The ultimate goal of "competition" is to achieve monopoly status, by eliminating competitors. That is what "competition" means.
Once you eliminate your competitors, you can do whatever you want to the market.
Why would you want consumers to suffer through competition?
Note that any bit of protected intellectual property, such as copyrights and patents, would also be a time-limited government-granted monopoly. They are the only items that should be allowed monopoly status, not commodity services like communications technologies.
Commodity services should be government-controlled, since government is better able to handle monopolies than private enterprises.
I also talk to advertisers, and they have specific placement requirements. It's not just place ads where the demographics are. Proctor & Gamble has rules such as not placing their ad next to blood, and other details like that.
They have 500 million viewers, yet they ONLY make $1.6 billion from them?
Conde Naste makes $4 billion a year from just a few million viewers.
There are some fundamental problems with Facebook that would prevent major-brand advertisements from purchasing ads there, namely, that it's a viewer-driven site - content comes from the viewers, which is a big no-no among advertisers.
Why would a major advertiser, like Calvin Klein, place their high-end ad right next to some picture of a college kids barf? They would much rather have their ads placed next to a picture of Lara Stone.
THIS is why Facebook only pulls in a few cents CPM, whereas an ad in Vogue goes for $150 CPM.
The more democratic you get, the less interesting you are to advertisers.
Facebook has 500 million viewers, but can only manage to get $1.2 billion a year from that.
Meanwhile, Conde Naste brings in $4 billion from just a few million viewers.
This is why internet advertising will never be able to compete with traditional advertising. They are chasing CPM in the pennies range, while something like Vogue has a CPM of $150.
Facebook and google have to dramatically improve signal-to-noise of their content before they can raise their CPM rates.
I thought his presidency has demonstrated the positive effects of his high intelligence?
Thanks to President Barack Hussein Obama, we are out of a recession.. so what more do you want? Free money? Blacks to go back to being our slaves? A church in every high school?
Obama has demonstrated why we should elect people like him.
Well how about we create a bill banning all private internet service providers and transferring that service to a socialist government organization, per clause in the US Constitution establishing a government-run mail (communications) service?
The best government is a socialist government that fights the libertarian ideals of established corporations.
The whole point of competition is to eliminate competitors to gain monopoly status.
to wait for the bugs to be worked out over a few releases. It's cool and awesome, but I don't know how useful it'd be in its present state of word-only translation.
Not everything models around economies of scale, especially in tech. For example, Intel can't make chips for cheaper, without introducing new technology that may or may not happen.
They really should reserve the Volt for luxury automobiles. A Mercedes S550 would be much better vehicle with a quiet all-electric drive, instead of the noisy gas-system. Plus, at $100k each, they can afford a more expensive/longer-ranged/powerful set of batteries than something like the Volt.
For GM, I'd like to see a Vette with lots of electric power.
But let's make it clear: Apple is a systems company.
The fact that you are trying to figure out whether it's a software or a hardware company means you don't understand systems-level design.
They don't make Silicon, they make CPU's. The don't make CPU's, they make motherboards. They don't make motherboards, they make the computer. They don't make computers, they make a system. Etc..
Facebook's selling point was its exclusivity - you originally joined Facebook because only college kids were on it, and no one else. You stayed on it for the clean interface.
A BETTER email system does not place the burden upon you to decide what to block. It removes that choice from you, freeing up your time and resources.
This system is great - it takes known spam links, and blocks the SENDER from sending it.
Don't have to fish around spam folders wondering if you've ever missed a blocked email, because, you never got it in the first place.
This places the burden on the few sender, not the millions of receivers.
You really need to limit freedom to make it better. Remember, "choice" is a actually a cost. Each additional degree of freedom added to any system is one more bit of complexity, limiting its usefulness. The more complex you make a system, the less successful people are at using it.
It is why the iPod, and Facebook (its simplicity compared to myspace) dominates the market.
If you give people less freedom, they will be happier, since their main concern is what they practically do, not what they could theoretically do.
Slashdot Mirror
The ultimate goal of "competition" is to achieve monopoly status, by eliminating competitors. That is what "competition" means.
Once you eliminate your competitors, you can do whatever you want to the market.
Why would you want consumers to suffer through competition?
Note that any bit of protected intellectual property, such as copyrights and patents, would also be a time-limited government-granted monopoly. They are the only items that should be allowed monopoly status, not commodity services like communications technologies.
Commodity services should be government-controlled, since government is better able to handle monopolies than private enterprises.
I also talk to advertisers, and they have specific placement requirements. It's not just place ads where the demographics are. Proctor & Gamble has rules such as not placing their ad next to blood, and other details like that.
