The right level is one that serves the needs of the city; enough for the passengers, not so many that they cause congestion; not so many that the drivers are impoverished. These problems happen in cities where there is no taxi regulation.
The random level that a free market finds doesn't serve anyone except possibly by chance.
Sometimes. But commonly not. Usually they are inferior look-alikes. Purses are make with fake, or at least inferior leather, and only single stiched, so they fall apart within a few months. Watches come with digital rather than mechanical mechanisms, and cheap eletro-plating that wears off.
As both a developer and customer, I can assure you that apps are vetted. Despite this article claiming "scam" it doesn't appear to break any rules. It's just not worth the money. And Apple specifically don't set the prices.
I buy from the App Store if the App I want is available there because I'm guaranteed a refund if the app does not meet expectations. That is not true if you buy an app directly.
And because I can be pretty sure the app is not malware. The level of vetting, and the sandbox pretty much ensure that.
People aren't rubes because some asshole on Slashdot with no experience of the topic says they are.
Vetting, yes. Curating, no. Well they curate a "featured" section, but needless to say this piece of shit isn't featured.
It's not malware. It explicitly says in the description that it's not produced by, endorsed by or affiliated with Microsoft. If someone wants to sell an app which consists of little more than a bundle of templates, they can. Nor does Apple set or approve prices.
However, there is a ratings and reviews section, and in the UK Store, this has 5 one-star ratings with reviews that advise not buying it. And if people miss that, Apple has a refunds policy. Explain that the app is not what you expected and you'll get a full refund.
I already made the argument in the opening post, including predicting disagreement by free marketers. There's nothing more to say other than what I already did.
There's a reasonable argument that there's a right number of Taxis. Too few and people don't get a proper service. Too many and there's congestion. Too many empty taxis waiting round.
Free marketers would say that the market would find the right level. But that's religion, not reality. A free market finds A level, not necessarily the right level. A free market would normally end up with too many taxis, and poverty wages as they all compete for few jobs at low rates. You can see that happening in parts of the world where they are not regulated.
With regulation, you make sure there aren't too many taxis by limiting the badges. And you make sure there are not too few, by setting what the rates are.
Having said that I think the app based model offers a lot of advantages. But they should be accepted within the regulated system, not operate outside of it.
Apple Reality Distortion Field? Funny, it used to be the Jobs Reality Distortion Field that was the theory used by people who don't know why Apple is so successful. It seems Jobs' death didn't kill the theory. You just changed the theory to cope with the fact that Apple hasn't failed after Jobs death as you thought it would.
Brands are not constructed from "mystique", whatever that is. Brands are a reputation for quality.
Unknown brands have no reputation, so they have to discount to sell volume. Either that or satisfy themselves with small sales. Brands with a reputation for poor quality may save themselves by discounting, but they're probably on the way out. Brands that have a reputation for acceptable and predictable quality change market prices. Brands that are able to charge premium prices only get to that position from many years of producing high-quality products.
Apple can charge what it does because many of the purchasers have had Apple products before and want another. And then there's the new customers who've learned of Apple's quality through word of mouth.
A proportion of the power from superchargers comes from the grid. That's not free. Nor is the ground the supercharger is built on free. Nor are the superchargers themselves free.
Covering costs in order that they can build yet more superchargers is not the same thing as making a profit.
Given I'm in my 50s, it's not me that doesn't understand the world because of inexperience. It's the stupid AC. He can't even guess someone's approximate age.
Not all superchargers have solar cell arrays, and even those that do only get a proportion of their power from them. Apart from anything else, there's not much solar power available at night.
You don't understand Musk. He's already made the big fortune that gives him everything me might desire for the rest of his life. Many billionaire's can't turn that off though, and keep seeking to make more and more money. Not Musk. Musk is motivated by changing the world. That's why he's doing Tesla and Space X and the rest.
He's already given away his patent rights on all technology in the superchargers, free for any competitor. That is not the action of a man with a plan to make money from superchargers.
Nope. You've certainly got the wrong end of the stick. The total industry profits are calculated by adding up each individual company profits. Individual company profits are not taken FROM the industry total. There is no limit on what each company can make in profit. The sky is the limit.
Slashdot Mirror
But muh android freedumz...
The right level is one that serves the needs of the city; enough for the passengers, not so many that they cause congestion; not so many that the drivers are impoverished. These problems happen in cities where there is no taxi regulation.
The random level that a free market finds doesn't serve anyone except possibly by chance.
The app doesn't appear to be infringing.
As a developer who produces apps featuring well known brands. We've been challenged before now to prove we're authorised. Which we do.
Sometimes. But commonly not. Usually they are inferior look-alikes. Purses are make with fake, or at least inferior leather, and only single stiched, so they fall apart within a few months. Watches come with digital rather than mechanical mechanisms, and cheap eletro-plating that wears off.
