportunity to re-invest in the local economy and flourish. The country has a small bust and then a boom. The small bust is happening now. In 10 years, China will be the USA in 1990. It's just a matter of time now..
Ten years from now China's economy could very well be a smoking ruin because of their command economic policies. Their stock market has very little transparency and investment options for the emerging middle class in China are limited. This case caused the creation of a massive real estate bubble that will burst if it can't be deflated by the Chinese government. The current economic system that China is using is a dangerous blend of crony capitalism and command economics. Don't make the mistake of thinking that China has adopted a free market system similar to what exists in the United States and Europe. China has some very serious systems flaws that will prevent it becoming like the US economy such as lack of transparency and the lack of a independent civil justice system to do things like protect property rights, enforce contracts, and the like.
I'm not saying that you are wrong, but that's the way repression works. It's a bad thing no matter what economic model you are being repressed in, but it can be...and has been...a whole lost worse for Chinese laborer. China is still much better off in the global economy than what they had before they entered as a player in the global market. Remember it was't all that long ago when Chinese were starving to death by the millions.
Low cost is the overall Chinese strategy at this point whether it's commoditized cheap labor or keeping their currency as low as possible (which gets them accused of currency manipulation...which is a weird accusation since it's reasonable for nation-states to adopt monetary policies that are in their best interest) so that their goods are very attractive on the world market. If they start losing this cheap labor/currency advantage before they are ready to move their economy into more of a value-add direction, we could see some very bad things happen in the Chinese and global economies.
It's likely a cost-play. If you build your economy on the concept of commoditized labor (where you are just competing with others on price rather than other value adds), you run this risk which is that others will offer that commodity cheaper. As China's living standards move up, the wages are moving with it and that is causing a problem for the Chinese leadership. They also have a massive real estate bubble that could wreck their own economy pretty badly and also have a pretty painful global impact.
I hadn't heard they were interested in that, but it makes very good sense. One of the big trends in supply chain management is the "push-pull" strategy.
Push strategy is when you are forecasting customer demand and trying to get your supply chain optimized to meet it. If you don't get it just right, can end up with shortages (angry customers) or overages (increased holding and order costs). Pull supply chains provide the product as the customer demands it. Sometimes that can work well (Amazon Kindle, since we're talking about Amazon) and sometimes it just doesn't work.
Slapping 3rd printers on trucks would be "push-pull" you do some advanced forecasting (how much raw materials to put on that Amazon truck, how many trucks are you going to need), but the pull would not be assembling the product (or printing it....) until you get that customer order.
This shouldn't surprise anyone. If you commoditize your labor market (which means you are competing on price) you run the risk that someone else will offer a cheaper alternative. If you can't defend your position on price, you have to compete with some sort of other value add like offering skilled labor. If you can't do that, you've got a real problem.
Look, I'm all about the advancement of science and human knowledge, but this feels like the neurobiological version of "Hold my beer and watch this."
I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time, science people, but when our new rodent masters (who I, of course, welcome) enslave the human race and bring about Planet of the Apes: Mickey Mouse Edition maybe you'll be a bit more careful next time.
I'm friendly towards the idea of net neutrality, but this feels like a "hold my beer and watch this" type move on the part of the FCC.
Using 1930s era regulatory framework that wasn't even remotely designed for what the FCC is trying to do seems like just asking for unintended consequences. The FCC admits as much when it talks about how it is going to use forbearance to try and shoehorn this thing to fit regulating the Internet.
That said...is it a situation where the FCC decided to act because Congress declined to take the issue up and craft something more appropriate?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure I agree with the dire predictions of a Swiss watch "Ice Age" on this one. Traditional high end Swiss watches are primarily jewelry and, in certain cases, status symbols. Yes, it's jewelry with a function, but you can get that function dirt cheap and not pay $8000 dollars for that Rolex Submariner. The Apple watch is primarily a function play that has some design elements to keep it from looking loathsome like what you would have likely gotten out of someone other than Apple. It just doesn't strike me as something that is primarily a jewelry item.
