Afaik theatres actually earn more profit from selling popcorn and drinks than movie tickets.
Because the lions-share of the ticket price goes directly back to the studio. If they're already operating on such thin margins that they have to make their profits on ancillary services, then they don't really have any room for variable ticket pricing do they?
If it's still a currently supported model, contact your sales rep. I did that with a model we had and was able to get redirected to a HP engineer who sent me beta drivers (I was trying to get things working with XP64bit at the time).
Email was the easiest transition (POP to ActiveSync or IMAP using Kerio)... everything else that was critical business productivity software was the nightmare.
Desktops were running a very old version of MSOffice (on an old version of OSX). So moving to modern email clients meant replacing the OS, which meant replacing 4-5 major productivity apps, with no upgrade paths for those.
There is a documented over-supply of movie theaters in the US. Because the per-screen overhead costs are so low, theaters can easily scale supply to match demand. This is why your local theater had 5 screens with 5 showings each for the latest blockbuster, but your obscure movie with no marketing budget is only shown out of town.
When it comes to movies there is no supply scarcity except at the extreme ends of the curve. Since supply is tuned to meet demand, there is no scarcity, and hence no reasoning why demand changes would effect price changes.
That's them reducing supply to reflect demand. But overall they could supply most movies to as m any people as desired to see it. There is no real supply scarcity that would affect the supply/demand pricing except at the extreme ends of the spectrum.
Theaters don't pay back to the studios based on per-session of the film. They pay back based on per-ticket to the film. The ratio of viewers/session doesn't impact their costs significantly (minor changes to physical overhead only).
Actually, it's the other way around. The largest chunk of the ticket price goes to the studio, and that amount is fixed by contract. Physical overhead costs are relatively small.
What a bad place to start your argument. In classical economics, demand shifts affect pricing if supply is a factor. When it comes to movie distribution, supply usually isn't an issue.
Also, profits of Mission Impossible to to cover the losses of the gamble on Young Adult. Essentially, movie ticket prices are aggregated and normalized across movies to mitigate risk. Do you really want to spend $40/ticket on Mission Impossible so that Young Adult would cost only $3?
The actually hard-costs to the theaters (staff, electricity, rent, etc.) is pretty much the same regardless if 5 people are in the theater or 500, and is relatively minor in their overall operations. They pay back to the studios based on how many watchers they have, which where most of their expenses actually lie. They have to pay back the same amount to the studios regardless how how many tickets they sell, so why would they implement variable pricing?
IE9 on XPSP3? No you aren't. You might be running a hack which is getting certain parts of the IE9 executable running, but not everything.
Browser detection these days isn't done by simple user-agent-sniffing, but by testing for the existence of certain APIs to confirm which version of which browser and its capabilities.
DRM partly, more stable and preventing things from hooking into the kernel in ways they shouldn't has dramatically reduced the number of BSODs in Vista/Win7.
The GP isn't using a home printer. They're using an $11K multi-function office printer/copier, so he's not that far off your your situation.
BTW, what's your company's plan when a critical component of that Novel fax array dies? Emergency replacements of obsolete hardware are far more expensive (both in real dollars as well as downtime) than periodic incremental upgrades.
I went through this at my office about a year ago, it was an incredibly expensive and disruptive process to swap out almost the entire network and infrastructure (including desktops) because the previous IT admin followed the mentality of "if it ain't broke, I'm not upgrading it". We had reached a point where we could no longer buy new desktops that could run our old software and got stuck in a catch-22 situation where we had to replace EVERYTHING if we wanted to replace ANYTHING. And the reason it was incredibly disruptive was that the intermediate versions of our various software stacks were no longer available. No upgrade path was possible so we had to migrate the entire firm over a single weekend to a new network, servers, email system, productivity apps, etc.
There's a reason why larger IT purchases are deprecated over a 3-5 year period. It's not just an accounting trick to improve your taxes, that period is the financially-determined lifespan of the equipment.