As both a developer and customer, I can assure you that apps are vetted. Despite this article claiming "scam" it doesn't appear to break any rules. It's just not worth the money. And Apple specifically don't set the prices.
I buy from the App Store if the App I want is available there because I'm guaranteed a refund if the app does not meet expectations. That is not true if you buy an app directly.
And because I can be pretty sure the app is not malware. The level of vetting, and the sandbox pretty much ensure that.
People aren't rubes because some asshole on Slashdot with no experience of the topic says they are.
Vetting, yes. Curating, no. Well they curate a "featured" section, but needless to say this piece of shit isn't featured.
It's not malware. It explicitly says in the description that it's not produced by, endorsed by or affiliated with Microsoft. If someone wants to sell an app which consists of little more than a bundle of templates, they can. Nor does Apple set or approve prices.
However, there is a ratings and reviews section, and in the UK Store, this has 5 one-star ratings with reviews that advise not buying it. And if people miss that, Apple has a refunds policy. Explain that the app is not what you expected and you'll get a full refund.
I already made the argument in the opening post, including predicting disagreement by free marketers. There's nothing more to say other than what I already did.
...nor 2 free market religionists.
No surprise that a free marketer would comment to say what I suggested they would say. Confident that their religion is right.
There's a reasonable argument that there's a right number of Taxis. Too few and people don't get a proper service. Too many and there's congestion. Too many empty taxis waiting round.
Free marketers would say that the market would find the right level. But that's religion, not reality. A free market finds A level, not necessarily the right level. A free market would normally end up with too many taxis, and poverty wages as they all compete for few jobs at low rates. You can see that happening in parts of the world where they are not regulated.
With regulation, you make sure there aren't too many taxis by limiting the badges. And you make sure there are not too few, by setting what the rates are.
Having said that I think the app based model offers a lot of advantages. But they should be accepted within the regulated system, not operate outside of it.
Alt-right is pretty much The Tea Party after the Koch brothers stopped funding Tea Party events, and they reverted to being an internet fringe.
Apparently, the reliability of mobile phones is now measured by how often Pokemon Go Android crashes vs Pokemon Go iOS.
Braindead.
Your stereotypes are way out of date.
"The average factory worker in China earns $27.50 per day, compared with $8.60 in Indonesia and $6.70 in Vietnam. "
http://www.economist.com/news/...
Apple Reality Distortion Field? Funny, it used to be the Jobs Reality Distortion Field that was the theory used by people who don't know why Apple is so successful. It seems Jobs' death didn't kill the theory. You just changed the theory to cope with the fact that Apple hasn't failed after Jobs death as you thought it would.
Brands are not constructed from "mystique", whatever that is. Brands are a reputation for quality.
Unknown brands have no reputation, so they have to discount to sell volume. Either that or satisfy themselves with small sales.
Brands with a reputation for poor quality may save themselves by discounting, but they're probably on the way out.
Brands that have a reputation for acceptable and predictable quality change market prices.
Brands that are able to charge premium prices only get to that position from many years of producing high-quality products.
Apple can charge what it does because many of the purchasers have had Apple products before and want another. And then there's the new customers who've learned of Apple's quality through word of mouth.
A proportion of the power from superchargers comes from the grid. That's not free. Nor is the ground the supercharger is built on free. Nor are the superchargers themselves free.
Covering costs in order that they can build yet more superchargers is not the same thing as making a profit.
Given I'm in my 50s, it's not me that doesn't understand the world because of inexperience. It's the stupid AC. He can't even guess someone's approximate age.
Not all superchargers have solar cell arrays, and even those that do only get a proportion of their power from them. Apart from anything else, there's not much solar power available at night.
You don't understand Musk. He's already made the big fortune that gives him everything me might desire for the rest of his life. Many billionaire's can't turn that off though, and keep seeking to make more and more money. Not Musk. Musk is motivated by changing the world. That's why he's doing Tesla and Space X and the rest.
He's already given away his patent rights on all technology in the superchargers, free for any competitor. That is not the action of a man with a plan to make money from superchargers.
For a long road trip, it is the only source of energy.
No it's not. The first 240-310 miles will probably be done with power from a home charge. That's likely to be a high percentage of most long trips.
Nope. You've certainly got the wrong end of the stick. The total industry profits are calculated by adding up each individual company profits. Individual company profits are not taken FROM the industry total. There is no limit on what each company can make in profit. The sky is the limit.
Someone was certainly bleating. You.
I think Android counts for more than 85% of smartphone sales now, more like 99%.
You think wrong. Latest is 87.5%.
Personally, most to the people I see in my city have iPhones. But there are more poor countries and poor people in the world than rich.
http://qz.com/826672/android-g...
Would it make sense if there were losers and winners such that Apple had 99% of the profits of the industry?
It's 50% warmer today in Australia than it is in Britain. These are independent facts. But the comparison is still interesting.
(Made up fact.)