An advertised no-haggle fixed price is "transparent" only in the sense that I can compare to other vendors for the same item. It is not "transparent" in the sense of avoiding being ripped off.
I've explained what transparency means over and over again. Transparent pricing does mean you can avoid being ripped off, because other than in an illegal cartel, if an industry is grossly overcharging, someone else will come along and see the opportunity to undercut them.
Indeed that's the very reason that dealerships have restrictive practices, both in their contracts with the car dealers, and where possible in legislation. To try to stop other companies undercutting them.
Note I didn't say that you can't be ripped off with transparent pricing. Of course you can if you don't look at the competitor's pricing. My point is that it gives you the information to avoid being ripped off.
And not you can and probably will be ripped off with non-transparent pricing even if you haggle. Because it's an unfair fight, and you never know the real price.
And there *IS* a real price. When the car salesman says he's going to check with the manager if he can get you a special discount, it's just bullshit. There is a hard and fast price minimum price that they will sell at. The salesman knows it and you don't.
And don't say that you also have your price. It's not symmetrical. The dealer has to pay the manufacturer a certain price for that car, and that plus a profit margin makes for a hard price. There is no such hard price on the buyers side, other than one they set themselves, and from which they are usually swayed. They have facts, you have gut feel or emotion.
Every car I've ever bought has a sticker price right there on the window, and you don't have to haggle. If I was inclined to think that price was reasonable, I'm *certain* the dealership would be happy to sell the car for the price as written on that tag stuck to the window. And the MSRP is advertised endlessly for cars. It's as transparent as any price posted anywhere else for any other goods, if "transparent" means posted for public viewing as the price you can purchase the goods for.
I'm fine with us having a difference of opinion. But I'm getting bored of having to repeat myself over and over again as you ignore what I've said.
Again, from sentence 2 and 3 of the very post you are replying to: "I didn't say any price is acceptable so long as its transparent. I said transparency allows proper price competition."
As you yourself clearly know the sticker price is not what the dealer expects to do the deal for, and they won't tell you the price they expect to do the deal for without a couple of hours argument. That is not transparency, and no matter how you keep trying to reframe it, it can never be transparency.
Furthermore, if you think you can just pay the sticker price without any haggling you have vastly underestimated dealers. Take the sticker price, and then they add on a bunch of other charges that they say weren't included in the price. Delivery charge, keys, number plate etc. Or they'll play the trick of saying that the particular car you want is unavailable for some reason, but you can have this other one that's got a couple of extra options, for only an extra...
There is no way of buying a car from a dealer without haggling, even if you were prepared to pay sticker price.
I've gotten 10% off a large order at Pizza Hut
Right. So you're someone who enjoys haggling, as some sort of sport. Most people would prefer transparent pricing. And in the internet age it's inevitable that they are going to get it. Protectionist laws for car dealers can only resist the changes in the world for so long.
Perhaps an app dev can answer one question: If I install with a particular permission set, but an optional feature some users might want would require an additional permission, could I not prompt the user for that permission when they want to enable the optional feature? If this is possible, not doing it is not excusable on behalf of the App Devs. If it isn't possible, it is not excusable on the Android Devs part.
It's not possible on Android.
On iOS it's the way it always works. You are only asked for a given permission at the time the app tries to do the privileged thing.
As for not caring about McD's prices, that's probably because you understand at some level that McDs is probably not a high markup situation, where volume is preferred over optimizing per-customer pricing. And you probably have an understanding of the price of the raw materials and labor: you know you could go the store, buy ground meat, buns, condiments, and make your own burger for less, but not *that* much less. And again, the sticker price falls within your tolerance level. If McD's started selling a Big Mac for $22 sticker price, you probably would be unwilling to buy it even though the price is "transparent" what with being right there on the big board and all and with store personnel absolutely unwilling to sell for less.
What are you finding so complicated? I didn't say any price is acceptable so long as its transparent. I said transparency allows proper price competition. So if McDonalds price up a Big mac at $22, I don't have to waste time haggling, I just go and get a burger elsewhere, or maybe a pizza. Somewhere else that's offering a more reasonable and equally transparent price.
The car dealerships on the other hand conspire to all do secret real prices, and sticker false prices, such that proper price competition is impossible and furthermore competition in a number of jurisdictions appears to be limited by protectionist laws. (As evidenced by restrictions on Tesla selling direct.)
There is nothing normal about it. It's a clusterfuck. It's not the same as other retail situations.
