I'll give you some specific examples, but first I'll say that I've never understood the argument that something that caters to "most people" is good enough. If the European system results in products ranging from super low end to super high end, how is a system that ignores high/super high end devices not worse?
Well, to begin with the US market does not ignore the super high end - you can buy any unlocked European phone taht is quad and and use it on the ATT or TMobile network just fine. The major carriers ignore that market because it is just not profitable enough for them to cater to it.
If your definition of worse is that a market does not cater to every specific customer would mean the EU market is worse than the US because I can call anywhere in the US, to any phone, for as long as I like form anywhere in the US for a flat $80 while EU providers do not provide the same service; thereby ignoring a specific set of customers. I don't buy that "you're worse because you do not provide every service we do here" argument form either side of the pond. We're just different.
The ridiculous roaming charges are an unfortunate byproduct of several different countries trying to work together. The EU has in fact cracked down on them lately. It has nothing to do with locked or unlocked hardware. Prices are going down in all markets. The difference is that features are increasing faster outside the US.
Again, that doesn't make either market better or worse, just different.
Now, the examples. In the EU, it's routine to for example see something cool you want to buy and send a picture message to your wife. The iPhone was launched without such a feature and people didn't even blink. In fact, people will defend the omission as "useless" if it's pointed out. It may not be mindblowing, but it's just one in a long list of conveniences.
Apple fanboys aside, I've been able to send picture messages for a long time on Treos and razors and other phone; Apple's stupid decision doesn't mean the capability isn't available for someone who wants it.
In the EU, completely average people have been surfing on their phones for a long time. In the US, everyone is pretending the iPhone invented mobile browsing. Just yesterday there was a slashdot article about how the iPhone may get a front facing secondary camera, which is pretty much standard on European smartphones.
Again, while the iPhone may have made browsing more accessible, I've been browsing for years on various phones before the iPhone. I do like my iPhone's browser, however.
In the US, Verizon was sued in bloody 2005 because it wouldn't let customers copy photos to their computers without using an expensive network service.
I wouldn't define a market by a lawsuit as the result of one stupid decision by a carrier. Would you judge teh whole EU over the issues with unlocking in France?
In the US, Steve Jobs was required to explain that Apple's device is both a phone and an iPod before people realized that phones are able to function as music players (with Ogg Vorbis support no less, except for Apple).
I don't want to go on, but you probably get the point.
There's a difference between consumers not having capabilities each of the examples you used don't demonstrate new capabilities for phones in the US market since each of them (Picture messaging, browsing, MP3 players) have been available for years on phones in the US market.
Apple's great at marketing features and creating awareness of them, but that doesn't mean they were the first to offer them.
If you focus on Apple, they don't always offer every service from the US iTunes store to the rest of the world - does that make the rest of the world's phone market worse? Not really, it just means Apple does things there way.
It's not just about switching operators. The widespread lockin lets the operators dictate what features the phones have, and it has damaged the US market significantly. In Europe, a lot of people go for the contract option, but the large unlocked market ensures that operators don't have power over the phone manufacturers. I'm constantly reading articles raving about features we've had for years that have nothing to do with building networks.
Don't confuse writer's opinions with those of the broad customer base. Most people want a phone that works, and messaging. A camera is nice as well. While many/. would like the latest and greatest my experience has been their preferences aren't those of the broader market.
So I guess I don't understand what you mean by it has damaged the US market significantly.
If you don't get a price break for buying a phone on your own it just means the carriers have so much power they can screw you over. That's not a sign of a healthy market.
As for people being happy with what comes installed, sure, but the effect of lockin on competition retards progress, and prevents anyone who does care from installing what they want. There is NO benefit to the consumer in such a system.
,P>I'd submit that the constant lowering of the cost of cell phone contracts is the sign of healthy market that benefits consumers. Over the 15 years I've had a cell phone I've seen the cost of service decline to the point that I now pay annually what I used to pay monthly for the same usage. I'd say that is the greatest benefit to consumers- lower prices.
That's borne out by the massive penetration of cell phones in the US, to the point where the land line business is rapidly dying as cell phones replace land lines. Considering a $15 add on line to most contracts can replace a $40+ land line (both after tax, fees, service, etc) I'd say consumers are benefiting fine from our model. One strength is that I don't pay extra to call a cell phone, it's all part of the basic minute plan. While I get charged minutes for every call (in or out), the combination of not using minutes to call anyone on my provider and no minute charge evenings and weekends means a reasonable base plan is essentially unlimited; and for $100 I can get a no limits to calling no matter where I roam in the US.
The lack of phone competition, IMHO, has not harmed US consumers in any significant manner, if at all.
In fact, I'd say the EU's system has harmed consumers more . You can't roam without worrying about data and call charges, or in some cases can't roam at all. For example, my UK based O2 pay as you go won't work in Portugal even though Lisbon is closer to London than Chicago is to NY (where I can roam on my ATT Pay as You go with no problem or added cost). In addition, if I call a cell phone from a landline I have to pay extra for the call; where I can call any US phone (as well as UK, Spain, germany and a few other countries as well) from my land line, at no extra charge.
As I said, the markets evolved differently due to the nature of the market and consumer wants. Neither way is inherently better or worse, just different.
All that has ever been needed to blow the Windows monopoly to smitheens is for a critical mass of customers to realize they can survive without Windows/Office. Putting tens of millions of ARM+Linux netbooks in the field just might do the trick. No Windows wouldn't vanish but their ability to command monopoly prices would be forever smashed and that would end their cash cow, without which they would lack the ability to cause much mischief.
Except MS would probably develop a netbook version of Windows with a trimmed down version of Office; if only to maintain their dominance of the desktop. While it wouldn't make as much money as a full blown Windows license it would be valuable as a strategic move to protect their higher margin offerings.
As long as netbooks are viewed as less-capable or lite versions of real notebooks that strategy will work. Hardware manufacturers have a vested interest in keeping that distinction as well in order to protect their higher margin laptops.
