Katz seems to believe there's some corporate code of ethics other than, "build what sells." It's kind of cute in its naivete, but not terribly insightful.
When you get down to it, tech support sucks because the market won't pay for it. Tech support is expensive: it's usually the largest division of any hardware manufacturer both in terms of employees and operating expenses. And that's at the level that, "sucks." To provide service to the level Katz thinks companies are obligated to would conservatively double the finished goods price of most low-end devices. And price is what the market cares about.
I've worked for companies that have tried to use technical support as a selling point. Sure we'll charge a little more, we thought, but the sales we attract because of superior service will more than make up for the sales we lose.
Wrong.
Why is it so expensive? Because computers are not sofas, or toasters, or chainsaws, or any other single purpose device. Computers are multi-function devices, that interact intimately with a whole slough of other multi-function devices. We're talking a near-infinity of possible sources of trouble requiring support. Every person you add can take a fixed number of calls, no matter how efficient you make them, so to handle the calls you need huge numbers of people. And people are expensive, even when you're paying them seven bucks an hour, like most outsource vendors pay.
Unless and until Katz and everyone else who buys computers is willing to accept something other than direct one-to-one support (be it telephone or e-mail); or pay significantly more money for their products, tech support will suck.
Seems to me there's a parallel here to the drug war. The U.S. government wants to control the supply, even though there's good reason to believe such an effort is unsuccessful, despotic and damaging to the institutions of a free and democratic society.
Carr wants to control the supply of information, even in the face of such problems. But why not address the demand, by teaching people how to critically evaluate information, and how to recognize viral memes?
It's cheaper, it empowers people rather than disenfranchises them, and it has all kinds of lovely auxiliary benefits.
How do you get a system that marks information sites as factual or not factual when the population-at-large can't even decide on what they think is factual?
Easy. You rely on trusted authorities: each side has its own trusted authority. Factual is not an absolute, it's a measure of trust.
The hard part is figuring out who to trust. And for that you need an educational system that teaches learning, independent thinking and critical understanding.
I've heard from more than one doctor who prefers electronic texts on a handheld not only because it makes access easier, but because of how it makes the patient feel.
Even the best doctors need reference works. But patients expect doctors to be omniscient, or near it. They get anxious when they see a doctor consulting a book before making a diagnosis. A doctor who nods thoughtfully and gazes at the screen of a Visor, on the other hand, seems like a tech-savvy, all-knowing genius.
So maybe I'm complacent, but I see a glimmer of hope out of this in the long run. The fundamental difference (at least for the purposes of this discussion) between Wal-Mart and Yahoo! is that Wal-Mart can easily adjust its sales policies on a country-by-country basis, but Yahoo! can not, or at least has chosen not to in this case.
So in response to a single nation's demands, Yahoo! has taken action that affects the entire world. What happens when Upper Mahabowa decides to outlaw references to the Pacific Ocean? Or any other outrageous demand you choose to use as an example? Strip out the specifics and what you're talking about is a single nation imposing its will on the whole world, because there's no good way to separate one nation from another.
So what's good about that? There's real, strong, commercial motivation for developing free speech laws on a global basis. We'll have to agree, as a world, what degrees of restriction are acceptable and what are unacceptable. And that will advance the cause of free expression, not hinder it.
'Cause free expression doesn't exist in the mythical state of nature. It only exists because there are laws that allow it to exist.
I think your comment presumes the industry is more competitive and that demand for music is more elastic than it in fact is.
Seems to me that the industry will view Napster as yet another revenue stream, and will increase or keep steady prices for both Napster and CDs. Demand's unlikely to drop much, and the increased revenue per unit will more than make up for those few who drop off. And they can continue to classify as piracy those of us who continue to share without paying.
Slashdot Mirror
Katz seems to believe there's some corporate code of ethics other than, "build what sells." It's kind of cute in its naivete, but not terribly insightful.
When you get down to it, tech support sucks because the market won't pay for it. Tech support is expensive: it's usually the largest division of any hardware manufacturer both in terms of employees and operating expenses. And that's at the level that, "sucks." To provide service to the level Katz thinks companies are obligated to would conservatively double the finished goods price of most low-end devices. And price is what the market cares about.
I've worked for companies that have tried to use technical support as a selling point. Sure we'll charge a little more, we thought, but the sales we attract because of superior service will more than make up for the sales we lose.
Wrong.
Why is it so expensive? Because computers are not sofas, or toasters, or chainsaws, or any other single purpose device. Computers are multi-function devices, that interact intimately with a whole slough of other multi-function devices. We're talking a near-infinity of possible sources of trouble requiring support. Every person you add can take a fixed number of calls, no matter how efficient you make them, so to handle the calls you need huge numbers of people. And people are expensive, even when you're paying them seven bucks an hour, like most outsource vendors pay.
Unless and until Katz and everyone else who buys computers is willing to accept something other than direct one-to-one support (be it telephone or e-mail); or pay significantly more money for their products, tech support will suck.
Seems to me there's a parallel here to the drug war. The U.S. government wants to control the supply, even though there's good reason to believe such an effort is unsuccessful, despotic and damaging to the institutions of a free and democratic society.
Carr wants to control the supply of information, even in the face of such problems. But why not address the demand, by teaching people how to critically evaluate information, and how to recognize viral memes?
It's cheaper, it empowers people rather than disenfranchises them, and it has all kinds of lovely auxiliary benefits.
Easy. You rely on trusted authorities: each side has its own trusted authority. Factual is not an absolute, it's a measure of trust.
The hard part is figuring out who to trust. And for that you need an educational system that teaches learning, independent thinking and critical understanding.
I've heard from more than one doctor who prefers electronic texts on a handheld not only because it makes access easier, but because of how it makes the patient feel.
Even the best doctors need reference works. But patients expect doctors to be omniscient, or near it. They get anxious when they see a doctor consulting a book before making a diagnosis. A doctor who nods thoughtfully and gazes at the screen of a Visor, on the other hand, seems like a tech-savvy, all-knowing genius.
So maybe I'm complacent, but I see a glimmer of hope out of this in the long run. The fundamental difference (at least for the purposes of this discussion) between Wal-Mart and Yahoo! is that Wal-Mart can easily adjust its sales policies on a country-by-country basis, but Yahoo! can not, or at least has chosen not to in this case.
So in response to a single nation's demands, Yahoo! has taken action that affects the entire world. What happens when Upper Mahabowa decides to outlaw references to the Pacific Ocean? Or any other outrageous demand you choose to use as an example? Strip out the specifics and what you're talking about is a single nation imposing its will on the whole world, because there's no good way to separate one nation from another.
So what's good about that? There's real, strong, commercial motivation for developing free speech laws on a global basis. We'll have to agree, as a world, what degrees of restriction are acceptable and what are unacceptable. And that will advance the cause of free expression, not hinder it.
'Cause free expression doesn't exist in the mythical state of nature. It only exists because there are laws that allow it to exist.
I think your comment presumes the industry is more competitive and that demand for music is more elastic than it in fact is.
Seems to me that the industry will view Napster as yet another revenue stream, and will increase or keep steady prices for both Napster and CDs. Demand's unlikely to drop much, and the increased revenue per unit will more than make up for those few who drop off. And they can continue to classify as piracy those of us who continue to share without paying.
But maybe I'm just a cynic.