So it's Microsoft's fault that HP hasn't released a Win7 driver for your old discontinued printer? Yes, I know it's an expensive multi-function copier, but MS radically changed how drivers work in Vista/Win7, which has made the systems far more secure and better for the future.
Blaming MS in this case is like the people who blame Apple because the newest version of OSX won't run their 6-year-old version of Quickbooks anymore.
I was at the AT&T store the day after Christmas this year to help my parents out with their family plan. I overheard the customer next to me asking what his total bill would be. The rep said there was no way to get that number until the bill was calculated because of the taxes.
I see these mentions of $50/mo, $80/mo and I'm just baffled at how so many people let the carriers royally screw them with barely a protest.
There isn't really an alternative in the US. Pay as you go will cost you more in the long run since the major providers have very limited options. There's no real competition (read: it's difficult to switch carriers and keep your phone) because of network technologies. And the only pay-as-you carriers with decent rates operate in relatively small markets, or only in urban areas (most of the US population lives in suburban areas with poorer coverage). Finally, even if you can find an unlocked, unsubsidized phone to buy in the US, the monthly plans are the same cost, and still require a 2 year contract.
There are greens in favor of nuke power, and greens against it. There are greens for wind power, and greens against it because it kills birds. There are greens for solar, and greens against because of impact on ground wildlife. There are greens for tidal power, and greens against because it will kill marine wildlife, etc, etc, etc.
Just like people overgeneralize and think that Sarah Palin is representative of a typical right-winger.
"Ceasing to exist" translates to: they'll axe the dev teams, sell the codebase and senior management intact to another player in the business you probably haven't heard of.
Apple do not make iPhones to run iOS.... they make iOS to run on iPhones, they are a hardware company, they sell hardware, and incidentally sell software so that it works..
I hear this (and the other side, "Apple is a software company with hardware to support it") all the time. It's wrong wrong wrong.
Apple is an Experience company. They sell the whole platform, with their goals to be the whole platform. Think Nintendo, XBox, or PlayStation, not Microsoft or Sony. Think Roku and Slingbox, not Toshiba or Adobe.
Minneapolis has an interesting solution that demolishes your argument. 5-10 blocks of downtown is easily traversed via skybridges. I was there this past March during a very heavy snow fall. Took the light rail from the airport to downtown, and had no problem whatsoever in navigating the the 5-6 blocks necessary to get to my hotel.
Many large college campus and cities across the northern US use tunnel systems to connect buildings.
The secret to getting people out of their cars is to build densely. Public transportation works in dense situations. In suburban sprawl, it fails. Americans are conditioned to want sprawl, and assign it values such as "luxury", "comfort", and "freedom".
Actually the original version of Android was specifically for blackberry-style devices with a physical keyboard and some kind of d-pad like interface.
Read his post again, did he say that Android copied Apple anywhere? No, he pointed out valid underlying architectural and business reasons why these issues exist on Android devices.
Yes, Android today is designed for many different form factors and input methods. But ultimately when you design for many different things, you end up building to a lowest common denominator, and sacrifices are made. I think you argued his point for him actually. Since Apple requires all their devices to have GPU-acceleration, IOS benefits. Android doesn't require it, and so you have to build your apps to specifically take advantage of it. By targeting cheap devices, they sacrificed user experience.
Oh, and considering how secretive Apple is, and that Android was announced before the iPhone, who else would Android be competing agains in the pre-iPhone marketplace? The playing field was Symbian (very small developer base) Palm (already dying as they started shipping WinMobile devices) Microsoft (with their very painful an kludgy Mobile OS which has since been killed) and Blackberry. Blackberry was the smartphone leader by a very large margin before the iPhone appeared.
Stop pushing anti-Apple revisionist history. It's just as bad as pro-Apple revisionist history.
The hardware is basically an RC plane, radios, and digital cameras with consumer computer chips slapped in on some proprietary circuit boards. Considering how generic that kind of thing can be these days, software escape is certainly more concerning than hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the lions-share of the ticket price goes directly back to the studio. If they're already operating on such thin margins that they have to make their profits on ancillary services, then they don't really have any room for variable ticket pricing do they?
