Tom Stoppard? The British playwright? You sure about that? He doesn't seem to be living in the same solar system as Coulter, let alone another propagandist of the right wing.
No... that doesn't seem right. I think the guy I'm thinking of must be Tom Fitton. If I can find a photo, I could confirm that.
And I truly don't think that "but you listen to the CD more than you watch the movie!" is a valid argument -- or at least that it's very overrated. It doesn't matter, because you don't price many other articles by how much you use them! The TV? Nope. The computer? Nope. Computer Games? Not really. My new sofa? Not really.
The argument is not that the price of something should be based on how much you use it, it's that the price is based on the value and desirability of the object. How much you use a commodity is a factor in determining its value.
CDs may be cheaper to produce than movies, but they also have a greater value. The result of basic market forces is that the music industry faces far heavier competition than the movie industry.
Of course, the hillarious bit is that you're somehow trying to gloss over the fact that a huge percentage of the movie's revenue comes from theatre box office, which by your argument should be considered a huge ripoff. (Here in Canada it typically costs $12 or so to see a movie *once* in the theatre, which is only a couple of dollars less than what you would pay for a CD. On the other hand, you can listen to a CD for free in the music store.)
Certainly not. Everyone, especially Al Franken, knows that only FOX News is "fair and balanced."
Well, FOX news did end up losing the lawsuit, as I recall. (A fact that is often neglected on/. -- just because someone files a spurious lawsuit doesn't mean the law is wrong.)
If you priced cds at 5 bucks a pop, I would never download another song (aside from learning about a band to subsequently buy.) I walk into a music store, and I WANT to buy thier music. I do. I refuse to because of the prices (except for punk/emo/techno comps that are reasonably priced.)
Yeah, if only capitalism worked that way. If only you could walk into a car dealership and say "Give me that BMW for $10,000 or I'm going to steal it." Unfortunately, in the real world, that's called extortion.
But of course there's a huge distinction between stealing music and stealing cars, right? Because cars are physical objects and because the RIAA is evil. But on the other hand, BMW did use Jewish slave labour in WWII... so what we really need is for a company to manufacture fake BMWs and sell them for $10,000. That way, everybody wins.
BTW, I notice that you aren't willing to pay more than $8 for a CD, but you will gladly compromise your ethics for $15. So either you are underestimating the worth of the song, or your ethics come real cheap.
At least you are willing to admit it's about the money, which is more than most/.ers will admit.
The problem with CDs is that you usually pay for one song you want to and 15 others you're not interested in. With movie DVD, you just pay for what you want.
Maybe, but there's still a common misconception that CDs are dramatically overpriced because of this.
If a CD which costs $15 has 15 tracks, 5 of which are good, 5 of which are average, and 5 of which are bad, then it's inappropriate to say that the songs are worth $1 each. Maybe the good songs are worth $2, the average songs are worth $1, and the bad songs are worth nothing.
On the other hand, if you claim to like bands that produce CDs with only 1 good song, then my conclusion is that you obviously have bad taste in music.
He thinks that people don't cheat at golf. Apparently he has never heard of the Mulligan (or the foot wedge for that matter).
It's not just that. He also manages to reduce capitalism down to a 2 paragraph summary and state that that's all there is to it. This interview shows that McNealy is an idealist with his blinders on. Take his opinions with a grain of salt, as he is not living in the real world.
Are you guys in the 'States going to have to change your country's description ? Land of the free ?
Keep in mind that the US named themselves "the land of the free" back when slavery and apartheid were in full force, and that they have consistently lagged almost every other Westernized country in granting equal rights.
When did a campaign of "Compassionate Conservatism" become synonomous with "slightly to the left of Darth Vader"?
Bush's entire campaign was a disconnect between hype and reality. "Compassionate Conservatism" was a campaign slogan that sounded good, but Bush never made a real attempt to back it up. (How is a guy who sets a new record with the electric chair a compassionate conservative?) It was fun to watch Bill Maher ridicule the Republican parakeets like Tom Stoppard and Ann Coulter who repeated this tripe on his show.
As usual, the/. crowd is out there whining about the effects of a law before anything has been tested in court. Who knows if the crytal meth guy will actually be convicted, or if the decision will be reversed on appeal. I'm not defending the patriot act here.
