Were you not an anonymous coward, and actually participated in the group, instead of taking potshots like an angry monkey throwing poo, you'd know me, and that I'm married, with a teenage daughter, who's also a geek. But thanks for playing.
There's two types of participants in this forum; those in the business, and those who buy goods and services from us with their burger king paychecks. I'm in the former group. It's not hard to guess which group you're in.
You don't understand. In order to collect on penalties, you have to sue the vendor. Even if you "win" you'll still be out of business. They have more legal resources than you, and are more skilled at using them.
It's no surprise at all that there was a similar project going well at another school at four times the price. If there's more money to be made, the PS team is guaranteed to miss the deadline, then propose a solution at a higher price. It's the way business is done in that market.
I'm thinking that the university might fare ok in court were they a law school, but as they are not, and presumably have to hire a legal team, they're going to pass the point of diminishing returns very quickly and will soon be under pressure to settle.
It doesn't really matter. You can put all the non-performance clauses and deadline clauses you want, and the vendor will miss them if they think there's more money to be made. It's no skin off the vendor's nose, because in the great majority of cases, the customer will knuckle under and pay more for reduced scope in order to get business going again.
In summary, as customer, your expert would tell you yes, this is an iron clad contract, and no, when push comes to shove, it won't matter.
Anyone who has worked either side in this type of project can tell you this (what Oracle is accused of) is standard operating procedure, not just for Oracle. The steps are usually:
a) Agree to virtually anything. The intent is to get the contract. A practical schedule is actually a disadvantage, as we will see later. Don't worry too much about non-delivery clauses, they will never apply.
b) Continue development until time runs out. Developers will be oddly calm as deadline approaches for reasons that will become clear later.
(The objective here is to show competency, but with no serious intention of fulfilling the contract.)
c) Miss the deadline.
d) Allow hysteria to accumulate. Blame missed deadline on unrealistic scope and/or feature creep. Encourage panic.
e) Present new proposal at higher price and tough out the fireworks. ("Go ahead and sue. We have more lawyers than you have employees.")
f) $$ Profit!
This works (usually) because the end product is often a critical replacement or enhancement to an integral part of the customer's business (eg, Billing, Customer Service) and the customer will look for the shortest path to being able to do business.
It's common for the abused customer to threaten lawsuits, exceedingly rare for them to follow through. Kudos to Montclair for having the guts to go against a major corporation. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
And (you still listening, or have you moved on?) I did say "a profit". I did not say "a fortune". Because making a fortune worked out so well for, say, Michael Jackson...:-)
> How does that work for a struggling unknown artist?
Well, as a former struggling unknown artist, a variety of ways, none of which admittedly are very profitable, at least at first. Look at how the indie groups are doing it (or in some cases, not doing it).
> He's admitted that he's making less money than if he did it the normal route,
Did he as an individual truly make less money, or did the *title* make less money? There's a huge difference, when you're forced to work through a publishing company.
And even if *he* made less money, (which I suspect was not true over the long term) isn't nearly a quarter million enough for one performance? [1] How much is enough?
[1] or one set of performances at one place with one set of material, if you wish, because these types of discs are usually a "best takes" montage.
For me, that was sort-of what Netflix was for -- a way to leverage the internet to watch movies immediately, legitimately, for what I considered a reasonable price. Alas, it never really lived up to the hype. But I'm still a member, hoping the selection gets better.
> Didn't Apple already prove this when they converted their music store to a DRM-free format? It seems like nobody around here gives them any credit for that...
Perhaps, but it was already too late for us. I had already gotten used to buying the CD on Amazon or at the local used CD shop and ripping it into itunes in a DRM-free format, or buying albums -- "In Rainbows", "Ghosts" -- directly off websites. My daughter went entirely "into the cloud", if you will, by switching to Youtube playlists. By the time itunes made the switch, our habits were already ingrained, and we hadn't used the itunes account to buy anything for years. That whole model of putting roadblocks around on what players you could play your media, just made it too inconvenient to continue with Apple's paradigm. Or, (that's not entirely fair...) rather, it was enough *more* convenient to do other things, that we were enticed from Apple's little sheltered garden.
Other collateral damage was that when you eliminate the need for an itunes account to which your device is inextricably bound, the ipod becomes just another mp3 player. I switched to Blackberry for music almost immediately, especially since it had stereo bluetooth (which worked in my car) and my ipod did not. Daughter only uses her Touch in the bathroom now, to play music during showers, and then from youtube over wifi. Her Android Bionic does all other music duties.
So yea, Apple does get credit for that, legitimately. It was a fine move. But sadly, too little, too late. At least for us.
> In other words you don't have any real reason for wanting SD card support.
Nope, in other words, I have several reasons for wanting SD card support, but I don't feel like arguing about it with a fanboi. Why would you care that I don't buy an iPad? Is it required now? Did I miss the memo?
Slashdot Mirror
Were you not an anonymous coward, and actually participated in the group, instead of taking potshots like an angry monkey throwing poo, you'd know me, and that I'm married, with a teenage daughter, who's also a geek. But thanks for playing.
There's two types of participants in this forum; those in the business, and those who buy goods and services from us with their burger king paychecks. I'm in the former group. It's not hard to guess which group you're in.
Speaking from experience, it's more interesting to pick (1) and (3). Not necessarily in a good way.
I'm not sure what we're alluding to. Does this mean that we'll see art that actually looks like something?
Ignore him, he hasn't had a date, in, well, he's never had a date.
There's a gal on slashdot?
In fact, I would say that legal resources are their core competency, as they are so important to the business model.
