Maybe, up until this point, man could not survive without religion. Marx proposed as such and considered God the ephemeral parent of an immature society. Thus maybe the fact that religion has not gone extinct is an indication that society would be far worse without it. Perhaps a world in which people cannot police themselves needs a "god" and fear of eternal rebuke in order to keep them in line.
For the record, I'm not religious or even a believer, but I do think that much of human civilization follows a similar paradigm to evolution. Things exist for a reason - or did anyway... because they served a function. If religion is this opiate that the masses need, and it is abolished, what do we replace it with? Meds?
Re:I wonder where you approach the limit.....
on
The Physics of Superman
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Agreed. Also, the increased density is in response to the forces from an altered environment. Assuming the organism to be adaptive, then those "powers" would slowly be lost in the earth's environment, no? Akin to the way astronauts lose muscle tissue when they go into space, no matter how much they exercise.
Re:That was actually surprisingly good article
on
The Cost of the iPod
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It's not really Renck's place to make that conclusion on Apple's behalf.
But it is his place to have all the info possible at his disposal in order to advise his clients though, right?
At the end of the day, whether or not Apple is meeting the requirements for a publicly traded firm is not for Renck or his firm to determine. However, Renck can assert whatever he wants to his clients, as his revenue depends to some degree on the accuracy of his analysis. What it seems like he's saying his ability to assess is hampered by the admitted lack of disclosure, and this is enough to make him skittish about the stock.
His assertion does not seem unreasonable by any measure.
By your example, computing time as cost, I'd have to ascribe that $21 to the cost of those five minutes regardless of whether or not I did anything other than bill hours, is that correct?
do you sit there, do nothing and wait for your download? during work hours? in your workplace as if incapable of running another process simultaneously?
I'm sorry, I just want to understand!
Teenagers download more because teenagers buy the most music. Teenager download more because they are proficient with cutting edge technology. Teenagers download more because tight budgets instigate the search for cost effective methods of acquiring what they want.
Your first point only proves my assertion. You said that the intermingling of advertising and entertainment is already beginning. I merely asserted that the endgame is free content produced almost entirely with an advertising focus. The content would have pay options for various levels of quality, etc, but on a whole, free downloads of the content still serves the intent of the producer, which is procurement of eyeballs. So in other words you agree with me. You said something about feelings, old-fashioned, etc. I don't know what these things are. Fact is, in this post you agree that advertising and entertainment are converging; I assert that full convergence eliminates the need to make money off content. This will result in an initial recession in the entertainment industry - and mergers in the hollywood and madison avenue production lines.
Next: Re: not producing content. I actually DO produce content. I work in film and television. quality content was produced for free to the end user for decades - it was called broadcast television. SOUNDS CRAZY, right? This point is too debunked, first for making an inaccurate assumption, and second for not making a point at all.
Women overconsuming media: let me spell it out for you. The average American woman consumes more media than the average American man. Not including video games: women consume more television, more radio, more movies, than men. This is across race and age lines. In fact, the conundrum that television has had is how to draw young men back - as young men are watching less television, due in part to video games. This is why attempts at marketing in video games will become more pronounced. Do you understand now? Should I use monosyllabic words?
Re: company line: This is in reference to the Slashdot company line. I responded to a poster who was moderated well because his stance stood well with the company (read: slashdot) line.
Re: downloading: whether that statement is stupid or not is up for debate. However, uploading, if memory serves me correctly, has been the issue with peer networks. the leech has no issue - he logs on, takes wht he wants, and is fine.
Your assertion of a democratized content distribution system has already occurred. It's called Youtube. The resources required to create the kind of content people spend money on now will not come from some idealized digital revolution where there are a million content providers. There will still be big event pictures/projects, and thus a need for big money to produce them. Since downloading isn't going away, and will only become more pervasive with time and tech and badnwidth, content providers need to make FREE DOWNLOADS work for them. I'm repeating myself because you evidently didn't understand me the first time. Advertising is the model - it's already been embraced - and it will only become more ubiquitious with time. Once production budgets becomes streamlined and fall in line with the cost for major advertising campaigns, then the loss gain for corporations/hollywood firms - is solved.
Whether you LIKE (I love when smart people respond with LIKE and FEEL and HATE in their arguments - so rational) it or not, this is the direction content is going in. There will always be dinosaurs like you willing to pay for content, and somewhere, someone will be writing a pedantic, pretentious talkfest starring Sean Penn. And that will be awesome. But for the rest of the audience, the industry will be smart to serve them where THEY ALREADY ARE instead of where the industry wants them to be.
