Having the first product mass-adopted is not the same thing as having the first product; for example, there were shit-tons of MP3 players on the market when Apple introduced the iPod, and people bought them, their suckiness notwithstanding.
I recall my first player was a 1" square RCA jobby that had, I believe, 64MB of memory. Held just enough songs to cover my shift, and barely had enough volume to drown out the machinery, but by golly it worked. Sometimes I miss that little guy and his lack of features... namely when the music app on my "smart" phone decides it won't play a long-existing format (2014 and no WMA support? WTF, MediaMonkey?).
I hear about these "targeted ads" a lot, yet regardless of which device and account I'm using, I still get the same "You bought X? Then you might want to buy X!" ads as always. Amazon seems the worst offender in this regard.
I just bought a new pair of Pumas - try to sell me shoe laces, or a FitBit or something other than another new pair of Pumas!
Nah; heck, if not for the curiosity factor (loss of communications, stories about the 'weird' pilot, et. al), most people wouldn't have paid any more attention to it than any other plane crash.
If anything, that just shows that you don't have a vested interest in the search, just like 6.999 billion other humans.
Stuff like that wouldn't bother me so much if the reporting was voluntary, and the person generating all this lucrative data actually got compensated for it.
Not a lot of hard evidence around to make a concrete conclusion. Were there more information it would cement my thoughts. What I see is a conglomerate of issues.
The current version of the FitBit does include a time display. They recalled them all due to the band being toxic to skin, but I expect that they're releasing a fixed version.
Cool.
Hopefully they'll have the new ones out before the end of next month; I was considering giving my wife one for her birthday.
I owned a Seiko MessageWatch (see http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/t...). It was functional for about 3 years. Off course, a modern-day variant can be connected to a laptop or desktop computer to upgrade the firmware, which the MessageWatch could not. So the idea is ancient, but maybe the time is ripe now.
On the other hand, My Nokia N900 was supported for about 3 years as well. Maybe people want to spend a lot of money on phones, but I doubt if they want to spend that much money on a watch that is already obsolete when you open the package.
Conversely, I have one of my grandfather's pocket watches. It still tells time just like it did the day he bought it 80 years ago, presuming it's wound.
Granted we may see some "corded" VOIP phones turn up, but the POTS is going to die some time around. My guess is along 10-20 years.
You'll see the death of POTS in your lifetime, but not because of lack of need or use; rather, it will go away as soon as the companies who own the infrastructure complete their mission of convincing the government to stop forcing them to install/upgrade POTS infrastructure (while keeping the tax incentives, of course).
AT&T and Verizon are already heading down that road.
I think the low end watches where already culled by the mobile phones in general. All watches that remain are basically some form or other an accessory, that is used to show off.
Nah, walk up to the jewelry counter of almost any department store, they still have tables loaded with $10 - 20 el cheapo watches. Good for kids and anyone who just needs/wants a general idea of the time, but doesn't need/want super-precise timekeeping.
Yeah, biggest change is that today they're attached to the ethernet port instead of needing their own cable system, and has access to the company phonebook via LDAP etc. They have also become quite complicated - when I got the phone on my desk, it came with a little folder instructing me how to install the operating system. That think literally has more buttons than my laptop...
Sometimes, yes. Usually in corporate offices, though, not in the actual retail locations.
But a lot of the time (more often than you think), they're connected to Cat3, which is subsequently wired into a key system, pulling dial tone from POTS lines. I know, because I coordinate their installations every single day (and yes, it kills me to have a brand new, VoIP capable system installed, just to have the client use it as a POTS key system).
We're talking 150 - 200 system installs a year, 10-20 phones per install, and that's just me - there are 10 other people here doing the same thing. That's a lot of corded phones.
Actually, if they'd stick a simple digital time readout into the FitBit, and not charge an arm and a leg, that's something I might actually be willing to consider as a replacement for my faithful ol' analog watch.
While I agree that watches have their own niche, I don't think any of them believe that their timepieces are more accurate than other devices, so audiophiles are probably not the best point of comparison.
At least, not until Monster starts making oxygen-free watch bodies with 24k gold connectors.
Same with fountain pens. People by fountain pens because it is a sign of class and status, same is with watches.
I don't care about class or status, I wear a wristwatch for 2 reasons:
1) I've always worn one, and I feel kind of naked without it
2) "remove phone from pocket/turn on screen/twist body to shield screen from sun/read time" seems like a huge waste of time and effort, compared to "twist wrist/read time"
OK, 3 reasons:
3) my kinetic (ie self-winding) windup watch will always be able to tell the time, so long as I keep it wound and don't break it.