You don't understand. In order to collect on penalties, you have to sue the vendor. Even if you "win" you'll still be out of business. They have more legal resources than you, and are more skilled at using them.
Well, except, I believe that inertial trackers (good ones) are a lot more expensive than GPS receivers. Especially these days.
> It sounds like something that would happen in a movie.
You can bet it'll be in the script for Mission Impossible V.
> I'm surprised that it didn't have some sort of dead-reckoning or inertial system as a backup in such cases.
Betcha they will now.
> Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?"
Because it makes... oh, I already said that.
You're exactly right.
It's no surprise at all that there was a similar project going well at another school at four times the price. If there's more money to be made, the PS team is guaranteed to miss the deadline, then propose a solution at a higher price. It's the way business is done in that market.
I'm thinking that the university might fare ok in court were they a law school, but as they are not, and presumably have to hire a legal team, they're going to pass the point of diminishing returns very quickly and will soon be under pressure to settle.
It doesn't really matter. You can put all the non-performance clauses and deadline clauses you want, and the vendor will miss them if they think there's more money to be made. It's no skin off the vendor's nose, because in the great majority of cases, the customer will knuckle under and pay more for reduced scope in order to get business going again.
In summary, as customer, your expert would tell you yes, this is an iron clad contract, and no, when push comes to shove, it won't matter.
Anyone who has worked either side in this type of project can tell you this (what Oracle is accused of) is standard operating procedure, not just for Oracle. The steps are usually:
a) Agree to virtually anything. The intent is to get the contract. A practical schedule is actually a disadvantage, as we will see later. Don't worry too much about non-delivery clauses, they will never apply.
b) Continue development until time runs out. Developers will be oddly calm as deadline approaches for reasons that will become clear later.
(The objective here is to show competency, but with no serious intention of fulfilling the contract.)
c) Miss the deadline.
d) Allow hysteria to accumulate. Blame missed deadline on unrealistic scope and/or feature creep. Encourage panic.
e) Present new proposal at higher price and tough out the fireworks. ("Go ahead and sue. We have more lawyers than you have employees.")
f) $$ Profit!
This works (usually) because the end product is often a critical replacement or enhancement to an integral part of the customer's business (eg, Billing, Customer Service) and the customer will look for the shortest path to being able to do business.
It's common for the abused customer to threaten lawsuits, exceedingly rare for them to follow through. Kudos to Montclair for having the guts to go against a major corporation. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
And (you still listening, or have you moved on?) I did say "a profit". I did not say "a fortune". Because making a fortune worked out so well for, say, Michael Jackson... :-)
> You just need to already be very, very popular and well known name.
Fair enough, [1] although I think indie groups tend to eck out a profit somehow. But ok, I'm willing to change that to:
Well, more importantly, it proves a well-known artist reaches a point where (s)he no longer needs a major publishing company to make a profit.
So, .... it's still a good idea.
[1] with the stipulation that I personally had never heard of... (scroll back to the top)... Louis CK (scroll back down)... before now.
> How does that work for a struggling unknown artist?
Well, as a former struggling unknown artist, a variety of ways, none of which admittedly are very profitable, at least at first. Look at how the indie groups are doing it (or in some cases, not doing it).
> He's admitted that he's making less money than if he did it the normal route,
Did he as an individual truly make less money, or did the *title* make less money? There's a huge difference, when you're forced to work through a publishing company.
And even if *he* made less money, (which I suspect was not true over the long term) isn't nearly a quarter million enough for one performance? [1] How much is enough?
[1] or one set of performances at one place with one set of material, if you wish, because these types of discs are usually a "best takes" montage.
For me, that was sort-of what Netflix was for -- a way to leverage the internet to watch movies immediately, legitimately, for what I considered a reasonable price. Alas, it never really lived up to the hype. But I'm still a member, hoping the selection gets better.
> Didn't Apple already prove this when they converted their music store to a DRM-free format? It seems like nobody around here gives them any credit for that...
Perhaps, but it was already too late for us. I had already gotten used to buying the CD on Amazon or at the local used CD shop and ripping it into itunes in a DRM-free format, or buying albums -- "In Rainbows", "Ghosts" -- directly off websites. My daughter went entirely "into the cloud", if you will, by switching to Youtube playlists. By the time itunes made the switch, our habits were already ingrained, and we hadn't used the itunes account to buy anything for years. That whole model of putting roadblocks around on what players you could play your media, just made it too inconvenient to continue with Apple's paradigm. Or, (that's not entirely fair...) rather, it was enough *more* convenient to do other things, that we were enticed from Apple's little sheltered garden.
Other collateral damage was that when you eliminate the need for an itunes account to which your device is inextricably bound, the ipod becomes just another mp3 player. I switched to Blackberry for music almost immediately, especially since it had stereo bluetooth (which worked in my car) and my ipod did not. Daughter only uses her Touch in the bathroom now, to play music during showers, and then from youtube over wifi. Her Android Bionic does all other music duties.
So yea, Apple does get credit for that, legitimately. It was a fine move. But sadly, too little, too late. At least for us.
Well, more importantly, it proves you don't need a major publishing company to make a profit.
> In other words you don't have any real reason for wanting SD card support.
Nope, in other words, I have several reasons for wanting SD card support, but I don't feel like arguing about it with a fanboi. Why would you care that I don't buy an iPad? Is it required now? Did I miss the memo?
> It will take time, but 10 years from now, most cars on the road will have bluetooth hands free.
By which time (going back to the original subject) it will (apparently) be illegal to use them.