Umm, I do. We're in the process of doing a migration from sharepoint 2007 to sharepoint 2010. We have millions invested in MS software. The migration by itself would have been incredibly easy, however, during requirements gathering, all of our internal customers decided they wanted a great many custom apps as well as a mobile app to tie into the SP2010. Realistically, if you manage your MS software correctly, it really is not a massive headache as some people think. Additionally, MS isn't forcing you to upgrade your software every 2 years. If you have competent people on staff, after 2 years, they should be able to support it without MS's help. Additionally, MS supports OS's and other software for more than 2 years generally. The real reasons to upgrade are added functionality in the newest version. But that goes with pretty much any software out there unless you are completely OSS.
I could definitely see that working and would be more than happy to deal with that monthly. It really all ends up depending on how it affects the ISP's bottom line though. If they make less in this type of tiered environment, it's not going to happen.
How are you going to become the "Jr" guy? Just because you are learning a new platform / software / server environment, doesn't mean it replaces your knowledge of the previous framework. Also, someone has to perform the integration, someone has to migrate data, someone has to validate the functionality requirements of the new installs. There is a hell of alot that has to be done in these situations, meanwhile you can learn the new shit and be able to say in the next interview "I am a SR Sys Admin for X system as well as an Advanced Admin of this MS system"
I'm pissed at him for being silly enough to want to give up a paying job in the current economy. I have many friends out of work right now that are highly experienced and very good at what they do. It's a matter of job availability, and there aren't quite as many available jobs as there are people to fill them.
You would do it as a purchase / refund not a buy / buy back. That way, the "purchaser" pays for the mp3, including tax. When done, they "return" the mp3 and get a "refund" thus no tax collected.
But to make up for those that use almost no bandwidth currently, but paying $80 / month, they would have to make it something that would be impractical for most people that use a decent amount of bandwidth. If you have 1 million users paying $80 per month, and they all drop to $20 per month, then you need to make that up with the ones that would be paying more than $80, thus you start putting people in the position of leaving the service because their internet bill is $400 / month + their $100 cable bill.
so let's look at it in a numerical value:
For a 5 GB user
$.05 / GB = $.25
$.10 / GB = $.50
$.25 / GB = $1.25
$.50 / GB = $2.50
$1.00 / GB = $5.00
For a 50 GB user
$.05 / GB = $2.50
$.10 / GB = $5.00
$.25 / GB = $12.50
$.50 / GB = $25.00
$1.00 / GB = $50.00
For a 100 GB user
$.05 / GB = $5.00
$.10 / GB = $10.00
$.25 / GB = $25.00
$.50 / GB = $50.00
$1.00 / GB = $100.00
For a 250 GB user
$.05 / GB = $12.50
$.10 / GB = $25.00
$.25 / GB = $62.50
$.50 / GB = $125.00
$1.00 / GB = $250.00
Market Watch is expecting "heavy" user bandwidth to average mor ethan 400GB per month by 2015, while the majority of user's bandwidth use increasing yearly.
For a 400 GB user
$.05 / GB = $25.00
$.10 / GB = $40.00
$.25 / GB = $100.00
$.50 / GB = $200.00
$1.00 / GB = $400.00
So really, you can see that it's going to get expensive for those users damn fast.
You might say, well they deserve to pay it, they use alot of bandwidth. To which I would say, what about those people in that tier that work from home, salaried without the ability to expense it? Writing it off on your taxes might work, but can you afford to shell out that kind of dough monthly and wait to be reimbursed once a year?
Funny how Nokia's designs from 10+ years ago in regards to smart phones and data use came before the iPhone. I point at phones like the 9110i and 9290. I would call out the US FCC for restricting phone development in the US for many years. The FCC was forcing Nokia and other phone manufacturers to remove features from phones shipped to the US because they thought Americans would kill themselves with them (FCC's excuse for the removal of the IR port on the Nokia 6100). When all along, we were getting the ass-end of the handsets. I remembering having to special order higher end phones for customers from Japan that were available in any store locally there.
Right, because all those user who now have NO phone service on their iPhone, won't be pissed at all. There would be class action suits by the hundred against Apple and the carriers.
I have to say that occasionally I see that, but I play devil's advocate alot, so sometimes I am on Apple's side, sometimes against Google etc. Yet, I don't get mod bombed. It could have something to do with HOW the fanboys are putting the information on the screen, rather than what they are putting there.
no, and the same would go for all BB, Nokia, Ericcsson, Samsung, Motorola, HTC and other phones. I sold phones when the cheapest ones were $250+. It was a bitch to get people to pay that up front. When the companies started offering low cost, subsidized phones, our sales exploded. There is a correlation there.
You have any facts to back that up? It's almost impossible to have a smart phone these days and "not use a single smart-phone feature". Your logic makes no sense considering every Android phone has to have a google account attached and requires you to register over the internet, automatically pulls your gmail email, automatically uses the android market for updates etc. These are "smart-phone" activities.
