Google and facebook will have to change things. Take google for example...
Most users do not login to google. Google did not invent text ads. They were invented by a company called overture. Google improved on this by tracking users across searches and sites they visit (using adsense).. the result was higher earnings per visitor. Yahoo purchased Overture to try to improve their epv. After the purchase they started a huge project (called Panama) to improve their earnings from ads. They failed (not the first time they failed at similar projects). And so they turned the whole thing over to Microsoft, because they thought yahoo + microsoft would have enough resources to get the algorithm right. As a result, google's ads perform better, and more advertisers use google. As a result, Bing is not able to charge anywhere near the cpc that google does (literally, the advise for moving a campaign from google to bing is to REDUCE your bids substantially).
The reason why Yahoo lost to google is because google is able to generate 2X the revenue from each search.. that gives them the money for more PHDs and over 1 million servers.. which lets them to continue to dominate search.
The difference between google and yahoo: better tracking of internet users.
Are you sure about that? How many people will cancel their net connections when facebook, google, and other ad supported sites shutdown. People aren't going to pay for a connection that's only useful for buying things from amazon.. and when they don't have that connection, they will never buy from amazon.
Crowdtilt actually seems to do a bit more due diligence.
That sounds nice.. but take a look at this project.
That's a successful project on crowdtilt. How did they verify that? How did they know it wasn't a scam. Did they talk to "Tiffany Hagans" and ask how much of that money she received? Did they even check if she was real? I doubt it. I'm not even sure how they could ensure it wasn't a scam and/or that the poster didn't take a portion for himself.
At least on kickstarter, because the project has some sort of result that I can see, I would know if I was scammed. On Crowdtilt, I don't think there's anyone who could tell where the money donated to hagans actually went, or if they were scammed (even they know the guy IRL who posted it, they still wouldn't know if he skimmed some for himself).
A project is something finite with a clear beginning and end. Someone can be held accountable to the framework of a project — a project was either completed or it wasn’t — and there are definable expectations that everyone can agree to.
That is from Kickstarter's FAQ. A really important idea if you're going to be donating money to strangers over the internet. Either need a way to verify it (kickstarter) or a really great reputation (redcross).. otherwise you're just asking for scammers.
Even facebook would have failed without a stream of venture capital during the YEARS it was loosing money. Zuckerberg actually got 2 lucky breaks: building facebook + finding people willing to throw money at him (we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.. so I think that's an accurate description).
Your home is not a fair comparison. You can more-or-less tell what that is worth by looking at similar homes in your neighborhood. But no one knows how facebook's stock will perform, what his share will ultimately be worth, or what he will be able to sell it for. He can't just dump all his shares on opening day -- if he wanted out, he would have to sell a little bit at a time over years. So if facebook stops growing (or worse, shrinking), the stock will collapse, and Zuckerberg won't have a penny of what those shares are supposedly worth. Your home doesn't have that problem.
Paper wealth does not equal real wealth. I thought we learned that lesson in the 90s.
So you start a small business with $1000.. you work really hard on it, put in a lot of time, but still haven't made anything. The following year, the government assesses it as being worth $2,000.
You do not have (2000-1000)*30%=$300.. because all of your money is tied up in the business. You liquidate some of the equipment your business owns to pay the taxes.
How could you possibly believe that would be a good thing? How would any business make it anywhere.
This article is about Facebook.. what if the government assessed it as being worth $100 billion? Do you think they would have gotten this far? They would have had to pay $30 billion in federal taxes so far.
If my money is tied up in investments, how do I generate the cash to pay my tax ?
This is exactly why we pay taxes when the gain is realized (ie: shares are sold). The government knows that if we have to pay tax before then, we'll be forced to sell investments to pay the tax... in some cases, selling investments before they should be sold.. making the economy grow slower than it would otherwise.
stock market is ok.. so mark-to-market
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 2
So the stock market has been doing ok, so it's time to consider mark-to-market taxation? This guy has a really short memory.
So during recessions (I think we had one of those recently), the rich will get to mark down their holdings, and pay nothing on any of their earnings. Might even get to report a loss they can use to offset future earnings.
So right at the moment when the federal budget will be the worse, the rich will get to stop contributing. And when things start to improve, they'll get to use their loss from previous years.. then, when everything is ok (at the very top of the bubble), they'll get to start contributing.
I'm sure that will go over really well with everyone else.
You're delusional. WD had a terrible quarter. compared to the previous quarter, Revenue: down $700 million. Profits: down $100 million http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WDC
they're talking about or have proposed military cuts, cuts to programs for the poor, cuts to social security, medicare, and medicaid, freeze/cuts on federal pay and benefits, amtrak subsidies, national endowment of arts, repeal healthcare, and on and on and on.
Just because NASA is your pet project doesn't mean it's immune from the budget problem.
Here's a fact: NASA received 18 billion last year. ESA: 5 billion. JAXA: 2.5 billion.
Europe has 1.25x the number of people, but gives ESA less than 1/3rd the funding. Japan - 50% of the people, 1/7th the funding.