A Windows based netbook would have the advantage of running many existing programs; which would be a strong selling point as well.
I think MS would see netbooks as yet another market to embrace and assimilate into the Windows fold. If it grows, they will be there to protect their position; if not, then the cost to enter was small and worth the price to be primed to take advantage of it should it have grown,
I think the netbook market will grow, because people will see them as a cheap alternative to a laptop, which means they'll run Windows and hardware companies will see sales of low end laptops drop as netbooks take their market share.
>Imagine the fireworks should AT&T offer up a free ARM netbook with a service plan.
Be careful what you wish for. Do you really want people getting "free" computers that are as restrictive as the "free" cell phones they push at people? It would be the *death* of mainstream Linux.
Why? As long as the machine lets people surf the net and do light office type tasks (which Linux/Firefox/OO) will do just fine, they won't care what OS it runs.
The challenge will be games; and if enough devices can be pushed you'd start to see developers write games for it.
I'd guess that a manufacturer would use BSD rather than Linux if only to better control who can use any changes they make; if they thought the market was big enough.
And don't think people wouldn't put up with it. Us Europeans are already amazed you put up with the crippled cell phones just so you can buy them on credit.
If by crippled you mean carrier locked the reason we put up with it is that it has no impact on most US cell phone users. We have a network that spans a space about the size of Europe where we can use our cell phones anywhere in that space without worrying about roaming charges. We don't need to worry about changing carriers to get good rates; so you pick a provider based on coverage or that has the cool phone you want.
In addition, our "locked" phones aren't that locked, ATT will unlock some phones after you've been with them a few months, including pay as you go phones; not sure about T-Mobile. Sprint and Verizon phones aren't really locked but since each others phone id's don't show up in the others database they can't or won't activate a rival phone; although at one time you could activate Sprint Treos on Verizon. There was talk of allowing non-carrier branded phones to be activated but I'm not sure if that ever happened.
The bigger question is why worry about phone mobility? If you switch carriers you get a new subsidized phone anyway; and it seems many people view phones as a throwaway that gets replaced every 15 months or so anyway. You don't get a price break for a non-subsidized phone, so there is no advantage to buying one. In the US you don't have to worry about roaming charges so you don't need to swap SIMs as you travel. Since a significant percentage of Americans never travel abroad the ability to get a cheap SIM plan overseas is not needed. I do travel abroad and have a cheap pay as you go phone that is unlocked fro use overseas; it cost me a total of $10 for the phone. I unlocked it myself; but had I kept my account active for 3 more months (after the 1st month that was included in the price of the phone) at $10 or so a month ATT would have unlocked it for me for free.
Not having to shell out a few hundred dollars up front increases the penetration of cell phones in the US since more people will pay XX$ per month than $200 up front plus XX$ less the subsidy cost. If you look at European providers they also offer subsidized phones so it seems Europeans like that option as well.
In short, the US and European markets are different because of the nature of the markets. Ours created one large calling area rather than the patchwork of carriers that are legacies of the period prior to the "United Europe." Ours works for us, yours works for you. Both have pluses and minuses, but neither way is inherently better; just different.
So, all those datacentres buying hardware and using electricity, are they free too?
Sooner or later there is a cost, and free services have one big problem for long term survivability, where's the profit?
A great free service may be fun, might even be useful, but sooner or later down the chain someone needs to be paid.
Or are all web developers working for no pay these days?
You hit the nail on the head. Unless the fixed costs are covered, and there are also marginal costs (Bandwidth, power,etc.) that must be paid as well so if it really prices at zero ultimately no one will produce those products because the will lose money.
Of course, what really happens is the costs are shifted to their cash sources - Google gets ads, FOSS gets donated time and money, etc. That's not a new idea - TV and Radio did that for years - and still does it to a lesser extent with the growth of pay premium services.
I haven't found any cases where MS Entourage isn't a suitable replacement for Outlook. It's included with Office 2004 and 2008. It's basically Outlook for the mac.
The only thing missing from the mac version of Office 2008 is VBA support which WAS present in Office 2004 for the mac and will be back in the next version of MS Office for the mac.
AFAIK Entourage doesn't include business contact management capabilities.
IMHO booting a VM to run Office for daily use is silly. I would either run Windows or just get a copy of Office for the mac and boot the VM for special cases.
Well, it works pretty much seamlessly so I'm happy with it; and I don't want to give up my OSX features to boot just into Windows. To each his own.
There must be something wrong with your VM or maybe your XP installation. I am running XP-SP3 on the Parallels 4 VM and it opens shared folder almost instantly, certainly less than one second. This is also true when I run VISTA in a VM. Copying a large file from a shared Mac folder to/from XP or VISTA is not much different either.
Could be, I just haven't figured out how to fix it in Fusion if it is a VM issue. Oddly enough, W7 worked great out of the box.
Ummm... PDF export works flawly in OSX in just about every osx app. It's part of the display AND print subsystems. You can just hit print, and there's a little PDF menu right there in the print dialog box.
Tha's only true if the undelying file is flawless, the problem is OO munging files proior to the conversion to pdf.
And no, PDF's don't contain animation or video. Why would they? With the exception of powerpoint, office was designed to deal with static documents. If you need video and animation, Word and Excel are the wrong tools for the job. They really are.
Acrobat has had the ability to embed video into pdfs for quite some time, and that is the functionality missing from the pdf export capability
As to why embed - it allows you to create presentations that include such things as video clips as a self contained file; which can be useful in a variety of ways.
And yes, I run NeoOffice but it doesn't quite handle Office files properly in all cases so I can't rely on it for critical client work.
That really doesn't make sense. If layout is so critical, just export it to PDF. NeoOffice/OpenOffice even give you a handy button to do that directly. If your clients can't deal with PDF, they might just as well crawl into their own graves and pull the soil over their heads.