If you think the opportunity to haggle is a good thing, then you're mistaken. Haggling only comes up as a chance to not get ripped off as badly as they were going to rip you off. But you'll never know who badly you were ripped off even if you did haggle. Only proper transparent pricing allows you the opportunity to be sure you're not being ripped off.
I don't need to know what McD's mark up is, because their prices are clearly displayed, as are the prices at all the other fast food joints, so it's a healthy market* with proper price competition.
(* even if the product is unhealthy.)
As to Best Buy, I don't know them, as I'm not American. But I've been told that it's similar to Dixon's, a UK electronics retail brand that was in every city for decades, but was closed down a couple of years ago. The high markup on sticker prices was no longer possible when the Internet had given people a better way to find competitive prices. I understand Best Buy is also on it's way out.
Furniture, for sure it was traditionally a lesser version of the car dealer situation. Not only with haggling, but forever advertising fake "Sales". And they too are finding things hard going in recent years against IKEA, who offer proper transparent pricing, and don't pretend to have sales when they are not.
The true price is a number that both parties agree upon. For a seller, of anything, it is in their best interest to sell at as high a price as they can without alienating customers. For a buyer, it is in their best interest to pay as little as they can. For any item being bought/sold, there exists a range of numbers at which both parties find the price to by acceptable and the transaction made.
This is simply not true for the vast majority of retail situations. In almost all cases there is a sticker price that is what you pay. You can easily compare different stores for price and choose the cheapest, or accept a higher price because you prefer the store for some reason.
I spelt out the issue in my first paragraph, The issue is transparency.
Most people don't enjoy haggling, and even if they do the battle is never equally matched. The salesman does this every day, and knows the financial facts: the cost price of the car from the manufacturer. And he's trained to lie, which means he has an unfair advantage over honest people.
The requirement to haggle to get a fair price for a new product is simply unacceptable.
Haggling has its place - for one off or second hand items, where there is no basis for price. But retail reseller haggling is for sharks and charletans. A true and healthy consumer market requires price competition via transparent pricing.
Just like the local Mickey D / Culvers / gas station owners / whatever franchise owner is a leach?
They are transparent. The price of a Big Mac is advertised at the store, and that's the price you pay. The price can vary by location, but can see that up front and decide.
Every car dealership starts with a lie. The sticker price is not what you pay. You have to talk to a liar for hours to get the true price. Even then, you can't be sure you got down to the true price. Which means that true price competition can't operate.
Customers test drive and look at the cars at a dealership and then buy them from the non-dealerships. And then probably try to get support from the dealerships.
This is not an issue with regard to Tesla. There are no dealerships, so the only company you can get test drives from is Tesla themselves.
Likewise support and service comes from Tesla. I believe they use local third parties in some cases to deliver their service. But it's Tesla themselves that you are dealing with.
Altogether a far better experience than scummy dealerships.
People can already use the Amazon app to buy stuff on their mobiles. So the Amazon phone is about more than that. Perhaps like Google they want to spy on you so they can advertise to you.
And most ordinary users that use Android are doing so because they are cheap, or they are the phone that the salesman at the store pushed at them. They aren't doing it because they think they have access to multiple app stores. Of the Android minority that ever download an app, most of them will never go outside Google Play.
Sounds more like a feature than a bug. Do device "owners" really want phones that "accept only applications approved by the company".
On phones, yes. Phone users don't want their data compromised, or to end up being scammed for money. The thought that they are limited to one store doesn't even register as an issue. In fact they mostly like the idea of a single store where they can find every app.
The Slashdot user's ideas of free software come from a RMS. Ordinary people have never heard of him let alone care what he thinks.
So you are saying that there is no economically viable electric or electric hybrid that meets my needs and yet there are no problems?
To be honest I don't know. I'm from the UK and we don't go in for pickup trucks here very much. I seemed to remember Musk said something about developing a pickup-truck so I was searching for that, and this link turned up.
For me, like many here, I only ever buy small cars, so a leaf fine for size and utility. Haven't bought an EV yet, but that's only because I'm not ready to buy a new car. I'll be looking at EVs when the time comes though.
You've stated your opinion. And it's an irresponsible one. Obviously you won't change your mind. But it's people like you that cause accidents. I sincerely hope you are caught texting and are fined.
For the year of 2013, App Store sales totalled $10 billion. That's a lot of money. The interesting question is how many people it's shared between. There were around a million apps. So a pure average gives $10,000 per app. And whilst that's per year, apps take most of their money whilst they are new. But wait, it's far more complicated than that.
First of all those million apps include old apps that date back to every year from 2008. They don't sell significantly, but they lower the headline average.
