Outsourcing lowers the GDP of our country, reducing our buying power. What logically happens is jobs are removed from our country.
Not necessarily. GDP is total value of goods and services produced domestically - i.e basically total consumer, investment and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports.
Given that most of the components in a Dell are non-us made, labor is probably the largest part of the input to US GDP. For sake of argument, let's say a Dell costs $3. Of that, $2 is the cost of the parts, $.5 labor, and $.3 G&A costs. In that scenario, about $1 is added to the US GDP.
Now let's outsource production. No, let's assume Dell pays 1/2 as much for labor. If they can shave $.25 off of the cost of parts then they've saved $.5 - which can be added to the bottom line, resulting in the same $1 addition to GDP.
All great companies ever created were created by engineers and run by engineers.
While many were, there are a significant number that weren't. Apple for example - Woz certainly is a tech guy but not an engineer and Jobs certainly isn't one.
Many great companies have been driven to destruction by control freak managers with zero ability to know technology.
Understanding technology (in an engineering sense) is not necessarily a requirement to do well at running a tech company; I think understanding technology's impact on people and how it can be used effectively is a more important skill.
Anyway, my point is that there are talented, capable people waiting in the wings in every field, and you might just be able to get great performance *and* save on salaries by expanding the scope of your talent search. I hope you're listening, shareholders meetings and Hollywood producers.
The problem is the price of failure is high and the risk of using an unknown is pretty big given the cost of failure. Going with someone who is perceived as a superstar is a lot less risky; and if they fail the board can say "well, they we successful at company X so we had no reason to think they wouldn't be here, so we did our job." They don't want to be sued when some "unknown" drives the company into the ground so they take the "safe" choice.
... whereas women can overlook ugly and stupid, as long as he's rich?
Ug!
Precisely. What is often overlooked in assessing the reasons behind that is economic forces; i.r the costs associated with the relationship, type of relations ship and the resources each brings to the table.
In general, the woman is going to invest a lot more time in bearing and raising children than the man; and requires significant support to do so successfully, hence it is in here interests to seek a partner who can contribute the resources need to raise children and who will stick around to do so. As a result, physical appearance is only a part of the total equation; resources and commitment weigh in heavily as well. As a result, it makes perfect sense for a woman to be attracted to a financially secure and emotionally stable man, who is not great looking, as a long term partner. Now, there are many other things as well that drive "love", but you can't ignore the economics.
If that's the case, isn't there some law to prevent you from squeezing your only competition by placing unjustifiable limitations on the market? Not saying they're a monopoly, but it looks like that's what they're attempting to create with this new requirement they are placing on their vendors.
There should be something illegal about pressuring business associates in one market you have control over, to stifle competition in another market you are also involved in.
Amazon isn't preventing anyone from selling POD books in any other market - all they are saying is if you want us to sell your book it needs to be in the following format. If they said you can *only* publish with our vendor, then they might be stifling competition.
Many stores place unique requirements on their vendors - and vendors have the choice of selling under those terms or walking away. Despite the belief of some on/. that trying to establish a competitive advantage should be illegal it isn't necessarily so.
Yes, studying engineering sucks, espcially the early classes before you get to do independent study; but at least employeers recognize the value of having survived a reasonably rigorous cours eof study and developed an analytic bent for problem solving.
Personally, I probably worked only 10% of my career so far as an engineer - and never designing things; rather applying my skills to plant operation, testing, and repair. I've also used the problem solving skills a lot as a consultant; even if teh client has noting to do with engineering.
The challenge for engineering students is to broaden their education beyond quant skills - take as much art and science classes as you can (even if pass / fail or non-credit) so that you can combine analytics with a broader undersatnding of teh world. The more you can communicate with others the more valuable you are - I'll take an average engineer with great communication skills over a great engineer who can't communicate effectively every time when I hire someone.
IANAL, but it sounds like time for them to find a nice CDN lawyer who would do some pro-bono work to see if they have grounds for legal action. It would seem to me tha a "Tortuous interference" claim might be valid; given the actions appear to interfere with the owners of the hardware's ability to provide services as a result of the update.