The question isn't about what sort of content I WANT (here are wants and needs again). For the most part, I don't watch television or film. So for the most part, it's irrevelant to me. I like producing content - not watching it.
Any other questions? Feel free to go light on personal insults - it just works out better that way. Thanks.
Your linkage between Hollywood and music is weak. Do you really want to listen to people extoll the virtues of Diet Coke next time you listen to music?
You speak of wants and needs. The truth is that product placement is already happening with your music. Firms pay for mentions in pop songs. Advertising companies are hiring pop stars to sing jungles so you subconsciously associate the voice of the star with the product. They are evn going so far as licensing the whole song to make the tie more tangible. And corporations are already taking larger stakes in film development and production. I wasn't even making a point per se, so much as point out what is ALREADY happening.
It's interesting, because most slashdotters are so anti-RIAA/MPAA, but are unwilling to see the truth about the only viable long term solution that doesn't see a wholesale erosion of the existing system.
Peer networks and BitTorrent show far greater numbers downloading music for free. This obscures your notion of the price that is actually being set by the market. In actuality, it's much lower than anything you derive from ITUNES statistics and approaches zero. Do you still disagree? Your economics post and your perfect price arguments are now refuted.
Much of your post is fuzzy, and filed with personal insults no less. Let's start here though.
What else: oh, free. In free, I mean free to the end user. downloading music is free to the end user in as much as they are not paying the producer/distributor to acquire it. So thus it is not a crock. You "nothing is for free" argument belongs somewhere, just not here. Producers are not being compensated for their work by the consumer of the good. If I steal a loaf of bread, I got it for free. We're not taking into account the cost of the calories expended in my energy expenditure during the actual theft. I guess we could take that into acount... if you wish.
Re: getting out much, homogenous friends, etc? I'll let it ride. Personal attacks appear often in inferior arguments.
Paying for something that can be gotten for free: that's a sticky one. Let's toss out the moral arguments (as they are variable and difficult to universally agree upon). Downloading gets me little trouble if I'm not sharing. No uploading, and I get what I want when I want, at a price I like. ITUNES can never beat that price, that selection, that availability. In the long term, that model will WIN, unless businesses figure out how to make that work for them.
Re: women overcomsuming media? It's axiomatic. Women overconsume all media. Google it.
Re: women less likely to download? This isn't peer knowledge. This is the industry standard. Google it as well. It's free!
Men of a certain age are far more likely to download. Before the internet, men of a certain age were far more likely to burn CDs. Before that, men of a certain age were far more likely to make mix tapes, or dub from the radio. Consequently, popular music focuses primarily on young women as the primary demographic to market and sell to instead of making drastic changes to the business plan. Google it if you disagree. Again, it's free.
Re: my buddies being freeloaders. Yup, that's probably true. But we're hell of a good time. *shrugs*
Your argument has holes, but you hold well to the company line, hence your moderation. I was actually hoping for some discourse - maybe the tossing about of ideas about the future of media delivery. Alas.
i think it's a bit further than that. downloading illegally is primarily a male bastion, whereas music purchasing skews towards girls and women. Females are less likely to download and more likely to buy music and less likely to be tech savvy. Women in general are also paranoid of breaking the law. I have female friends who are horrified at the notion that I might have ever downloaded something, under the notion that it's horribly illegal and wrong. So ITUNES fits a perfect sweet spot for the average consumer.
I'll get flamed to death for this, but only on slashdot do I hear males admit to actually buying music. I don't know any other male who does.
Downloaders know what the perfect price for music is. It's free. The perfect price for film is also free. Money will be made through product placement and advertising. For example, Microsoft is now exec producing and overseeing the Halo film from a script that they commissioned independently from Alex Garland. Corporations will commission film to drive the next generation of their products and will release them in theaters (for those who crave the theatrical experience; one will be paying for the experience, not for exclusivity of product) and a high quality download for $x, and a low quality download for free.
This takes care of everything: hollywood becomes a contractor business, hired by corporations for their expertise in making films. They will charge the corporations a flat 20% fee on top of the production budget. This ensure a profit on EVERY PICTURE for the hollywood firm. The corporation is creating a product comparable in cost to a high end advertising campaign, and they won't worry that the cash is wasted, as you can't TIVO out the product placements etc. Then downloading becomes a good thing, as you more the film gets around, the more people are seeing your product. You can even cut the film in to trailers designed to promote your product further. It eliminates the blockbusters (i.e. something like Titanic has a reduced likelihood of ever happening again) but it makes hollywood cash positive business.