Except that my clients pay my bills - so I need to make sure my stuff works for them.
In addition, PDF export is not fool proof either, and does not embed animation or video (unless you go with the full version of Acrobat) so even if I could use it it still is not a good substitute. also, if NeoOffice mungs the file in the conversion then exporting to PDF just creates a non-editable screwed up file.
I'd love to be able to use NeoOffice exclusively; but unfortunately that is not possible for me.
As to the GP AC post about Office not doing all conversions properly, true but most of my clients use the latest version (as do I) so it's not an issue; if not I can check it on an earlier version I have installed on my machine
I need to run the Win versions of Office for work, and W7 so far appears to do that better than XP.
Interesting comment.
All the benchmarks I've seen so far show Vista/Win7 being close to 30% slower than XP running office apps on the same hardware.
Care to explain what makes it "better" enough to spend a couple of hundred dollars getting Win 7?
I'm running it via Fusion on a Mac; and W7 takes significantly less time to access my shared folders - it opens them instantly; while XP takes 10 - 15 seconds. That alone is a big improvement; and worth the price.
I am enjoying the Windows 7 beta on my gaming desktop and netbook and look forward to *gasp* purchasing a copy to replace Windows XP.
Clearest indication Windows 7 will be released soon?
Astroturf levels go well past "histrionic".
I'm also using the beta and will buy W7 to replace XP on my laptop. Why - it seems to run faster, especially when accessing shared drives.
Of course, I run it on Fusion on my Mac (I need to run the Win versions of Office for work, and W7 so far appears to do that better than XP.
Just because some has a reason to upgrade doesn't mean they're part of a astroturf campaign.
Now, if Snow Leopard allows seamless connectivity with exchange and i can replicate Outlook's functionality on my MAC then I may just pop for the Mac version of Office.
And yes, I run NeoOffice but it doesn't quite handle Office files properly in all cases so I can't rely on it for critical client work. I'd love an FOSS solution for Word/PowerPoint/Outlook/Excel/Visio; but everything I've tried is not quite there, yet.
Some are questioning whether IBM incentives are worth the cost."
Even in the linked article, they're only questioning how much to pay IBM -- not whether to pay them. It amazes me that local officials do this so often, when there's no real proof these sorts of incentives are a net gain. Localities pay hundreds of millions of dollar for sports team's stadiums and get no direct profit sharing, cities offer multi-million dollar packages - or in Seattle's case, even build an egregious trolley line - for businesses and don't even pretend to have a measure of the monetary benefit to the community for the given initial outlay. I always wonder how much these pointless incentives come from honest incompetence versus corruption of the government officials.
The fundamental issue is that these payments don't 'create jobs" but just decide *where* a company will locate. As a result, they are a net loss since most companies would locate somewhere and create the jobs; just not in *your* backyard.
If localities would all stop paying them I'd bet that many companies would locate in the same areas as they do with payments. Why? Companies still want low taxes, people who can do the jobs, access to transportation routes, etc. The cash is just a sweetener.
I've seen some economic "studies" done to support such payments and I wish I could sell whatever it is the localities are smoking cause they numbers have no relationship to reality.
So why do they do it? Politicians like to tout how many *jobs* they created. Especially near elections. Cities want sports teams, even if they are a net loss and will probably bail when a better deal come along. So we continue to transfer wealth from taxpayers to private corporations and ell good about it because "we're creating jobs."
One that understands these types of deals or you will risk getting screwed.
As for valuation, a traditional consulting firm; where most of the revenue is from consultants working with clients and not from sales of things like software, have a multiple of around 1. So you can figure out the expected value of your shares by multiplying the revenue projected for year 5 times 1 times your percentage. Of course, the 5 year projection is probably a best case so that will most likely represent the upper limit. Lower limit is 0.
In addition, most districts are very restrictive about what can be loaded on district machines, so most teachers won't even try FOSS for fear of getting in trouble over IT rules. It simply isn't worth the hassle.
Taken in pieces:
most districts are very restrictive about what can be loaded on district machines - true, but if you ask district IT to set up a machine with FOSS on it, they likely will - they have a very vested interest in preventing users from installing applications on a machine, with one reason being users have sketchy understanding of software licensing, and they tend to not have extra hands to provide a level of support most users need for a new/unfamiliar platform. They are no more restrictive than a corporate IT group, in my experience (I've worked in both).
Fair enough, but if they "tend to not have extra hands to provide a level of support most users need for a new/unfamiliar platform" what happens when the teacher runs into a problem? Given the choice of using existing apps and getting support or going off on your own with little support I'd guess most would stay with what they have and not be inclined to try FOSS
most teachers won't even try FOSS for fear of getting in trouble over IT rules - in my experience, that's total BS - they tend to not have the interest/inclination to even try. What, teachers can't get amachine at home, can't load Virtual Server, VMware Server, Virtual Box, Parallels, Fusion, etc. on their own home machine (like the rest of us here do)? Why must everything teachers do be facilitated by district IT?
Since we are talking about FOSS adoption in schools, I would not expect a teacher to shell out their own money and then figure out how to use new software to support their job.
We do it because we enjoy it. Installing and evaluating software is not an key component of a teacher's job; and many have neither the time, money, or interest in playing around with software. They just wnat to be able to use it with minimal hassle to get their job done.
In my district we have a fellow (a parent/taxpayer) that insists we could save $500K by getting of MS WinXP/Office and going to FOSS, but he aims his fusilade at district IT, not the teachers or the parents - those are the folks that set the direction for district IT. I've never worked anyplace where IT sets the platform without direction from the users.
A classic example of why you need to educate and convince the decision maker; not random parts of an organization
My district is going to build a Linux image this year and make it available to teachers in the coming school year, but since we don't have the time to do any hand-holding (three techs on staff, each supporting almost 600 desktops, 2 to 1 PCs to Macs), I honestly expect minimal if any takers, especially since every FOSS desktop they request in their classroom will displace an existing MS WinXP desktop.