The author of the article (yes I actually read it) went as far as comparing the pro/anti Apple crowd to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Yes, he seriously did. And not by briefly alluding to it, but over the course of several paragraphs.
I've heard of some crazy stretches for comparison, but come on, a journalist actually comparing a group of people that have an affinity for a company's products to a deeply-complicated bloody 60+ year old conflict? Talk about going off the deep end.
Not really - he referred to an academic study on perceived media bias to illustrate his argument; that study happened to use the P - I conflict as its basis. He was interested in the conclusions and how they relate to readers reactions to stories; which is different than the comparison you purport him to make.
See, it wasn't supposed to work like that, at least on paper. The federal government was only *supposed* to have a small list of powers given in the Constitution, and it was supposed to be up to the people wanting to implement new stuff to justify it based on the list of things the feds were allowed to do.
Of course, your question is apparently completely appropriate today, because it seems that government at any level is allowed to do anything they want, unless it's explicity forbidden in the Bill of Rights (and sometimes even that doesn't matter). It appears that nowadays if you can't muster the cash to pay for a squad of lawyers to prove to another squad of lawyers that the government is explicitly not allowed to do something, then it can just happen freely by default. Except the US Constitution give the legislative branch pretty broad powers, IMHO:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
(SNIP)
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
While the "general welfare" statement is certainly open to interpretation (by the Supremes) I could see where it, along with the common defense part, would allow for Fusion Centers; how the info is subsequently used for non-terrorist crimes is also open to debate but may be covered under "common welfare" as well.
I suppose I'm just a bit cynical about trusting the military's ability to use people's talents correctly, but I hope I didn't make the military out to be a bad choice, since I came out of it with the ability to step into a decent career. It's probably even a bit better than corporate America in terms of the density of stupid people and bad decisions. And it is true that making a choice like joining the Navy is a good way to avoid landing at a guard shack in Iraq with a rifle.
The key is to research what jobs are there and don't believe the recruiter; get anything in writing. It's best to signup for a specific program; if possible - though that isn't always the case. ROTC is not a bad option; but there are no sure things - I wanted to fly and wound up in submarines. Go figure.
However, I still don't think the DoD is using active duty military personnel to do a lot of the actual research and engineering tasks, but that's just based on my experience with the Navy. All the people I worked with that were doing those jobs--like nuclear research and power plant design, for example--were civilian employees or contractors, every single one.
Mine too - we get to use teh technology others create; or manage the contract. Still, there are a lot of neat jobs in crypto, network warfare, etc. The downside is that in most cses, you're not a warfighter so if you decde you like it and stay in your ability to reach the top is limited unless you change fields.
So I still maintain that for 99%+ of the cases, going into the military, with or without a degree, in a technical, not-so-likely-to-be-on-front-lines field, is more likely to result in:
Spending 8+ hours per day sitting in front of a panel full of instruments or wall full of valves Supervising somebody sitting in front of a panel full of instruments or wall full of valves Cleaning something Painting something Doing paperwork Supervising people cleaning and painting things
8+ - I want your billet. More like 16+; including weekends once you through in drills and fixing stupid crap sailors do when they aren't busy.
This article just confirms my belief that a good security professional needs to have destructive mindset. You need to feel the urge to abuse the system as soon as you have seen it. I was not good at it, quit security research to join development!
I would not say a destructive mindset but rather an inquisitive one - that asks "What possibilities does this open up and how can I use this to other ends?"
The challenge is to turn that mindset to productive, rather than destructive ends.
Speaking as one who has done that work; a little paranoia is a good thing as well; because some people are out to get you (and even more are just plain stupid enough to do a dumb thing).
Crap. There is NO WAY record labels are going to let me download and keep forever every song I want. Wouldn't this bankrupt the music industry??? I buy an ipod for $200 and for the next 5-10 years I get free music? This must be only for playing on portable devices, ONLY. If they let you burn this to CD, it will never work
Several things would make this work:
1. - Apple and the labels would no doubt want to make this a bundled feature of all iPods/iPhones sold - so the total revenue is greater than what they currently get with a la carte pricing.
