This just doesn't happen with software, there is a lot of data supporting the fact that rebates are less expensive for the company than direct price cuts.
A big part of the thinking comes from the fact that if you make the rebate difficult enough, a large chunk of people will just forget about it. Then you figure in the number of people who either lose their receipts or can't collect the required forms (Best Buy is really good about not having your particluar rebate card in the store). If you add in your experiences then you can easily see that a $20 rebate costs the company a lot less than a $20 price cut.
I also had a friend who used to sell radar jammers out of the back of automobile magazines. He claimed that he had about 20% of his products returned (even though he offered a lifetime warranty) whether he shipped working units or whether he shipped empty boxes with a couple of working LEDs. It is just business strategy, people want convenience. You have to give them the appearance of saving money but make it take up a little of their time.
Most of the comments thus far correctly identify the company's actions as 'not much to worry about' or something along those lines. They are correct, the company really doesn't have any legal standing in threatening action over something like this.
The thing that strikes me is that in reality people do worry when they get C & D letters or when they hear rumors that some corporation is unhappy with their criticism. Since the vast majority of people don't have easy access to a forum like Slashdot they might be spending a lot more time worrying about it than most of us do. At the very least it might cost them a night's sleep or cost them a consultation fee with a lawyer. The company however, loses pretty much nothing. They pay a retainer or have a lawyer on staff so they might as well use him for something. It seems to make for an unfair advantage and I would imagine that it is actually a fairly effective tatic for most corporations. Only occasionally do they run into someone who is well informed enough to find our what their rights actually are. I
ll bet that most people just shut up and hope the problem goes away, who has the time or money to fight some big company with a fleet of lawyers?
What it boils down to is that even thought the company really can't do anything legally, there is nothing to stop them from making it appear that they can. Well worded threats probably silence a lot of critics. The end result is that a freedom gets taken away without a fight, thus the company wins.
I work for a company that uses a petroleum product as the primary raw material in their products, as do all of our competitors. Since crude prices have skyrocketed we had to announce a price increase last year to cover those costs. All of our competitors folowed suit within 2 months, no one wanted to be the first to do it but eventually someone had to.
Grab a book on Game Theory that is geared toward a macroeconomics or business class, it will explain the thinking behind the often moronic decisions a lot of companies make.
This is a distinct possibility, I have two (different) UPSs made by two different companies. The one that backs up my firewall and hub never makes a peep but the one on my workstation kicks on about once a month.
Of course, the plan backfired because I bought from a different vendor.
We are conditioned to think in the short term because we see the benefits immediately, or we are skeptical that the long term predictions are actually true. You might say that artists will go broke if I keep using Napster but I'm not positive that you are correct.
What I do know is that right now I can get that new N'Sync album off of Napster for nothing while it would cost me $15 at Best Buy. N'Sync doesn't appear to be short of cash and if they do go broke I'm sure someone else will take their place quickly. Maybe after 20 years of this no one will want to make shitty music because there won't be any money in it, but then maybe not. For the time being I'll go with the sure thing.
It is this mode of thinking that I expected would push electronic books into the hands of the public. Of course, the same logic applies to music and video but those industries have failed to take advantage of the profit potential that comes with total control of your product, even after the sale.
It seems to me that if you print a book on paper (or music/video on a CD) and then place that book in the hands of the consumer you have lost the ability to track or control it. That consumer can do just about anything he wants with it and you may have no idea what that might be. Copyright laws arouse because people wanted to exercise some degree of control, at least at points where they could track things, like sales. What really suprises me is that that the potential to expand that control by switching to electronic media has not been recognized by the companies who sell books, CDs, and movies. They certainly notice when it starts to cut into sale (or when they think it might start) but they don't seem to see the potential to increase existing sales by embracing it. Aside from increased sales there are a number of other advantages: A secure electronic media would prevent replication, it could 'phone home' every time it was used, access to it could be restricted to players sold only by the publisher, etc. The potential is limitless. If a company can get worked up over the sale of used books one would think that they would be racing to convert everyone from paper to electronics.