Not the most observant person, are we? Next time you're in a brick-and-mortar establishment, take a second to look around at just what kind of phones they have on the various desks, kiosks, checkouts, et. al.
FYI, the "corded phone manufacturers" are doing just fine; hell, they sell me (or rather, my clients) thousands of phones and replacement parts every single year.
Exactly! That's why every time a manufacturer builds a bigger factory so they can make more product to sell to more people, the price goes up and up and up.
Sarcasm fail:
Unless we're talking about factories being built in China, yea, that's pretty much the case. Hell, look at how car prices were affected when the Big Three moved most of their production facilities to Mexico - they sure as hell didn't get any cheaper.
Yet that's exactly how cars have been sold in this country for decades - the government telling auto makers, "you can't sell directly to the public, you have to set up dealerships."
Right... And now they're finally realising that that's a stupid restriction to place that has no benefit and arbitrarily restricts trade.
Obviously, it's not a legal barrier, since dozens of other car companies have followed this model for a long, long time. It seems to me the real issue at hand is that Tesla wants an exception made to the law, just for them. Now that would be unconstitutional.
No, Tesla wants state laws changed so that they're in line with federal laws allowing Tesla to trade across state boundaries as it pleases, rather than being told it's not allowed to trade with certain people in certain states.
No disagreement there, but I don't see the governments, federal or states, wanting to give up the ability to impose those restrictions anytime soon - otherwise, states like California wouldn't be able to restrict, say, firearms sales, and I think we both know that the people who run CA wouldn't be on board with allowing things like private sales.
Which is their own fault/problem, not a fault of the system under which cars have been sold in this country for decades, with the exception of Ohio's recent attempt to specifically outlaw the sale of Tesla automobiles (a dumb and unconstitutional move, IMO).
It's their own fault that they're not a 30-year established company with multi-billion-dollar income able to support tens of thousands of dealerships all over the country in convenient locations for the consumer?
Strawman argument - do you think Chevy pays for every Chevy dealership? Obviously not, because you said "In many states, it's illegal to own your own dealership."
Neither the law, nor the "30-year established compan(ies)" are preventing Tesla from offering franchise opportunities in other states. You seem to be trying to blame everyone but Tesla Motors for a business decision Tesla Motors has made - not franchising dealerships.
Have you ever wondered why every small auto manuafcturer--Tucker, AMC, etc.--in the US has failed or been bought up by the big three?
Not really, no - I presume most of them failed because either A) they made crappy products nobody wanted to buy, or B) they ran their own businesses into the ground with stupid decisions... like limiting the number of states they can sell in (and thus, severely limiting their customer base) because they were unwilling to let a "middle-man" get a cut of the action.
Of course Google was going to do this. That's why there was a whole bunch of red flags raised when the acquisition was announced. We should all be more privacy conscious and it's not like there are alternative's to the Nest gear. I was about ready to pull the trigger in January for three Nest T-Stats but after hearing that Google was buying them, I changed over to Cyberstats instead.
Considering that a decent, non-remote-capable thermostat will run you almost as much as a Cyberstat (if not more), $85 buck seems like a pretty stellar deal.
Why? Is there some law against Tesla opening dealerships?
If Tesla owns the dealerships then yes there are many states with laws against that.
Which is no different than the way other auto makers are treated. Which, in the eyes of the Feds, makes it perfectly reasonable.
It's dumb but that's the way the laws are written and the auto dealers are obviously highly motivated to keep their little cut of the profits protected.
Can't disagree with you there. I hate dealing with car salesmen.
No, really, I don't understand why that's such an impossible business model for them to adopt. Is it a logistics issue? Lack of funding? Ego problem? Help me out here.
It's about several issues but the big one is money. Any time you have a middleman they are going to want a profit and that adds to costs for customers and reduces potential profits for Tesla. No company wants to deal with a middleman if they don't need to. Sometimes a middleman is necessary to reach customers or to prevent financial and/or safety abuses but that isn't really the case here. Tesla would rather be able to pocket the percentage they would otherwise have to pay to a dealer and frankly they should have every right to do so in this case. There is no compelling public interest to be served by forcing you and me to buy cars through a dealer if we don't want to.
Requiring dealers arguably hurts consumers (higher prices), hurts manufacturers (lost sales due to higher prices and third party marketing) and hurts governments where the manufacturer is based. Governments with a tax interest in the dealer network and the dealers themselves benefit but at a pretty substantial cost to the rest of society. Requiring dealers is pretty similar to requiring a tariff - it raises prices and benefits the local economy but ultimately hurts consumers and manufacturers and is an inefficient use of capital.