2. - Apple would continue to introduce new cool iPods/iPhones that create new sales as well as upgrades from old ones; with the built in download price, so it would be a steady revenue stream.
3. - If this works then Apple could extend it to the Mac as well as offer it to iTunes users on Windows as well.
It also gives labels a way out of the RIAA file sharing fiasco as well - they get a steady revenue stream and create a bunch of legitimate users who may be less inclined to share the music since they can already get it for "free" easily.
in a submarien; except we had real food on the boat. Non-smokers could make som egood deals near the end of a deplpyment when the smokers were out of smokes.
I'm not convinced the studios are or should be in a hurry to see a full transition. They may think taht the slower and more expensive the transition the longer the studios can charge a premium for blue ray and the more disks sold in DVD they can hope to eventually sell a second time in blue ray.
I guess it would depend on two factors - the profit margin on Blu Ray and how long they can keep a premium price. My guess is that they will be able to maintain a price delta between BR and regular DVD based on the higher quality picture; and as long as BR players can play regular DVDs it's to their advantage to increase its penetration - more customers for the higher priced, higher quality (and presumably higher margin) BR disks while still having a large market to sell regular disks, who may eventually decide they want the higher quality BR disks and buy a second copy. for the studios, a lot of BR players doesn't mean the DVD market goes away; it just adds a whole new market for BR disks. Studios could even release BR versions before they release the DVD version if they think people will buy DVDs before BR if offered both options. At any rate, the studios and hardware manufacturers interest diverge when it comes to player pricing due to the nature of the markets.
Personally, I haven't taken the plunge yet simply because the improved quality is not that big of a deal to me, yet. Of course, I just got HD TV so that may change as I see the difference (I have access to a PS3 so technically I have BR already just no a dedicated always available player). Most of my movie watching is done an an 80g Zune anyway while traveling so my own needs differ from the target BR market.
This time its different because the blu-ray consortium is not giving licenses to tom-dick-harry shop in china to make cheap players. So unlike the DVD, this time around we wont be seeing cheap DVD players. I still remember that it was some Chinese brand (apex?) which broke the $100 barrier for DVD-players and became the largest selling dvd player right behind Sony. With tighter licensing restrictions, thats not going to happen this time around with Blu-ray payers
I disagree - my guess is price drops are on the horizon - and taht's one reasons studios put their weight behind Blu-ray. They don't need two formats that require seperate inventories and higheer costs; they want one that lets them push as many movies a spossible. In order to push disks thay need wide spread adoption of the players; which isn't going to happen at $400 a pop. The manufacturers want to recoup development costs; but once that is done then it becomes a choice of high margin low volume or high volume low margin and price wars. Once one manufacturer lowers their price to capture more marketshare then others will follow - driving prices down; and ultimately leading to licenses for cheap model as Sony et.al looks to license revenue to make up for lost profit margin. My guess is that a rodamap for widespread adoption was presented to teh studios; who decided it was doable and threw their support behind Blu-ray.
In addition, teh drive to make PCs media centers will result in greater demand for Blu-ray drives in tehm; given PC manufacturers puch to lower component prices that will increase demand for low cost drives - so what do you do - license the tech and see the margin on your high end machines erode (but realize that at high prices teh total adoption numbers will be small and once you saturate the market prices must drop to maintain sales); or keep prices high and choke off the market and piss off teh studios who want volume? I bet on licensing.
Finally, while HD is dead it still is a threat - if the studios decide that Blu-ray is not going to be adopted they could start releasing HD movies and encourage manufacturers to take up the spec again. It's not liek once you stop making soemthing you can't restart; plus tehir is already an installed base that probably would buy up new movies as well. I doubt that would happen; but the way to kill taht threat is to get Blu-ray machines in as many homes as possible as quickly as you can while making as much money as possible in teh process.
My scenarion - $200 for this holiday buying season; dirt cheap for teh next. That way you get early adopters to pay the premium; then get the large mainstream crowd volume; and finally get the Wal-mart shopper and second player buyer.
Were all your DVD players obsolete when component video came out? What about when Surround Sound came out? Why does having an extra feature that is not required to watch the original movie make a player obsolete? How about DVD+/-R?