It includes all the free apps, that are not intended to make any money from the app store: Apps that companies and organisations commission to promote their business, but don't get any direct app store revenue. But this doesn't mean the developers don't get paid - they are usually paid consulting rates - though sometimes they are employees.
It includes all the hobbyist apps. It includes people who think they are professional but aren't (If you don't pay for a designer, and aren't spending money on marketing, it's not professional.)
Now what platform do you compare it with? On Linux, there are employees of big tech firms that earn salaries. But virtually all the independent developers earn nothing. People expect free on Linux.
On Windows there's a big market, But it's largely dominated by software companies. As a programmer you're earning salary. Independant development is hard - you need to run your own store, and most copies of your software will be pirated. Then there's a hell of a lot of free stuff again. Exactly the kind of stuff that lowers the average on iOS.
I know you phrased it as "any of the mobile platforms", and so you;re aware there's not much money to be made on Android. But for the sake of completeness: Android users expect free apps to a far greater extend than iOS users, so indie developers have a hard time. And companies and organisations commission free iOS apps before Android apps and often only iOS apps. So the consultancy opportunities are less too.
So how to judge all this? Well on the one hand it's the impression I get from job listings. iOS is the hot development area, and salaries are good. And secondly it's the knowledge of individual indie developers on the app store - those that take it seriously, employ designers and actively market their apps - I know people who are doing this, and they make very good money.
And not all driving is equal in terms of concentration.. an empty, straight away stretch of road is probably fine for sending a quick text or whatever you need to do
And there you proved that you are not a responsible adult and so your opinion is worthless.
Odd that you don't mention what your car is. I'm not doubting you, but it seems a little odd.
Oh and a word of warning, since you appear to be British, and you're quoting a US link, and may be making comparisons with US figures. UK MPG and American MPG is not the same thing.
OK this is a niche adaption of a production vehicle. And it's no doubt very expensive. But it shows that you are not highlighting any fundamental problems.
Slashdot Mirror
An advertised no-haggle fixed price is "transparent" only in the sense that I can compare to other vendors for the same item. It is not "transparent" in the sense of avoiding being ripped off.
I've explained what transparency means over and over again. Transparent pricing does mean you can avoid being ripped off, because other than in an illegal cartel, if an industry is grossly overcharging, someone else will come along and see the opportunity to undercut them.
Indeed that's the very reason that dealerships have restrictive practices, both in their contracts with the car dealers, and where possible in legislation. To try to stop other companies undercutting them.
Note I didn't say that you can't be ripped off with transparent pricing. Of course you can if you don't look at the competitor's pricing. My point is that it gives you the information to avoid being ripped off.
And not you can and probably will be ripped off with non-transparent pricing even if you haggle. Because it's an unfair fight, and you never know the real price.
And there *IS* a real price. When the car salesman says he's going to check with the manager if he can get you a special discount, it's just bullshit. There is a hard and fast price minimum price that they will sell at. The salesman knows it and you don't.
And don't say that you also have your price. It's not symmetrical. The dealer has to pay the manufacturer a certain price for that car, and that plus a profit margin makes for a hard price. There is no such hard price on the buyers side, other than one they set themselves, and from which they are usually swayed. They have facts, you have gut feel or emotion.
Every car I've ever bought has a sticker price right there on the window, and you don't have to haggle. If I was inclined to think that price was reasonable, I'm *certain* the dealership would be happy to sell the car for the price as written on that tag stuck to the window. And the MSRP is advertised endlessly for cars. It's as transparent as any price posted anywhere else for any other goods, if "transparent" means posted for public viewing as the price you can purchase the goods for.
I'm fine with us having a difference of opinion. But I'm getting bored of having to repeat myself over and over again as you ignore what I've said.
Again, from sentence 2 and 3 of the very post you are replying to: "I didn't say any price is acceptable so long as its transparent. I said transparency allows proper price competition."
As you yourself clearly know the sticker price is not what the dealer expects to do the deal for, and they won't tell you the price they expect to do the deal for without a couple of hours argument. That is not transparency, and no matter how you keep trying to reframe it, it can never be transparency.
Furthermore, if you think you can just pay the sticker price without any haggling you have vastly underestimated dealers. Take the sticker price, and then they add on a bunch of other charges that they say weren't included in the price. Delivery charge, keys, number plate etc. Or they'll play the trick of saying that the particular car you want is unavailable for some reason, but you can have this other one that's got a couple of extra options, for only an extra...
There is no way of buying a car from a dealer without haggling, even if you were prepared to pay sticker price.
