That's due to the underlying infrastructure, not the technology itself.
Absolutely correct. I have no technical issues with the idea itself. But as implemented in the US, it's pretty awful. Cash is the fastest and easiest way to buy things here.
Oh, my TV is three hundred dollars more expensive than yours! That must mean it's better. Somehow.
It's astounding how many people engage in this reasoning. Pretty much the entirety of business history has amply shown that more expensive does not automatically mean better, and sometimes means worse.
It is impossible to judge quality by the price tag.
And even if you do want to use internet services, don't let the TV be the one doing it. Get a cheap computer to do it instead, and feed the video from it to the TV.
Personally, if for some reason I was forced to have a "smart" TV, I would be very certain to make sure it never gets connected to the internet.
There's also another relatively recent trend that plays into this: the idea that updates are always good and should be applied automatically. It was never the case that this was a safe practice. Updates need to be carefully evaluated before applying them.
Also part of the USA's failure is that the system is stuck in the stone age
This is part of why I think it's unrealistic -- we're talking about electronic payments from US entities. Even US citizens don't trust the system enough to wholeheartedly embrace it. Why would Afghani citizens?
Not all of the thin phones are fragile. Mine has been dropped in a toilet, run through a washing machine, dropped on hard surfaces a number of times, and run over with a car once.
It's still going strong. Not even a cracked screen. And I don't even put it in a case.
In the US, it used to be faster than cash, but that stopped being true a while ago when payment systems started adding all those stupid questions to the checkout process.
And chip cards are even worse. They seem to take about 1.5 to 2 times longer than swipe cards.
It's nice in theory. Very nice. But the obstacles to actually making it real are very, very high. So high, that I'm very skeptical that it can be done until there is a sea change in the phone manufacturing industry.
I wish them well and a lot of success! I don't like the hardware they've settled on and so won't buy it whether or not the OS works properly, but if they're successful then perhaps the OS could be put on a phone that I actually would buy.
The key phrase is "everyone exchanging it". It doesn't matter how large or small that group is -- it is still exactly as real and valuable as that group collectively decides it is.
The numbers have likely changed, but in 2012 about 50% of all financial transactions were done with cash in the US. For transactions involving amounts of $25 or less, the figure rises to 75% in cash.
Getting a 75% adoption rate in Afghanistan seems over-the-top optimistic from the start.
This is true, but then you also have to deal with the problem of replacing your credit card once it has been abused. With prepaid, that's not really an issue.
I hate to break it to you, but yes, you are investing in Bitcoin. Every more than that, you're engaging in speculative investment.
There's nothing wrong with that at all, it's a standard way to grow wealth. It is not, however, for me. I'm not looking to engage in speculative investing, so if I used Bitcoin, it would be as a currency. However, it's a terrible currency for the exact reason that it can make a good investment: it's too volatile.
What I want out of currency essentially boils down to two things: I want to know that pretty much everybody will accept it, and I want it to be stable enough that I can assume what it's worth day-to-day without having to look it up.
Teeples said if you don't allow your web browser to be an applications platform, then you have no applications platform
My response is that's not true: you have an operating system, which is the ultimate applications platform. I wasn't making a broader comment than that.
But since you asked: I avoid web-based applications not because they're web-based applications, but because they tend to be inferior and irritating when compared to native applications. This is even true of GMail, which people often point to as an example of web applications done right.
Avoiding web apps has yet to mean that I'm missing out on any functionality.
I agree. Whole Foods is an extremely specialized sort of store that can't really compete with ordinary ones (that's why they were on the block). The monopoly risk seems low.
it diminishes another part of the task, which is the competition in the store itself on qualty
This.
If I have a friend who knows me very well do my shopping for me, I expect that I'm not going to get the exact item I want (mostly with produce). It impossible that a store or delivery service would do that job any better, and would be amazing if they did it equally as well as my friend.
But on some level, it's wasted time. If you could get somebody to drop it off at the house for the same price, why not?
You can do that right now in most places. Not for the same price, but if grocery stores themselves do it for the same price, that's only because they've raised their prices across the board.
I'd prefer it if the retailer and I went our separate ways after i give them money for item(s).
A million times this. I prefer it so strongly that I tend to pay cash and I don't use "loyalty cards". I even try to avoid shopping at store that do, since they tend to price their stuff higher than stores that don't.
How has grocery shopping for you changed over the last several decades? Answer: it hasn't.
Mostly true, but what needs changing? I need groceries, I go to the store, pick them out, and pay for them. If I don't want to get out of my chair, there are numerous delivery services that will get my groceries for me and bring them to my home.
I'm not really seeing an unmet need that makes grocery stores prime for disruption.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, precisely this.
That's due to the underlying infrastructure, not the technology itself.
Absolutely correct. I have no technical issues with the idea itself. But as implemented in the US, it's pretty awful. Cash is the fastest and easiest way to buy things here.
Oh, my TV is three hundred dollars more expensive than yours! That must mean it's better. Somehow.