This isn't rocket science. You move the player to the bedroom or the kid's playroom or you give it to your Mom and you get a new one if you want the features so bad. If you don't, well then your player isn't obsolete, is it?.
I still have and use a DVD player I got in 1999. It still works perfectly fine.
It is attitudes like this that contribute to our garbage ridden throwaway society.
And here I was blaming it on the Republicans. Thanks for the clarification.
Now I feel like you're being insulting. Individual scientists are human, we have our flaws and our blind-spots. Some of us have real agendas and a few are even downright dishonest. But as a group, we're contradictory, curious, and anti-authority. As a result, science is pretty good at self-correcting. A single scientist can lie to himself or even lie to others. But that always gets caught eventually because someone starts asking questions and we collectively have no vested interest in covering up lies.
I think one of the problems is few people ever meet, let alone work around, world class scientists. If they did they'd discover they are like world class athletes - the revel in competition, the battle of ideas in their case, and the give and take to prove that they are the best. Surprisingly, even those with diametrically opposed positions can remain close friends; just as professional athletes can compete fiercely in a game and still be great friends.
In the end, the best ideas win; even if it takes time.
(Any time you hear about scientists being involved in a massive conspiracy, like some anti-global warming fanatics will try to tell you, you can bet it's wrong. Any person who could prove evolution or GW conclusively incorrect would have just made a career and world-wide fame for herself.)
That's the problem with conspiracy theories - people want to believe them and so refuse to accept that those involved have a greater gain by revealing it and so would do so if the theory were true. Or, as one person put it, two people can keep a secret if one is dead.
For each pirated copy of windows, one more computer doesn't run an alternative OS. This is one of the factors keeping the userbase of Linux down. It's a mystery to me why people choose a pirated version of Windows instead an open and free version of a Linux distribution. I guess ignorance is not bliss.
Not really - there is no way to say someone who doesn't pirate Vista will run some other OS; it could also mean they simply forgo a PC. If they viewed non-Windows OS's as a viable alternative then why pirate in the first place. A more reasonable assumption is some fraction *might* run an laternative OS.
Your assumption is similar to the argument that each pirated song/movie/game is a lost sale.
I hear this said a lot, could somebody please explain to me how larger, heavier mail which costs much much less could possibly subsidize smaller, lighter mail which costs much more?
To name a few reason Bulk Mail is profitable:
presorted by zip - much less handling doesn't use a printed stamp - no cost for stamp printing generally mailed locally or short distances - no cross country airplane ride for the same price as a piece that goes two doors down in the same town
Seems to me that is junk mail was eliminated, the Post Office could get rid of much of its trucks, drivers and infrastructure. Without junk mail, I'd say residential delivery could be scaled back to one delivery per week, meaning one truck could serve six different routes instead of six different drivers and trucks going out every Mon-Sat. All that overhead eliminated would raise first class rates how? And now the remaining trucks would be loaded with letter sized full-rate first class mail instead of giant heavy bundles of newsprint mailed out for a few pennies each. How is that not better revenue for the post office?
The problem is you've only addressed one small part of the cost structure - drivers - and not the rest of the infrastructure needed to haul mail around the country. You still need post offices to take mail; sort mail; etc. - and in some smaller service areas two days may cover everyone - so do you close the post office the rest of the time and make all the employees part timers? Rural delivery is already done in some areas by carriers who own their own vehicle and get paid to use it; so then there are even less savings.
In addition; as people turn to electronic delivery less volume will go through the USPS; so prices need to go up to cover the large fixed costs - and tiered rates may be needed to reflect the actual delivery cost, much as is done for parcels today.
The real advantage the USPS has is they go to every house every weekday - if they could partner with FedEx / UPS to do their residential deliveries they could increase their revenues while reducing FedEx / UPS's costs for home delivery.
Slashdot Mirror
Outsourcing lowers the GDP of our country, reducing our buying power. What logically happens is jobs are removed from our country.
Not necessarily. GDP is total value of goods and services produced domestically - i.e basically total consumer, investment and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports.
