I'm sorry, there's no "brand" that is worth that kind of money, because with a fraction of that budget you could build that brand literally overnight.
The problem with trying to compete with Skype is Skype had already captured a large user base. Building a VIOP provider would have been easy for MS, but converting Skype users and getting new users would be a challenge even for MS. Being free also would probably not be good enough to convince people to switch; and as long as it easier to Skype someone because they already are on Skype would mean users are more likely to stay than switch. In buying the brand they got an installed user base and the name recognition; which is probably why it is still Skype and not some new MS branded name. Was it worth $8 billion? Maybe, maybe not. But $8 billion isn't all that much money for MS, especially given what it might have costs to dethrone Skype vs instantly being the top player in the market.
People being morons does not equal $8 billion dollars for skype.
That's the whole idea behind branding. Getting people to pay more for your product than they need to get equivalent quality or utility to a lower priced item. Morons can make you rich if properly motivated.
In the US, you pay for calls made and received (all part of your call allowance).
In the UK, anyone calling you pays, after all, why should you pay for them to get in touch with you, you didn't ask them too. A far better way to handle it. Alas, in the US, you get charged both sides of the equation because... they can.
While that is true the reality is most consumers don't have to worry about charges because of all the "free minutes" exceptions. With free nights, in network and out of network calling not charged minutes, rollover minutes, etc. (depending on the carrier) most caller's calling patterns mean they probably don't use much of their base minutes and probably should check their usage and lower their plan tier.
There will likely never be a situation where the non-driving texter can be held responsible. Burden of proof will always be on the plaintiff, and proving that the non-driver knew that the driver would read his or her texts while driving will almost always be a legal impossibility. And, in that case, this makes about as much sense as holding a passenger in the car liable if they were being purposefully distracting or disruptive (IMO: perfectly valid).
I would think companies may be the most at risk for being held liable. Not that is anything new since they usually are liable for employee actions while working anyway. IANAL, but I see this could mean that if they text someone going home from work and they get into an accident they may be held liable; or even if tehy have written policies against texting while driving if they send a text they could not point to the policy as a possible defense. I would imagine it would be harder to hold a family member or close friend liable.
What you can do relatively quickly is improve efficiency. Insulation doesn't take long to install. Rather than building more capacity the US should look at improving efficiency. It's cheaper and improves people's lives much more.
While it doesn't take long to do it right often is not cost effective. Replacing single pane glass with efficient insulated windows in an older house can run several thousands of dollars; paying back that upfront cost can take many years. As a result, people generally do not do that sort of an upgrade to better insulate the house. Better insulation is a great idea but absent realizable economic benefits will not help very much in reducing demand.
Theaters, however, have the advantage of making a later decision on wether to screen, and for how long, a movie.
No.
Bookings are made far in advance. If you want "The Hunger Games" you have to be at the head of the line. You have to make a serious commitment. Sweeten the deal by agreeing to show a studio's second and third tier product.
Good point. The big guys will have the clout to demand the best dates and deals. Their interests are at odds with the theaters since they typically get a bigger cut of the box at the beginning (Though I understand that is changing) and a theatrical release primes the pump for DVD/VOD/digital sales which can be much more lucrative; while theaters are really in the fast food business and need cheeks in seats drinking soda and eating candy and popcorn. If they could extend the model to a longer predictive period it might be useful; but for now it appears to be merely an interesting use of social media data. I wonder if it will have any impact on indie releases since they lack the clout of a major studio.
By the time they know it's a flop, isn't a bit late? They've already spent pretty much all the money. At best, it might persuade some theaters to *not* show the movie.
It doesn't really help to find out that the oncoming light in the tunnel is a train 30 seconds earlier than you might have realized otherwise...
My thoughts exactly. They say the model works about 1 month before release; which means the cash is already a sunk cost for the studio, Theaters, however, have the advantage of making a later decision on wether to screen, and for how long, a movie. They could conceivably use the data to pass or limit showings of movies predicted to flop. Which, of course, would mean they would have a much smaller box office and hence be a "flop;" reinforcing the "correctness" of the model.
It probably only protects them while they are in the US. If they go to Canada or a country that chooses to respect Canada's judgement/law over the US judgement/law they might still collect. Lots of civil law is like that. As long as you don't go to where what you did was illegal (or have assets there) your fine. Doesn't mean you weren't found guilty just that the victim can't collect.
True. It also means they can't enforce a judgement that they may normally do so, across national boundaries, because of treaties. Interesting issues, howvever given the ease at which information flows across borders.
You can be sued under canadian libel law regardless of where the publication was. You could write a nasty letter that only a few scientists living in Antarctica ever see and I could still sue you in Montreal for it.