They have 500 million viewers, yet they ONLY make $1.6 billion from them?
Conde Naste makes $4 billion a year from just a few million viewers.
There are some fundamental problems with Facebook that would prevent major-brand advertisements from purchasing ads there, namely, that it's a viewer-driven site - content comes from the viewers, which is a big no-no among advertisers.
Why would a major advertiser, like Calvin Klein, place their high-end ad right next to some picture of a college kids barf? They would much rather have their ads placed next to a picture of Lara Stone.
THIS is why Facebook only pulls in a few cents CPM, whereas an ad in Vogue goes for $150 CPM.
The more democratic you get, the less interesting you are to advertisers.
Facebook has 500 million viewers, but can only manage to get $1.2 billion a year from that.
Meanwhile, Conde Naste brings in $4 billion from just a few million viewers.
This is why internet advertising will never be able to compete with traditional advertising. They are chasing CPM in the pennies range, while something like Vogue has a CPM of $150.
Facebook and google have to dramatically improve signal-to-noise of their content before they can raise their CPM rates.
I thought his presidency has demonstrated the positive effects of his high intelligence?
Thanks to President Barack Hussein Obama, we are out of a recession.. so what more do you want? Free money? Blacks to go back to being our slaves? A church in every high school?
Obama has demonstrated why we should elect people like him.
Kill the laptops!
College was fine before the laptop was invented.
Well how about we create a bill banning all private internet service providers and transferring that service to a socialist government organization, per clause in the US Constitution establishing a government-run mail (communications) service?
The best government is a socialist government that fights the libertarian ideals of established corporations.
The whole point of competition is to eliminate competitors to gain monopoly status.
to wait for the bugs to be worked out over a few releases. It's cool and awesome, but I don't know how useful it'd be in its present state of word-only translation.
If linking to websites is considered freedom, then I don't want to be free.
I don't trust you more than I trust google.
What fantastic value does the app format provide that makes publishers put up with these shenanigans?
Fewer clicks and hurdles to purchase. Each click dramatically reduces purchases.
Not everything models around economies of scale, especially in tech. For example, Intel can't make chips for cheaper, without introducing new technology that may or may not happen.
They really should reserve the Volt for luxury automobiles. A Mercedes S550 would be much better vehicle with a quiet all-electric drive, instead of the noisy gas-system. Plus, at $100k each, they can afford a more expensive/longer-ranged/powerful set of batteries than something like the Volt.
For GM, I'd like to see a Vette with lots of electric power.
Keep her in the spotlight. I'd prefer having 4 more years of Obama, instead of any Republican "small government" type.
And, no one else makes things remotely close.
But let's make it clear: Apple is a systems company.
The fact that you are trying to figure out whether it's a software or a hardware company means you don't understand systems-level design.
They don't make Silicon, they make CPU's. The don't make CPU's, they make motherboards. They don't make motherboards, they make the computer. They don't make computers, they make a system. Etc..
Or would you rather have the new iPod nano be bigger?
You are obviously not a designer.
Like, you made a whole video game to accurately recreate the violent deaths of people for sport, right?
And you have problems with people expressing their preference for a group that violently killed lots of people?
MORAL DILEMMA!
It's more open than Facebook.
Facebook's selling point was its exclusivity - you originally joined Facebook because only college kids were on it, and no one else. You stayed on it for the clean interface.
There's no incentive to join Diaspora.
This is slashdot.
If slashdot users are using it, then it failed in the real world.
Half the audience here is still running it.
It's usually the articles about some amazing new high-tech imaging breakthrough without pics.
(checks article)
yep.
A BETTER email system does not place the burden upon you to decide what to block. It removes that choice from you, freeing up your time and resources.
This system is great - it takes known spam links, and blocks the SENDER from sending it.
Don't have to fish around spam folders wondering if you've ever missed a blocked email, because, you never got it in the first place.
This places the burden on the few sender, not the millions of receivers.
You really need to limit freedom to make it better. Remember, "choice" is a actually a cost. Each additional degree of freedom added to any system is one more bit of complexity, limiting its usefulness. The more complex you make a system, the less successful people are at using it.
It is why the iPod, and Facebook (its simplicity compared to myspace) dominates the market.
If you give people less freedom, they will be happier, since their main concern is what they practically do, not what they could theoretically do.
And that includes spam.
This is nothing new.
Americans want more socialism in this country, since it is a better economic system.
If the libertarians ruled this country, we would end up like Somalia.
Nobody wants to be a libertarian hell like Somalia.
I am totally taking away all the Libertads mod points.
Easy peasy, Japaneasy.