Given that most of the components in a Dell are non-us made, labor is probably the largest part of the input to US GDP. For sake of argument, let's say a Dell costs $3. Of that, $2 is the cost of the parts, $.5 labor, and $.3 G&A costs. In that scenario, about $1 is added to the US GDP.
Now let's outsource production. No, let's assume Dell pays 1/2 as much for labor. If they can shave $.25 off of the cost of parts then they've saved $.5 - which can be added to the bottom line, resulting in the same $1 addition to GDP.
All great companies ever created were created by engineers and run by engineers.
While many were, there are a significant number that weren't. Apple for example - Woz certainly is a tech guy but not an engineer and Jobs certainly isn't one.
Many great companies have been driven to destruction by control freak managers with zero ability to know technology.
Understanding technology (in an engineering sense) is not necessarily a requirement to do well at running a tech company; I think understanding technology's impact on people and how it can be used effectively is a more important skill.
Anyway, my point is that there are talented, capable people waiting in the wings in every field, and you might just be able to get great performance *and* save on salaries by expanding the scope of your talent search. I hope you're listening, shareholders meetings and Hollywood producers.
The problem is the price of failure is high and the risk of using an unknown is pretty big given the cost of failure. Going with someone who is perceived as a superstar is a lot less risky; and if they fail the board can say "well, they we successful at company X so we had no reason to think they wouldn't be here, so we did our job." They don't want to be sued when some "unknown" drives the company into the ground so they take the "safe" choice.
... whereas women can overlook ugly and stupid, as long as he's rich?
Ug!
Precisely. What is often overlooked in assessing the reasons behind that is economic forces; i.r the costs associated with the relationship, type of relations ship and the resources each brings to the table.
In general, the woman is going to invest a lot more time in bearing and raising children than the man; and requires significant support to do so successfully, hence it is in here interests to seek a partner who can contribute the resources need to raise children and who will stick around to do so. As a result, physical appearance is only a part of the total equation; resources and commitment weigh in heavily as well. As a result, it makes perfect sense for a woman to be attracted to a financially secure and emotionally stable man, who is not great looking, as a long term partner. Now, there are many other things as well that drive "love", but you can't ignore the economics.
If that's the case, isn't there some law to prevent you from squeezing your only competition by placing unjustifiable limitations on the market? Not saying they're a monopoly, but it looks like that's what they're attempting to create with this new requirement they are placing on their vendors.
/. that trying to establish a competitive advantage should be illegal it isn't necessarily so.
There should be something illegal about pressuring business associates in one market you have control over, to stifle competition in another market you are also involved in.
Amazon isn't preventing anyone from selling POD books in any other market - all they are saying is if you want us to sell your book it needs to be in the following format. If they said you can *only* publish with our vendor, then they might be stifling competition.
Many stores place unique requirements on their vendors - and vendors have the choice of selling under those terms or walking away. Despite the belief of some on
I don't know why the international community isn't using the Olympics to put pressure on China regarding Tibet.
Money. No one wants to miss out on the Chinese market; and is unwilling to risk pissing off their leaders as a result.
Yes, studying engineering sucks, espcially the early classes before you get to do independent study; but at least employeers recognize the value of having survived a reasonably rigorous cours eof study and developed an analytic bent for problem solving.
Personally, I probably worked only 10% of my career so far as an engineer - and never designing things; rather applying my skills to plant operation, testing, and repair. I've also used the problem solving skills a lot as a consultant; even if teh client has noting to do with engineering.
The challenge for engineering students is to broaden their education beyond quant skills - take as much art and science classes as you can (even if pass / fail or non-credit) so that you can combine analytics with a broader undersatnding of teh world. The more you can communicate with others the more valuable you are - I'll take an average engineer with great communication skills over a great engineer who can't communicate effectively every time when I hire someone.
IANAL, but it sounds like time for them to find a nice CDN lawyer who would do some pro-bono work to see if they have grounds for legal action. It would seem to me tha a "Tortuous interference" claim might be valid; given the actions appear to interfere with the owners of the hardware's ability to provide services as a result of the update.
Goddamnit where's OUR tribe!
... ...
Here: http://pc.ign.com/articles/554/554250p1.html
Apple have got theirs, Linux sure as hell got theirs, but we have to fend for ourselves, and believe me it get's lonely sometimes.