I think you have different market segmentation here where you will likely have Apple watch appealing to people who don't even normally see the need for a watch. Some market segments (younger people, for example) seem less prone to wear watches especially since smart phones are ubiquitous and tell time just fine. Those people probably weren't going to be prone to spending thousands of dollars on something that essentially is jewelry. I'm sure you have some market segmentation overlap, but I think the bigger threat to the Swiss watch market remains the strong Swiss currency compared to the dollar and the euro.
This is a blatant lie they told US SEC and naive US investors to get that insane valuation.
Remember that IPO stands for "It's Probably Overpriced."
Valve is smart in that they are in the business of content creation (it's own inventory of Valve games) as well as content delivery (Steam). They've made the decision to give up some revenue on the engine sales side to almost certainly gain more future income on the content delivery side. It also seems wise from the standpoint of just having more cool games out there which expands the market for gaming in general and that certainly benefits Valve's Steam product. It's like when Elon Musk offered his patents up for use by others. It's a nice thing to do, but it was also smart from a business standpoint to grow the electronic car market from a niche market to something more broad based (and profitable to be in).
Is this guy even a little concerned that there might be a hell?
The fundamental truth of our time when it comes to mobile devices is that they are spy devices. It's a device that had a camera, microphone, GPS abilities, and we frequently use to communicate our most private thoughts with other people. If you want true privacy for particular content, don't use a mobile device.
If I'm running a nation-state intelligence service unit devoted to mobile device intelligence gathering, I'm thinking BlackPhone is pretty awesome if it gets a solid adoption rate of people who are concerned about privacy. I'm going to get a pretty large subset of people who I probably want to spy on in the first place standardizing on a particular platform where I just need to develop one or two decent exploits. It allows me to concentrate my team's efforts on a much narrower technological problem than before and I'm looking good for getting an awesome annual performance review.
I understand what you are saying. Apple certainly adds some additional software, but it's basically stuff that it's giving away that is part of it's ecosystem rather than some really awful third-party product like Superfish. It's easy enough to get rid of those programs compared to some of these third-party programs for the PC where you, for example, still get the program's tendrils in the Microsoft Windows registry files even though you thought you deleted the whole darn thing.
I've heard about that. How much more does the "Signature Edition" cost? It would be worth it to me to go that route to have to avoid scraping down a new PC laptop, for example, down to bare metal and reinstalling the OS.
There should be an option for a "bloat" free computer, with the user paying the full cost for software.
We could come up with a clever name for a product like that. Maybe something to do with fruit.
...if you read the press release, it's almost like Lenovo is saying that are shocked that Superfish was on their products. This would have been a lot more laudable if they had come to this road to Damascus experience for altruistic reasons rather than as flagrant corporate damage control for getting caught doing something pretty awful to their customers.
One of the biggest points of friction that they are going to have is that the games market is much more oriented towards digital delivery of goods than it was a half decade ago. It's not that the game industry can't be successful in selling physical add-ons. I think VR equipment will have a strong market once it matures and the prices become more approachable, but those are devices that will work for multiple games. I suspect selling a physical add-on to gamers, especially casual ones, that only works for one game might be harder now than it was the last time since people are so used to digital delivery and near instant consumption once a game purchase is made.
It's not quantity that makes a product a commodity. Commoditization appears when the market gets to the point where there no or little differentiation in the market so competition becomes one of price. Mobile phones are created in very large quantities (Samsung, Apple, etc), but still command high prices (so high that the cost is hidden inside of subsidized mobile phone plans. We pay a lot of money for these devices). PC computers, on the other hand, are also created in large quantities and have become a commodity market because competitors haven't figured out a good way to differentiate other than on price. Air travel is working the same way. High quantity and low price. Airlines are trying to do some differentiation (SouthWest's boarding policies, selling more leg room, etc) but the market really doesn't seem to be responding and it's still largely a price game. Producing more product that demand does impact price, but it's not because it's a commodity. It's because you screwed up your forecasting and now you have to wait for the market to go back to equilibrium.