I don't know if it will turn out to have more good or bad effects in the long run. But it does bug me that/. readers will make a big stink about the fact that trials/lawsuits can even be filed based on them. Any law can be misinterpreted and used to file a bogus lawsuit. But unless the suit actually holds up in court, it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the law. Get back to me when this guy is convicted.
It's about time some of the responsibility was shifted to the user. Read the OP. It's called taking *REASONABLE* precautions.
Users should take reasonable precautions to secure their computers. ISPs should be required to take reasonable precautions in policing their networks. And so should P2P network operators.
"It's perfectly relevant, since thousands of/. readers are able to rationalize piracy in this way."
You mean by saying, "They won't provide easy downloads, so I'll download myself, and it's okay?"
In any number of ways. "The RIAA oppresses musicians, so I'm downloading to drive them out of business", "Because they're using an obsolete business model", "Because music isn't property", etc. Most downloaders just want a free lunch. Their excuses are pure rationalization, because you can typically find a hundred similar cases where they reach the opposite conclusion when the outcome doesn't benefit them.
"So isn't it relevant why this market pressure exists?"
Sure. So why does it exist? I personally think the demand for instant gratifiaction exists because modern society is getting accustomed to this in other areas of entertainment.
I disagree. I think the main demand is for free/ultra-cheap music. Instant gratification is just the excuse. Everyone out there advocating pay-per-download seems to be talking about 25 cents per song. Or even if they would pay $1, they only want to download 1 song per album, so the labels end up making much less money.
You seem to point to movies as a medium that doesn't suffer much from piracy because the desire for instant gratification is satisfied. But I disagree. Lots of people pirate movies, just not as many as with music because of the high bandwidth requirements. That will change.
If you want another example of rationalization, look at the war in Iraq. Why was the war so popular? The government told the people they invaded because of WMDs and state-sponsored terrorism, and lots of people believed that. But there were 10 other places that they could have just as easily invaded. So why Iraq? Clearly the oil was the deciding factor, but people bought it anyway. Personally, I listen mostly to music from decades gone by. I have the albums, I play them. I have little use for any sort of downloading system. But there's a clear demand for it. If the RIAA doesn't fill the demand, things will only get worse.
Well, me too, actually. I still buy an album here and there, though. Mostly from used CD stores. I like a bargain as much as the next guy (but I try to do it legally).
Yes, I do understand rationalization. I try every day to recognize and avoid it. But that's irrelevant. You may note that I didn't say-- or even imply-- that sharing copyrighted music was just.
It's perfectly relevant, since thousands of/. readers are able to rationalize piracy in this way. Your assertion is that piracy is merely a "market pressure". So isn't it relevant why this market pressure exists?
It exists because for some reason, a large percentage of the public is able to rationalize the theft of music. As far as I'm concerned, the correct solution to that is lawsuits, not price cutting.
I think maybe you don't understand the concept of "rationalization". Rationalization is when you decide to do something for reason A but you manage to convince yourself that it was for reason B.
Every idea advocated on/. seems to involve users getting something for free. But getting it for free is always just the tangential point. (It's free as in speech, not free as in beer... I'm downloading music to protest the RIAA... Advertisers shouldn't have the ability to force me to watch adds... etc.)
Well you'll excuse me if I'm a wee bit cynical and I don't take everyone's opinion at face value.
Can't say I've seen any irrefuteable proof that downloading has done any damage to their revenue stream, can you?
Nope...
But keep in mind that that's the same argument that the cigarette companies used: There's no irrefutable proof that cigarettes cause lung cancer. "Irrefutable proof" is a pretty high standard. Meanwhile, there is plenty of convincing evidence that downloading has damaged sales, not to mention common sense.
If anyone were to need "irrefutable proof" to justify their actions, it ought to be the downloaders, since they are the ones breaking the law.
Remember this, which they seem to have forgotten (along with such other notables as Microsoft, etc.): The customer is who pays your bills. Pissing off customers eventually gets your company dead.
You know what... it really depends on who your customers are. If your customer is the mafia, it's probably a bad idea to piss them off. Likewise if your customer is a multinational company that is dangling a $10 million contract in front of you. On the other hand, if your customers are a bunch of amoral twenty-somethings with no respect for other people's work, I'll take my chances with the lawsuits.
If musicians want to cut out the middleman by selling CDs directly on their website, more power to them. But I haven't heard of anyone making money doing this so far. (At least among unknown musicians... I heard Prince was planning to do this.)