Not sure if it is multi-platform...
The author of the article (yes I actually read it) went as far as comparing the pro/anti Apple crowd to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Yes, he seriously did. And not by briefly alluding to it, but over the course of several paragraphs.
I've heard of some crazy stretches for comparison, but come on, a journalist actually comparing a group of people that have an affinity for a company's products to a deeply-complicated bloody 60+ year old conflict? Talk about going off the deep end.
Not really - he referred to an academic study on perceived media bias to illustrate his argument; that study happened to use the P - I conflict as its basis. He was interested in the conclusions and how they relate to readers reactions to stories; which is different than the comparison you purport him to make.
Of course, your question is apparently completely appropriate today, because it seems that government at any level is allowed to do anything they want, unless it's explicity forbidden in the Bill of Rights (and sometimes even that doesn't matter). It appears that nowadays if you can't muster the cash to pay for a squad of lawyers to prove to another squad of lawyers that the government is explicitly not allowed to do something, then it can just happen freely by default. Except the US Constitution give the legislative branch pretty broad powers, IMHO:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
(SNIP)
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
While the "general welfare" statement is certainly open to interpretation (by the Supremes) I could see where it, along with the common defense part, would allow for Fusion Centers; how the info is subsequently used for non-terrorist crimes is also open to debate but may be covered under "common welfare" as well.
Of course, IANAS, so my opinion is not binding.
I suppose I'm just a bit cynical about trusting the military's ability to use people's talents correctly, but I hope I didn't make the military out to be a bad choice, since I came out of it with the ability to step into a decent career. It's probably even a bit better than corporate America in terms of the density of stupid people and bad decisions. And it is true that making a choice like joining the Navy is a good way to avoid landing at a guard shack in Iraq with a rifle.
The key is to research what jobs are there and don't believe the recruiter; get anything in writing. It's best to signup for a specific program; if possible - though that isn't always the case. ROTC is not a bad option; but there are no sure things - I wanted to fly and wound up in submarines. Go figure.
However, I still don't think the DoD is using active duty military personnel to do a lot of the actual research and engineering tasks, but that's just based on my experience with the Navy. All the people I worked with that were doing those jobs--like nuclear research and power plant design, for example--were civilian employees or contractors, every single one.
Mine too - we get to use teh technology others create; or manage the contract. Still, there are a lot of neat jobs in crypto, network warfare, etc. The downside is that in most cses, you're not a warfighter so if you decde you like it and stay in your ability to reach the top is limited unless you change fields.
So I still maintain that for 99%+ of the cases, going into the military, with or without a degree, in a technical, not-so-likely-to-be-on-front-lines field, is more likely to result in:
Spending 8+ hours per day sitting in front of a panel full of instruments or wall full of valves
Supervising somebody sitting in front of a panel full of instruments or wall full of valves
Cleaning something
Painting something
Doing paperwork
Supervising people cleaning and painting things
8+ - I want your billet. More like 16+; including weekends once you through in drills and fixing stupid crap sailors do when they aren't busy.
"Yow! Those people look exactly like Donnie and Marie Osmond!! "
This article just confirms my belief that a good security professional needs to have destructive mindset. You need to feel the urge to abuse the system as soon as you have seen it. I was not good at it, quit security research to join development!
I would not say a destructive mindset but rather an inquisitive one - that asks "What possibilities does this open up and how can I use this to other ends?"
The challenge is to turn that mindset to productive, rather than destructive ends.
Speaking as one who has done that work; a little paranoia is a good thing as well; because some people are out to get you (and even more are just plain stupid enough to do a dumb thing).
You forget steps 5 and 6:
5 - Apple doesn't offer it in CDN to prevent such redistribution
6 - CDN changes its law.
Crap. There is NO WAY record labels are going to let me download and keep forever every song I want. Wouldn't this bankrupt the music industry??? I buy an ipod for $200 and for the next 5-10 years I get free music? This must be only for playing on portable devices, ONLY. If they let you burn this to CD, it will never work
Several things would make this work:
1. - Apple and the labels would no doubt want to make this a bundled feature of all iPods/iPhones sold - so the total revenue is greater than what they currently get with a la carte pricing.