I've gotten 10% off a large order at Pizza Hut
Right. So you're someone who enjoys haggling, as some sort of sport. Most people would prefer transparent pricing. And in the internet age it's inevitable that they are going to get it. Protectionist laws for car dealers can only resist the changes in the world for so long.
Oh look, your message got modded down to -1 troll.
Perhaps an app dev can answer one question: If I install with a particular permission set, but an optional feature some users might want would require an additional permission, could I not prompt the user for that permission when they want to enable the optional feature? If this is possible, not doing it is not excusable on behalf of the App Devs. If it isn't possible, it is not excusable on the Android Devs part.
It's not possible on Android.
On iOS it's the way it always works. You are only asked for a given permission at the time the app tries to do the privileged thing.
Well of course they've taken the malware down now. Duh!
As for not caring about McD's prices, that's probably because you understand at some level that McDs is probably not a high markup situation, where volume is preferred over optimizing per-customer pricing. And you probably have an understanding of the price of the raw materials and labor: you know you could go the store, buy ground meat, buns, condiments, and make your own burger for less, but not *that* much less. And again, the sticker price falls within your tolerance level. If McD's started selling a Big Mac for $22 sticker price, you probably would be unwilling to buy it even though the price is "transparent" what with being right there on the big board and all and with store personnel absolutely unwilling to sell for less.
What are you finding so complicated? I didn't say any price is acceptable so long as its transparent. I said transparency allows proper price competition. So if McDonalds price up a Big mac at $22, I don't have to waste time haggling, I just go and get a burger elsewhere, or maybe a pizza. Somewhere else that's offering a more reasonable and equally transparent price.
The car dealerships on the other hand conspire to all do secret real prices, and sticker false prices, such that proper price competition is impossible and furthermore competition in a number of jurisdictions appears to be limited by protectionist laws. (As evidenced by restrictions on Tesla selling direct.)
There is nothing normal about it. It's a clusterfuck. It's not the same as other retail situations.
If you think the opportunity to haggle is a good thing, then you're mistaken. Haggling only comes up as a chance to not get ripped off as badly as they were going to rip you off. But you'll never know who badly you were ripped off even if you did haggle. Only proper transparent pricing allows you the opportunity to be sure you're not being ripped off.
TFA (Which the editor neglected to post) says it came from the official Google Play store.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/malwa...
I don't need to know what McD's mark up is, because their prices are clearly displayed, as are the prices at all the other fast food joints, so it's a healthy market* with proper price competition.
(* even if the product is unhealthy.)
As to Best Buy, I don't know them, as I'm not American. But I've been told that it's similar to Dixon's, a UK electronics retail brand that was in every city for decades, but was closed down a couple of years ago. The high markup on sticker prices was no longer possible when the Internet had given people a better way to find competitive prices. I understand Best Buy is also on it's way out.
Furniture, for sure it was traditionally a lesser version of the car dealer situation. Not only with haggling, but forever advertising fake "Sales". And they too are finding things hard going in recent years against IKEA, who offer proper transparent pricing, and don't pretend to have sales when they are not.
The true price is a number that both parties agree upon. For a seller, of anything, it is in their best interest to sell at as high a price as they can without alienating customers. For a buyer, it is in their best interest to pay as little as they can. For any item being bought/sold, there exists a range of numbers at which both parties find the price to by acceptable and the transaction made.
This is simply not true for the vast majority of retail situations. In almost all cases there is a sticker price that is what you pay. You can easily compare different stores for price and choose the cheapest, or accept a higher price because you prefer the store for some reason.
I spelt out the issue in my first paragraph, The issue is transparency.
Most people don't enjoy haggling, and even if they do the battle is never equally matched. The salesman does this every day, and knows the financial facts: the cost price of the car from the manufacturer. And he's trained to lie, which means he has an unfair advantage over honest people.
The requirement to haggle to get a fair price for a new product is simply unacceptable.
Haggling has its place - for one off or second hand items, where there is no basis for price. But retail reseller haggling is for sharks and charletans. A true and healthy consumer market requires price competition via transparent pricing.
So blame the user rather than the Google Play store for listing the app?
Apple manages to keen their app store malware free, why can't Google?
Just like the local Mickey D / Culvers / gas station owners / whatever franchise owner is a leach?
They are transparent. The price of a Big Mac is advertised at the store, and that's the price you pay. The price can vary by location, but can see that up front and decide.
Every car dealership starts with a lie. The sticker price is not what you pay. You have to talk to a liar for hours to get the true price. Even then, you can't be sure you got down to the true price. Which means that true price competition can't operate.