However, if the person is in the US the 2010 Speech Act bars them from collecting and allows a declaratory judgement clearing them of libel if the suit violates our 1st amendment. More to the point, it is interesting how laws collide in an environment where what is protected in one country is actionable in another. For the lawyers here: Would it be possible to file a SLAPP suit if the person lives in a state that offers such protections even if the original suit is filed in a non-US court?
There is no "First Amendment" in Canada.
We have our own set of laws, and American laws don't apply.
Actually, since tripadvisor is located in the US it is a interesting legal arguement. Would Canada want US law to apply of a Canadian posted something that was actionable under US law simply because the website can be viewed in the US?
Giving notice is not just a matter of professionalism but legally required both ways depending on state and country. When your fired or laid off, you get 2 weeks severance pay. That is your notice. When you quit, you also need to give 2 weeks notice to allow your employer to find a replacement or shift responsibilities. If you just up and quit and that causes the company to lose money, they can successfully sue you to reclaim those losses. Now most service positions will have a hard time showing a court of law then when you quit your McDonalds job that McDonalds suffered any sort of loss because you weren't there, so most businesses won't go after former employees.
Actually, most places are 'at will' employment and either side can end it at any time, without notice. In addition, severance pay is generally not required but many companies offer it in exchange for an agreement not to sue for wrongful termination. Unless you have a specific contract to perform for a specified time period you have no legal obligation to give notice. It's not a smart move, but that is a different story.
Personally, whenever I've quit I've always given plenty of notice so my employer could handle the transition. Then again, except for the one time i got laid off i've always worked for decent companies who treated me right and with whom I wanted to maintain a good relationship. One boss even told me that leaving is not viewed negatively but as an opportunity to get new experiences that would be valuable to them in the future; they even have an alumni association ot stay in touch with us.
Given the reaction to GM crops you think the EU will embrace the Frankenburger? Much like the monster it will be vilified, misunderstood and eventually driven out and destroyed.
Using averages for this sort of analysis is problematic because it ignores variance in the data based on factors such as total amount requested, how long KS promotes a project on the front page and via email, change in pricing for early bird via later funders, and type of project. Unless you take into account and look at the distribution of funding results you really have very little data to back a conclusion. Sure, the funding pattern is interesting but provides little insight on chances of success. You might as well simply say "XX% of KS projects fail to fund, so the UP has a YY% of success" and be done with it.
As a side note, one of the biggest problems with KS is how hard it is to find projects of interest, especially early on. Unless they search for phone will a significant percentage of KS users even know there is a project funding one?
This is why ships still have gyros. GPS is too handy not to use, but I'm pretty sure most large oceangoing vessels also have navigation gyros. The question then is, what happens when GPS gets spoofed...does the system/crew assume the GPS is broken or the gyro broken?
You've hit on the real issue - people trust GPS implicitly and become dependent on it. That's why sailors should still learn traditional navigation skills. You can't spoof the sun, moon or stars. LORAN is a good backup but its future is in doubt. There's nothing like running a drill and shutting of the GPS system and seeing what a crew does when that happens.
Gold is and always will be a solid hedge against inflation.
Actually, gold is a pretty poor hedge - as with any commodity, it is very volatile and it's long term returns are not that great. For example, $100 invested on gold in 1965 would be worth around $4000 in 2012 vs about $6000 for the same investment in the S&P 500. Gold touts play on people's fears and their belief that others will continue to share those fears to drive up the price; when in reality gold is a basic commodity and behaves as such. It even has a limited upside because as prices rise uneconomic means of production become viable; and there is a lot more gold that has not been recovered than there is demand.
Of course, it doesn't hurt that you tossed in "Fox News" to get all your liberal friends panties in a wad. And when Obama's monetary policy lead to rampant inflation... well you will not look so smart.
Actually the Fed sets monetary policy and it is notorious for doing things that piss off presidents; to the point of being accused of acting to influence elections. Of course, you use "Obama" the same way as others use "Fox."
The cable companies are beginning to realize their model of providing a mix of premium and basic channels via their proprietary pipe is at risk from internet based providers and are setting themselves up for getting into the game. They have strong relationships with content providers they can leverage to bring what they now offer as cable as an ISP. Apple, and to a lesser extent, Google are who they fear. Apple because they have demonstrated they can deliver content independent of them and Google because they seem to be serious about becoming an ISP. While Google may be behind Apple's position technologically they certainly have the money and ability to create a similar infrastructure on a high speed backbone; or even partner with Apple. The cable companies cannot allow Apple or Google or both to make significant inroads into the premium channel delivery business since that would seriously cut into their revenue.