That was part of my point. Since supply doesn't play a factor, adjusting demand wouldn't have an effect on price.
If it's still a currently supported model, contact your sales rep. I did that with a model we had and was able to get redirected to a HP engineer who sent me beta drivers (I was trying to get things working with XP64bit at the time).
Email was the easiest transition (POP to ActiveSync or IMAP using Kerio)... everything else that was critical business productivity software was the nightmare.
Desktops were running a very old version of MSOffice (on an old version of OSX). So moving to modern email clients meant replacing the OS, which meant replacing 4-5 major productivity apps, with no upgrade paths for those.
There is a documented over-supply of movie theaters in the US. Because the per-screen overhead costs are so low, theaters can easily scale supply to match demand. This is why your local theater had 5 screens with 5 showings each for the latest blockbuster, but your obscure movie with no marketing budget is only shown out of town.
When it comes to movies there is no supply scarcity except at the extreme ends of the curve. Since supply is tuned to meet demand, there is no scarcity, and hence no reasoning why demand changes would effect price changes.
That's them reducing supply to reflect demand. But overall they could supply most movies to as m any people as desired to see it. There is no real supply scarcity that would affect the supply/demand pricing except at the extreme ends of the spectrum.
Theaters don't pay back to the studios based on per-session of the film. They pay back based on per-ticket to the film. The ratio of viewers/session doesn't impact their costs significantly (minor changes to physical overhead only).
Actually, it's the other way around. The largest chunk of the ticket price goes to the studio, and that amount is fixed by contract. Physical overhead costs are relatively small.
oops, that should have read "...pay back the same amount per ticket to the studios..."
What a bad place to start your argument. In classical economics, demand shifts affect pricing if supply is a factor. When it comes to movie distribution, supply usually isn't an issue.
Also, profits of Mission Impossible to to cover the losses of the gamble on Young Adult. Essentially, movie ticket prices are aggregated and normalized across movies to mitigate risk. Do you really want to spend $40/ticket on Mission Impossible so that Young Adult would cost only $3?
The actually hard-costs to the theaters (staff, electricity, rent, etc.) is pretty much the same regardless if 5 people are in the theater or 500, and is relatively minor in their overall operations. They pay back to the studios based on how many watchers they have, which where most of their expenses actually lie. They have to pay back the same amount to the studios regardless how how many tickets they sell, so why would they implement variable pricing?
IE9 on XPSP3? No you aren't. You might be running a hack which is getting certain parts of the IE9 executable running, but not everything.
Browser detection these days isn't done by simple user-agent-sniffing, but by testing for the existence of certain APIs to confirm which version of which browser and its capabilities.
DRM partly, more stable and preventing things from hooking into the kernel in ways they shouldn't has dramatically reduced the number of BSODs in Vista/Win7.
The GP isn't using a home printer. They're using an $11K multi-function office printer/copier, so he's not that far off your your situation.
BTW, what's your company's plan when a critical component of that Novel fax array dies? Emergency replacements of obsolete hardware are far more expensive (both in real dollars as well as downtime) than periodic incremental upgrades.
I went through this at my office about a year ago, it was an incredibly expensive and disruptive process to swap out almost the entire network and infrastructure (including desktops) because the previous IT admin followed the mentality of "if it ain't broke, I'm not upgrading it". We had reached a point where we could no longer buy new desktops that could run our old software and got stuck in a catch-22 situation where we had to replace EVERYTHING if we wanted to replace ANYTHING. And the reason it was incredibly disruptive was that the intermediate versions of our various software stacks were no longer available. No upgrade path was possible so we had to migrate the entire firm over a single weekend to a new network, servers, email system, productivity apps, etc.
There's a reason why larger IT purchases are deprecated over a 3-5 year period. It's not just an accounting trick to improve your taxes, that period is the financially-determined lifespan of the equipment.