A not unreasonable response by teachers; switching software to an essentially unsupported package means they'll have to take time from their real job to learn how to use it; as a result the software will get in the way of getting stuff done and be viewed as an impediment. Not exactly a good way to build support for FOSS.
Linux needs to stop the smug attitude because users don't care about smugness. They just want things to work!
I agree. Most teachers simply do not have time to learn about Linux, FOSS, etc. they're too busy trying to keep up with all the paperwork, requirements, and BTW teach to worry about that stuff; and they're not about to spend money on a continuing ed class that doesn't get them either con-ed credits or a higher qualification
In addition, most districts are very restrictive about what can be loaded on district machines, so most teachers won't even try FOSS for fear of getting in trouble over IT rules. It simply isn't worth the hassle.
OTOH, you can make it easy to show teachers how FOSS can benefit student. If a teacher want's students to do presentations, providing a clear set of directions on how to install OpenOffice and set it up to save in an Office compatible format, so they can offer that as an alternative to parents buying Office, helps them at minimal effort on their part and generates awareness for FOSS.
Instead of assuming teachers are the enemy look at things from their perspective and see what you can do to make things easier for them.
Also, it would be nice to raise the public awareness about the importance of the teaching profession. One of the main pillars of the future of a country is currently seen as just a simple job anyone can do.
Just my humble opinion, and I'm sorry if I offended you.
I agree with your comments, and would add:
Parents need to take an positive, active role in their child's education
I know a lot of teachers, and they have far too many stories about parents who whine:
"It's your fault my little darling is failing. You aren't doing enough. What are you going to do to get them to pass?"
Of course, the parent has been told repeatedly that their darling cuts class, fails to turn in work, is high in class, misses makeup tests, etc., and there response is to do nothing and continue to blame the teachers.
Not to mention those that try to call teachers at home, on weekends, etc. Even though any teacher with half a brain doesn't give out home numbers parents find them any way.
I couldn't teach, because the first time I got that "What are we going to do?" crap I'd tell them unless they got a mouse in their pocket there isn't any we in this. And flunk their sorry kid.
Call me at home and you're likely to discover your phone number has been mistaken for a free sex number.
No wonder many of the good ones leave for other jobs where they don't have to take all this crap.
Unfortunately, parent is correct. This isn't the first contradictory point to the *AA's claim that pirating affects their sales. They've ignored all of the other arguments, and I'm sure they'll ignore this one as well.
It's one data point, but I'm not sure that this disproves that argument quite yet. It does show that marketing entertainment broadly helps expose you to a broader audience; which can result in greater sales.
The Dead have done this for years, and it has worked quite nicely for them.
Entertainment, by its nature, is a very personal taste sort of thing. By giving people the opportunity to see your act they can decide if they like it, and the are more willing to buy stuff.
TV is moving this way as well - with networks such as FOX in the US making shows available on line. This can help build a following for a show; resulting in higher ratings. I'm even willing to watch a commercial or two to be able to stream a video while traveling.
As for the piracy = lost sales argument, I think there is a point where it crosses over from "Let's see if I like them enough to spend money on them" to "I can get it for free so why buy it?"
D/L some materiel and then buying a CD/DVD is, IMHO, fine. D/L it, find out it sucks and never listen / watch again - sure. D/L it , keep it, use it and not but it? Not cool. At some point, if you like it the artist ought to get rewarded. Yes, I realize the artist gets very little from a sale; and would like to see a way to really get money into their hands, but that is not, IMHO, a justification for piracy.
I found this/. article very useful and informative. I road tested it on my iPhone and it exceeded my expectations. It exceeded my expectations and was a lot of fun to use. Works with my hard drive, too.
Any that use the DVORAK studies prove markets are flwed because teh "best" idea doesn't always win.
It's like the Intelligent Design crowd claiming that evolutionists say that evolution is random chance.
The guy sets out to prove that markets work, sets up the supposed arguments of some imaginary people on the other side of his argument, and then knocks the arguments down for the sole reason that he was the one that constructed the arguments.
I never claimed he proved his point; merely that the QWERTY vs DVORAK studies do not support the idea of first mover advantage and that markets are flawed because a "best" design failed to supplant an "inferior" one. Disproving the other side's arguments does not prove yours.
e.g. That people say that various technologies won because they were first.
He does say that, and it is true - but his real argument is against the idea that market results are are by chance, and therefore free markets provide no advantage over regulated ones.
That people say first movers win is part of that argument, and not a strawman.
He referenced many old studies, but did not conduct his own. Every one of those old studies was biased in one way or another.
The few studies that he presents as unbiased, which found for QWERTY or for a tie, involved retraining typists, which is definitely a bias of some kind.
Nobody seems to have performed a study involving teaching first-time typists to see how long it takes to get to X WPM, or to see how fast they get after Y hours of training. That would be my definition of an unbiased study.
Of course, at this point, it'd be pretty tough to find someone who has never typed on anything before...
Exactly. The point is that people selectively use those studies to support a point of view that markets "fail." Independent of the correctness of that viewpoint; the QWERTY example does not support their conclusion since the premise taht the "better" choice lost in the market is not proven by the studies.
If you believe the article. Personally I found it to be full of straw men, and seemed to be trying very hard to twist the truth towards his way of thinking for reasons that had nothing to do with keyboard layouts.
Huh? He referenced the original studies used to claim DVORAK was superior, one of which claimed to be flawed in the study, and provided sources for his claims.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll give you some specific examples, but first I'll say that I've never understood the argument that something that caters to "most people" is good enough. If the European system results in products ranging from super low end to super high end, how is a system that ignores high/super high end devices not worse?
Well, to begin with the US market does not ignore the super high end - you can buy any unlocked European phone taht is quad and and use it on the ATT or TMobile network just fine. The major carriers ignore that market because it is just not profitable enough for them to cater to it.