Well hey, I'll bet a lot of companies want to operate their businesses in ways that are not currently legal, but they don't. Not saying I agree with the way the system is set up, but if you want to join the game, you've gotta play by the rules. Whining that the rules suck isn't going to get cars out the showroom doors.
That's correct at least in principle but there are some nuances. The state should not have that right to restrict sale of a product as long at the product itself is legal and there are no public safety issues involved. That said there are some pretty important differences between purchasing a weapon and purchasing a motor vehicle. Motor vehicles have to be properly registered and titled no matter where they were purchased and appropriate training and licensing is required for their use. Firearms clearly have some public safety issues attached to them so sensible measures regarding their sale and distribution and use are not in principle unreasonable.
Pure opinion, meaning that it should not be the basis of legislation. Looking at statistics, motor vehicles present an almost equal amount of public safety risk as firearms, despite vehicle registrations. I think you're letting your opinions regarding Tesla and firearms prevent you from seeing the comparison objectively.
Commercially speaking, there is zero difference between Utah requiring all autos to be sold through dealers and California requiring firearms to be sold through the same method.
Think back - how many times have you bought things that were built/manufactured/grown by the same company selling it to you?
Often, but I have a habit of shopping local for everything I possibly can. I get where you're coming from, though.
That's an exceedingly rare circumstance and demanding Tesla has to do that (with the only visible reason being their product is better) doesn't seem fair.
Nobody's demanding that of Tesla - the governments of the states are expecting Tesla to follow the same model that all other auto makers have to follow, and Tesla doesn't want to. That's what appears to be the real problem here.
Unless some legislator is blocking Tesla from franchising dealerships, and/or expecting them to follow stricter rules than any other auto maker has to follow (looking at you, Ohio), this is much ado about nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. That was a simple statement of fanboyism,
FTFY, again.
Having the first product mass-adopted is not the same thing as having the first product; for example, there were shit-tons of MP3 players on the market when Apple introduced the iPod, and people bought them, their suckiness notwithstanding.
I recall my first player was a 1" square RCA jobby that had, I believe, 64MB of memory. Held just enough songs to cover my shift, and barely had enough volume to drown out the machinery, but by golly it worked. Sometimes I miss that little guy and his lack of features... namely when the music app on my "smart" phone decides it won't play a long-existing format (2014 and no WMA support? WTF, MediaMonkey?).
I hear about these "targeted ads" a lot, yet regardless of which device and account I'm using, I still get the same "You bought X? Then you might want to buy X!" ads as always. Amazon seems the worst offender in this regard.
I just bought a new pair of Pumas - try to sell me shoe laces, or a FitBit or something other than another new pair of Pumas!
that I simply don't care anymore?
Nah; heck, if not for the curiosity factor (loss of communications, stories about the 'weird' pilot, et. al), most people wouldn't have paid any more attention to it than any other plane crash.
If anything, that just shows that you don't have a vested interest in the search, just like 6.999 billion other humans.
Stuff like that wouldn't bother me so much if the reporting was voluntary, and the person generating all this lucrative data actually got compensated for it.
Not a lot of hard evidence around to make a concrete conclusion. Were there more information it would cement my thoughts. What I see is a conglomerate of issues.
Now that's some stone-cold, solid reasoning.
The current version of the FitBit does include a time display. They recalled them all due to the band being toxic to skin, but I expect that they're releasing a fixed version.
Cool.
Hopefully they'll have the new ones out before the end of next month; I was considering giving my wife one for her birthday.
I owned a Seiko MessageWatch (see http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/t...). It was functional for about 3 years. Off course, a modern-day variant can be connected to a laptop or desktop computer to upgrade the firmware, which the MessageWatch could not. So the idea is ancient, but maybe the time is ripe now.
On the other hand, My Nokia N900 was supported for about 3 years as well. Maybe people want to spend a lot of money on phones, but I doubt if they want to spend that much money on a watch that is already obsolete when you open the package.
Conversely, I have one of my grandfather's pocket watches. It still tells time just like it did the day he bought it 80 years ago, presuming it's wound.
No firmware updates, no planned obsolescence.
Apple doesn't really enter existing markets. They make new ones. </sarc>
FTFY
Granted we may see some "corded" VOIP phones turn up, but the POTS is going to die some time around. My guess is along 10-20 years.
You'll see the death of POTS in your lifetime, but not because of lack of need or use; rather, it will go away as soon as the companies who own the infrastructure complete their mission of convincing the government to stop forcing them to install/upgrade POTS infrastructure (while keeping the tax incentives, of course).