And it shows the benefits of the wealth transfer system. As the country at the bottom (China) gets an influx of wealth, they are able to rebuild their economy and the employees that save have the opportunity to re-invest in the local economy and flourish. The country has a small bust and then a boom. The small bust is happening now. In 10 years, China will be the USA in 1990. It's just a matter of time now..
Ten years from now China's economy could very well be a smoking ruin because of their command economic policies. Their stock market has very little transparency and investment options for the emerging middle class in China are limited. This case caused the creation of a massive real estate bubble that will burst if it can't be deflated by the Chinese government. The current economic system that China is using is a dangerous blend of crony capitalism and command economics. Don't make the mistake of thinking that China has adopted a free market system similar to what exists in the United States and Europe. China has some very serious systems flaws that will prevent it becoming like the US economy such as lack of transparency and the lack of a independent civil justice system to do things like protect property rights, enforce contracts, and the like.
I'm not saying that you are wrong, but that's the way repression works. It's a bad thing no matter what economic model you are being repressed in, but it can be...and has been...a whole lost worse for Chinese laborer. China is still much better off in the global economy than what they had before they entered as a player in the global market. Remember it was't all that long ago when Chinese were starving to death by the millions.
Low cost is the overall Chinese strategy at this point whether it's commoditized cheap labor or keeping their currency as low as possible (which gets them accused of currency manipulation...which is a weird accusation since it's reasonable for nation-states to adopt monetary policies that are in their best interest) so that their goods are very attractive on the world market. If they start losing this cheap labor/currency advantage before they are ready to move their economy into more of a value-add direction, we could see some very bad things happen in the Chinese and global economies.
It's likely a cost-play. If you build your economy on the concept of commoditized labor (where you are just competing with others on price rather than other value adds), you run this risk which is that others will offer that commodity cheaper. As China's living standards move up, the wages are moving with it and that is causing a problem for the Chinese leadership. They also have a massive real estate bubble that could wreck their own economy pretty badly and also have a pretty painful global impact.
I hadn't heard they were interested in that, but it makes very good sense. One of the big trends in supply chain management is the "push-pull" strategy. Push strategy is when you are forecasting customer demand and trying to get your supply chain optimized to meet it. If you don't get it just right, can end up with shortages (angry customers) or overages (increased holding and order costs). Pull supply chains provide the product as the customer demands it. Sometimes that can work well (Amazon Kindle, since we're talking about Amazon) and sometimes it just doesn't work. Slapping 3rd printers on trucks would be "push-pull" you do some advanced forecasting (how much raw materials to put on that Amazon truck, how many trucks are you going to need), but the pull would not be assembling the product (or printing it....) until you get that customer order.
This shouldn't surprise anyone. If you commoditize your labor market (which means you are competing on price) you run the risk that someone else will offer a cheaper alternative. If you can't defend your position on price, you have to compete with some sort of other value add like offering skilled labor. If you can't do that, you've got a real problem.
Look, I'm all about the advancement of science and human knowledge, but this feels like the neurobiological version of "Hold my beer and watch this." I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time, science people, but when our new rodent masters (who I, of course, welcome) enslave the human race and bring about Planet of the Apes: Mickey Mouse Edition maybe you'll be a bit more careful next time.
I'm friendly towards the idea of net neutrality, but this feels like a "hold my beer and watch this" type move on the part of the FCC. Using 1930s era regulatory framework that wasn't even remotely designed for what the FCC is trying to do seems like just asking for unintended consequences. The FCC admits as much when it talks about how it is going to use forbearance to try and shoehorn this thing to fit regulating the Internet. That said...is it a situation where the FCC decided to act because Congress declined to take the issue up and craft something more appropriate?