That's basically what it is - a war, just fought in global courtrooms instead of global hills and fields, and fought with lawsuits and injunctions instead of artillery and carpet-bombing.
I have to say, I strongly prefer this kind of war.
Right you are, sort of. That's the current TV broadcast (or cable) model, which is why I watch so vanishingly little broadcast TV. I still enjoy some TV shows, but I get them by Netflix or download or DVD without commercials. It's also why I use Facebook so little.
The same content (shows), however, are also sold via those other distributions mediums (DVD, streaming), and when you directly pay for the content, then it is the product and you are the customer. I prefer this model. In fact, it is the only model I find acceptable at all. I would definitely be willing to sell my eyeball time, don't get me wrong about that, but the cost would be vastly higher than the value of a silly TV show. To sit around watching commercials, you'd have to pay me almost as much as my employer does.
No no, the cost to the advertiser -- the cost to buy the advertising airtime -- is approximately two to four cents per viewer. I didn't even factor in the cost of actually broadcasting the ads, which would be an additional SAVINGS to the broadcaster, thus FURTHER increasing their profits.
Then there is the economic cost of producing the commercials, which is dead weight loss in the economy. Imagine what we could do to improve the world with the money we spend today making stupid commercials!
You and TV producers think about it that way, but I don't. TV isn't free at all, it costs my time and attention. Sure, I'm willing to sell my time and attention, but it costs way WAY more than forty cents per hour, which is why I don't go to work in exchange for forty cents per hour.
So the question is, what is more valuable to me, forty pennies, or eighteen minutes of watching commercials over the course of an hour? That's the question, and the answer is that the 18 minutes are more valuable to me.
Because the marginal difference between carriers is small enough to be negligible. They all suck horribly and in inconsistent ways. For many people, AT&T sucks less than the alternative, but still sucks. When all the carriers suck, the only recourse would be to go without a cell phone, which sucks even more than the carriers do.
Me too. Do you have a dumb phone like I do? I think we are the minority of customers who get good consistent service, because our needs are so so so simple.
My problem with AT&T is that I can't get a smart phone with them, because they refuse to sell me one on my terms -- specifically, I only want voice and text, not internet data. They won't sell me that. Whatever company ever decides they are willing to sell me that, WILL sell me that, because I WILL buy it from them.
I have heard and understand that argument, but it is -- let me put this bluntly -- complete bullshit. And we know for a fact that it is bullshit, because the requirement to have a data plan applies even to customers who already own their own smart phone device (as do I), despite your claim to the contrary. The policy is absolutely, positively, 100% obviously and incontrovertibly a greedy fucking money grab on the part of telcos who illegally and unethically collude with one another to fuck the general public in every possible way.
That is not hyperbole. That is the only reasonable explanation of the facts. All other explanations, such as they ones offered by the corporations, the same one you repeated, are transparent sophistries.
Indeed. This is the reason I don't have a smart phone -- the ONLY reason.
Actually I do have a smart phone, an HTC Incredible. It's very nice. I use it like an iPod, for music and podcasts and games and whatnot, but I don't have phone service for it. I have a candybar-style phone in my other pocket for phone calls. So, of course I would like to merge those two devices, but I'm not willing to pay for a data plan, so I'm not able to merge them. But consider doing as I do, and buy a cheap secondary-market smart phone (I paid $80, cheap) and just use it for the exactly things you mentioned.
Depending on your circumstances, the brand new Republic Phone might be able to save you money and frustration -- but only if you are the right kind of person. Check it out.
"Rogers Bell Telus"? What is that, some kind of sexually transmitted disease?
"Dude, I think that girl from the bar gave me Rogers Bell Telus." "Ew, no way dude! Did you get a greenish discharge?" "Sort of. The discharge is sort of whitish." "Oh, that's not Telus, man, that's the Clap. They can clear that up with anti-biotics." "Thank goodness! If I had Rogers Bell Telus I'd have to get my dong amputated."
...and this brings us to the OTHER thing wrong with TV, which is ads.
According to this artucle, advertising to one viewer during one show costs between two and four cents. There are, what, maybe ten commercials per half-hour. Thus, broadcasters should be able to sell me a show for between twenty and forty cents, and INCREASE their profits because now they don't have to pay ad salesmen and all the other nonsense surrounding ads.