I normally don't reply to people who start their messages with "I know you're trolling, but...". If you are going to call me a troll, then WTF are you doing replying?
Anyway, there are lots of errors in your logic:
1. I didn't say I admired the RIAA in general, just in this respect.
2. Carriage manufacturers? Typewriters? (You forgot the omnipresent buggy whip makers!) The fact is, music is the product and music is not obsolete. Even if you were to claim that CDs were obsolete (which in itself is ridiculous), that doesn't make the music any less valuable.
3. There is a huge risk in assuming that just because something has always happened in the past, it will still work that way in the future. Because when you measure the system and change your strategy based on that, you also influence the system. It's like a Heisenberg uncertainty principle for game theory.
This is a very important factor that is much too subtle to be discussed at length on/. The fact is, innovation and creativity are often correlated with new jobs for many reasons. E.g. because the innovators were trying to make money, because of new laws and regulations, etc.
4. You so often hear about the VCR and how it benefited the music industry. Maybe it did, but only as a side effect. They would been perfectly happy with a video cassette *player* that didn't record. As I recall, the recording industry was not opposed to one innovation in music delivery: CDs. The recording industry trumpeted CDs because they couldn't easily be pirated (at that quality).
The RIAA has the same problem as you. They think of downloading songs as the equivalent of stealing cars. Apples and oranges. File sharing can be made to work for the record industry. There is no way to make auto theft profitable for the auto industry. If the record industry is willing to make some heavy changes to their business model they will survive.
Well let me then suggest that you have the same problem as a lot of/. readers, which is Boolean thinking. So what if they could survive if they make heavy changes to their business model. Do you think bare survival is all they care about?
You say that file sharing can be made to work for the record industry. Fine. That's your opinion (and a pretty common opinion around here). But keep in mind that 5 years ago there were a lot of business cases that were pretty commonly espoused on/. that all turned to shit. Why should the RIAA listen to you.
In the last couple of years, there is a quote that I see in a lot of people's sigs: "It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees." It seems to me that it's like that with companies too. The RIAA may know they are in trouble, but they are not prepared to merely roll over and accept the fact of piracy. They would rather go down fighting. And you know, I kind of admire them for that.
Watterson said he quit because he had become bored with the medium and wanted to try something on a larger scale. So where is it?!?
Watterson also complained about the ridiculous flexibility he had to provide to the syndicators. I.e. The title panel of the Sunday comic couldn't contain anything important because the newspapers had the option to remove it. Ditto for the first 2 frames, which usually contain a pithy joke.
Of course even that wasn't really an issue in the end because his syndicator eventually gave in and allowed him to force newspapers to print the full version. I think that was the catharsis; once he knew he could push the syndicator around, railing against the establishment wasn't fun any more.
I try to make my security tradeoffs consciously and willingly, as much as possible. I don't worry about locking the back door of my house much of the time because I know the risk of burglary is slight.
I guess he's making the informed judgement that readers of BusinessWeek are much more likely to be corporate raiders than cat burglars.
It really wasn't intended to be some sort of insightful analysis-- just an amusing example and a couple of off-hand remarks to illustrate that the RIAA is probably not to be trusted when it comes accurate analysis of the underlying issues.
Maybe that's how you see it. To me, it looks more like "I'm going to post a really shallow analysis, not because I really believe it, but because it got modded up to +5 insightful the last 30 times I saw it posted." In short, it looks like karma whoring.
If you want to post the amusing example, post the amusing example. But no one will see it, since it won't get modded up. That's what's wrong with browsing/. at +5. A lot of moderators give out mod points for advocacy, not for technical accuracy.
Seems to me that you're debate skills are prenatal. Any idiot knows that ad hominem attacks are usually the sign of someone who doesn't actually have a decent rebuttal.
You are right about me not having a decent rebuttal. Your mistake was to make a drastic oversimplification of economics. I.e. X is cooler than Y so X should cost more than Y. (or X cost more to develop). I considered including a rebuttal, but I didn't want to trivialize my point with some ridiculous analogy. How can I correct your mistake without either a) writing a 10 page treatise, or b) making my own drastic oversimplification?
The fact is, economics doesn't work in simple black and white terms. There are many different factors, and if you don't look at all of them, you can easily reach the wrong conclusion. It's not like this point has never been discussed on/. before. Maybe you read at +5 too much or something.