I'm not saying that they would be right to do this. It would be abominable actually, I'm just expressing my dismay that it hasn't already happened.
Note that in the article they make the statement that he was suspended earlier for visiting inappropriate web sites
I'm guessing he went to 2600 or l0pht or something, although the vaguarities will lead most people to think of pRon. Amazing how carefully chosen phrases like hacker and inappropriate web sites can sway opinion. Great reporting.
Some of them aren't the best of breed, but they're all free.
This is usually the argument that Windows advocates use against Linux...Anyway, they aren't ee (like beer) unless you warez'd you copy of Win2K, and they are far from free (lik in speech). The cost was just rolled in to that CD you bought, you can't get them unless you buy the OS. Another hangup is that you can't get rid of them if, as you say, you find that some aren't the best of the breed.
If you know Weld Pond personally (I do) you'd probably have a different opinion. I think his quote in this particular article was paobably taken a bit out of context, or at least placed in the wrong context. I know that Mudge pushed fairly hard for the compromise that has actually been reached with BugTraq.
This might be the first step in controlling how information about software is disseminated. If you look at the license for some of Oracle's products you'll see that by installing it it you agree to allow Oracle's to review any benchmarks you wish to publish. Now we see companies copyrighting their security advisories so they can force you to go to their site (and presumably submit to their terms) to read them. How long before to have to click past a license to read them? How long before that license is essentially an NDA that prevents you from distributing the information in the advisory?
That would be a big step in quieting your enemies. IF you can't legally install the software without agreeing to a license that prevents you from telling anyone about its shortfalls then I suppose there will be much less ammo for the competition. If you don't know whats wrong with something it is hard to position yourself as an alternative.
As fucked up as MS might be exaggerating a bit. They haven't tried to force us all to use any shitty software yet, they just want to force us to go to their site to read about it.
Also, this really isn't l0pht we're talking about, its @stake. Once you sell out you are often forced to sumbit to things that you don't like. (like ads for PT Cruisers with your logo on the side)
Actually the more likely possibility is that they may be subpoena'd for info on one of their users. That is the real danger in collecting the info in the first place.
The likelihood that they would have any more info on your browsing habits than your ISP (who would also have info on email, usenet, scour, napster, etc) is fairly low. Worry about your government.
I think it stems from jealousy. Its like the guy who invented the hula hoop. Its pretty damn simple, didn't exactly take an engineer to design, yet no one had done it before. Since it was successful it pissed people off because they could well have thought of it themselves.
This is why people get upset with Katz, he makes a lot of 'obvious' observations. He might not even be the first person do make them, he just recognizes their importance.
This is a wise move on the part of the DoD. A number of very well respected researchers have raised valid concerns over the possibility that sattelite re-entry of such a large scale may result in significant fragments surviving re-entry.
While the concers of the public are most liekly grounded in Hollywood science fiction they are no less improtant. Every day small pieces of space debris are able to survive re-entry. Most of this debris is too small to damage structures or living things, it also is concentrated in relatively uninhabited areas. Regardless, large pieces of Iriduim satellites reaching earth is a distinct possibility. Many municipaliteis have plans for just such an event, plans that have scientific justification. While the possibility of this is remote, it is certainly in our best interests to consider the possibility.
I see too many limitations in end to end networking in anything but small groups. I have read some about freenet, and it seems like a good idea, but it isn't like napster: it really needs high speed always connected computers. While there may be a technological solution to help alleviate the legal problem of dealing with material that is unwanted, I do not see anything that can help as much as a legal solution. By legal I mean we have lawyers go in there and fight with other lawyers and politicians and get some of these laws straightened out. Every once in a while, some technology comes out that is so big it can change the law, such as the printing press, but the majority of technology does not have that big of an impact on our lives. I do not think we are heading in the correct direction, and I don't think something like freenet is the final solution. I still prefer the traditional client and server relationship which helps things be a little less chaotic, and easier to use, but it is certainly vulnerable to the will of lawmakers.