So far, I don't know of any broadcaster offering me prime-time content for twenty cents. If any ever does, I'll put the pennies on the table; but if they want me to pay ten times MORE than that, then I decline their unethical offer and choose to get my entertainment ethically, by downloading it for free.
I've upped my concert standards, so up yours. There is plenty of good music to be heard for short money: if you care, seek it out; if not, that's fine, just skip it. But don't justify your rejection of all musical shows under the banner that the very very highest end shows are overpriced.
Are you joking, or serious? Are you seriously suggesting that software written in 2011 should work perfectly on operating systems released when Bill Clinton was the President? If you are serious, then I'm wondering how far back do you think browsers should work well with OSs? Should Chrome work well on Windows 3.1? How about DOS? Should it run on an Altair? on Minix? Should you be able to render it onto punchcards? What is your cutoff, such that your cutoff is longer than a decade?
My opinion is two years, maybe two and a half years. If your OS is older than that, then you should use an older browser. And I would forgive for cutoffs as little as 18 months.
I would agree, and I would add Maroon 5, except that they don't actually fit the description, because they can only produce zero songs per album that I'd actually want to purchase.
Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's
on
Napster Being Shut Down
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Wow, really? I buy CDs for one, two, or sometimes three dollars used. My favorite site is Half, but there are many others. Consider using them -- it really sounds like you are still purposely repeating behavior which results in you getting screwed. I can only imagine that you do that in order to preserve your plausible claim to the right to complain, but if you ever feel like actually solving the problem of overpriced music, you can do that easily.
Mainstream? As in, used by a majority of worldwide users? It would take a couple decades being pushed by a leading technology company. It's a moot question, though, because the desktop is no longer the primary platform on which users use software. Today that platform is the web, and so far we have managed not to fork or otherwise divide the web, which is a real possibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Please forgive GP. Some people only have the attention necessary to read three sentences, and that detail was "buried" in the fourth sentence.
Yeah, but Apple Computer did pay Apple Corps handsomely when they made their music store. Money solves problems like that.
That's basically what it is - a war, just fought in global courtrooms instead of global hills and fields, and fought with lawsuits and injunctions instead of artillery and carpet-bombing.
I have to say, I strongly prefer this kind of war.
Right you are, sort of. That's the current TV broadcast (or cable) model, which is why I watch so vanishingly little broadcast TV. I still enjoy some TV shows, but I get them by Netflix or download or DVD without commercials. It's also why I use Facebook so little.
The same content (shows), however, are also sold via those other distributions mediums (DVD, streaming), and when you directly pay for the content, then it is the product and you are the customer. I prefer this model. In fact, it is the only model I find acceptable at all. I would definitely be willing to sell my eyeball time, don't get me wrong about that, but the cost would be vastly higher than the value of a silly TV show. To sit around watching commercials, you'd have to pay me almost as much as my employer does.
No no, the cost to the advertiser -- the cost to buy the advertising airtime -- is approximately two to four cents per viewer. I didn't even factor in the cost of actually broadcasting the ads, which would be an additional SAVINGS to the broadcaster, thus FURTHER increasing their profits.
Then there is the economic cost of producing the commercials, which is dead weight loss in the economy. Imagine what we could do to improve the world with the money we spend today making stupid commercials!
You and TV producers think about it that way, but I don't. TV isn't free at all, it costs my time and attention. Sure, I'm willing to sell my time and attention, but it costs way WAY more than forty cents per hour, which is why I don't go to work in exchange for forty cents per hour.
So the question is, what is more valuable to me, forty pennies, or eighteen minutes of watching commercials over the course of an hour? That's the question, and the answer is that the 18 minutes are more valuable to me.
Two dollars is ten times higher than twenty cents. A two-dollar price is exactly what I think is unethically, preposterously expensive.
Because the marginal difference between carriers is small enough to be negligible. They all suck horribly and in inconsistent ways. For many people, AT&T sucks less than the alternative, but still sucks. When all the carriers suck, the only recourse would be to go without a cell phone, which sucks even more than the carriers do.
Me too. Do you have a dumb phone like I do? I think we are the minority of customers who get good consistent service, because our needs are so so so simple.
