I'd like to see the results of a study using a different sample set...one group that see's a significant difference between Democrats and Repulicans, and another group who has a hard time distinguishing between the two.
I don't really have a problem with the evil corporations tracking my interests, likes, and dislikes. What I do have a problem with is the inefficiency with which they do it.
Their system would be much more effective for me and them if they'd try to sell me the things I'm interested in and only the things I'm interested in.
As it stands, 90% of what I get is useless to me, and the cost to market it to me ends up raising the price of the product for those who are interested.
Of course, developing an efficient marketing system would probably involve a substantial investment as well.
We were just discussing this at work--the only reason I'd want Google stock would be for the cool factor. (Un)fortunately I don't care enough about cool to buy.
Future successes in any of these businesses could make Google's current price seriously undervalued. And if some key ones fall through, it will have been far too high.
The scariest unanswered question to me is what happens when the next "google" comes along? Tech moves quickly, and traditionally the bigger a company is the slower they move...all of us who work for large firms can attest to that.
I stick to a pretty basic investment philosopy: Invest in a company only if any idiot could run it. Eventually one will.
My proposal to make planes safer is to issue everyone over 16 a gun at the gate to carry on with them. Who's going to hijack a plane when everybody else on board has a gun pointed at THEM?
I don't suppose it could possibly be be Coke tastes better than Pepsi, could it?
Pretty naive way of looking at it. I'd say that for most people, once they are in the restaurant (PC store), they are getting the drink (printer), that comes with the meal deal (package). Brand name and quality becomes a issues that are secondary to price and convenience.
There is so much more that goes into a decision of what product to carry than what the consumer actually prefers. Even if 75% would rather have Coke than Pepsi (HP than Dell printer), the company with the smaller market share can use price to the reseller or it's other products to get into the door.
In the soft drink case, look at how many sandwich restaurants (Subway, etc.) carry Pepsi. One of the big reasons is that Pepsi uses its strength in the Lays potato chip brand to leverage soft drink deals. It's all about shelf space.
Dell is getting into the printer market now with no reputation in that market. While they have a substantial share of the PC market, are any other PC manufacturers going to be willing to purchase/sell Dell printers? Which of their competitors will be willing to sell a printer with Dell's name on it?
HP/Compaq on the other hand, while it has its hand in the PC market, is not really viewed (at least by me) as a PC company. This move MAY encourage other PC manufacturers to go with HP (widely viewed as the superior printer) as a strategy to better compete with Dell.
I believe a similar situation existed in the fast food market a few years ago when Pepsi owned Taco Bell, KFC, and Pizza Hut. Those restaurants ALL sold Pepsi products. Since they were under the same umbrella, lots of other fast food chains were selling Coca Cola products because selling Pepsi was in essence giving money to their competitor. Pepsi eventually spun these restaurants off into a seperate company so that they could have a chance at sales in the competing restaurants.
Not saying I'm right, but it is a point to consider...
Three years ago I thought mobile phones were a plague, but for an extra $3/month I was able to replace my land line with no options and long distance charges with a mobile phone including voicemail, call waiting, call forwarding, and nationwide long distance. True, limited minutes, but still more than I need.
The $$$ I save on the land line and cancelling my dialup ISP is enough to pay for broadband access.
If someone offers me MOBILE broadband access for $10-$20 more than I'm paying now, I'll be the first to sign up.
There is plenty of bandwidth...try the U.S. Postal Service or walking over to your neighbor's house with a handful of blank CDs.
The RIAA is missing a very important concept--I would guess that most (I don't have a firm number) music downloaded is done one track at a time. Anyone with an ounce of intellect and the desire to get an entire albulm for free would do so by trading CDs loaded with.mp3 files...10 or so albulms on each CD. This cannot be stopped.
Why does the motion picture industry make previews/clips from movies readily available? Because they generate interest in the full product, which many people are willing to purchase at a reasonable price. The end user gets value for his purchase by either seeing the movie at a theatre with a huge screen and great sound system, or from buying the DVD with director's commentary, deleted scenes, and special vignettes.
Now that basically everyone knows the low cost of producing an audio CD, the perceived value is nowhere near the $17 range. The choice now is to find a buddy who has it or buy it at an insane markup.
I could be wrong, but I don't think many people are taking the time to find and download entire albulms. If nothing else there is too much of a chance of getting a partial or corrupt file.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to disagree...
. lo ng.to.getToYour(methods);
the.real.reason.its.uncool.is.that.it.takes.too
I'd like to see the results of a study using a different sample set...one group that see's a significant difference between Democrats and Repulicans, and another group who has a hard time distinguishing between the two.
I'll volunteer to be a part of group II.
I don't really have a problem with the evil corporations tracking my interests, likes, and dislikes. What I do have a problem with is the inefficiency with which they do it.
Their system would be much more effective for me and them if they'd try to sell me the things I'm interested in and only the things I'm interested in.