Highest sales != best. It just means better marketing. Not to mention, Apple includes all resales (buying a new phone because yours broke), insurance replacements, promotionals and warranty replacements as "new sales" and "units shipped". I have an iPhone 4s, IPad and iPad 2, they make great coasters on my coffee table.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, I do. We're in the process of doing a migration from sharepoint 2007 to sharepoint 2010. We have millions invested in MS software. The migration by itself would have been incredibly easy, however, during requirements gathering, all of our internal customers decided they wanted a great many custom apps as well as a mobile app to tie into the SP2010. Realistically, if you manage your MS software correctly, it really is not a massive headache as some people think. Additionally, MS isn't forcing you to upgrade your software every 2 years. If you have competent people on staff, after 2 years, they should be able to support it without MS's help. Additionally, MS supports OS's and other software for more than 2 years generally. The real reasons to upgrade are added functionality in the newest version. But that goes with pretty much any software out there unless you are completely OSS.
Parts of Ohiio have been burning for more than 125 years. (Devil's oven)
I could definitely see that working and would be more than happy to deal with that monthly. It really all ends up depending on how it affects the ISP's bottom line though. If they make less in this type of tiered environment, it's not going to happen.
You have a point. I missed that on the first read. But yeah, MS makes more from royalties on Android than WInMo.
How are you going to become the "Jr" guy? Just because you are learning a new platform / software / server environment, doesn't mean it replaces your knowledge of the previous framework. Also, someone has to perform the integration, someone has to migrate data, someone has to validate the functionality requirements of the new installs. There is a hell of alot that has to be done in these situations, meanwhile you can learn the new shit and be able to say in the next interview "I am a SR Sys Admin for X system as well as an Advanced Admin of this MS system"
I'm pissed at him for being silly enough to want to give up a paying job in the current economy. I have many friends out of work right now that are highly experienced and very good at what they do. It's a matter of job availability, and there aren't quite as many available jobs as there are people to fill them.
Actually, I quite like how a great many pieces of the MS enterprise framework just "snaps together" in many situations.
You would do it as a purchase / refund not a buy / buy back. That way, the "purchaser" pays for the mp3, including tax. When done, they "return" the mp3 and get a "refund" thus no tax collected.
The answer, I think, is “Not many“.
in the source equate to actual statistical value? The entire article is speculation and "my friend thinks".
But to make up for those that use almost no bandwidth currently, but paying $80 / month, they would have to make it something that would be impractical for most people that use a decent amount of bandwidth. If you have 1 million users paying $80 per month, and they all drop to $20 per month, then you need to make that up with the ones that would be paying more than $80, thus you start putting people in the position of leaving the service because their internet bill is $400 / month + their $100 cable bill.
so let's look at it in a numerical value:
Market Watch is expecting "heavy" user bandwidth to average mor ethan 400GB per month by 2015, while the majority of user's bandwidth use increasing yearly.
So really, you can see that it's going to get expensive for those users damn fast.
You might say, well they deserve to pay it, they use alot of bandwidth. To which I would say, what about those people in that tier that work from home, salaried without the ability to expense it? Writing it off on your taxes might work, but can you afford to shell out that kind of dough monthly and wait to be reimbursed once a year?
Didn't say you didn't have subsidies. I said the system works a little different because of the diversity of technologies that we still have here.
Yeah Hulu has lost many shows lately because the studios aren't giving them all up a day or week later. See Chuck etc.
Yep, CommyCast has contracts, I had to pay them to get out of mine.
"One of the biggest"... with only 9% of the global market. They have a long way to go to catch up to Nokia.
Funny how Nokia's designs from 10+ years ago in regards to smart phones and data use came before the iPhone. I point at phones like the 9110i and 9290. I would call out the US FCC for restricting phone development in the US for many years. The FCC was forcing Nokia and other phone manufacturers to remove features from phones shipped to the US because they thought Americans would kill themselves with them (FCC's excuse for the removal of the IR port on the Nokia 6100). When all along, we were getting the ass-end of the handsets. I remembering having to special order higher end phones for customers from Japan that were available in any store locally there.
Me thinks their numbers are...skewed. http://www.itproportal.com/2012/01/30/apple-iphone-reaches-8-3-global-mobile-phone-market/
Right, because all those user who now have NO phone service on their iPhone, won't be pissed at all. There would be class action suits by the hundred against Apple and the carriers.
I have to say that occasionally I see that, but I play devil's advocate alot, so sometimes I am on Apple's side, sometimes against Google etc. Yet, I don't get mod bombed. It could have something to do with HOW the fanboys are putting the information on the screen, rather than what they are putting there.
no, and the same would go for all BB, Nokia, Ericcsson, Samsung, Motorola, HTC and other phones. I sold phones when the cheapest ones were $250+. It was a bitch to get people to pay that up front. When the companies started offering low cost, subsidized phones, our sales exploded. There is a correlation there.
You have any facts to back that up? It's almost impossible to have a smart phone these days and "not use a single smart-phone feature". Your logic makes no sense considering every Android phone has to have a google account attached and requires you to register over the internet, automatically pulls your gmail email, automatically uses the android market for updates etc. These are "smart-phone" activities.
I should have just countered with 'Every rate plan sold subsidizes every Phone sold'.
FTFY
Also remember, you have to pay extra for each carrier if you have a Blackberry, you are required to carry the blackberry service.
And they still shelled out $4,000,000,000 to T-Mobile for NOT buying them.
Highest sales != best. It just means better marketing. Not to mention, Apple includes all resales (buying a new phone because yours broke), insurance replacements, promotionals and warranty replacements as "new sales" and "units shipped". I have an iPhone 4s, IPad and iPad 2, they make great coasters on my coffee table.
Haven't heard Google tell us that we're "holding it wrong"