ITUNES is a stop gap measure - because there is NO COMPELLING REASON for anyone ot actually buy music. In film, the best films supposedly give us a sense of inevitability - the guy does the thing he does because he was backed into a corner and can't do anything else - it's be a hero or die. What I think about ITUNES is that it rings of a mediocre film. There is no compelling reason to buy music from them. If I wanted food right now - I can grow some and wait the weeks until something sprouts, but then i'd be dead. I could drive up to a farm (i live in NY) and steal off the farm, but it's not cost effective. I can steal from the store - but the punishment doesn't fit the crime. I swallow it and go to a store and buy my food because it's the best available choice. It's the inevitable choice. I don't feel ITUNES is inevitable. Free Downloads are inevitable, so the industries have to make it work for them. Google is making free work, so it's possible.
Many would argue that listening to music makes them more productive, not less. Listening to music doesn't preclude productivity whereas playing video games does. Unless you're playing games because you're a professional gamer, or you're playing an educational game that makes you better at your profession.
Most landlines are powered. So they still work during power outages - cell phones don't... as long as you don't have a phone that otherwise depends on electricity.
I tested it by creating a new UID. The first two times I tried calling a friend's mobile phone, I got error messages. The third time and every time after was smooth sailing. The sound isn't the best, not cell phone quality, but it works. The number showed up as "000123456" on the recipient's phone, so its usefulness is limited; those who screen calls would likely not pick up, and since you can't get incoming on it without upgrading - well.
If you have an outgoing number, I'm sure you can solve this issue by being issued an incoming number. IMO, it seems to be a loss leader of sorts, to get folks to upgrade to paid service.
Tyrell: Would you... like to be upgraded? Batty: I had in mind something a little more radical. Tyrell: What... what seems to be the problem? Batty: Death.
"I want more life, fucker!!!" is probably my most favorite line in film. Tyrell was insidious, maniacal. Even as Roy pleaded with him for more life, Tyrell inspected him clinically, narcississtically admiring his own work, completely oblivious to Roy - to his creations.
not true. people don't always want what's cheap and gives them the most for their money.
the ipod is the perfect example of this. there are boundless examples of DAPs with more features at or below ipod costs. nonetheless, the ipod is synonymous with digital music in 2006 in popular culture.
I live in New York. Fancy here definitly does not amount to Olive Garden. lol. You'd be drawn and quartered before being ceremoniously fired for taking a client there.
All of which is to say - if people associate the PS3 as the premium must have gaming device, price might not be an issue. Also, if Sony gets 70% retention of the PS2 installation base, PS3 will be an awesome success. I just don't see that not happening.
from personal experience, VC guys shy away from 50/50 situations for two reasons: 1) that results in stalemate... it conceptually ends in deadlock should principals disagree; and 2) it suggests that the participants in hand are less than honest about their respective contributions to the relationship, which means there could be trouble ahead.
I started my (independent pharm research) firm and took Chief Analytics Officer. My CEO is a finance guy who worked at a pharm for ten years. It was shaky, but I got three guys who had significant pharm experience and let them run the company and I was responsible for overseeing data collection and analysis.
Finance guys speak the same language. Let them deal with each other.
From personal experience, finance and management guys deal in broad strokes. Engineers and science guys are by nature pointillists, driven and consumed by meticulous detail. By very nature, these two types are diametrically opposed. Nothing good comes of the science guy pretending to be a manager (although it would be easier for a science guy to pretend at managing than the converse).
Also, nothing infuriated me more than having to sit through insufferably boring finance meetings. I longed to be in the lab, where I knew what the fuck was going on, what made sense... it was my domain.
I'd suggest that you consult with other VC guys and get the sense of what they say, but my personal opinion, from observation and experience, is that there is a very good reason for the disparate disciplines. Don't underestimate the value of a strong finance person with good market vision and what sounds like foresight (to get involved with your idea and invest time and energy and effort into it). In order for it to be the best it can be, refine your concept, and let him troll for cash.
Interesting, although I think we'd have created God even without darkness, as we still die and are aware of it.
I agree with all else. I too am banned from all political and religious discussions at family gatherings. One of my uncles spends a lot of time with the bottle, and he said to me once: "Having a conversation with you makes me want to commit suicide."
I can imagine rejection wouldn't be much of an issue - it's the patient's own cells. I think it's more an issue of functionality, i.e. how well such an organ will work relative to the original.