AT&T and Verizon are already heading down that road.
I think the low end watches where already culled by the mobile phones in general. All watches that remain are basically some form or other an accessory, that is used to show off.
Nah, walk up to the jewelry counter of almost any department store, they still have tables loaded with $10 - 20 el cheapo watches. Good for kids and anyone who just needs/wants a general idea of the time, but doesn't need/want super-precise timekeeping.
> my kinetic (ie self-winding) windup watch will always be able to tell the time, so long as I keep it wound and don't break it.
And, it will always be correct at least twice a day!
Only if you forget to wind it.
If you're that worried/forgetful, you could just go get yourself one of these.
No winding necessary.
Corded phones didn't cost $350 - $500 either.
Never bought a Cisco or NEC IP phone, have you?
They can get pricey.
Yeah, biggest change is that today they're attached to the ethernet port instead of needing their own cable system, and has access to the company phonebook via LDAP etc. They have also become quite complicated - when I got the phone on my desk, it came with a little folder instructing me how to install the operating system. That think literally has more buttons than my laptop...
Sometimes, yes. Usually in corporate offices, though, not in the actual retail locations.
But a lot of the time (more often than you think), they're connected to Cat3, which is subsequently wired into a key system, pulling dial tone from POTS lines. I know, because I coordinate their installations every single day (and yes, it kills me to have a brand new, VoIP capable system installed, just to have the client use it as a POTS key system).
We're talking 150 - 200 system installs a year, 10-20 phones per install, and that's just me - there are 10 other people here doing the same thing. That's a lot of corded phones.
So get a FitBit (or whatever).
Actually, if they'd stick a simple digital time readout into the FitBit, and not charge an arm and a leg, that's something I might actually be willing to consider as a replacement for my faithful ol' analog watch.
While I agree that watches have their own niche, I don't think any of them believe that their timepieces are more accurate than other devices, so audiophiles are probably not the best point of comparison.
At least, not until Monster starts making oxygen-free watch bodies with 24k gold connectors.
Same with fountain pens. People by fountain pens because it is a sign of class and status, same is with watches.
I don't care about class or status, I wear a wristwatch for 2 reasons:
1) I've always worn one, and I feel kind of naked without it
2) "remove phone from pocket/turn on screen/twist body to shield screen from sun/read time" seems like a huge waste of time and effort, compared to "twist wrist/read time"
OK, 3 reasons:
3) my kinetic (ie self-winding) windup watch will always be able to tell the time, so long as I keep it wound and don't break it.
...how that attitude worked out for them.
Not the most observant person, are we? Next time you're in a brick-and-mortar establishment, take a second to look around at just what kind of phones they have on the various desks, kiosks, checkouts, et. al.
FYI, the "corded phone manufacturers" are doing just fine; hell, they sell me (or rather, my clients) thousands of phones and replacement parts every single year.
Exactly! That's why every time a manufacturer builds a bigger factory so they can make more product to sell to more people, the price goes up and up and up.
Sarcasm fail:
Unless we're talking about factories being built in China, yea, that's pretty much the case. Hell, look at how car prices were affected when the Big Three moved most of their production facilities to Mexico - they sure as hell didn't get any cheaper.
Yet that's exactly how cars have been sold in this country for decades - the government telling auto makers, "you can't sell directly to the public, you have to set up dealerships."
Right... And now they're finally realising that that's a stupid restriction to place that has no benefit and arbitrarily restricts trade.
Obviously, it's not a legal barrier, since dozens of other car companies have followed this model for a long, long time. It seems to me the real issue at hand is that Tesla wants an exception made to the law, just for them. Now that would be unconstitutional.
No, Tesla wants state laws changed so that they're in line with federal laws allowing Tesla to trade across state boundaries as it pleases, rather than being told it's not allowed to trade with certain people in certain states.
No disagreement there, but I don't see the governments, federal or states, wanting to give up the ability to impose those restrictions anytime soon - otherwise, states like California wouldn't be able to restrict, say, firearms sales, and I think we both know that the people who run CA wouldn't be on board with allowing things like private sales.
Which is their own fault/problem, not a fault of the system under which cars have been sold in this country for decades, with the exception of Ohio's recent attempt to specifically outlaw the sale of Tesla automobiles (a dumb and unconstitutional move, IMO).
It's their own fault that they're not a 30-year established company with multi-billion-dollar income able to support tens of thousands of dealerships all over the country in convenient locations for the consumer?