Slashdot Mirror
Tom Stoppard? The British playwright? You sure about that? He doesn't seem to be living in the same solar system as Coulter, let alone another propagandist of the right wing.
No... that doesn't seem right. I think the guy I'm thinking of must be Tom Fitton. If I can find a photo, I could confirm that.
-a
And I truly don't think that "but you listen to the CD more than you watch the movie!" is a valid argument -- or at least that it's very overrated. It doesn't matter, because you don't price many other articles by how much you use them! The TV? Nope. The computer? Nope. Computer Games? Not really. My new sofa? Not really.
The argument is not that the price of something should be based on how much you use it, it's that the price is based on the value and desirability of the object. How much you use a commodity is a factor in determining its value.
CDs may be cheaper to produce than movies, but they also have a greater value. The result of basic market forces is that the music industry faces far heavier competition than the movie industry.
Of course, the hillarious bit is that you're somehow trying to gloss over the fact that a huge percentage of the movie's revenue comes from theatre box office, which by your argument should be considered a huge ripoff. (Here in Canada it typically costs $12 or so to see a movie *once* in the theatre, which is only a couple of dollars less than what you would pay for a CD. On the other hand, you can listen to a CD for free in the music store.)
-a
Certainly not. Everyone, especially Al Franken, knows that only FOX News is "fair and balanced."
Well, FOX news did end up losing the lawsuit, as I recall. (A fact that is often neglected on
-a
If you priced cds at 5 bucks a pop, I would never download another song (aside from learning about a band to subsequently buy.) I walk into a music store, and I WANT to buy thier music. I do. I refuse to because of the prices (except for punk/emo/techno comps that are reasonably priced.)
Yeah, if only capitalism worked that way. If only you could walk into a car dealership and say "Give me that BMW for $10,000 or I'm going to steal it." Unfortunately, in the real world, that's called extortion.
But of course there's a huge distinction between stealing music and stealing cars, right? Because cars are physical objects and because the RIAA is evil. But on the other hand, BMW did use Jewish slave labour in WWII... so what we really need is for a company to manufacture fake BMWs and sell them for $10,000. That way, everybody wins.
BTW, I notice that you aren't willing to pay more than $8 for a CD, but you will gladly compromise your ethics for $15. So either you are underestimating the worth of the song, or your ethics come real cheap.
At least you are willing to admit it's about the money, which is more than most
-a
The problem with CDs is that you usually pay for one song you want to and 15 others you're not interested in. With movie DVD, you just pay for what you want.
Maybe, but there's still a common misconception that CDs are dramatically overpriced because of this.
If a CD which costs $15 has 15 tracks, 5 of which are good, 5 of which are average, and 5 of which are bad, then it's inappropriate to say that the songs are worth $1 each. Maybe the good songs are worth $2, the average songs are worth $1, and the bad songs are worth nothing.
On the other hand, if you claim to like bands that produce CDs with only 1 good song, then my conclusion is that you obviously have bad taste in music.
-a
Wow. That whole article read just like your average /. rant. The Denver Post... fair and balanced? You decide.
-a
He thinks that people don't cheat at golf. Apparently he has never heard of the Mulligan (or the foot wedge for that matter).
It's not just that. He also manages to reduce capitalism down to a 2 paragraph summary and state that that's all there is to it. This interview shows that McNealy is an idealist with his blinders on. Take his opinions with a grain of salt, as he is not living in the real world.
-a
"We own our entire software suite. We can do software indemnification. We don't pay any royalties."
This quote sounds like it came from an employee of SCO--not Sun!
No... SCO would say "We own *your* entire software suite.
-a
Are you guys in the 'States going to have to change your country's description ? Land of the free ?
Keep in mind that the US named themselves "the land of the free" back when slavery and apartheid were in full force, and that they have consistently lagged almost every other Westernized country in granting equal rights.
-a
When did a campaign of "Compassionate Conservatism" become synonomous with "slightly to the left of Darth Vader"?
Bush's entire campaign was a disconnect between hype and reality. "Compassionate Conservatism" was a campaign slogan that sounded good, but Bush never made a real attempt to back it up. (How is a guy who sets a new record with the electric chair a compassionate conservative?) It was fun to watch Bill Maher ridicule the Republican parakeets like Tom Stoppard and Ann Coulter who repeated this tripe on his show.