This is great stuff. Great stuff.
What would also be interesting is the cottage industries that arise. When my kid is born, am I going to take a bunch of his stem cells and place them in a bank for and future unforseen circumstances? Is he going to surrender cells during physicals so organs can be grown for him on cue. Will we all have deposits in bio-banks?
science and reality - they've never struck down worship for a corporation though, right?
like a corporation in a lot of markets in which it makes little money? An overvalued corporation that makes the critical mass of its money off advertising?!?!?!?! (lol) in a market where others will steadily squeeze them out by virtue of huge cash stores and a lack of reliance on the search engine revenue stream? Because their answer to Live is GooglePack???? Because google talk can't attract the audience advertisers would most like to advertise to? Lol. Reality has never struck down that worship though, right?
what is it with the childlike obsession wih the "do no evil" credo? It's kind of absurd.
if you have a gmail account, they're probably doing evil with your consumer preferences right now.
re: a music store. Oooooooooooh, a shiny new music store. How innovative, Google. They're like eight years too late with that.
It's a misstep for google to be opening a music store.
As of yet, they don't have a million subscribers for gmail. if they do, they've passed that threshold so recently that there is little info on it. they haven't passed a million subscribers to gtalk either. they haven't shown any uptake for any of their products other than google, which means the general audience is either unaware of their consumer efforts and/or uninterested.
I've used Microsoft Live... and it's a pretty good integrated suite, a bit better than google offers... already, and Live is in true beta - like less than a year beta as opposed to fifth year senior beta.
looking at the world through google glasses is to obscure the reality. YouTube is eating Google Video's lunch. they only hold the search engine market - and deeper pocket will continue to assial them from all sides.
In your parlance, they'll need to do boatloads of evil just to SURVIVE.
Google = fairy tales for adults. They're just some guys who turned a graduate project into some cash folks. Relax.
american television is becoming quickly like japanese television, where reality television has dominated for a bit longer than here. in fact, as far as animation and reality goes - we're following the japanese blueprint. The japanese watch the most television in the world - and the US is primed to match it as we expand our offerings and serve sub-markets more directly.
we're living longer, like them. also, like them, the suicide rates for seniors are rising.
we also have a population wrinkle - a vexing declining birthrate.
the major difference between the US and Japan is the disparity between population types. Japan is by and large an urban marketplace - with a lot of population concentrated in urban centers. While the US has this as well - we have vast swatches of land with relatively sparse population and varying technological uptake. The vast amount of land is prohibitive - as relates to Wifi/Cable/etc.
the phone as a digital wallet. It's been around Japan for a minute. Paypal is offering a service now - others will follow - to allow the phone to function as a method of payment.
smartphones aren't ubiquitious in the US not because of preference, rather because of a lack of options. What are amongst the most popular phones amongst teenagers and young adults these days: the Sidekick and the Blackberry (sidekick II no longer because it's been around for a while without redesign - blackberries not as popular as sidekicks). I've had both and also had a treo. The Sidekick became so popular that Cingular started offering it with a prepay data only plan so that they can get it into the hands of kids who couldn't get plans otherwise or for young adults with shitty credit records.
LACK of OPTIONS is what drives the american mobile industry. Handhelds would have taken off a long time ago if they were just offered.
The rising generation represents a global generation that is bound by a global popular culture. They have much more in common with one another (by this I mean in first world countries) than you might suspect. And the US mobile industry is handcuffing its clients.
... mobile phones. It's rather accepted that JApan in some respects is ahead of us as far as technical innovation and acceptance of tech. For the Asian countries - phones and functional mobiles are sprinting out ahead. A couple of Japanese contractors I recently worked with, in my age range, were rather disdainful of terminals and preferred to do a lot of things on handhelds. One was actually surprised that I was always notebook equipped. There are logistic issues involved - namely, the Japanese are a small people with smaller hands - suited well to handhelds, but nonetheless.... mobiles are the future of web tech.
the mobile companies here stifle innovation. it's the mobiles that are missing the boat.
Web 2.0 is not about tech. It's about marketers finally realizing what the fuck has been happening on the web since its dawn - and their need to put words to it. the future of the web is that you take it with you - not fucking MySpace.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe, up until this point, man could not survive without religion. Marx proposed as such and considered God the ephemeral parent of an immature society. Thus maybe the fact that religion has not gone extinct is an indication that society would be far worse without it. Perhaps a world in which people cannot police themselves needs a "god" and fear of eternal rebuke in order to keep them in line.
