My brother-in-law was recently in a traffic accident because (this is beyond stupid) he was eating a bowl of noodle soup, and he started choking. Yes, soup. With a bowl and a spoon. As you can imagine, this requires two hands.
Completely ignoring the discussion about safe driving, that was the funniest thing I read all day. Wow.
California's ban has been in place for a year and a half now, and I still regularly see people driving while talking on their phones. So hand-held phone use has reduced in these areas. How much?
Perhaps more importantly, what kind of drivers have stopped using their phones while driving? I'd assume a lot of generally responsible drivers (who may not have known about or believed in the dangers) stopped using their phones, while those "inconsiderate" drivers who don't care about other people still race across pedestrian crossings, not even aware of the "bonus points" they're raking in because they're too busy talking to whoever it is that's so important about whatever it is that just can't wait.
Electric energy can propel your car for $0.03 per mile. If gas taxes were taken out (I used my states gas tax, yours could be several cents different either direction), you are paying roughly $2.30 per gallon and if you car gets 35mph per gallon you are paying $0.06 cents per mile, that's HALF the cost.
$2.30 per gallon is dirt cheap, compared to prices here (Belgium). Gasoline here is about €1.40 per liter, that's almost $2 per liter or roughly $7.50 per gallon. The difference in electricity prices is much smaller: with a separate installation that works only during the night you can charge your car at €0.09 per kWh. Regular daytime prices are around €0.18. Judging from this list, that's not too different from prices in the U.S. ($0.0764 in North Dakota, $0.2028 in Connecticut, $0.2379 in Hawaii)
This car will drive 437 milliLibraries of Congress per nanoLibrary of Congress of gasoline! And with the low carbon emissions of just 4.3 picoLibraries of Congress of CO2 per microLibrary of Congress driven, it's great for the environment!
It's a completely unwarranted assumption to suppose you can simply change the price, and have the number of sales stay the same. In fact, when you double the price, the number of sales may go down by 20x or more: it is the job of market research people to make the proper analysis there.
I'm not discussing your economical hypothesis, just pointing out some math mistakes, or maybe they were points where you didn't mention a few steps in your line of thought.
No, because in the model I was giving, support costs are 4x as much.
And how was I, as a simple math nazi, supposed to know this? You didn't mention the Magical Factor of Four anywhere in your original post.
I know it's no use trying to explain the market of medical technology in a Slashdot post of a few hundred words. There are so many factors at play that we can't even think of half of them, and most of us don't even understand the half that we can think of. All I'm saying is, if you're making a concrete mathematical hypothesis on something, make sure the math is solid. Don't worry, people will always find something about your post to whine about.
Nice post with a nice result, although you used some mystery maths to get there.
Sales proceeds need to be: $93.5 million.
That means, the price for each unit needs to be: $93.50 per unit.
What if they want a healthier profit margin? Their sole purpose in life is to manufacture medical devices, they don't sell software -- they need a good profit margin from selling their product.
A fair profit margin is 100% or more.
To achieve that, the minimum price is $930.50 per unit.
First you say 85 bucks is their break-even point, which means they have to sell it at 93.50 for a 10% profit margin (1.1 times 85). Then you somehow (almost) multiplied by 10 to get 930.50 bucks?
If 85 bucks is break-even, then they'll have a 100% profit margin selling at twice that, or 170 bucks. Not 930.50.
Also, 1 million sales is unrealistic for a niche product, it will probably be more like 200,000 sales.
To maintain a healthy product with 1/20 of 1 million, the actual price needed will be 20x that, or $18,610.00
200,000 is 1/5 of 1 million. So following your line of thought, the actual price would be 5 times 170, or 850 bucks.
You did, however, say they produced 1 million of them, costing them 75 million in parts and labor. If they're only making 200,000 those costs would only be 15 million. Adding 10 million research costs to that makes a total of 25 million in production costs. To get that 100% profit margin, they'd need to earn 50 million in sales, meaning 50 million bucks/ 200,000 units = 250 bucks per unit.
Holy smokes, that's nowhere near the "$18,000 medical device" price.
“I was trying to think about what kind of distraction we could put out there, and I talked to this student who had a unicycle,” said Ira E. Hyman Jr., a professor in the university’s psychology department. “He said, ‘What’s more, I own a clown suit.’ You don’t have a student who unicycles in a clown suit every day, so you have to take advantage of these things.”
If prices go from $5000/lb to $250/lb, demand for these launches will skyrocket (ha ha). If they launch often, maintenance and amortization costs can be shared by many clients, meaning they can keep the prices that low.
The launch costs might be based on an overly optimistic demand, though.
Is it really a shame? Does the world not benefit from cheaper access to code? Does the basic truth that competition makes things better not apply to the world of programming?
Sure it's a shame for many American programmers, which are overrepresented here on/., but on a global scale I think this is a good evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
My brother-in-law was recently in a traffic accident because (this is beyond stupid) he was eating a bowl of noodle soup, and he started choking. Yes, soup. With a bowl and a spoon. As you can imagine, this requires two hands.
Completely ignoring the discussion about safe driving, that was the funniest thing I read all day. Wow.
So the RIAA got [...] everything to lose here.
And I hope they do.
California's ban has been in place for a year and a half now, and I still regularly see people driving while talking on their phones. So hand-held phone use has reduced in these areas. How much?
Perhaps more importantly, what kind of drivers have stopped using their phones while driving? I'd assume a lot of generally responsible drivers (who may not have known about or believed in the dangers) stopped using their phones, while those "inconsiderate" drivers who don't care about other people still race across pedestrian crossings, not even aware of the "bonus points" they're raking in because they're too busy talking to whoever it is that's so important about whatever it is that just can't wait.