So cable companies are taking a two step approach:
1. Partner with web based content delivery companies such as Hulu and offer premium channels via the web for current subscribers through offerings such as HBOgo.
2. Institute bandwidth caps to limit the access, or raise the cost of, to web based services.
We pay $50+ here in America for concerts because of music pirating.
WTF?
No, dude, you pay $150+ for concerts because recording labels and certain 'artists' are greedy, avaricious fuckheads.
[insert gag about Kid Rock being able to charge $20 for tickets because nobody listens to his shitty music anyway, let alone pirating it]
CAActually, for many artists, concerts are where they make their cash - recordings are not the main source of income, at least for artists. We pay4150 because there are enough people willing to pay that to fill up a venue so there is no reason to charge less.
As an American, it made no sense to me that a person would consider that the respect towards their superior was worth more than the lives of two hundred people.
Oddly enough, US airlines had this issue as well and Cockpit Resource Management was created to deal with the problem. We crashed planes for the same stupid reason.
...people interpret what they see; rather than just say what they saw.
The mistake some people make is in assuming the latter is even possible without doing the former. Optical illusions are possible because even the most immediate mental image of what's before you eyes at the very moment is an interpretation in your mind of what you think your eyes are telling you. Perception necessarily involves interpretation.
The problem is not that the mind must interpret what the eye saw but that the person then provides their interpretation of what they saw rather than what they actually saw. For example, rather than say "I saw a streak of light" they say "I saw a missile" and thus add their view point as factual when it they never actually saw a missile. How questions are asked can also lead people to draw conclusions rather than simply state facts. Eyewitness reports, while useful, are not always reliable despite people placing confidence in them.
I just heard this joke the other day. An Irish/Polish/{insert chosen nationality of stupid as decided by your own culture} lands the plane, and slams on the brakes sending all the passengers into the seats in front. He turns to his copilot and says, "Damn, that's the shortest runway I ever landed on." Then he looks left and right out of the window and says,
"Sure is wide, though."
Sounds like the airport at Texas A&M. Pilot must have been an Aggie...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, there's no "brand" that is worth that kind of money, because with a fraction of that budget you could build that brand literally overnight.
The problem with trying to compete with Skype is Skype had already captured a large user base. Building a VIOP provider would have been easy for MS, but converting Skype users and getting new users would be a challenge even for MS. Being free also would probably not be good enough to convince people to switch; and as long as it easier to Skype someone because they already are on Skype would mean users are more likely to stay than switch. In buying the brand they got an installed user base and the name recognition; which is probably why it is still Skype and not some new MS branded name. Was it worth $8 billion? Maybe, maybe not. But $8 billion isn't all that much money for MS, especially given what it might have costs to dethrone Skype vs instantly being the top player in the market.
People being morons does not equal $8 billion dollars for skype.
That's the whole idea behind branding. Getting people to pay more for your product than they need to get equivalent quality or utility to a lower priced item. Morons can make you rich if properly motivated.
In the US, you pay for calls made and received (all part of your call allowance). In the UK, anyone calling you pays, after all, why should you pay for them to get in touch with you, you didn't ask them too. A far better way to handle it. Alas, in the US, you get charged both sides of the equation because... they can.
While that is true the reality is most consumers don't have to worry about charges because of all the "free minutes" exceptions. With free nights, in network and out of network calling not charged minutes, rollover minutes, etc. (depending on the carrier) most caller's calling patterns mean they probably don't use much of their base minutes and probably should check their usage and lower their plan tier.
There will likely never be a situation where the non-driving texter can be held responsible. Burden of proof will always be on the plaintiff, and proving that the non-driver knew that the driver would read his or her texts while driving will almost always be a legal impossibility. And, in that case, this makes about as much sense as holding a passenger in the car liable if they were being purposefully distracting or disruptive (IMO: perfectly valid).
I would think companies may be the most at risk for being held liable. Not that is anything new since they usually are liable for employee actions while working anyway. IANAL, but I see this could mean that if they text someone going home from work and they get into an accident they may be held liable; or even if tehy have written policies against texting while driving if they send a text they could not point to the policy as a possible defense. I would imagine it would be harder to hold a family member or close friend liable.
What you can do relatively quickly is improve efficiency. Insulation doesn't take long to install. Rather than building more capacity the US should look at improving efficiency. It's cheaper and improves people's lives much more.
While it doesn't take long to do it right often is not cost effective. Replacing single pane glass with efficient insulated windows in an older house can run several thousands of dollars; paying back that upfront cost can take many years. As a result, people generally do not do that sort of an upgrade to better insulate the house. Better insulation is a great idea but absent realizable economic benefits will not help very much in reducing demand.