So it's Microsoft's fault that HP hasn't released a Win7 driver for your old discontinued printer? Yes, I know it's an expensive multi-function copier, but MS radically changed how drivers work in Vista/Win7, which has made the systems far more secure and better for the future.
Blaming MS in this case is like the people who blame Apple because the newest version of OSX won't run their 6-year-old version of Quickbooks anymore.
I was at the AT&T store the day after Christmas this year to help my parents out with their family plan. I overheard the customer next to me asking what his total bill would be. The rep said there was no way to get that number until the bill was calculated because of the taxes.
There isn't really an alternative in the US. Pay as you go will cost you more in the long run since the major providers have very limited options. There's no real competition (read: it's difficult to switch carriers and keep your phone) because of network technologies. And the only pay-as-you carriers with decent rates operate in relatively small markets, or only in urban areas (most of the US population lives in suburban areas with poorer coverage). Finally, even if you can find an unlocked, unsubsidized phone to buy in the US, the monthly plans are the same cost, and still require a 2 year contract.
Wow, clearly you didn't even read the summary where they said the exact same thing.
I think it's actually an over-generalization.
There are greens in favor of nuke power, and greens against it. There are greens for wind power, and greens against it because it kills birds. There are greens for solar, and greens against because of impact on ground wildlife. There are greens for tidal power, and greens against because it will kill marine wildlife, etc, etc, etc.
Just like people overgeneralize and think that Sarah Palin is representative of a typical right-winger.
If a developer is $75k/yr in salary, then once you factor in their overhead, employment benefits, etc, they cost the company at least $150k/year
"Ceasing to exist" translates to: they'll axe the dev teams, sell the codebase and senior management intact to another player in the business you probably haven't heard of.
I hear this (and the other side, "Apple is a software company with hardware to support it") all the time. It's wrong wrong wrong.
Apple is an Experience company. They sell the whole platform, with their goals to be the whole platform. Think Nintendo, XBox, or PlayStation, not Microsoft or Sony. Think Roku and Slingbox, not Toshiba or Adobe.
Minneapolis has an interesting solution that demolishes your argument. 5-10 blocks of downtown is easily traversed via skybridges. I was there this past March during a very heavy snow fall. Took the light rail from the airport to downtown, and had no problem whatsoever in navigating the the 5-6 blocks necessary to get to my hotel.
Many large college campus and cities across the northern US use tunnel systems to connect buildings.
The secret to getting people out of their cars is to build densely. Public transportation works in dense situations. In suburban sprawl, it fails. Americans are conditioned to want sprawl, and assign it values such as "luxury", "comfort", and "freedom".
Actually the original version of Android was specifically for blackberry-style devices with a physical keyboard and some kind of d-pad like interface.
Read his post again, did he say that Android copied Apple anywhere? No, he pointed out valid underlying architectural and business reasons why these issues exist on Android devices.
Yes, Android today is designed for many different form factors and input methods. But ultimately when you design for many different things, you end up building to a lowest common denominator, and sacrifices are made. I think you argued his point for him actually. Since Apple requires all their devices to have GPU-acceleration, IOS benefits. Android doesn't require it, and so you have to build your apps to specifically take advantage of it. By targeting cheap devices, they sacrificed user experience.
Oh, and considering how secretive Apple is, and that Android was announced before the iPhone, who else would Android be competing agains in the pre-iPhone marketplace? The playing field was Symbian (very small developer base) Palm (already dying as they started shipping WinMobile devices) Microsoft (with their very painful an kludgy Mobile OS which has since been killed) and Blackberry. Blackberry was the smartphone leader by a very large margin before the iPhone appeared.
Stop pushing anti-Apple revisionist history. It's just as bad as pro-Apple revisionist history.
The hardware is basically an RC plane, radios, and digital cameras with consumer computer chips slapped in on some proprietary circuit boards. Considering how generic that kind of thing can be these days, software escape is certainly more concerning than hardware.
You think?