Strawman argument - do you think Chevy pays for every Chevy dealership? Obviously not, because you said "In many states, it's illegal to own your own dealership."
Neither the law, nor the "30-year established compan(ies)" are preventing Tesla from offering franchise opportunities in other states. You seem to be trying to blame everyone but Tesla Motors for a business decision Tesla Motors has made - not franchising dealerships.
Have you ever wondered why every small auto manuafcturer--Tucker, AMC, etc.--in the US has failed or been bought up by the big three?
Not really, no - I presume most of them failed because either A) they made crappy products nobody wanted to buy, or B) they ran their own businesses into the ground with stupid decisions... like limiting the number of states they can sell in (and thus, severely limiting their customer base) because they were unwilling to let a "middle-man" get a cut of the action.
Of course Google was going to do this. That's why there was a whole bunch of red flags raised when the acquisition was announced. We should all be more privacy conscious and it's not like there are alternative's to the Nest gear. I was about ready to pull the trigger in January for three Nest T-Stats but after hearing that Google was buying them, I changed over to Cyberstats instead.
Considering that a decent, non-remote-capable thermostat will run you almost as much as a Cyberstat (if not more), $85 buck seems like a pretty stellar deal.
Why? Is there some law against Tesla opening dealerships?
If Tesla owns the dealerships then yes there are many states with laws against that.
Which is no different than the way other auto makers are treated. Which, in the eyes of the Feds, makes it perfectly reasonable.
It's dumb but that's the way the laws are written and the auto dealers are obviously highly motivated to keep their little cut of the profits protected.
Can't disagree with you there. I hate dealing with car salesmen.
No, really, I don't understand why that's such an impossible business model for them to adopt. Is it a logistics issue? Lack of funding? Ego problem? Help me out here.
It's about several issues but the big one is money. Any time you have a middleman they are going to want a profit and that adds to costs for customers and reduces potential profits for Tesla. No company wants to deal with a middleman if they don't need to. Sometimes a middleman is necessary to reach customers or to prevent financial and/or safety abuses but that isn't really the case here. Tesla would rather be able to pocket the percentage they would otherwise have to pay to a dealer and frankly they should have every right to do so in this case. There is no compelling public interest to be served by forcing you and me to buy cars through a dealer if we don't want to.
Requiring dealers arguably hurts consumers (higher prices), hurts manufacturers (lost sales due to higher prices and third party marketing) and hurts governments where the manufacturer is based. Governments with a tax interest in the dealer network and the dealers themselves benefit but at a pretty substantial cost to the rest of society. Requiring dealers is pretty similar to requiring a tariff - it raises prices and benefits the local economy but ultimately hurts consumers and manufacturers and is an inefficient use of capital.
Well hey, I'll bet a lot of companies want to operate their businesses in ways that are not currently legal, but they don't. Not saying I agree with the way the system is set up, but if you want to join the game, you've gotta play by the rules. Whining that the rules suck isn't going to get cars out the showroom doors.
In fairness, you didn't ask for solutions, you just said you didn't understand the pessimism.
I was trying to help you with that.
That's correct at least in principle but there are some nuances. The state should not have that right to restrict sale of a product as long at the product itself is legal and there are no public safety issues involved. That said there are some pretty important differences between purchasing a weapon and purchasing a motor vehicle. Motor vehicles have to be properly registered and titled no matter where they were purchased and appropriate training and licensing is required for their use. Firearms clearly have some public safety issues attached to them so sensible measures regarding their sale and distribution and use are not in principle unreasonable.
Pure opinion, meaning that it should not be the basis of legislation. Looking at statistics, motor vehicles present an almost equal amount of public safety risk as firearms, despite vehicle registrations. I think you're letting your opinions regarding Tesla and firearms prevent you from seeing the comparison objectively.
Commercially speaking, there is zero difference between Utah requiring all autos to be sold through dealers and California requiring firearms to be sold through the same method.
Think back - how many times have you bought things that were built/manufactured/grown by the same company selling it to you?
Often, but I have a habit of shopping local for everything I possibly can. I get where you're coming from, though.
That's an exceedingly rare circumstance and demanding Tesla has to do that (with the only visible reason being their product is better) doesn't seem fair.
Nobody's demanding that of Tesla - the governments of the states are expecting Tesla to follow the same model that all other auto makers have to follow, and Tesla doesn't want to. That's what appears to be the real problem here.
Unless some legislator is blocking Tesla from franchising dealerships, and/or expecting them to follow stricter rules than any other auto maker has to follow (looking at you, Ohio), this is much ado about nothing.