I think your first couple comments highlight what I was trying to say; I'll have to work on my wording. You state that "absent the $0 option, they were willing to pay" which is my point; the assumptions change as soon as you introduce the other option. I won't belabor that idea though.
I'm also not sure I agree with your statement that you always have a market, even if the population is zero. This could be pedantic, but if the "market" is zero interested parties, then I'd argue that there is no market.
I agree that you should have the rights to control the distribution of what you produce, assuming people are interested in the product/service. I also agree that this needs to be done within the construct of currently established laws (see my original post on this matter, the last paragraph). I would say, though, that some methods of controlling distribution are of more merit than others.
As far as the GPL or BSD licenses: While I don't know that I would personally use those licenses, I support them as the copyright holders (within our current legal system) should be able to pick whatever distribution scheme they desire. As such, I respect the terms of those licenses and would support them in that sense. However, I find the GPL and BSD slightly awkward in that they do not grant complete freedom with the code; they put restrictions on it. For a license to be completely free, it would have to be something like "you can do whatever you want with this except keep other people from doing whatever they want with this." My biggest hesitation with the GPL is with the concept of what constitutes a derivative work; I'm not familiar with the BSD license though so I can't speak to that. For instance, if I use some GPL library in my application, I don't consider my application to be derived from it; I could plug in any other functionally equivalent piece of code instead. If, however, I extend the functionality of that library or modify the library code, that is definitely a derivative work. I'm sure there is grey area in the middle, and I know there's philosophical arguments all over the spectrum. The way I see it there is a difference between "derived from" and "relies upon". So, in short, while I support the GPL, I don't agree with it. Again, that's probably pedantic with the semantics, but I want to make the distinction clear.
I could talk more on this, but I think that answers most of your questions.
aaronl has the right idea here; his example is demand-based (the market is willing to bear $50) where your example is supply-based (I need to get $1m to break even). Generally the type of product/service you're offering determines if you have to base things on breakeven cost or profit maximization. The thing that nobody really knows, and at which they must guess, is the slope of the demand curve. In aaronl's example, a 40% price reduction ($50 down to $30) only yielded a 28.5% increase in volume sales (350k to 450k). This means you wouldn't lower the price. However, if a 10% price drop yields greater than 10% volume increase, you would drop the price (overall increase in profit). Sometimes you can actually gain profit by raisingprices - like is happening with all the oil companies (a 10% rise in price sure doesn't produce a 10% drop in demand); if you look at the profits for the oil companies last year they made a killing.
Your example is very appropriate for the situation: the company set their price at $1 hoping to get 1 million customers, but they only got 800k instead. The reason is that, for their price point, some other product beat theirs out (in this case, $0 with a slight chance of legal action). The question is, if they lowered their price to $0.90, could they get 1.1 million customers to make their $1 M requirement? I'd say that, given your example, the market for their product at $1 is only 800k; the other 200k folks wanted the item but weren't willing to pay that price so they went to a distributor with lower cost (the "risk" of getting caught with an illegal copy). As I mentioned above, it's really two products: the software with no legal consequences for $1, or the software with a low chance of legal consequences for $0.
The companies are looking at it like they didn't get what they were due, when it was really that they forecasted demand incorrectly at the price point they picked. The thing is, there is no magic formula that guarantees what your sales volume will be based on price. You can guess, but "past performance is not an indicator of future performance."
I think people forget that demand curves aren't just a function of the price of a given product, but also the prices of alternatives to that product. With "downloadable" products, the two alternatives are what I stated above: the same item with potential legal consequence or without.
I did realize, however, that your example pointed out how smaller demand causes prices to rise; if there is only a market for 800k at $1, the supplier would raise prices to, say, $1.50 and hope they could get 670k to pay (note they shouldn't expect 800k customers at the higher price!). The price did not rise, however, because people stole their product; the price rose because they weren't at the equilibrium point on the curves. What nobody knows, though, is if the people who didn't pay would pay if there were no alternatives (if there was not a $0 option). That's the only way you could claim lost revenue, and that is not a determinable number. (The reason it cannot be determined is because the decision process is a complex beast between all available alternatives; when the set of alternatives changes, the assumptions that worked before probably no longer hold true).
Your example has an inconsistent set of assumptions: if the gamers opted to pirate the game instead of purchasing it, that means they were not willing to purchase the game at its price (the "cost" of the risk of getting caught was lower than the monetary "cost"); if they were, they would have. To get their purchase, the copmany would have had to set the price lower. The balance to this system is that, if enough people do not pay for the game, more [games] will not be produced and those people who want to buy [games] will be SOL. The system doesn't need "copyright protection" to function for non-exclusive goods/services; if it was indeed a free market it would be self-balancing. This is the thing that folks don't want to acknowledge when it comes to any type of protectionist measure, be it unions, tariffs, or whatever. These measures give a false sense of value to the producer where the value does not really exist; this causes all sorts of economic hardship.