-a
As usual, the /. crowd is out there whining about the effects of a law before anything has been tested in court. Who knows if the crytal meth guy will actually be convicted, or if the decision will be reversed on appeal. I'm not defending the patriot act here.
/. readers will make a big stink about the fact that trials/lawsuits can even be filed based on them. Any law can be misinterpreted and used to file a bogus lawsuit. But unless the suit actually holds up in court, it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the law. Get back to me when this guy is convicted.
I don't know if it will turn out to have more good or bad effects in the long run. But it does bug me that
-a
It's about time some of the responsibility was shifted to the user. Read the OP. It's called taking *REASONABLE* precautions.
Users should take reasonable precautions to secure their computers. ISPs should be required to take reasonable precautions in policing their networks. And so should P2P network operators.
-a
"It's perfectly relevant, since thousands of
You mean by saying, "They won't provide easy downloads, so I'll download myself, and it's okay?"
In any number of ways. "The RIAA oppresses musicians, so I'm downloading to drive them out of business", "Because they're using an obsolete business model", "Because music isn't property", etc. Most downloaders just want a free lunch. Their excuses are pure rationalization, because you can typically find a hundred similar cases where they reach the opposite conclusion when the outcome doesn't benefit them.
"So isn't it relevant why this market pressure exists?"
Sure. So why does it exist? I personally think the demand for instant gratifiaction exists because modern society is getting accustomed to this in other areas of entertainment.
I disagree. I think the main demand is for free/ultra-cheap music. Instant gratification is just the excuse. Everyone out there advocating pay-per-download seems to be talking about 25 cents per song. Or even if they would pay $1, they only want to download 1 song per album, so the labels end up making much less money.
You seem to point to movies as a medium that doesn't suffer much from piracy because the desire for instant gratification is satisfied. But I disagree. Lots of people pirate movies, just not as many as with music because of the high bandwidth requirements. That will change.
If you want another example of rationalization, look at the war in Iraq. Why was the war so popular? The government told the people they invaded because of WMDs and state-sponsored terrorism, and lots of people believed that. But there were 10 other places that they could have just as easily invaded. So why Iraq? Clearly the oil was the deciding factor, but people bought it anyway.
Personally, I listen mostly to music from decades gone by. I have the albums, I play them. I have little use for any sort of downloading system. But there's a clear demand for it. If the RIAA doesn't fill the demand, things will only get worse.
Well, me too, actually. I still buy an album here and there, though. Mostly from used CD stores. I like a bargain as much as the next guy (but I try to do it legally).
-a
Yes, I do understand rationalization. I try every day to recognize and avoid it. But that's irrelevant. You may note that I didn't say-- or even imply-- that sharing copyrighted music was just.
It's perfectly relevant, since thousands of
It exists because for some reason, a large percentage of the public is able to rationalize the theft of music. As far as I'm concerned, the correct solution to that is lawsuits, not price cutting.
-a
I think maybe you don't understand the concept of "rationalization". Rationalization is when you decide to do something for reason A but you manage to convince yourself that it was for reason B.
/. seems to involve users getting something for free. But getting it for free is always just the tangential point. (It's free as in speech, not free as in beer... I'm downloading music to protest the RIAA... Advertisers shouldn't have the ability to force me to watch adds... etc.)
Every idea advocated on
Well you'll excuse me if I'm a wee bit cynical and I don't take everyone's opinion at face value.
-a
Can't say I've seen any irrefuteable proof that downloading has done any damage to their revenue stream, can you?
Nope...
But keep in mind that that's the same argument that the cigarette companies used: There's no irrefutable proof that cigarettes cause lung cancer. "Irrefutable proof" is a pretty high standard. Meanwhile, there is plenty of convincing evidence that downloading has damaged sales, not to mention common sense.
If anyone were to need "irrefutable proof" to justify their actions, it ought to be the downloaders, since they are the ones breaking the law.
-a
Remember this, which they seem to have forgotten (along with such other notables as Microsoft, etc.): The customer is who pays your bills. Pissing off customers eventually gets your company dead.
You know what... it really depends on who your customers are. If your customer is the mafia, it's probably a bad idea to piss them off. Likewise if your customer is a multinational company that is dangling a $10 million contract in front of you. On the other hand, if your customers are a bunch of amoral twenty-somethings with no respect for other people's work, I'll take my chances with the lawsuits.