So is the the IT outsourced or just the reporting?
Theaters, however, have the advantage of making a later decision on wether to screen, and for how long, a movie.
No.
Bookings are made far in advance. If you want "The Hunger Games" you have to be at the head of the line. You have to make a serious commitment. Sweeten the deal by agreeing to show a studio's second and third tier product.
Good point. The big guys will have the clout to demand the best dates and deals. Their interests are at odds with the theaters since they typically get a bigger cut of the box at the beginning (Though I understand that is changing) and a theatrical release primes the pump for DVD/VOD/digital sales which can be much more lucrative; while theaters are really in the fast food business and need cheeks in seats drinking soda and eating candy and popcorn. If they could extend the model to a longer predictive period it might be useful; but for now it appears to be merely an interesting use of social media data. I wonder if it will have any impact on indie releases since they lack the clout of a major studio.
By the time they know it's a flop, isn't a bit late? They've already spent pretty much all the money. At best, it might persuade some theaters to *not* show the movie.
It doesn't really help to find out that the oncoming light in the tunnel is a train 30 seconds earlier than you might have realized otherwise...
My thoughts exactly. They say the model works about 1 month before release; which means the cash is already a sunk cost for the studio, Theaters, however, have the advantage of making a later decision on wether to screen, and for how long, a movie. They could conceivably use the data to pass or limit showings of movies predicted to flop. Which, of course, would mean they would have a much smaller box office and hence be a "flop;" reinforcing the "correctness" of the model.
It probably only protects them while they are in the US. If they go to Canada or a country that chooses to respect Canada's judgement/law over the US judgement/law they might still collect. Lots of civil law is like that. As long as you don't go to where what you did was illegal (or have assets there) your fine. Doesn't mean you weren't found guilty just that the victim can't collect.
True. It also means they can't enforce a judgement that they may normally do so, across national boundaries, because of treaties. Interesting issues, howvever given the ease at which information flows across borders.
You can be sued under canadian libel law regardless of where the publication was. You could write a nasty letter that only a few scientists living in Antarctica ever see and I could still sue you in Montreal for it.
However, if the person is in the US the 2010 Speech Act bars them from collecting and allows a declaratory judgement clearing them of libel if the suit violates our 1st amendment. More to the point, it is interesting how laws collide in an environment where what is protected in one country is actionable in another. For the lawyers here: Would it be possible to file a SLAPP suit if the person lives in a state that offers such protections even if the original suit is filed in a non-US court?
There is no "First Amendment" in Canada. We have our own set of laws, and American laws don't apply.
Actually, since tripadvisor is located in the US it is a interesting legal arguement. Would Canada want US law to apply of a Canadian posted something that was actionable under US law simply because the website can be viewed in the US?
There should be a new law--"Miranda Rights"--but named after Carmen Miranda.
Yes. they should be required to Carmen Mirandize everyone they arrest. A fruitful idea. My hat's off to you.
ps. Don't drive like my brother.
Giving notice is not just a matter of professionalism but legally required both ways depending on state and country. When your fired or laid off, you get 2 weeks severance pay. That is your notice. When you quit, you also need to give 2 weeks notice to allow your employer to find a replacement or shift responsibilities. If you just up and quit and that causes the company to lose money, they can successfully sue you to reclaim those losses. Now most service positions will have a hard time showing a court of law then when you quit your McDonalds job that McDonalds suffered any sort of loss because you weren't there, so most businesses won't go after former employees.
Actually, most places are 'at will' employment and either side can end it at any time, without notice. In addition, severance pay is generally not required but many companies offer it in exchange for an agreement not to sue for wrongful termination. Unless you have a specific contract to perform for a specified time period you have no legal obligation to give notice. It's not a smart move, but that is a different story.
Personally, whenever I've quit I've always given plenty of notice so my employer could handle the transition. Then again, except for the one time i got laid off i've always worked for decent companies who treated me right and with whom I wanted to maintain a good relationship. One boss even told me that leaving is not viewed negatively but as an opportunity to get new experiences that would be valuable to them in the future; they even have an alumni association ot stay in touch with us.
Always get a lawyer before talking to the law.
Given the reaction to GM crops you think the EU will embrace the Frankenburger? Much like the monster it will be vilified, misunderstood and eventually driven out and destroyed.
Probably not, considering it's on IndieGogo, not on Kickstarter ;)
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure if they were setting up a KS campaign. If not, the data is even less relevant.