For the record, I'm not religious or even a believer, but I do think that much of human civilization follows a similar paradigm to evolution. Things exist for a reason - or did anyway... because they served a function. If religion is this opiate that the masses need, and it is abolished, what do we replace it with? Meds?
Agreed. Also, the increased density is in response to the forces from an altered environment. Assuming the organism to be adaptive, then those "powers" would slowly be lost in the earth's environment, no? Akin to the way astronauts lose muscle tissue when they go into space, no matter how much they exercise.
It's not really Renck's place to make that conclusion on Apple's behalf.
But it is his place to have all the info possible at his disposal in order to advise his clients though, right?
At the end of the day, whether or not Apple is meeting the requirements for a publicly traded firm is not for Renck or his firm to determine. However, Renck can assert whatever he wants to his clients, as his revenue depends to some degree on the accuracy of his analysis. What it seems like he's saying his ability to assess is hampered by the admitted lack of disclosure, and this is enough to make him skittish about the stock.
His assertion does not seem unreasonable by any measure.
By your example, computing time as cost, I'd have to ascribe that $21 to the cost of those five minutes regardless of whether or not I did anything other than bill hours, is that correct?
lol. this is why I'm wrong? are you serious?
do you sit there, do nothing and wait for your download? during work hours? in your workplace as if incapable of running another process simultaneously?
I'm sorry, I just want to understand!
Teenagers download more because teenagers buy the most music. Teenager download more because they are proficient with cutting edge technology. Teenagers download more because tight budgets instigate the search for cost effective methods of acquiring what they want.
again with the personal insults. wow.
anyway, let's begin.
Your first point only proves my assertion. You said that the intermingling of advertising and entertainment is already beginning. I merely asserted that the endgame is free content produced almost entirely with an advertising focus. The content would have pay options for various levels of quality, etc, but on a whole, free downloads of the content still serves the intent of the producer, which is procurement of eyeballs. So in other words you agree with me. You said something about feelings, old-fashioned, etc. I don't know what these things are. Fact is, in this post you agree that advertising and entertainment are converging; I assert that full convergence eliminates the need to make money off content. This will result in an initial recession in the entertainment industry - and mergers in the hollywood and madison avenue production lines.
Next: Re: not producing content. I actually DO produce content. I work in film and television. quality content was produced for free to the end user for decades - it was called broadcast television. SOUNDS CRAZY, right? This point is too debunked, first for making an inaccurate assumption, and second for not making a point at all.
Women overconsuming media: let me spell it out for you. The average American woman consumes more media than the average American man. Not including video games: women consume more television, more radio, more movies, than men. This is across race and age lines. In fact, the conundrum that television has had is how to draw young men back - as young men are watching less television, due in part to video games. This is why attempts at marketing in video games will become more pronounced. Do you understand now? Should I use monosyllabic words?
Re: company line: This is in reference to the Slashdot company line. I responded to a poster who was moderated well because his stance stood well with the company (read: slashdot) line.
Re: downloading: whether that statement is stupid or not is up for debate. However, uploading, if memory serves me correctly, has been the issue with peer networks. the leech has no issue - he logs on, takes wht he wants, and is fine.
Your assertion of a democratized content distribution system has already occurred. It's called Youtube. The resources required to create the kind of content people spend money on now will not come from some idealized digital revolution where there are a million content providers. There will still be big event pictures/projects, and thus a need for big money to produce them. Since downloading isn't going away, and will only become more pervasive with time and tech and badnwidth, content providers need to make FREE DOWNLOADS work for them. I'm repeating myself because you evidently didn't understand me the first time. Advertising is the model - it's already been embraced - and it will only become more ubiquitious with time. Once production budgets becomes streamlined and fall in line with the cost for major advertising campaigns, then the loss gain for corporations/hollywood firms - is solved.
Whether you LIKE (I love when smart people respond with LIKE and FEEL and HATE in their arguments - so rational) it or not, this is the direction content is going in. There will always be dinosaurs like you willing to pay for content, and somewhere, someone will be writing a pedantic, pretentious talkfest starring Sean Penn. And that will be awesome. But for the rest of the audience, the industry will be smart to serve them where THEY ALREADY ARE instead of where the industry wants them to be.
The question isn't about what sort of content I WANT (here are wants and needs again). For the most part, I don't watch television or film. So for the most part, it's irrevelant to me. I like producing content - not watching it.
Any other questions? Feel free to go light on personal insults - it just works out better that way. Thanks.
