Be it a netbook, smartbook, or smartphone, price is one of the most important features of the device.
Most successful netbooks now are in the $300-400 range, and the most prominent smartphones all come with subsidies to help defray some of the initial sticker-shock.
If you're selling users on the idea that this device will satisfy most of their computing needs, but isn't meant to replace a full machine, then you need to reflect that in the price.
If you read the article (I know, slashdot sin), the author wants to cram a SSD, wireless n, 3G/4G, GPS, compass, multitouch, a high capacity battery, and a discrete processor for graphics into this thing. I'm all for it, if you think you can keep it under $450 dollars and 3.5 lbs.
Who wants to bet that the publisher's lobby is going to have this bill killed?
I'll take that bet!...and while I'm at it, I'd also like to draw to an inside straight, pick up that extended warranty, and put some money on the Cubs.
This Time Warner crap is NOT like that. They want to charge me an activation fee, a monthly usage fee, AND a dollar per gigabyte for every GB over their arbitrarily imposed limit. That's NOT cool.
The basic point of the pricing structure appears to be to control my behavior online, and it irritates me no end.
Totally agree.
What I find funny is that everyone is running with the idea that TW is offering an "unlimited" plan at all. They aren't.
All they're saying is that they'll cap their overage charges at X dollars. That is NOT unlimited. And I'm positive there will be a clause in the contract that allows them to increase the/GB charge or the usage cap at will, and likely with minimal warning.
All this model is designed to do is to shape the user's internet usage into something that earns them more money.
I'll be shocked if they don't start introducing a "preferred content" idea, wherein it becomes free to view TW's content online (or at least it won't count against your limit).
To be honest, I can't help but see how it doesn't make sense. This is why the radio, and other legal forms of free media exist - to help spread the word about artists and their songs to people who wouldn't otherwise buy them.
Yes free exposure is a great thing. However, I think there is a fundamental difference between hearing a song on the radio and actually owning a copy of that song. For one, you have control over when/where you listen to it.
Honestly, I think that the RIAA/MPAA need to recognize that piracy is not going to be stopped. It's fast, it's easy, and it can deliver the exact same product that these companies are asking you to pay for. It's just going to be a cost of doing business.
The damages the RIAA sues for are obscenely inflated, but to claim that piracy does zero damage to them is simply dishonest. Maybe your friends aren't willing to be honest about it, but I'm man enough to admit that I have pirated music which I would have paid for otherwise. And I am 100% certain that I'm not alone.
Amen to that. I still find it incredible that people try to legitimately claim that piracy actually HELPS these industries.
Don't get me wrong, I don't feel bad for the RIAA, in fact I find them pretty reprehensible. But to claim that downloading content for free doesn't adversely affect these companies under their current business model is just foolish.
The RIAA is technically entitled to SOME sort of remuneration, but the argument being used for these inflated damages is absurd.
The fact of the matter is that the people making this kind of decision are finding it easier/more productive to turn to litigation to protect their bottom line as opposed to developing a more reasonable business model.
Slashdot Mirror
won't have ANY negative ramifications...
Be it a netbook, smartbook, or smartphone, price is one of the most important features of the device.
Most successful netbooks now are in the $300-400 range, and the most prominent smartphones all come with subsidies to help defray some of the initial sticker-shock.
If you're selling users on the idea that this device will satisfy most of their computing needs, but isn't meant to replace a full machine, then you need to reflect that in the price.
If you read the article (I know, slashdot sin), the author wants to cram a SSD, wireless n, 3G/4G, GPS, compass, multitouch, a high capacity battery, and a discrete processor for graphics into this thing. I'm all for it, if you think you can keep it under $450 dollars and 3.5 lbs.
Who wants to bet that the publisher's lobby is going to have this bill killed?
I'll take that bet! ...and while I'm at it, I'd also like to draw to an inside straight, pick up that extended warranty, and put some money on the Cubs.
This Time Warner crap is NOT like that. They want to charge me an activation fee, a monthly usage fee, AND a dollar per gigabyte for every GB over their arbitrarily imposed limit. That's NOT cool.
The basic point of the pricing structure appears to be to control my behavior online, and it irritates me no end.
Totally agree.
What I find funny is that everyone is running with the idea that TW is offering an "unlimited" plan at all. They aren't.
All they're saying is that they'll cap their overage charges at X dollars. That is NOT unlimited. And I'm positive there will be a clause in the contract that allows them to increase the /GB charge or the usage cap at will, and likely with minimal warning.
All this model is designed to do is to shape the user's internet usage into something that earns them more money.
I'll be shocked if they don't start introducing a "preferred content" idea, wherein it becomes free to view TW's content online (or at least it won't count against your limit).
Does anyone else feel like this is an episode of "The Office"?
To be honest, I can't help but see how it doesn't make sense. This is why the radio, and other legal forms of free media exist - to help spread the word about artists and their songs to people who wouldn't otherwise buy them.
Yes free exposure is a great thing. However, I think there is a fundamental difference between hearing a song on the radio and actually owning a copy of that song. For one, you have control over when/where you listen to it.
Honestly, I think that the RIAA/MPAA need to recognize that piracy is not going to be stopped. It's fast, it's easy, and it can deliver the exact same product that these companies are asking you to pay for. It's just going to be a cost of doing business.
The damages the RIAA sues for are obscenely inflated, but to claim that piracy does zero damage to them is simply dishonest. Maybe your friends aren't willing to be honest about it, but I'm man enough to admit that I have pirated music which I would have paid for otherwise. And I am 100% certain that I'm not alone.
Amen to that. I still find it incredible that people try to legitimately claim that piracy actually HELPS these industries.
Don't get me wrong, I don't feel bad for the RIAA, in fact I find them pretty reprehensible. But to claim that downloading content for free doesn't adversely affect these companies under their current business model is just foolish.
The RIAA is technically entitled to SOME sort of remuneration, but the argument being used for these inflated damages is absurd.
The fact of the matter is that the people making this kind of decision are finding it easier/more productive to turn to litigation to protect their bottom line as opposed to developing a more reasonable business model.
10*20(resonably big album)*5(large tracks) = 1000MB, how are you getting 7GB? 700MB != an audio album
unless the assumption is that you're storing them as .wav files?
the same could be said about the microscope.... and that seems to have worked out pretty well so far.