Using averages for this sort of analysis is problematic because it ignores variance in the data based on factors such as total amount requested, how long KS promotes a project on the front page and via email, change in pricing for early bird via later funders, and type of project. Unless you take into account and look at the distribution of funding results you really have very little data to back a conclusion. Sure, the funding pattern is interesting but provides little insight on chances of success. You might as well simply say "XX% of KS projects fail to fund, so the UP has a YY% of success" and be done with it.
As a side note, one of the biggest problems with KS is how hard it is to find projects of interest, especially early on. Unless they search for phone will a significant percentage of KS users even know there is a project funding one?
This is why ships still have gyros. GPS is too handy not to use, but I'm pretty sure most large oceangoing vessels also have navigation gyros. The question then is, what happens when GPS gets spoofed...does the system/crew assume the GPS is broken or the gyro broken?
You've hit on the real issue - people trust GPS implicitly and become dependent on it. That's why sailors should still learn traditional navigation skills. You can't spoof the sun, moon or stars. LORAN is a good backup but its future is in doubt. There's nothing like running a drill and shutting of the GPS system and seeing what a crew does when that happens.
Gold is and always will be a solid hedge against inflation.
Actually, gold is a pretty poor hedge - as with any commodity, it is very volatile and it's long term returns are not that great. For example, $100 invested on gold in 1965 would be worth around $4000 in 2012 vs about $6000 for the same investment in the S&P 500. Gold touts play on people's fears and their belief that others will continue to share those fears to drive up the price; when in reality gold is a basic commodity and behaves as such. It even has a limited upside because as prices rise uneconomic means of production become viable; and there is a lot more gold that has not been recovered than there is demand.
Of course, it doesn't hurt that you tossed in "Fox News" to get all your liberal friends panties in a wad. And when Obama's monetary policy lead to rampant inflation ... well you will not look so smart.
Actually the Fed sets monetary policy and it is notorious for doing things that piss off presidents; to the point of being accused of acting to influence elections. Of course, you use "Obama" the same way as others use "Fox."
More to the point, each side wants to get the jury to fix on one story with one key idea that will win their case.
The cable companies are beginning to realize their model of providing a mix of premium and basic channels via their proprietary pipe is at risk from internet based providers and are setting themselves up for getting into the game. They have strong relationships with content providers they can leverage to bring what they now offer as cable as an ISP. Apple, and to a lesser extent, Google are who they fear. Apple because they have demonstrated they can deliver content independent of them and Google because they seem to be serious about becoming an ISP. While Google may be behind Apple's position technologically they certainly have the money and ability to create a similar infrastructure on a high speed backbone; or even partner with Apple. The cable companies cannot allow Apple or Google or both to make significant inroads into the premium channel delivery business since that would seriously cut into their revenue.
So cable companies are taking a two step approach:
1. Partner with web based content delivery companies such as Hulu and offer premium channels via the web for current subscribers through offerings such as HBOgo.
2. Institute bandwidth caps to limit the access, or raise the cost of, to web based services.
We pay $50+ here in America for concerts because of music pirating.
WTF?
No, dude, you pay $150+ for concerts because recording labels and certain 'artists' are greedy, avaricious fuckheads.
[insert gag about Kid Rock being able to charge $20 for tickets because nobody listens to his shitty music anyway, let alone pirating it]
CAActually, for many artists, concerts are where they make their cash - recordings are not the main source of income, at least for artists. We pay4150 because there are enough people willing to pay that to fill up a venue so there is no reason to charge less.
As an American, it made no sense to me that a person would consider that the respect towards their superior was worth more than the lives of two hundred people.
Oddly enough, US airlines had this issue as well and Cockpit Resource Management was created to deal with the problem. We crashed planes for the same stupid reason.
...people interpret what they see; rather than just say what they saw.
The mistake some people make is in assuming the latter is even possible without doing the former. Optical illusions are possible because even the most immediate mental image of what's before you eyes at the very moment is an interpretation in your mind of what you think your eyes are telling you. Perception necessarily involves interpretation.
The problem is not that the mind must interpret what the eye saw but that the person then provides their interpretation of what they saw rather than what they actually saw. For example, rather than say "I saw a streak of light" they say "I saw a missile" and thus add their view point as factual when it they never actually saw a missile. How questions are asked can also lead people to draw conclusions rather than simply state facts. Eyewitness reports, while useful, are not always reliable despite people placing confidence in them.
I just heard this joke the other day. An Irish/Polish/{insert chosen nationality of stupid as decided by your own culture} lands the plane, and slams on the brakes sending all the passengers into the seats in front. He turns to his copilot and says, "Damn, that's the shortest runway I ever landed on." Then he looks left and right out of the window and says,
"Sure is wide, though."
Sounds like the airport at Texas A&M. Pilot must have been an Aggie...