2. - Apple would continue to introduce new cool iPods/iPhones that create new sales as well as upgrades from old ones; with the built in download price, so it would be a steady revenue stream.
3. - If this works then Apple could extend it to the Mac as well as offer it to iTunes users on Windows as well.
It also gives labels a way out of the RIAA file sharing fiasco as well - they get a steady revenue stream and create a bunch of legitimate users who may be less inclined to share the music since they can already get it for "free" easily.
in a submarien; except we had real food on the boat. Non-smokers could make som egood deals near the end of a deplpyment when the smokers were out of smokes.
I'm not convinced the studios are or should be in a hurry to see a full transition. They may think taht the slower and more expensive the transition the longer the studios can charge a premium for blue ray and the more disks sold in DVD they can hope to eventually sell a second time in blue ray.
I guess it would depend on two factors - the profit margin on Blu Ray and how long they can keep a premium price. My guess is that they will be able to maintain a price delta between BR and regular DVD based on the higher quality picture; and as long as BR players can play regular DVDs it's to their advantage to increase its penetration - more customers for the higher priced, higher quality (and presumably higher margin) BR disks while still having a large market to sell regular disks, who may eventually decide they want the higher quality BR disks and buy a second copy. for the studios, a lot of BR players doesn't mean the DVD market goes away; it just adds a whole new market for BR disks. Studios could even release BR versions before they release the DVD version if they think people will buy DVDs before BR if offered both options. At any rate, the studios and hardware manufacturers interest diverge when it comes to player pricing due to the nature of the markets.
Personally, I haven't taken the plunge yet simply because the improved quality is not that big of a deal to me, yet. Of course, I just got HD TV so that may change as I see the difference (I have access to a PS3 so technically I have BR already just no a dedicated always available player). Most of my movie watching is done an an 80g Zune anyway while traveling so my own needs differ from the target BR market.
This time its different because the blu-ray consortium is not giving licenses to tom-dick-harry shop in china to make cheap players. So unlike the DVD, this time around we wont be seeing cheap DVD players. I still remember that it was some Chinese brand (apex?) which broke the $100 barrier for DVD-players and became the largest selling dvd player right behind Sony. With tighter licensing restrictions, thats not going to happen this time around with Blu-ray payers
I disagree - my guess is price drops are on the horizon - and taht's one reasons studios put their weight behind Blu-ray. They don't need two formats that require seperate inventories and higheer costs; they want one that lets them push as many movies a spossible. In order to push disks thay need wide spread adoption of the players; which isn't going to happen at $400 a pop. The manufacturers want to recoup development costs; but once that is done then it becomes a choice of high margin low volume or high volume low margin and price wars. Once one manufacturer lowers their price to capture more marketshare then others will follow - driving prices down; and ultimately leading to licenses for cheap model as Sony et.al looks to license revenue to make up for lost profit margin. My guess is that a rodamap for widespread adoption was presented to teh studios; who decided it was doable and threw their support behind Blu-ray.
In addition, teh drive to make PCs media centers will result in greater demand for Blu-ray drives in tehm; given PC manufacturers puch to lower component prices that will increase demand for low cost drives - so what do you do - license the tech and see the margin on your high end machines erode (but realize that at high prices teh total adoption numbers will be small and once you saturate the market prices must drop to maintain sales); or keep prices high and choke off the market and piss off teh studios who want volume? I bet on licensing.
Finally, while HD is dead it still is a threat - if the studios decide that Blu-ray is not going to be adopted they could start releasing HD movies and encourage manufacturers to take up the spec again. It's not liek once you stop making soemthing you can't restart; plus tehir is already an installed base that probably would buy up new movies as well. I doubt that would happen; but the way to kill taht threat is to get Blu-ray machines in as many homes as possible as quickly as you can while making as much money as possible in teh process.
My scenarion - $200 for this holiday buying season; dirt cheap for teh next. That way you get early adopters to pay the premium; then get the large mainstream crowd volume; and finally get the Wal-mart shopper and second player buyer.