Electric energy can propel your car for $0.03 per mile. If gas taxes were taken out (I used my states gas tax, yours could be several cents different either direction), you are paying roughly $2.30 per gallon and if you car gets 35mph per gallon you are paying $0.06 cents per mile, that's HALF the cost.
$2.30 per gallon is dirt cheap, compared to prices here (Belgium). Gasoline here is about €1.40 per liter, that's almost $2 per liter or roughly $7.50 per gallon. The difference in electricity prices is much smaller: with a separate installation that works only during the night you can charge your car at €0.09 per kWh. Regular daytime prices are around €0.18. Judging from this list, that's not too different from prices in the U.S. ($0.0764 in North Dakota, $0.2028 in Connecticut, $0.2379 in Hawaii)
So basically what you're saying is that London has its own stupid rules.
So don't use it in a kindergarten class or near full-blown idiots.
Better yet, keep your permanent markers out of reach of toddlers and full-blown idiots. They'll draw on anything.
You still need pens for that whiteboard though, and wiping it is a lot more trouble than pushing a button.
This car will drive 437 milliLibraries of Congress per nanoLibrary of Congress of gasoline! And with the low carbon emissions of just 4.3 picoLibraries of Congress of CO2 per microLibrary of Congress driven, it's great for the environment!
they could... what?
Ground you for playing past your bedtime.
It's a completely unwarranted assumption to suppose you can simply change the price, and have the number of sales stay the same. In fact, when you double the price, the number of sales may go down by 20x or more: it is the job of market research people to make the proper analysis there.
I'm not discussing your economical hypothesis, just pointing out some math mistakes, or maybe they were points where you didn't mention a few steps in your line of thought.
No, because in the model I was giving, support costs are 4x as much.
And how was I, as a simple math nazi, supposed to know this? You didn't mention the Magical Factor of Four anywhere in your original post.
I know it's no use trying to explain the market of medical technology in a Slashdot post of a few hundred words. There are so many factors at play that we can't even think of half of them, and most of us don't even understand the half that we can think of. All I'm saying is, if you're making a concrete mathematical hypothesis on something, make sure the math is solid. Don't worry, people will always find something about your post to whine about.
Sort of relevant and always entertaining: xkcd.
Nice post with a nice result, although you used some mystery maths to get there.
Sales proceeds need to be: $93.5 million. That means, the price for each unit needs to be: $93.50 per unit. What if they want a healthier profit margin? Their sole purpose in life is to manufacture medical devices, they don't sell software -- they need a good profit margin from selling their product. A fair profit margin is 100% or more. To achieve that, the minimum price is $930.50 per unit.
First you say 85 bucks is their break-even point, which means they have to sell it at 93.50 for a 10% profit margin (1.1 times 85). Then you somehow (almost) multiplied by 10 to get 930.50 bucks?
If 85 bucks is break-even, then they'll have a 100% profit margin selling at twice that, or 170 bucks. Not 930.50.
Also, 1 million sales is unrealistic for a niche product, it will probably be more like 200,000 sales. To maintain a healthy product with 1/20 of 1 million, the actual price needed will be 20x that, or $18,610.00
200,000 is 1/5 of 1 million. So following your line of thought, the actual price would be 5 times 170, or 850 bucks.
You did, however, say they produced 1 million of them, costing them 75 million in parts and labor. If they're only making 200,000 those costs would only be 15 million. Adding 10 million research costs to that makes a total of 25 million in production costs. To get that 100% profit margin, they'd need to earn 50 million in sales, meaning 50 million bucks/ 200,000 units = 250 bucks per unit.
Holy smokes, that's nowhere near the "$18,000 medical device" price.
"Oh, I'm sorry, I was, errr, on the phone. Yes, the phone..."
FTA:
“I was trying to think about what kind of distraction we could put out there, and I talked to this student who had a unicycle,” said Ira E. Hyman Jr., a professor in the university’s psychology department. “He said, ‘What’s more, I own a clown suit.’ You don’t have a student who unicycles in a clown suit every day, so you have to take advantage of these things.”
The student owned the clown suit.
But then who is Conan going to interview?
Movie production of the future will be done in third world countries
Don't you think you're overreacting a bit? Sure, California has been hit hard by the recession, but it's not a third world country yet.
Yeah, this coming from a guy who tried to murder an entire alien civilization for our viewing pleasure.
Yes, but those things are meant to destroy things and be destroyed in the process.
If prices go from $5000/lb to $250/lb, demand for these launches will skyrocket (ha ha). If they launch often, maintenance and amortization costs can be shared by many clients, meaning they can keep the prices that low.
The launch costs might be based on an overly optimistic demand, though.
I can't believe I actually said the words "you could shoot a rocket from a cannon" and was serious about it.
You could shoot a rocket from a cannon, meaning you'd need less fuel (meaning a smaller fuel tank, meaning even less fuel) to get it up to speed.
Milkshake.
Is it really a shame? Does the world not benefit from cheaper access to code? Does the basic truth that competition makes things better not apply to the world of programming?
Sure it's a shame for many American programmers, which are overrepresented here on /., but on a global scale I think this is a good evolution.
On my (and I do believe most) keyboards it doubles as a Print Screen button, which I use regularly.
Which either means that the system doesn't work, or my computer can majestically use the internet without any bandwidth cost at all.
Probably the latter, because come on.
Except that it's not so easy to summarize like that.
Also, no one I know needs an eye-opener like that.