Your linkage between Hollywood and music is weak. Do you really want to listen to people extoll the virtues of Diet Coke next time you listen to music?
You speak of wants and needs. The truth is that product placement is already happening with your music. Firms pay for mentions in pop songs. Advertising companies are hiring pop stars to sing jungles so you subconsciously associate the voice of the star with the product. They are evn going so far as licensing the whole song to make the tie more tangible. And corporations are already taking larger stakes in film development and production. I wasn't even making a point per se, so much as point out what is ALREADY happening.
It's interesting, because most slashdotters are so anti-RIAA/MPAA, but are unwilling to see the truth about the only viable long term solution that doesn't see a wholesale erosion of the existing system.
Peer networks and BitTorrent show far greater numbers downloading music for free. This obscures your notion of the price that is actually being set by the market. In actuality, it's much lower than anything you derive from ITUNES statistics and approaches zero. Do you still disagree? Your economics post and your perfect price arguments are now refuted.
Much of your post is fuzzy, and filed with personal insults no less. Let's start here though.
What else: oh, free. In free, I mean free to the end user. downloading music is free to the end user in as much as they are not paying the producer/distributor to acquire it. So thus it is not a crock. You "nothing is for free" argument belongs somewhere, just not here. Producers are not being compensated for their work by the consumer of the good. If I steal a loaf of bread, I got it for free. We're not taking into account the cost of the calories expended in my energy expenditure during the actual theft. I guess we could take that into acount... if you wish.
Re: getting out much, homogenous friends, etc? I'll let it ride. Personal attacks appear often in inferior arguments.
Paying for something that can be gotten for free: that's a sticky one. Let's toss out the moral arguments (as they are variable and difficult to universally agree upon). Downloading gets me little trouble if I'm not sharing. No uploading, and I get what I want when I want, at a price I like. ITUNES can never beat that price, that selection, that availability. In the long term, that model will WIN, unless businesses figure out how to make that work for them.
Re: women overcomsuming media? It's axiomatic. Women overconsume all media. Google it.
Re: women less likely to download? This isn't peer knowledge. This is the industry standard. Google it as well. It's free!
Men of a certain age are far more likely to download. Before the internet, men of a certain age were far more likely to burn CDs. Before that, men of a certain age were far more likely to make mix tapes, or dub from the radio. Consequently, popular music focuses primarily on young women as the primary demographic to market and sell to instead of making drastic changes to the business plan. Google it if you disagree. Again, it's free.
Re: my buddies being freeloaders. Yup, that's probably true. But we're hell of a good time. *shrugs*
Your argument has holes, but you hold well to the company line, hence your moderation. I was actually hoping for some discourse - maybe the tossing about of ideas about the future of media delivery. Alas.
i think it's a bit further than that. downloading illegally is primarily a male bastion, whereas music purchasing skews towards girls and women. Females are less likely to download and more likely to buy music and less likely to be tech savvy. Women in general are also paranoid of breaking the law. I have female friends who are horrified at the notion that I might have ever downloaded something, under the notion that it's horribly illegal and wrong. So ITUNES fits a perfect sweet spot for the average consumer.
I'll get flamed to death for this, but only on slashdot do I hear males admit to actually buying music. I don't know any other male who does.
Downloaders know what the perfect price for music is. It's free. The perfect price for film is also free. Money will be made through product placement and advertising. For example, Microsoft is now exec producing and overseeing the Halo film from a script that they commissioned independently from Alex Garland. Corporations will commission film to drive the next generation of their products and will release them in theaters (for those who crave the theatrical experience; one will be paying for the experience, not for exclusivity of product) and a high quality download for $x, and a low quality download for free.
This takes care of everything: hollywood becomes a contractor business, hired by corporations for their expertise in making films. They will charge the corporations a flat 20% fee on top of the production budget. This ensure a profit on EVERY PICTURE for the hollywood firm. The corporation is creating a product comparable in cost to a high end advertising campaign, and they won't worry that the cash is wasted, as you can't TIVO out the product placements etc. Then downloading becomes a good thing, as you more the film gets around, the more people are seeing your product. You can even cut the film in to trailers designed to promote your product further. It eliminates the blockbusters (i.e. something like Titanic has a reduced likelihood of ever happening again) but it makes hollywood cash positive business.