Customers test drive and look at the cars at a dealership and then buy them from the non-dealerships. And then probably try to get support from the dealerships.
This is not an issue with regard to Tesla. There are no dealerships, so the only company you can get test drives from is Tesla themselves.
Likewise support and service comes from Tesla. I believe they use local third parties in some cases to deliver their service. But it's Tesla themselves that you are dealing with.
Altogether a far better experience than scummy dealerships.
People can already use the Amazon app to buy stuff on their mobiles. So the Amazon phone is about more than that. Perhaps like Google they want to spy on you so they can advertise to you.
And most ordinary users that use Android are doing so because they are cheap, or they are the phone that the salesman at the store pushed at them. They aren't doing it because they think they have access to multiple app stores. Of the Android minority that ever download an app, most of them will never go outside Google Play.
Sounds more like a feature than a bug. Do device "owners" really want phones that "accept only applications approved by the company".
On phones, yes. Phone users don't want their data compromised, or to end up being scammed for money. The thought that they are limited to one store doesn't even register as an issue. In fact they mostly like the idea of a single store where they can find every app.
The Slashdot user's ideas of free software come from a RMS. Ordinary people have never heard of him let alone care what he thinks.
Apple TV:
800mW standby.
1.9 W In use.
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/re...
Apple TV benefits from all the power efficiency work that goes into iOS and Apple mobile devices.
Did you sleep for a year and not hear of Edward Snowden?
Note the difference between critiquing a creation and critiquing a (creative) person or their process.
Analogy: A non programmer can have a valid opinion on an app. But not on the programmer who coded it.
So you are saying that there is no economically viable electric or electric hybrid that meets my needs and yet there are no problems?
To be honest I don't know. I'm from the UK and we don't go in for pickup trucks here very much. I seemed to remember Musk said something about developing a pickup-truck so I was searching for that, and this link turned up.
For me, like many here, I only ever buy small cars, so a leaf fine for size and utility. Haven't bought an EV yet, but that's only because I'm not ready to buy a new car. I'll be looking at EVs when the time comes though.
You've stated your opinion. And it's an irresponsible one. Obviously you won't change your mind. But it's people like you that cause accidents. I sincerely hope you are caught texting and are fined.
For the year of 2013, App Store sales totalled $10 billion. That's a lot of money. The interesting question is how many people it's shared between. There were around a million apps. So a pure average gives $10,000 per app. And whilst that's per year, apps take most of their money whilst they are new. But wait, it's far more complicated than that.
First of all those million apps include old apps that date back to every year from 2008. They don't sell significantly, but they lower the headline average.
It includes all the free apps, that are not intended to make any money from the app store: Apps that companies and organisations commission to promote their business, but don't get any direct app store revenue. But this doesn't mean the developers don't get paid - they are usually paid consulting rates - though sometimes they are employees.
It includes all the hobbyist apps. It includes people who think they are professional but aren't (If you don't pay for a designer, and aren't spending money on marketing, it's not professional.)
Now what platform do you compare it with? On Linux, there are employees of big tech firms that earn salaries. But virtually all the independent developers earn nothing. People expect free on Linux.
On Windows there's a big market, But it's largely dominated by software companies. As a programmer you're earning salary. Independant development is hard - you need to run your own store, and most copies of your software will be pirated. Then there's a hell of a lot of free stuff again. Exactly the kind of stuff that lowers the average on iOS.
I know you phrased it as "any of the mobile platforms", and so you;re aware there's not much money to be made on Android. But for the sake of completeness: Android users expect free apps to a far greater extend than iOS users, so indie developers have a hard time. And companies and organisations commission free iOS apps before Android apps and often only iOS apps. So the consultancy opportunities are less too.
So how to judge all this? Well on the one hand it's the impression I get from job listings. iOS is the hot development area, and salaries are good. And secondly it's the knowledge of individual indie developers on the app store - those that take it seriously, employ designers and actively market their apps - I know people who are doing this, and they make very good money.
Read the fucking thread. Pay attention to what I said.
And not all driving is equal in terms of concentration.. an empty, straight away stretch of road is probably fine for sending a quick text or whatever you need to do
And there you proved that you are not a responsible adult and so your opinion is worthless.
Odd that you don't mention what your car is. I'm not doubting you, but it seems a little odd.
Oh and a word of warning, since you appear to be British, and you're quoting a US link, and may be making comparisons with US figures. UK MPG and American MPG is not the same thing.
All your issues are solved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
OK this is a niche adaption of a production vehicle. And it's no doubt very expensive. But it shows that you are not highlighting any fundamental problems.