As it stands, 90% of what I get is useless to me, and the cost to market it to me ends up raising the price of the product for those who are interested.
Of course, developing an efficient marketing system would probably involve a substantial investment as well.
So on, and so forth...
We were just discussing this at work--the only reason I'd want Google stock would be for the cool factor. (Un)fortunately I don't care enough about cool to buy.
As an investment? No thanks.
Future successes in any of these businesses could make Google's current price seriously undervalued. And if some key ones fall through, it will have been far too high.
The scariest unanswered question to me is what happens when the next "google" comes along? Tech moves quickly, and traditionally the bigger a company is the slower they move...all of us who work for large firms can attest to that.
I stick to a pretty basic investment philosopy: Invest in a company only if any idiot could run it. Eventually one will.
Spelling out the point for you--
It makes just as much sense as checking everyone's ID before they get on a plane.
Terrorists would never forge documents right? I mean, that's illegal.
agreed...some people are going to have to learn the hard way not to give out sensitive information about themselves.
I say let's evolve, and let the chips fall where they may. But that's just me--I could be wrong.
My proposal to make planes safer is to issue everyone over 16 a gun at the gate to carry on with them. Who's going to hijack a plane when everybody else on board has a gun pointed at THEM?
United States of America--the only country in the world where a large majority of the "poor" people are fat.
And what exactly would be the difference to now?
Because now we have Goofy.
Was telling a guy at work about it, and he went and grabbed it immediately.
I won't get karma
Alhough my haiku stands out
Turd in a punch bowl
I don't suppose it could possibly be be Coke tastes better than Pepsi, could it?
Pretty naive way of looking at it. I'd say that for most people, once they are in the restaurant (PC store), they are getting the drink (printer), that comes with the meal deal (package). Brand name and quality becomes a issues that are secondary to price and convenience.
There is so much more that goes into a decision of what product to carry than what the consumer actually prefers. Even if 75% would rather have Coke than Pepsi (HP than Dell printer), the company with the smaller market share can use price to the reseller or it's other products to get into the door.
In the soft drink case, look at how many sandwich restaurants (Subway, etc.) carry Pepsi. One of the big reasons is that Pepsi uses its strength in the Lays potato chip brand to leverage soft drink deals. It's all about shelf space.
Playing devil's advocate here...
Dell is getting into the printer market now with no reputation in that market. While they have a substantial share of the PC market, are any other PC manufacturers going to be willing to purchase/sell Dell printers? Which of their competitors will be willing to sell a printer with Dell's name on it?
HP/Compaq on the other hand, while it has its hand in the PC market, is not really viewed (at least by me) as a PC company. This move MAY encourage other PC manufacturers to go with HP (widely viewed as the superior printer) as a strategy to better compete with Dell.
I believe a similar situation existed in the fast food market a few years ago when Pepsi owned Taco Bell, KFC, and Pizza Hut. Those restaurants ALL sold Pepsi products. Since they were under the same umbrella, lots of other fast food chains were selling Coca Cola products because selling Pepsi was in essence giving money to their competitor. Pepsi eventually spun these restaurants off into a seperate company so that they could have a chance at sales in the competing restaurants.
Not saying I'm right, but it is a point to consider...
They can have my encryption when they pry it from my cold, dead hard drive.
Exactly...
Three years ago I thought mobile phones were a plague, but for an extra $3/month I was able to replace my land line with no options and long distance charges with a mobile phone including voicemail, call waiting, call forwarding, and nationwide long distance. True, limited minutes, but still more than I need.
The $$$ I save on the land line and cancelling my dialup ISP is enough to pay for broadband access.
If someone offers me MOBILE broadband access for $10-$20 more than I'm paying now, I'll be the first to sign up.
There is plenty of bandwidth...try the U.S. Postal Service or walking over to your neighbor's house with a handful of blank CDs.
.mp3 files...10 or so albulms on each CD. This cannot be stopped.
The RIAA is missing a very important concept--I would guess that most (I don't have a firm number) music downloaded is done one track at a time. Anyone with an ounce of intellect and the desire to get an entire albulm for free would do so by trading CDs loaded with
Why does the motion picture industry make previews/clips from movies readily available? Because they generate interest in the full product, which many people are willing to purchase at a reasonable price. The end user gets value for his purchase by either seeing the movie at a theatre with a huge screen and great sound system, or from buying the DVD with director's commentary, deleted scenes, and special vignettes.
Now that basically everyone knows the low cost of producing an audio CD, the perceived value is nowhere near the $17 range. The choice now is to find a buddy who has it or buy it at an insane markup.
I could be wrong, but I don't think many people are taking the time to find and download entire albulms. If nothing else there is too much of a chance of getting a partial or corrupt file.
Exactly.
I was hoping to use this ruling to force the NBA to let me play, even though I can't run, jump, dribble, or shoot.