If your definition of worse is that a market does not cater to every specific customer would mean the EU market is worse than the US because I can call anywhere in the US, to any phone, for as long as I like form anywhere in the US for a flat $80 while EU providers do not provide the same service; thereby ignoring a specific set of customers. I don't buy that "you're worse because you do not provide every service we do here" argument form either side of the pond. We're just different.
The ridiculous roaming charges are an unfortunate byproduct of several different countries trying to work together. The EU has in fact cracked down on them lately. It has nothing to do with locked or unlocked hardware. Prices are going down in all markets. The difference is that features are increasing faster outside the US.
Again, that doesn't make either market better or worse, just different.
Now, the examples. In the EU, it's routine to for example see something cool you want to buy and send a picture message to your wife. The iPhone was launched without such a feature and people didn't even blink. In fact, people will defend the omission as "useless" if it's pointed out. It may not be mindblowing, but it's just one in a long list of conveniences.
Apple fanboys aside, I've been able to send picture messages for a long time on Treos and razors and other phone; Apple's stupid decision doesn't mean the capability isn't available for someone who wants it.
In the EU, completely average people have been surfing on their phones for a long time. In the US, everyone is pretending the iPhone invented mobile browsing. Just yesterday there was a slashdot article about how the iPhone may get a front facing secondary camera, which is pretty much standard on European smartphones.
Again, while the iPhone may have made browsing more accessible, I've been browsing for years on various phones before the iPhone. I do like my iPhone's browser, however.
In the US, Verizon was sued in bloody 2005 because it wouldn't let customers copy photos to their computers without using an expensive network service.
I wouldn't define a market by a lawsuit as the result of one stupid decision by a carrier. Would you judge teh whole EU over the issues with unlocking in France?
In the US, Steve Jobs was required to explain that Apple's device is both a phone and an iPod before people realized that phones are able to function as music players (with Ogg Vorbis support no less, except for Apple).
I don't want to go on, but you probably get the point.
There's a difference between consumers not having capabilities each of the examples you used don't demonstrate new capabilities for phones in the US market since each of them (Picture messaging, browsing, MP3 players) have been available for years on phones in the US market.
Apple's great at marketing features and creating awareness of them, but that doesn't mean they were the first to offer them.
If you focus on Apple, they don't always offer every service from the US iTunes store to the rest of the world - does that make the rest of the world's phone market worse? Not really, it just means Apple does things there way.
Features on a phone do not define market succ
It's not just about switching operators. The widespread lockin lets the operators dictate what features the phones have, and it has damaged the US market significantly. In Europe, a lot of people go for the contract option, but the large unlocked market ensures that operators don't have power over the phone manufacturers. I'm constantly reading articles raving about features we've had for years that have nothing to do with building networks.
Don't confuse writer's opinions with those of the broad customer base. Most people want a phone that works, and messaging. A camera is nice as well. While many /. would like the latest and greatest my experience has been their preferences aren't those of the broader market.
So I guess I don't understand what you mean by it has damaged the US market significantly.
If you don't get a price break for buying a phone on your own it just means the carriers have so much power they can screw you over. That's not a sign of a healthy market.
As for people being happy with what comes installed, sure, but the effect of lockin on competition retards progress, and prevents anyone who does care from installing what they want. There is NO benefit to the consumer in such a system.
,P>I'd submit that the constant lowering of the cost of cell phone contracts is the sign of healthy market that benefits consumers. Over the 15 years I've had a cell phone I've seen the cost of service decline to the point that I now pay annually what I used to pay monthly for the same usage. I'd say that is the greatest benefit to consumers- lower prices.
That's borne out by the massive penetration of cell phones in the US, to the point where the land line business is rapidly dying as cell phones replace land lines. Considering a $15 add on line to most contracts can replace a $40+ land line (both after tax, fees, service, etc) I'd say consumers are benefiting fine from our model. One strength is that I don't pay extra to call a cell phone, it's all part of the basic minute plan. While I get charged minutes for every call (in or out), the combination of not using minutes to call anyone on my provider and no minute charge evenings and weekends means a reasonable base plan is essentially unlimited; and for $100 I can get a no limits to calling no matter where I roam in the US.
The lack of phone competition, IMHO, has not harmed US consumers in any significant manner, if at all.
In fact, I'd say the EU's system has harmed consumers more . You can't roam without worrying about data and call charges, or in some cases can't roam at all. For example, my UK based O2 pay as you go won't work in Portugal even though Lisbon is closer to London than Chicago is to NY (where I can roam on my ATT Pay as You go with no problem or added cost). In addition, if I call a cell phone from a landline I have to pay extra for the call; where I can call any US phone (as well as UK, Spain, germany and a few other countries as well) from my land line, at no extra charge.
As I said, the markets evolved differently due to the nature of the market and consumer wants. Neither way is inherently better or worse, just different.
All that has ever been needed to blow the Windows monopoly to smitheens is for a critical mass of customers to realize they can survive without Windows/Office. Putting tens of millions of ARM+Linux netbooks in the field just might do the trick. No Windows wouldn't vanish but their ability to command monopoly prices would be forever smashed and that would end their cash cow, without which they would lack the ability to cause much mischief.
Except MS would probably develop a netbook version of Windows with a trimmed down version of Office; if only to maintain their dominance of the desktop. While it wouldn't make as much money as a full blown Windows license it would be valuable as a strategic move to protect their higher margin offerings.
As long as netbooks are viewed as less-capable or lite versions of real notebooks that strategy will work. Hardware manufacturers have a vested interest in keeping that distinction as well in order to protect their higher margin laptops.
A Windows based netbook would have the advantage of running many existing programs; which would be a strong selling point as well.