Were all your DVD players obsolete when component video came out? What about when Surround Sound came out? Why does having an extra feature that is not required to watch the original movie make a player obsolete? How about DVD+/-R?
This isn't rocket science. You move the player to the bedroom or the kid's playroom or you give it to your Mom and you get a new one if you want the features so bad. If you don't, well then your player isn't obsolete, is it?.
I still have and use a DVD player I got in 1999. It still works perfectly fine.
It is attitudes like this that contribute to our garbage ridden throwaway society.
And here I was blaming it on the Republicans. Thanks for the clarification.
Seriously though, sometimes breasts are big enough to make other things not important.
Sometimes?
But rememeber, you can fix a lot of things but you cant fix stupid
Now I feel like you're being insulting. Individual scientists are human, we have our flaws and our blind-spots. Some of us have real agendas and a few are even downright dishonest. But as a group, we're contradictory, curious, and anti-authority. As a result, science is pretty good at self-correcting. A single scientist can lie to himself or even lie to others. But that always gets caught eventually because someone starts asking questions and we collectively have no vested interest in covering up lies.
I think one of the problems is few people ever meet, let alone work around, world class scientists. If they did they'd discover they are like world class athletes - the revel in competition, the battle of ideas in their case, and the give and take to prove that they are the best. Surprisingly, even those with diametrically opposed positions can remain close friends; just as professional athletes can compete fiercely in a game and still be great friends.
In the end, the best ideas win; even if it takes time.
(Any time you hear about scientists being involved in a massive conspiracy, like some anti-global warming fanatics will try to tell you, you can bet it's wrong. Any person who could prove evolution or GW conclusively incorrect would have just made a career and world-wide fame for herself.)
That's the problem with conspiracy theories - people want to believe them and so refuse to accept that those involved have a greater gain by revealing it and so would do so if the theory were true. Or, as one person put it, two people can keep a secret if one is dead.
For each pirated copy of windows, one more computer doesn't run an alternative OS.
This is one of the factors keeping the userbase of Linux down. It's a mystery to me why people choose a pirated version of Windows instead an open and free version of a Linux distribution. I guess ignorance is not bliss.
Not really - there is no way to say someone who doesn't pirate Vista will run some other OS; it could also mean they simply forgo a PC. If they viewed non-Windows OS's as a viable alternative then why pirate in the first place. A more reasonable assumption is some fraction *might* run an laternative OS.
Your assumption is similar to the argument that each pirated song/movie/game is a lost sale.
I hear this said a lot, could somebody please explain to me how larger, heavier mail which costs much much less could possibly subsidize smaller, lighter mail which costs much more?
To name a few reason Bulk Mail is profitable:
presorted by zip - much less handling
doesn't use a printed stamp - no cost for stamp printing
generally mailed locally or short distances - no cross country airplane ride for the same price as a piece that goes two doors down in the same town
Seems to me that is junk mail was eliminated, the Post Office could get rid of much of its trucks, drivers and infrastructure. Without junk mail, I'd say residential delivery could be scaled back to one delivery per week, meaning one truck could serve six different routes instead of six different drivers and trucks going out every Mon-Sat. All that overhead eliminated would raise first class rates how? And now the remaining trucks would be loaded with letter sized full-rate first class mail instead of giant heavy bundles of newsprint mailed out for a few pennies each. How is that not better revenue for the post office?
The problem is you've only addressed one small part of the cost structure - drivers - and not the rest of the infrastructure needed to haul mail around the country. You still need post offices to take mail; sort mail; etc. - and in some smaller service areas two days may cover everyone - so do you close the post office the rest of the time and make all the employees part timers? Rural delivery is already done in some areas by carriers who own their own vehicle and get paid to use it; so then there are even less savings.
In addition; as people turn to electronic delivery less volume will go through the USPS; so prices need to go up to cover the large fixed costs - and tiered rates may be needed to reflect the actual delivery cost, much as is done for parcels today.
The real advantage the USPS has is they go to every house every weekday - if they could partner with FedEx / UPS to do their residential deliveries they could increase their revenues while reducing FedEx / UPS's costs for home delivery.