ITUNES is a stop gap measure - because there is NO COMPELLING REASON for anyone ot actually buy music. In film, the best films supposedly give us a sense of inevitability - the guy does the thing he does because he was backed into a corner and can't do anything else - it's be a hero or die. What I think about ITUNES is that it rings of a mediocre film. There is no compelling reason to buy music from them. If I wanted food right now - I can grow some and wait the weeks until something sprouts, but then i'd be dead. I could drive up to a farm (i live in NY) and steal off the farm, but it's not cost effective. I can steal from the store - but the punishment doesn't fit the crime. I swallow it and go to a store and buy my food because it's the best available choice. It's the inevitable choice. I don't feel ITUNES is inevitable. Free Downloads are inevitable, so the industries have to make it work for them. Google is making free work, so it's possible.
the internet is military tech. one could argue that war is the prime engine of technical innovation.
Many would argue that listening to music makes them more productive, not less. Listening to music doesn't preclude productivity whereas playing video games does. Unless you're playing games because you're a professional gamer, or you're playing an educational game that makes you better at your profession.
The networks, the towers..... DON'T run on batteries.
Most landlines are powered. So they still work during power outages - cell phones don't... as long as you don't have a phone that otherwise depends on electricity.
That alone is worth the cash.
no. I didn't have to.
I tested it by creating a new UID. The first two times I tried calling a friend's mobile phone, I got error messages. The third time and every time after was smooth sailing. The sound isn't the best, not cell phone quality, but it works. The number showed up as "000123456" on the recipient's phone, so its usefulness is limited; those who screen calls would likely not pick up, and since you can't get incoming on it without upgrading - well.
If you have an outgoing number, I'm sure you can solve this issue by being issued an incoming number. IMO, it seems to be a loss leader of sorts, to get folks to upgrade to paid service.
Holy shit dude, you're right!!!!!
Tyrell: Would you... like to be upgraded?
Batty: I had in mind something a little more radical.
Tyrell: What... what seems to be the problem?
Batty: Death.
"I want more life, fucker!!!" is probably my most favorite line in film. Tyrell was insidious, maniacal. Even as Roy pleaded with him for more life, Tyrell inspected him clinically, narcississtically admiring his own work, completely oblivious to Roy - to his creations.
not true. people don't always want what's cheap and gives them the most for their money.
the ipod is the perfect example of this. there are boundless examples of DAPs with more features at or below ipod costs. nonetheless, the ipod is synonymous with digital music in 2006 in popular culture.
I live in New York. Fancy here definitly does not amount to Olive Garden. lol. You'd be drawn and quartered before being ceremoniously fired for taking a client there.
All of which is to say - if people associate the PS3 as the premium must have gaming device, price might not be an issue. Also, if Sony gets 70% retention of the PS2 installation base, PS3 will be an awesome success. I just don't see that not happening.
from personal experience, VC guys shy away from 50/50 situations for two reasons: 1) that results in stalemate... it conceptually ends in deadlock should principals disagree; and 2) it suggests that the participants in hand are less than honest about their respective contributions to the relationship, which means there could be trouble ahead.
I started my (independent pharm research) firm and took Chief Analytics Officer. My CEO is a finance guy who worked at a pharm for ten years. It was shaky, but I got three guys who had significant pharm experience and let them run the company and I was responsible for overseeing data collection and analysis.
Finance guys speak the same language. Let them deal with each other.
From personal experience, finance and management guys deal in broad strokes. Engineers and science guys are by nature pointillists, driven and consumed by meticulous detail. By very nature, these two types are diametrically opposed. Nothing good comes of the science guy pretending to be a manager (although it would be easier for a science guy to pretend at managing than the converse).
Also, nothing infuriated me more than having to sit through insufferably boring finance meetings. I longed to be in the lab, where I knew what the fuck was going on, what made sense... it was my domain.
I'd suggest that you consult with other VC guys and get the sense of what they say, but my personal opinion, from observation and experience, is that there is a very good reason for the disparate disciplines. Don't underestimate the value of a strong finance person with good market vision and what sounds like foresight (to get involved with your idea and invest time and energy and effort into it). In order for it to be the best it can be, refine your concept, and let him troll for cash.
Interesting, although I think we'd have created God even without darkness, as we still die and are aware of it.
I agree with all else. I too am banned from all political and religious discussions at family gatherings. One of my uncles spends a lot of time with the bottle, and he said to me once: "Having a conversation with you makes me want to commit suicide."
I draw pictures with smiley faces now.
I can imagine rejection wouldn't be much of an issue - it's the patient's own cells. I think it's more an issue of functionality, i.e. how well such an organ will work relative to the original.
This is great stuff. Great stuff.