I think MS would see netbooks as yet another market to embrace and assimilate into the Windows fold. If it grows, they will be there to protect their position; if not, then the cost to enter was small and worth the price to be primed to take advantage of it should it have grown,
I think the netbook market will grow, because people will see them as a cheap alternative to a laptop, which means they'll run Windows and hardware companies will see sales of low end laptops drop as netbooks take their market share.
>Imagine the fireworks should AT&T offer up a free ARM netbook with a service plan.
Be careful what you wish for. Do you really want people getting "free" computers that are as restrictive as the "free" cell phones they push at people? It would be the *death* of mainstream Linux.
Why? As long as the machine lets people surf the net and do light office type tasks (which Linux/Firefox/OO) will do just fine, they won't care what OS it runs.
The challenge will be games; and if enough devices can be pushed you'd start to see developers write games for it.
I'd guess that a manufacturer would use BSD rather than Linux if only to better control who can use any changes they make; if they thought the market was big enough.
And don't think people wouldn't put up with it. Us Europeans are already amazed you put up with the crippled cell phones just so you can buy them on credit.
If by crippled you mean carrier locked the reason we put up with it is that it has no impact on most US cell phone users. We have a network that spans a space about the size of Europe where we can use our cell phones anywhere in that space without worrying about roaming charges. We don't need to worry about changing carriers to get good rates; so you pick a provider based on coverage or that has the cool phone you want.
In addition, our "locked" phones aren't that locked, ATT will unlock some phones after you've been with them a few months, including pay as you go phones; not sure about T-Mobile. Sprint and Verizon phones aren't really locked but since each others phone id's don't show up in the others database they can't or won't activate a rival phone; although at one time you could activate Sprint Treos on Verizon. There was talk of allowing non-carrier branded phones to be activated but I'm not sure if that ever happened.
The bigger question is why worry about phone mobility? If you switch carriers you get a new subsidized phone anyway; and it seems many people view phones as a throwaway that gets replaced every 15 months or so anyway. You don't get a price break for a non-subsidized phone, so there is no advantage to buying one. In the US you don't have to worry about roaming charges so you don't need to swap SIMs as you travel. Since a significant percentage of Americans never travel abroad the ability to get a cheap SIM plan overseas is not needed. I do travel abroad and have a cheap pay as you go phone that is unlocked fro use overseas; it cost me a total of $10 for the phone. I unlocked it myself; but had I kept my account active for 3 more months (after the 1st month that was included in the price of the phone) at $10 or so a month ATT would have unlocked it for me for free.
Not having to shell out a few hundred dollars up front increases the penetration of cell phones in the US since more people will pay XX$ per month than $200 up front plus XX$ less the subsidy cost. If you look at European providers they also offer subsidized phones so it seems Europeans like that option as well.
In short, the US and European markets are different because of the nature of the markets. Ours created one large calling area rather than the patchwork of carriers that are legacies of the period prior to the "United Europe." Ours works for us, yours works for you. Both have pluses and minuses, but neither way is inherently better; just different.
So, all those datacentres buying hardware and using electricity, are they free too?
Sooner or later there is a cost, and free services have one big problem for long term survivability, where's the profit?
A great free service may be fun, might even be useful, but sooner or later down the chain someone needs to be paid.
Or are all web developers working for no pay these days?
You hit the nail on the head. Unless the fixed costs are covered, and there are also marginal costs (Bandwidth, power,etc.) that must be paid as well so if it really prices at zero ultimately no one will produce those products because the will lose money.
Of course, what really happens is the costs are shifted to their cash sources - Google gets ads, FOSS gets donated time and money, etc. That's not a new idea - TV and Radio did that for years - and still does it to a lesser extent with the growth of pay premium services.
eporducts
I haven't found any cases where MS Entourage isn't a suitable replacement for Outlook. It's included with Office 2004 and 2008. It's basically Outlook for the mac.
The only thing missing from the mac version of Office 2008 is VBA support which WAS present in Office 2004 for the mac and will be back in the next version of MS Office for the mac.
AFAIK Entourage doesn't include business contact management capabilities.
IMHO booting a VM to run Office for daily use is silly. I would either run Windows or just get a copy of Office for the mac and boot the VM for special cases.
Well, it works pretty much seamlessly so I'm happy with it; and I don't want to give up my OSX features to boot just into Windows. To each his own.
... while XP takes 10 - 15 seconds...
There must be something wrong with your VM or maybe your XP installation. I am running XP-SP3 on the Parallels 4 VM and it opens shared folder almost instantly, certainly less than one second. This is also true when I run VISTA in a VM. Copying a large file from a shared Mac folder to/from XP or VISTA is not much different either.
Could be, I just haven't figured out how to fix it in Fusion if it is a VM issue. Oddly enough, W7 worked great out of the box.
Ummm... PDF export works flawly in OSX in just about every osx app. It's part of the display AND print subsystems. You can just hit print, and there's a little PDF menu right there in the print dialog box.
Tha's only true if the undelying file is flawless, the problem is OO munging files proior to the conversion to pdf.
And no, PDF's don't contain animation or video. Why would they? With the exception of powerpoint, office was designed to deal with static documents. If you need video and animation, Word and Excel are the wrong tools for the job. They really are.
Acrobat has had the ability to embed video into pdfs for quite some time, and that is the functionality missing from the pdf export capability
As to why embed - it allows you to create presentations that include such things as video clips as a self contained file; which can be useful in a variety of ways.
And yes, I run NeoOffice but it doesn't quite handle Office files properly in all cases so I can't rely on it for critical client work. That really doesn't make sense. If layout is so critical, just export it to PDF. NeoOffice/OpenOffice even give you a handy button to do that directly. If your clients can't deal with PDF, they might just as well crawl into their own graves and pull the soil over their heads.
Except that my clients pay my bills - so I need to make sure my stuff works for them.
In addition, PDF export is not fool proof either, and does not embed animation or video (unless you go with the full version of Acrobat) so even if I could use it it still is not a good substitute. also, if NeoOffice mungs the file in the conversion then exporting to PDF just creates a non-editable screwed up file.