So shut up about "America not caring about science." You would never say that about Europe or Japan, yet from the budgets, they care even less than America does. It's just ignorant, stupid, anti-americanism.
now look that the previous bundles: in wikipedia.. the last one sold almost $2.4 Million
I wasn't aware they sold that many copies. Very nice. For that amount, I'll admit there may be a Linux market. Although I wonder what percentage were donations to EFF?
What are you talking about? The "game developer market" has started multiple companies that have gone bankrupt. The premier example at the moment is the indie bundle, which has pulled in about $500k, or about what WoW earns in 4.5 hours.
How many $100,000,000 games can you develop with $500,000?
There is no proof there is any significant amount of money to be made in Linux games.
Linux wasn't just started yesterday. It's been around for almost 20 years. Everyone who has tried to create a business out of selling Linux games has failed or had such low success that they can only develop simple/cheap games.
You say you need some large company to come in and develop Linux games, but if there was a market and those large companies refused to serve them, then there would be a lot of successful small Linux game companies. Yet, those small companies don't exist.
20 years... plenty of time for a Linux game company to become a billion dollar company -- if there was a market.
Minecraft is a multiplatform game written in Java. In other words, they did no Linux work.. they just wrote it in a language that will work on Linux. Second, we have no idea what % of Minecrafts sales are from Linux.. I'm guessing it virtually nil compared to their Windows numbers.
We have numbers for Linux Game Publishing.. they are terrible. We have numbers for the Indie Bundle... they are terrible. Your example, does not have numbers for Linux, yet you want us to believe that it would be fantastic. Show me the Linux numbers and you would have a point.
If there is a market for Linux games, where are the wildly successful examples? Where are the billion dollar blockbusters? The games everyone wants to play? They don't exist. Windows games pull in billions and billions every year in sales, and Linux games -- well there are these two guys in an apartment...
Slashdot Mirror
Google and facebook will have to change things. Take google for example...
Most users do not login to google.
Google did not invent text ads. They were invented by a company called overture.
Google improved on this by tracking users across searches and sites they visit (using adsense).. the result was higher earnings per visitor.
Yahoo purchased Overture to try to improve their epv. After the purchase they started a huge project (called Panama) to improve their earnings from ads. They failed (not the first time they failed at similar projects). And so they turned the whole thing over to Microsoft, because they thought yahoo + microsoft would have enough resources to get the algorithm right.
As a result, google's ads perform better, and more advertisers use google. As a result, Bing is not able to charge anywhere near the cpc that google does (literally, the advise for moving a campaign from google to bing is to REDUCE your bids substantially).
The reason why Yahoo lost to google is because google is able to generate 2X the revenue from each search.. that gives them the money for more PHDs and over 1 million servers.. which lets them to continue to dominate search.
The difference between google and yahoo: better tracking of internet users.
I'm pretty sure "anyone who matters" to Amazon is anyone who buys things.
Are you sure about that? How many people will cancel their net connections when facebook, google, and other ad supported sites shutdown. People aren't going to pay for a connection that's only useful for buying things from amazon.. and when they don't have that connection, they will never buy from amazon.
Crowdtilt actually seems to do a bit more due diligence.
That sounds nice.. but take a look at this project.
That's a successful project on crowdtilt. How did they verify that? How did they know it wasn't a scam. Did they talk to "Tiffany Hagans" and ask how much of that money she received? Did they even check if she was real? I doubt it. I'm not even sure how they could ensure it wasn't a scam and/or that the poster didn't take a portion for himself.
At least on kickstarter, because the project has some sort of result that I can see, I would know if I was scammed. On Crowdtilt, I don't think there's anyone who could tell where the money donated to hagans actually went, or if they were scammed (even they know the guy IRL who posted it, they still wouldn't know if he skimmed some for himself).
Cloudtilt is missing this:
A project is something finite with a clear beginning and end. Someone can be held accountable to the framework of a project — a project was either completed or it wasn’t — and there are definable expectations that everyone can agree to.
That is from Kickstarter's FAQ. A really important idea if you're going to be donating money to strangers over the internet. Either need a way to verify it (kickstarter) or a really great reputation (redcross).. otherwise you're just asking for scammers.
Scammers.. no kidding. This one literally reads like one of those nigerian emails.
Not saying that one is a scam.. but how do we know the money was donated like he says. That he didn't skim a little for himself, etc.
Even facebook would have failed without a stream of venture capital during the YEARS it was loosing money. Zuckerberg actually got 2 lucky breaks: building facebook + finding people willing to throw money at him (we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.. so I think that's an accurate description).
Your home is not a fair comparison. You can more-or-less tell what that is worth by looking at similar homes in your neighborhood. But no one knows how facebook's stock will perform, what his share will ultimately be worth, or what he will be able to sell it for. He can't just dump all his shares on opening day -- if he wanted out, he would have to sell a little bit at a time over years. So if facebook stops growing (or worse, shrinking), the stock will collapse, and Zuckerberg won't have a penny of what those shares are supposedly worth. Your home doesn't have that problem.
Paper wealth does not equal real wealth. I thought we learned that lesson in the 90s.
Wait... 500,000 / 365 * 2 = $2739.73
If that's all you have saved, that says more about you than Zuckerburg's salary.