What would also be interesting is the cottage industries that arise. When my kid is born, am I going to take a bunch of his stem cells and place them in a bank for and future unforseen circumstances? Is he going to surrender cells during physicals so organs can be grown for him on cue. Will we all have deposits in bio-banks?
science and reality - they've never struck down worship for a corporation though, right?
like a corporation in a lot of markets in which it makes little money? An overvalued corporation that makes the critical mass of its money off advertising?!?!?!?! (lol) in a market where others will steadily squeeze them out by virtue of huge cash stores and a lack of reliance on the search engine revenue stream? Because their answer to Live is GooglePack???? Because google talk can't attract the audience advertisers would most like to advertise to? Lol. Reality has never struck down that worship though, right?
Lol. Are you serious?
Agreed!!!! It's the same dogmatism that strikes down ID swiftly and flames anyone who espouse religious affiliation to oblivion.
Yet, there is search engine worship.
what is it with the childlike obsession wih the "do no evil" credo? It's kind of absurd.
... and it's a pretty good integrated suite, a bit better than google offers... already, and Live is in true beta - like less than a year beta as opposed to fifth year senior beta.
if you have a gmail account, they're probably doing evil with your consumer preferences right now.
re: a music store. Oooooooooooh, a shiny new music store. How innovative, Google. They're like eight years too late with that.
It's a misstep for google to be opening a music store.
As of yet, they don't have a million subscribers for gmail. if they do, they've passed that threshold so recently that there is little info on it. they haven't passed a million subscribers to gtalk either. they haven't shown any uptake for any of their products other than google, which means the general audience is either unaware of their consumer efforts and/or uninterested.
I've used Microsoft Live
looking at the world through google glasses is to obscure the reality. YouTube is eating Google Video's lunch. they only hold the search engine market - and deeper pocket will continue to assial them from all sides.
In your parlance, they'll need to do boatloads of evil just to SURVIVE.
Google = fairy tales for adults. They're just some guys who turned a graduate project into some cash folks. Relax.
likely not.
american television is becoming quickly like japanese television, where reality television has dominated for a bit longer than here. in fact, as far as animation and reality goes - we're following the japanese blueprint. The japanese watch the most television in the world - and the US is primed to match it as we expand our offerings and serve sub-markets more directly.
we're living longer, like them. also, like them, the suicide rates for seniors are rising.
we also have a population wrinkle - a vexing declining birthrate.
the major difference between the US and Japan is the disparity between population types. Japan is by and large an urban marketplace - with a lot of population concentrated in urban centers. While the US has this as well - we have vast swatches of land with relatively sparse population and varying technological uptake. The vast amount of land is prohibitive - as relates to Wifi/Cable/etc.
the phone as a digital wallet. It's been around Japan for a minute. Paypal is offering a service now - others will follow - to allow the phone to function as a method of payment.
smartphones aren't ubiquitious in the US not because of preference, rather because of a lack of options. What are amongst the most popular phones amongst teenagers and young adults these days: the Sidekick and the Blackberry (sidekick II no longer because it's been around for a while without redesign - blackberries not as popular as sidekicks). I've had both and also had a treo. The Sidekick became so popular that Cingular started offering it with a prepay data only plan so that they can get it into the hands of kids who couldn't get plans otherwise or for young adults with shitty credit records.
LACK of OPTIONS is what drives the american mobile industry. Handhelds would have taken off a long time ago if they were just offered.
The rising generation represents a global generation that is bound by a global popular culture. They have much more in common with one another (by this I mean in first world countries) than you might suspect. And the US mobile industry is handcuffing its clients.
... mobile phones. It's rather accepted that JApan in some respects is ahead of us as far as technical innovation and acceptance of tech. For the Asian countries - phones and functional mobiles are sprinting out ahead. A couple of Japanese contractors I recently worked with, in my age range, were rather disdainful of terminals and preferred to do a lot of things on handhelds. One was actually surprised that I was always notebook equipped. There are logistic issues involved - namely, the Japanese are a small people with smaller hands - suited well to handhelds, but nonetheless.... mobiles are the future of web tech.
the mobile companies here stifle innovation. it's the mobiles that are missing the boat.
Web 2.0 is not about tech. It's about marketers finally realizing what the fuck has been happening on the web since its dawn - and their need to put words to it. the future of the web is that you take it with you - not fucking MySpace.
Then sir, your newphew is an idiot.
Lol. Are you sure he's the one who's an idiot? He's only ten, so he can fix it. What about you? Lol. Loser.