I'd love to be able to use NeoOffice exclusively; but unfortunately that is not possible for me.
As to the GP AC post about Office not doing all conversions properly, true but most of my clients use the latest version (as do I) so it's not an issue; if not I can check it on an earlier version I have installed on my machine
I need to run the Win versions of Office for work, and W7 so far appears to do that better than XP.
Interesting comment.
All the benchmarks I've seen so far show Vista/Win7 being close to 30% slower than XP running office apps on the same hardware.
Care to explain what makes it "better" enough to spend a couple of hundred dollars getting Win 7?
I'm running it via Fusion on a Mac; and W7 takes significantly less time to access my shared folders - it opens them instantly; while XP takes 10 - 15 seconds. That alone is a big improvement; and worth the price.
I am enjoying the Windows 7 beta on my gaming desktop and netbook and look forward to *gasp* purchasing a copy to replace Windows XP.
Clearest indication Windows 7 will be released soon?
Astroturf levels go well past "histrionic".
I'm also using the beta and will buy W7 to replace XP on my laptop. Why - it seems to run faster, especially when accessing shared drives.
Of course, I run it on Fusion on my Mac (I need to run the Win versions of Office for work, and W7 so far appears to do that better than XP.
Just because some has a reason to upgrade doesn't mean they're part of a astroturf campaign.
Now, if Snow Leopard allows seamless connectivity with exchange and i can replicate Outlook's functionality on my MAC then I may just pop for the Mac version of Office.
And yes, I run NeoOffice but it doesn't quite handle Office files properly in all cases so I can't rely on it for critical client work. I'd love an FOSS solution for Word/PowerPoint/Outlook/Excel/Visio; but everything I've tried is not quite there, yet.
Even in the linked article, they're only questioning how much to pay IBM -- not whether to pay them. It amazes me that local officials do this so often, when there's no real proof these sorts of incentives are a net gain. Localities pay hundreds of millions of dollar for sports team's stadiums and get no direct profit sharing, cities offer multi-million dollar packages - or in Seattle's case, even build an egregious trolley line - for businesses and don't even pretend to have a measure of the monetary benefit to the community for the given initial outlay. I always wonder how much these pointless incentives come from honest incompetence versus corruption of the government officials.
The fundamental issue is that these payments don't 'create jobs" but just decide *where* a company will locate. As a result, they are a net loss since most companies would locate somewhere and create the jobs; just not in *your* backyard.
If localities would all stop paying them I'd bet that many companies would locate in the same areas as they do with payments. Why? Companies still want low taxes, people who can do the jobs, access to transportation routes, etc. The cash is just a sweetener.
I've seen some economic "studies" done to support such payments and I wish I could sell whatever it is the localities are smoking cause they numbers have no relationship to reality.
So why do they do it? Politicians like to tout how many *jobs* they created. Especially near elections. Cities want sports teams, even if they are a net loss and will probably bail when a better deal come along. So we continue to transfer wealth from taxpayers to private corporations and ell good about it because "we're creating jobs."
I'm using the Windows 7 Beta right now, and previously I've been using Windows Vista.
Is it really that much better? Here are the points I can think of it being better than Vista:
* Faster on Less Hardware - They did make it work better on older slower hardware with less memory.
I'm running it on my Mac via Fusion and it seems faster than XP - especially in file folder access. Depending on the price I'll probably do the jump.
One that understands these types of deals or you will risk getting screwed.
As for valuation, a traditional consulting firm; where most of the revenue is from consultants working with clients and not from sales of things like software, have a multiple of around 1. So you can figure out the expected value of your shares by multiplying the revenue projected for year 5 times 1 times your percentage. Of course, the 5 year projection is probably a best case so that will most likely represent the upper limit. Lower limit is 0.
Taken in pieces:
most districts are very restrictive about what can be loaded on district machines - true, but if you ask district IT to set up a machine with FOSS on it, they likely will - they have a very vested interest in preventing users from installing applications on a machine, with one reason being users have sketchy understanding of software licensing, and they tend to not have extra hands to provide a level of support most users need for a new/unfamiliar platform. They are no more restrictive than a corporate IT group, in my experience (I've worked in both).
Fair enough, but if they "tend to not have extra hands to provide a level of support most users need for a new/unfamiliar platform" what happens when the teacher runs into a problem? Given the choice of using existing apps and getting support or going off on your own with little support I'd guess most would stay with what they have and not be inclined to try FOSS
most teachers won't even try FOSS for fear of getting in trouble over IT rules - in my experience, that's total BS - they tend to not have the interest/inclination to even try. What, teachers can't get amachine at home, can't load Virtual Server, VMware Server, Virtual Box, Parallels, Fusion, etc. on their own home machine (like the rest of us here do)? Why must everything teachers do be facilitated by district IT?
Since we are talking about FOSS adoption in schools, I would not expect a teacher to shell out their own money and then figure out how to use new software to support their job.
We do it because we enjoy it. Installing and evaluating software is not an key component of a teacher's job; and many have neither the time, money, or interest in playing around with software. They just wnat to be able to use it with minimal hassle to get their job done.
In my district we have a fellow (a parent/taxpayer) that insists we could save $500K by getting of MS WinXP/Office and going to FOSS, but he aims his fusilade at district IT, not the teachers or the parents - those are the folks that set the direction for district IT. I've never worked anyplace where IT sets the platform without direction from the users.
A classic example of why you need to educate and convince the decision maker; not random parts of an organization
My district is going to build a Linux image this year and make it available to teachers in the coming school year, but since we don't have the time to do any hand-holding (three techs on staff, each supporting almost 600 desktops, 2 to 1 PCs to Macs), I honestly expect minimal if any takers, especially since every FOSS desktop they request in their classroom will displace an existing MS WinXP desktop.