It's astounding how many people engage in this reasoning. Pretty much the entirety of business history has amply shown that more expensive does not automatically mean better, and sometimes means worse.
It is impossible to judge quality by the price tag.
And even if you do want to use internet services, don't let the TV be the one doing it. Get a cheap computer to do it instead, and feed the video from it to the TV.
Yes, and unambiguously so.
Personally, if for some reason I was forced to have a "smart" TV, I would be very certain to make sure it never gets connected to the internet.
There's also another relatively recent trend that plays into this: the idea that updates are always good and should be applied automatically. It was never the case that this was a safe practice. Updates need to be carefully evaluated before applying them.
Sadly, I agree. And the trendline in the US is going the wrong way, to boot.
Yet another nation puts the US to shame on these issues.
Also part of the USA's failure is that the system is stuck in the stone age
This is part of why I think it's unrealistic -- we're talking about electronic payments from US entities. Even US citizens don't trust the system enough to wholeheartedly embrace it. Why would Afghani citizens?
Not all of the thin phones are fragile. Mine has been dropped in a toilet, run through a washing machine, dropped on hard surfaces a number of times, and run over with a car once.
It's still going strong. Not even a cracked screen. And I don't even put it in a case.
Not in my area. Chip cards take an insanely long time for the machines to process around here.
Faster than cash OR checks
In the US, it used to be faster than cash, but that stopped being true a while ago when payment systems started adding all those stupid questions to the checkout process.
And chip cards are even worse. They seem to take about 1.5 to 2 times longer than swipe cards.
It's nice in theory. Very nice. But the obstacles to actually making it real are very, very high. So high, that I'm very skeptical that it can be done until there is a sea change in the phone manufacturing industry.
I wish them well and a lot of success! I don't like the hardware they've settled on and so won't buy it whether or not the OS works properly, but if they're successful then perhaps the OS could be put on a phone that I actually would buy.
The key phrase is "everyone exchanging it". It doesn't matter how large or small that group is -- it is still exactly as real and valuable as that group collectively decides it is.
The numbers have likely changed, but in 2012 about 50% of all financial transactions were done with cash in the US. For transactions involving amounts of $25 or less, the figure rises to 75% in cash.
Getting a 75% adoption rate in Afghanistan seems over-the-top optimistic from the start.
This is true, but then you also have to deal with the problem of replacing your credit card once it has been abused. With prepaid, that's not really an issue.
I'm not an "investor" in Bitcoin
I hate to break it to you, but yes, you are investing in Bitcoin. Every more than that, you're engaging in speculative investment.
There's nothing wrong with that at all, it's a standard way to grow wealth. It is not, however, for me. I'm not looking to engage in speculative investing, so if I used Bitcoin, it would be as a currency. However, it's a terrible currency for the exact reason that it can make a good investment: it's too volatile.
What I want out of currency essentially boils down to two things: I want to know that pretty much everybody will accept it, and I want it to be stable enough that I can assume what it's worth day-to-day without having to look it up.
Teeples said if you don't allow your web browser to be an applications platform, then you have no applications platform
My response is that's not true: you have an operating system, which is the ultimate applications platform. I wasn't making a broader comment than that.
But since you asked: I avoid web-based applications not because they're web-based applications, but because they tend to be inferior and irritating when compared to native applications. This is even true of GMail, which people often point to as an example of web applications done right.
Avoiding web apps has yet to mean that I'm missing out on any functionality.
I agree. Whole Foods is an extremely specialized sort of store that can't really compete with ordinary ones (that's why they were on the block). The monopoly risk seems low.
it diminishes another part of the task, which is the competition in the store itself on qualty
This.
If I have a friend who knows me very well do my shopping for me, I expect that I'm not going to get the exact item I want (mostly with produce). It impossible that a store or delivery service would do that job any better, and would be amazing if they did it equally as well as my friend.
But on some level, it's wasted time. If you could get somebody to drop it off at the house for the same price, why not?
You can do that right now in most places. Not for the same price, but if grocery stores themselves do it for the same price, that's only because they've raised their prices across the board.
We don't live in a cashless society. Yet, anyway.
I'd prefer it if the retailer and I went our separate ways after i give them money for item(s).
A million times this. I prefer it so strongly that I tend to pay cash and I don't use "loyalty cards". I even try to avoid shopping at store that do, since they tend to price their stuff higher than stores that don't.
My info is a commodity, and as such is only valuable in aggregate with other people's data.
You mean, it's only valuable to other people in aggregate (although that's not entirely true, I'll go with it).
To me, my info is priceless.
How has grocery shopping for you changed over the last several decades? Answer: it hasn't.
Mostly true, but what needs changing? I need groceries, I go to the store, pick them out, and pay for them. If I don't want to get out of my chair, there are numerous delivery services that will get my groceries for me and bring them to my home.
I'm not really seeing an unmet need that makes grocery stores prime for disruption.
The US government has a law that says that businesses must accept US dollars.
This is not true. Businesses are not required to accept US currency. They do so because that's the currency everyone uses in the US.