I think it is important to mimic a little of the look and feel of Windows. If Linux is to compete with MS in the desktop market I don't see any other way to do it. Regardless of anyone's feelings about the Windows GUI it is a fact that the enormous majority of people are familiar with it, you could say that it is the design standard. In order to be intuitive it is going to have to be Windows-like.
Luckily this doesn't mean that it can't be innovative. KDE (and Gnome) have many features that Windows doesn't, particularly in the area of customization, and I think those differences will give it a leg up eventually. Unfortunately, in order to get into the homes of the average user, it is going to have to offer them an interface that they can recognize, something that looks like Windows.
I've been contacted by @Home in the past after leaving Napster running for several days in a row. They claimed that they had noticed "excessive upstream traffic" from my account, I suppose because people were grabbing up my MP3 collection. Regardless, I've left it up for long periods since then and they don't seem to notice.
I do know that they scan a lot of ports. They look for FTP a lot, NNTP even more than that.
I think their reasoning is that, since they don't guarantee you all of the bandwidth you can get, you can't take advantage of that. Of course the real reason is so they can sell anther service called @Business or some crap.
Slashdot Mirror
A big part of the thinking comes from the fact that if you make the rebate difficult enough, a large chunk of people will just forget about it. Then you figure in the number of people who either lose their receipts or can't collect the required forms (Best Buy is really good about not having your particluar rebate card in the store). If you add in your experiences then you can easily see that a $20 rebate costs the company a lot less than a $20 price cut.
I also had a friend who used to sell radar jammers out of the back of automobile magazines. He claimed that he had about 20% of his products returned (even though he offered a lifetime warranty) whether he shipped working units or whether he shipped empty boxes with a couple of working LEDs. It is just business strategy, people want convenience. You have to give them the appearance of saving money but make it take up a little of their time.
The thing that strikes me is that in reality people do worry when they get C & D letters or when they hear rumors that some corporation is unhappy with their criticism. Since the vast majority of people don't have easy access to a forum like Slashdot they might be spending a lot more time worrying about it than most of us do. At the very least it might cost them a night's sleep or cost them a consultation fee with a lawyer. The company however, loses pretty much nothing. They pay a retainer or have a lawyer on staff so they might as well use him for something. It seems to make for an unfair advantage and I would imagine that it is actually a fairly effective tatic for most corporations. Only occasionally do they run into someone who is well informed enough to find our what their rights actually are. I ll bet that most people just shut up and hope the problem goes away, who has the time or money to fight some big company with a fleet of lawyers?
What it boils down to is that even thought the company really can't do anything legally, there is nothing to stop them from making it appear that they can. Well worded threats probably silence a lot of critics. The end result is that a freedom gets taken away without a fight, thus the company wins.
I work for a company that uses a petroleum product as the primary raw material in their products, as do all of our competitors. Since crude prices have skyrocketed we had to announce a price increase last year to cover those costs. All of our competitors folowed suit within 2 months, no one wanted to be the first to do it but eventually someone had to.
Grab a book on Game Theory that is geared toward a macroeconomics or business class, it will explain the thinking behind the often moronic decisions a lot of companies make.
I think it might be IBM's fault.
Of course, the plan backfired because I bought from a different vendor.
What I do know is that right now I can get that new N'Sync album off of Napster for nothing while it would cost me $15 at Best Buy. N'Sync doesn't appear to be short of cash and if they do go broke I'm sure someone else will take their place quickly. Maybe after 20 years of this no one will want to make shitty music because there won't be any money in it, but then maybe not. For the time being I'll go with the sure thing.
It seems to me that if you print a book on paper (or music/video on a CD) and then place that book in the hands of the consumer you have lost the ability to track or control it. That consumer can do just about anything he wants with it and you may have no idea what that might be. Copyright laws arouse because people wanted to exercise some degree of control, at least at points where they could track things, like sales. What really suprises me is that that the potential to expand that control by switching to electronic media has not been recognized by the companies who sell books, CDs, and movies. They certainly notice when it starts to cut into sale (or when they think it might start) but they don't seem to see the potential to increase existing sales by embracing it. Aside from increased sales there are a number of other advantages: A secure electronic media would prevent replication, it could 'phone home' every time it was used, access to it could be restricted to players sold only by the publisher, etc. The potential is limitless. If a company can get worked up over the sale of used books one would think that they would be racing to convert everyone from paper to electronics.