If musicians want to cut out the middleman by selling CDs directly on their website, more power to them. But I haven't heard of anyone making money doing this so far. (At least among unknown musicians... I heard Prince was planning to do this.)
-a
I normally don't reply to people who start their messages with "I know you're trolling, but...". If you are going to call me a troll, then WTF are you doing replying?
/. The fact is, innovation and creativity are often correlated with new jobs for many reasons. E.g. because the innovators were trying to make money, because of new laws and regulations, etc.
Anyway, there are lots of errors in your logic:
1. I didn't say I admired the RIAA in general, just in this respect.
2. Carriage manufacturers? Typewriters? (You forgot the omnipresent buggy whip makers!) The fact is, music is the product and music is not obsolete. Even if you were to claim that CDs were obsolete (which in itself is ridiculous), that doesn't make the music any less valuable.
3. There is a huge risk in assuming that just because something has always happened in the past, it will still work that way in the future. Because when you measure the system and change your strategy based on that, you also influence the system. It's like a Heisenberg uncertainty principle for game theory.
This is a very important factor that is much too subtle to be discussed at length on
4. You so often hear about the VCR and how it benefited the music industry. Maybe it did, but only as a side effect. They would been perfectly happy with a video cassette *player* that didn't record. As I recall, the recording industry was not opposed to one innovation in music delivery: CDs. The recording industry trumpeted CDs because they couldn't easily be pirated (at that quality).
-a
The RIAA has the same problem as you. They think of downloading songs as the equivalent of stealing cars. Apples and oranges. File sharing can be made to work for the record industry. There is no way to make auto theft profitable for the auto industry. If the record industry is willing to make some heavy changes to their business model they will survive.
Well let me then suggest that you have the same problem as a lot of
You say that file sharing can be made to work for the record industry. Fine. That's your opinion (and a pretty common opinion around here). But keep in mind that 5 years ago there were a lot of business cases that were pretty commonly espoused on
In the last couple of years, there is a quote that I see in a lot of people's sigs: "It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees." It seems to me that it's like that with companies too. The RIAA may know they are in trouble, but they are not prepared to merely roll over and accept the fact of piracy. They would rather go down fighting. And you know, I kind of admire them for that.
-a
Puppies! They're killing puppies!
-a
Watterson said he quit because he had become bored with the medium and wanted to try something on a larger scale. So where is it?!?
Watterson also complained about the ridiculous flexibility he had to provide to the syndicators. I.e. The title panel of the Sunday comic couldn't contain anything important because the newspapers had the option to remove it. Ditto for the first 2 frames, which usually contain a pithy joke.
Of course even that wasn't really an issue in the end because his syndicator eventually gave in and allowed him to force newspapers to print the full version. I think that was the catharsis; once he knew he could push the syndicator around, railing against the establishment wasn't fun any more.
-a
I try to make my security tradeoffs consciously and willingly, as much as possible. I don't worry about locking the back door of my house much of the time because I know the risk of burglary is slight.
I guess he's making the informed judgement that readers of BusinessWeek are much more likely to be corporate raiders than cat burglars.
-a
If you're looking for pragmatism on /., you've come to the wrong place.
-a
It really wasn't intended to be some sort of insightful analysis-- just an amusing example and a couple of off-hand remarks to illustrate that the RIAA is probably not to be trusted when it comes accurate analysis of the underlying issues.
Maybe that's how you see it. To me, it looks more like "I'm going to post a really shallow analysis, not because I really believe it, but because it got modded up to +5 insightful the last 30 times I saw it posted." In short, it looks like karma whoring.
If you want to post the amusing example, post the amusing example. But no one will see it, since it won't get modded up. That's what's wrong with browsing
-a
Seems to me that you're debate skills are prenatal. Any idiot knows that ad hominem attacks are usually the sign of someone who doesn't actually have a decent rebuttal.
You are right about me not having a decent rebuttal. Your mistake was to make a drastic oversimplification of economics. I.e. X is cooler than Y so X should cost more than Y. (or X cost more to develop). I considered including a rebuttal, but I didn't want to trivialize my point with some ridiculous analogy. How can I correct your mistake without either a) writing a 10 page treatise, or b) making my own drastic oversimplification?
The fact is, economics doesn't work in simple black and white terms. There are many different factors, and if you don't look at all of them, you can easily reach the wrong conclusion. It's not like this point has never been discussed on
-a