A not unreasonable response by teachers; switching software to an essentially unsupported package means they'll have to take time from their real job to learn how to use it; as a result the software will get in the way of getting stuff done and be viewed as an impediment. Not exactly a good way to build support for FOSS.
Linux needs to stop the smug attitude because users don't care about smugness. They just want things to work!
I agree. Most teachers simply do not have time to learn about Linux, FOSS, etc. they're too busy trying to keep up with all the paperwork, requirements, and BTW teach to worry about that stuff; and they're not about to spend money on a continuing ed class that doesn't get them either con-ed credits or a higher qualification
In addition, most districts are very restrictive about what can be loaded on district machines, so most teachers won't even try FOSS for fear of getting in trouble over IT rules. It simply isn't worth the hassle.
OTOH, you can make it easy to show teachers how FOSS can benefit student. If a teacher want's students to do presentations, providing a clear set of directions on how to install OpenOffice and set it up to save in an Office compatible format, so they can offer that as an alternative to parents buying Office, helps them at minimal effort on their part and generates awareness for FOSS.
Instead of assuming teachers are the enemy look at things from their perspective and see what you can do to make things easier for them.
Also, it would be nice to raise the public awareness about the importance of the teaching profession. One of the main pillars of the future of a country is currently seen as just a simple job anyone can do.
Just my humble opinion, and I'm sorry if I offended you.
I agree with your comments, and would add:
Parents need to take an positive, active role in their child's education
I know a lot of teachers, and they have far too many stories about parents who whine:
"It's your fault my little darling is failing. You aren't doing enough. What are you going to do to get them to pass?"
Of course, the parent has been told repeatedly that their darling cuts class, fails to turn in work, is high in class, misses makeup tests, etc., and there response is to do nothing and continue to blame the teachers.
Not to mention those that try to call teachers at home, on weekends, etc. Even though any teacher with half a brain doesn't give out home numbers parents find them any way.
I couldn't teach, because the first time I got that "What are we going to do?" crap I'd tell them unless they got a mouse in their pocket there isn't any we in this. And flunk their sorry kid.
Call me at home and you're likely to discover your phone number has been mistaken for a free sex number.
No wonder many of the good ones leave for other jobs where they don't have to take all this crap.
are on the evening news yelling at their Congressmen for "taking away our TV."
Unfortunately, parent is correct. This isn't the first contradictory point to the *AA's claim that pirating affects their sales. They've ignored all of the other arguments, and I'm sure they'll ignore this one as well.
It's one data point, but I'm not sure that this disproves that argument quite yet. It does show that marketing entertainment broadly helps expose you to a broader audience; which can result in greater sales.
The Dead have done this for years, and it has worked quite nicely for them.
Entertainment, by its nature, is a very personal taste sort of thing. By giving people the opportunity to see your act they can decide if they like it, and the are more willing to buy stuff.
TV is moving this way as well - with networks such as FOX in the US making shows available on line. This can help build a following for a show; resulting in higher ratings. I'm even willing to watch a commercial or two to be able to stream a video while traveling.
As for the piracy = lost sales argument, I think there is a point where it crosses over from "Let's see if I like them enough to spend money on them" to "I can get it for free so why buy it?" D/L some materiel and then buying a CD/DVD is, IMHO, fine. D/L it, find out it sucks and never listen / watch again - sure. D/L it , keep it, use it and not but it? Not cool. At some point, if you like it the artist ought to get rewarded. Yes, I realize the artist gets very little from a sale; and would like to see a way to really get money into their hands, but that is not, IMHO, a justification for piracy.
I found this /. article very useful and informative. I road tested it on my iPhone and it exceeded my expectations. It exceeded my expectations and was a lot of fun to use. Works with my hard drive, too.
Five stars.
CDR Taco, where's my 65 cents?
That's another straw man. What people?
Any that use the DVORAK studies prove markets are flwed because teh "best" idea doesn't always win.
It's like the Intelligent Design crowd claiming that evolutionists say that evolution is random chance.
The guy sets out to prove that markets work, sets up the supposed arguments of some imaginary people on the other side of his argument, and then knocks the arguments down for the sole reason that he was the one that constructed the arguments.
I never claimed he proved his point; merely that the QWERTY vs DVORAK studies do not support the idea of first mover advantage and that markets are flawed because a "best" design failed to supplant an "inferior" one. Disproving the other side's arguments does not prove yours.
It also shows the persistence of urban legends.
However, he did not prove that Dvorak was an inferior layout, only that nobody has done a proper study in the 80 years since it was invented.
By not showing it to be an inferior layout, he cannot prove his own point that the market always chooses the best product.
Agreed - in the end, QWERTY vs DVORAK is not a very useful example for anything except how not to do a study and the resilience of urban legends.
e.g. That people say that various technologies won because they were first.
He does say that, and it is true - but his real argument is against the idea that market results are are by chance, and therefore free markets provide no advantage over regulated ones.
That people say first movers win is part of that argument, and not a strawman.
He referenced many old studies, but did not conduct his own. Every one of those old studies was biased in one way or another.
The few studies that he presents as unbiased, which found for QWERTY or for a tie, involved retraining typists, which is definitely a bias of some kind.
Nobody seems to have performed a study involving teaching first-time typists to see how long it takes to get to X WPM, or to see how fast they get after Y hours of training. That would be my definition of an unbiased study.
Of course, at this point, it'd be pretty tough to find someone who has never typed on anything before...
Exactly. The point is that people selectively use those studies to support a point of view that markets "fail." Independent of the correctness of that viewpoint; the QWERTY example does not support their conclusion since the premise taht the "better" choice lost in the market is not proven by the studies.
If you believe the article. Personally I found it to be full of straw men, and seemed to be trying very hard to twist the truth towards his way of thinking for reasons that had nothing to do with keyboard layouts.
Huh? He referenced the original studies used to claim DVORAK was superior, one of which claimed to be flawed in the study, and provided sources for his claims.
What do you think is a strawman in the article?