My problem with AT&T is that I can't get a smart phone with them, because they refuse to sell me one on my terms -- specifically, I only want voice and text, not internet data. They won't sell me that. Whatever company ever decides they are willing to sell me that, WILL sell me that, because I WILL buy it from them.
I have heard and understand that argument, but it is -- let me put this bluntly -- complete bullshit. And we know for a fact that it is bullshit, because the requirement to have a data plan applies even to customers who already own their own smart phone device (as do I), despite your claim to the contrary. The policy is absolutely, positively, 100% obviously and incontrovertibly a greedy fucking money grab on the part of telcos who illegally and unethically collude with one another to fuck the general public in every possible way.
That is not hyperbole. That is the only reasonable explanation of the facts. All other explanations, such as they ones offered by the corporations, the same one you repeated, are transparent sophistries.
Indeed. This is the reason I don't have a smart phone -- the ONLY reason.
Actually I do have a smart phone, an HTC Incredible. It's very nice. I use it like an iPod, for music and podcasts and games and whatnot, but I don't have phone service for it. I have a candybar-style phone in my other pocket for phone calls. So, of course I would like to merge those two devices, but I'm not willing to pay for a data plan, so I'm not able to merge them. But consider doing as I do, and buy a cheap secondary-market smart phone (I paid $80, cheap) and just use it for the exactly things you mentioned.
Good luck.
Depending on your circumstances, the brand new Republic Phone might be able to save you money and frustration -- but only if you are the right kind of person. Check it out.
"Rogers Bell Telus"? What is that, some kind of sexually transmitted disease?
"Dude, I think that girl from the bar gave me Rogers Bell Telus."
"Ew, no way dude! Did you get a greenish discharge?"
"Sort of. The discharge is sort of whitish."
"Oh, that's not Telus, man, that's the Clap. They can clear that up with anti-biotics."
"Thank goodness! If I had Rogers Bell Telus I'd have to get my dong amputated."
And by "these days" you mean "During the Bush2 administration".
...and this brings us to the OTHER thing wrong with TV, which is ads.
According to this artucle, advertising to one viewer during one show costs between two and four cents. There are, what, maybe ten commercials per half-hour. Thus, broadcasters should be able to sell me a show for between twenty and forty cents, and INCREASE their profits because now they don't have to pay ad salesmen and all the other nonsense surrounding ads.
So far, I don't know of any broadcaster offering me prime-time content for twenty cents. If any ever does, I'll put the pennies on the table; but if they want me to pay ten times MORE than that, then I decline their unethical offer and choose to get my entertainment ethically, by downloading it for free.
None of what I've heard has sounded every a tiny bit like rape. What have you heard?
I've upped my concert standards, so up yours. There is plenty of good music to be heard for short money: if you care, seek it out; if not, that's fine, just skip it. But don't justify your rejection of all musical shows under the banner that the very very highest end shows are overpriced.
Good one, thanks for the tittle.
Hardly. The debt isn't even accurate to the trillions.
Are you joking, or serious? Are you seriously suggesting that software written in 2011 should work perfectly on operating systems released when Bill Clinton was the President? If you are serious, then I'm wondering how far back do you think browsers should work well with OSs? Should Chrome work well on Windows 3.1? How about DOS? Should it run on an Altair? on Minix? Should you be able to render it onto punchcards? What is your cutoff, such that your cutoff is longer than a decade?
My opinion is two years, maybe two and a half years. If your OS is older than that, then you should use an older browser. And I would forgive for cutoffs as little as 18 months.
I would agree, and I would add Maroon 5, except that they don't actually fit the description, because they can only produce zero songs per album that I'd actually want to purchase.
Wow, really? I buy CDs for one, two, or sometimes three dollars used. My favorite site is Half, but there are many others. Consider using them -- it really sounds like you are still purposely repeating behavior which results in you getting screwed. I can only imagine that you do that in order to preserve your plausible claim to the right to complain, but if you ever feel like actually solving the problem of overpriced music, you can do that easily.
Mainstream? As in, used by a majority of worldwide users? It would take a couple decades being pushed by a leading technology company. It's a moot question, though, because the desktop is no longer the primary platform on which users use software. Today that platform is the web, and so far we have managed not to fork or otherwise divide the web, which is a real possibility.
Agreed. Way, way too little, way way too late.
Tell your friends.