So you start a small business with $1000.. you work really hard on it, put in a lot of time, but still haven't made anything. The following year, the government assesses it as being worth $2,000.
You do not have (2000-1000)*30%=$300.. because all of your money is tied up in the business. You liquidate some of the equipment your business owns to pay the taxes.
How could you possibly believe that would be a good thing? How would any business make it anywhere.
This article is about Facebook.. what if the government assessed it as being worth $100 billion? Do you think they would have gotten this far? They would have had to pay $30 billion in federal taxes so far.
If my money is tied up in investments, how do I generate the cash to pay my tax ?
This is exactly why we pay taxes when the gain is realized (ie: shares are sold). The government knows that if we have to pay tax before then, we'll be forced to sell investments to pay the tax... in some cases, selling investments before they should be sold.. making the economy grow slower than it would otherwise.
So the stock market has been doing ok, so it's time to consider mark-to-market taxation? This guy has a really short memory.
So during recessions (I think we had one of those recently), the rich will get to mark down their holdings, and pay nothing on any of their earnings. Might even get to report a loss they can use to offset future earnings.
So right at the moment when the federal budget will be the worse, the rich will get to stop contributing. And when things start to improve, they'll get to use their loss from previous years.. then, when everything is ok (at the very top of the bubble), they'll get to start contributing.
I'm sure that will go over really well with everyone else.
You're delusional. WD had a terrible quarter. compared to the previous quarter, Revenue: down $700 million. Profits: down $100 million
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WDC
here are the other links:
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/12/comScore_Releases_November_2011_U.S._Search_Engine_Rankings
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/11/comScore_Releases_October_2011_U.S._Search_Engine_Rankings
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/5/comScore_Releases_April_2010_U.S._Search_Engine_Rankings
You're exactly right. Take a look at comscore for dec 2011:
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2012/1/comScore_Releases_December_2011_U.S._Search_Engine_Rankings
More than 18.2 billion explicit core searches were conducted in December (up 2 percent).
Nov 2011:
More than 17.8 billion explicit core searches were conducted in November.
Oct 2011:
More than 18.0 billion explicit core searches were conducted in October, marking a 6-percent increase versus September.
Go all the way back to April 2010:
Americans conducted 15.5 billion searches in April, up slightly from March.
Where's the decline? Whoever fired him is really good at their job.
Budgets:
US military 25 billion (80% of world military space spending)
NASA 18 Billion
ESA 5 billion
RFSA 4 billion
JAXA 2.5 billion
America spends more on space than the rest of the world combined.
they're talking about or have proposed military cuts, cuts to programs for the poor, cuts to social security, medicare, and medicaid, freeze/cuts on federal pay and benefits, amtrak subsidies, national endowment of arts, repeal healthcare, and on and on and on.
Just because NASA is your pet project doesn't mean it's immune from the budget problem.
Here's a fact: NASA received 18 billion last year. ESA: 5 billion. JAXA: 2.5 billion.
Europe has 1.25x the number of people, but gives ESA less than 1/3rd the funding. Japan - 50% of the people, 1/7th the funding.
So shut up about "America not caring about science." You would never say that about Europe or Japan, yet from the budgets, they care even less than America does. It's just ignorant, stupid, anti-americanism.
lol
now look that the previous bundles: in wikipedia .. the last one sold almost $2.4 Million
I wasn't aware they sold that many copies. Very nice. For that amount, I'll admit there may be a Linux market. Although I wonder what percentage were donations to EFF?
What are you talking about? The "game developer market" has started multiple companies that have gone bankrupt. The premier example at the moment is the indie bundle, which has pulled in about $500k, or about what WoW earns in 4.5 hours.
How many $100,000,000 games can you develop with $500,000?
There is no proof there is any significant amount of money to be made in Linux games.
Linux wasn't just started yesterday. It's been around for almost 20 years. Everyone who has tried to create a business out of selling Linux games has failed or had such low success that they can only develop simple/cheap games.
You say you need some large company to come in and develop Linux games, but if there was a market and those large companies refused to serve them, then there would be a lot of successful small Linux game companies. Yet, those small companies don't exist.
20 years... plenty of time for a Linux game company to become a billion dollar company -- if there was a market.
Minecraft is a multiplatform game written in Java. In other words, they did no Linux work.. they just wrote it in a language that will work on Linux. Second, we have no idea what % of Minecrafts sales are from Linux.. I'm guessing it virtually nil compared to their Windows numbers.
We have numbers for Linux Game Publishing.. they are terrible. We have numbers for the Indie Bundle... they are terrible. Your example, does not have numbers for Linux, yet you want us to believe that it would be fantastic. Show me the Linux numbers and you would have a point.
That's awesome. Now show me a Linux game started by one person that grew into a full fledged studio with lots of employees.
I won't hold my breath waiting the answer.
No you seem to be entirely missing the point.
If there is a market for Linux games, where are the wildly successful examples? Where are the billion dollar blockbusters? The games everyone wants to play? They don't exist. Windows games pull in billions and billions every year in sales, and Linux games -- well there are these two guys in an apartment ...
typo. more == most