I'm not saying that they would be right to do this. It would be abominable actually, I'm just expressing my dismay that it hasn't already happened.
They have been watching the proprietary software industry?
I'm guessing he went to 2600 or l0pht or something, although the vaguarities will lead most people to think of pRon. Amazing how carefully chosen phrases like hacker and inappropriate web sites can sway opinion. Great reporting.
This is usually the argument that Windows advocates use against Linux...Anyway, they aren't ee (like beer) unless you warez'd you copy of Win2K, and they are far from free (lik in speech). The cost was just rolled in to that CD you bought, you can't get them unless you buy the OS. Another hangup is that you can't get rid of them if, as you say, you find that some aren't the best of the breed.
If you know Weld Pond personally (I do) you'd probably have a different opinion. I think his quote in this particular article was paobably taken a bit out of context, or at least placed in the wrong context. I know that Mudge pushed fairly hard for the compromise that has actually been reached with BugTraq.
That would be a big step in quieting your enemies. IF you can't legally install the software without agreeing to a license that prevents you from telling anyone about its shortfalls then I suppose there will be much less ammo for the competition. If you don't know whats wrong with something it is hard to position yourself as an alternative.
Also, this really isn't l0pht we're talking about, its @stake. Once you sell out you are often forced to sumbit to things that you don't like. (like ads for PT Cruisers with your logo on the side)
No, @stake is. The l0pht guys probably aren't thrilled about it but I'm guessing they aren't the guys making the decisions.
The likelihood that they would have any more info on your browsing habits than your ISP (who would also have info on email, usenet, scour, napster, etc) is fairly low. Worry about your government.
Here is an even funnier Ask Jeeves story, or maybe a proof of concept for what you friend was talking about.
This is why people get upset with Katz, he makes a lot of 'obvious' observations. He might not even be the first person do make them, he just recognizes their importance.
While the concers of the public are most liekly grounded in Hollywood science fiction they are no less improtant. Every day small pieces of space debris are able to survive re-entry. Most of this debris is too small to damage structures or living things, it also is concentrated in relatively uninhabited areas. Regardless, large pieces of Iriduim satellites reaching earth is a distinct possibility. Many municipaliteis have plans for just such an event, plans that have scientific justification. While the possibility of this is remote, it is certainly in our best interests to consider the possibility.
I see too many limitations in end to end networking in anything but small groups. I have read some about freenet, and it seems like a good idea, but it isn't like napster: it really needs high speed always connected computers. While there may be a technological solution to help alleviate the legal problem of dealing with material that is unwanted, I do not see anything that can help as much as a legal solution. By legal I mean we have lawyers go in there and fight with other lawyers and politicians and get some of these laws straightened out. Every once in a while, some technology comes out that is so big it can change the law, such as the printing press, but the majority of technology does not have that big of an impact on our lives. I do not think we are heading in the correct direction, and I don't think something like freenet is the final solution. I still prefer the traditional client and server relationship which helps things be a little less chaotic, and easier to use, but it is certainly vulnerable to the will of lawmakers.
How about TIA.
Luckily this doesn't mean that it can't be innovative. KDE (and Gnome) have many features that Windows doesn't, particularly in the area of customization, and I think those differences will give it a leg up eventually. Unfortunately, in order to get into the homes of the average user, it is going to have to offer them an interface that they can recognize, something that looks like Windows.
Thats like asking a lawyer if something is worth suing over.
Maybe he is one of those people who has no choice but to use Windows at work, and he doens't want to look at it unless he absolutely has to.
I do know that they scan a lot of ports. They look for FTP a lot, NNTP even more than that.
I think their reasoning is that, since they don't guarantee you all of the bandwidth you can get, you can't take advantage of that. Of course the real reason is so they can sell anther service called @Business or some crap.
They also should account for the likelihood that patents won't be granted decently. The USPTO does a sorrowful job of researching prior art.