If people are not willing to pay the price for a piece of software, music, a book, or whatever, then they are saying with their money that it has very little value, so if it wasn't there they would not feel like they were missing out. The "producers" would then have to go produce something that is valued to get revenue and perhaps produce the "unvalued" item/service for personal enjoyment. Nowhere in economics does it state that you are entitled to always have a market for the thing you want to produce.
Incidentally, this doesn't address at all the issue of non-exclusive commodities.
Like I said, Econ 201; even if you don't like the implications.
Actually, you *shouldn't* be paying more for software because other people are "stealing" software. The reason for this is another Econ concept (probably Econ 201 though, rather than 101).
The issue here is that software is not a "limited commodity" in that when I'm using a piece of software I am not preventing someone else from using that piece of software. This is different than, say, a hammer: if I'm using a hammer, you can't use the same hammer. The solution is to create a second hammer, which has an appreciable cost. The replication cost of software / music is almost zero though. A DVD, however, is a limited commodity, because if I'm watching a DVD at my house, the guy down the street can't be watching the same DVD at his house. That's why I'm willing to pay for a DVD; I like the quality and exclusivity of the thing.
Because software / music / etc. is not a type of thing where use is exclusive, the traditional models people use to set prices and make purchases breaks down.
This is like folks saying, "We lost $5M last year due to downloads"; that's not true, that's "we couldn't convice people to pay us for our product." That's not "lost sales" or anything, that's "poor marketing" (I include price setting in "marketing").
That's the real core of the matter though: ownership rules on software and such aren't the same as for automobiles. The old idea of copyrights and stuff isn't going to work any more and we're seeing the first sign of it. What "authors" and "performers" need to do is say, "I'll keep making stuff as long as I get enough people to pay me enough for me to keep doing this." This is a change of outlook from "I want to get as much money as I can from this". Put it this way, if I write a decent piece of software, and people want me to keep writing software, they will be willing to pay me for my programming services. If they don't pay me, I will do something else - supply and demand at its simplest. Under this new scheme, people will still pay musicians because a performance is an exclusive thing - you can only get the experience of being at the performance by, well, being at the performance.
The higher prices you pay for software are to pay for the enforcement of rules, not to protect the software! The other way to look at it is this: If I'm building cars and I need to sell 1,000,000 to pay for the people to make them, I better hope to get that many sales. With software, if I need to sell 1,000,000 to pay for the people to make them, I'd better set my price so that 1,000,000 people pay for it. If I get that sales volume at the price I set, I've done my job; if I want more profit I'd be better to adjust the price / features to get more people to pay me. If some people *don't* pay me, though, I should not care because it doesn't actually cost me anything if they don't pay me. Note that this only applies to downloads and copies, not purchased media (because of the exclusive nature of media)!
While I would advocate a massive reform of intellectual property law in general (including trademarks - what's up with the crazy trademarks I see on logos and stuff?), I also submit that there are currently laws on the books that should be honored. The appropriate course of action isn't to ignore or openly disobey the laws, but to put pressure on the appropriate channels to change the laws.
You know what's funny? I originally had another paragraph about banks in my original post but deleted it for the sake of brevity.
I do have a bit of angst when giving my money to a big corporation, but it's hard (if not impossible) to survive without a bank account. With FDIC I'm not too worried about them "losing" my money. However, what irks me about banks is their tendency to charge me money to get my money, or see what my money is doing, or something of that nature. Especially when they use my money to loan out to others and make money! Granted, it is possible to get no-fee checking, avoid ATM fees and the like, but if I ever need a cashier's cheque or something a little out of the ordinary, I get hit with a charge.
It would be nice to only have cash and not worry about banks or anything; sure you have to have a good safe for lots of cash but standard identity theft isn't going to give people your stash.
My hesitation is that computing would become like banks: not really necessary but because of ubiquity you can't easily function without them (which perhaps means they are, after all, necessary...argh!). It's kind of an odd thought that banks actually limit people's freedom...or that computers could do so in the future.
Yes, there would be some benefits from "PC virtualisation" as you said. However, the thing that "PC virtualisation" doesn't address is:
People like to own things. They want to own their car, their house, their toys, and, likely, their computer.
I don't know that I could ever reach the point where I'd trust a giant company out there to always give me my information and allow me to use the things I want to use. For instance, what if I want to use 10-year old software? Will this be allowed? Do I get my *own* copies of software or do I have to use only the ones they make available? Not to mention ownership issues, liability, and all that other nonsense.
People [sic] complain about people taking away their freedoms and such, and here is another idea where they are just giving away infrastructure for someone else to handle...I'm too much of a control freak to trust someone else with this responsibility.
I think the next application I write is going to have confirmation dialogs with the buttons in the top left and top right corners instead of the normal positions to avoid reflex clicking. Then I'm going to actually write what the button does on the button, so the user has to read the button and understand it to make a choice. I'll add a third button that gets default focus that simply does nothing.
I might even try and get a patent on this "interface to prevent inadvertant affirmative response to automated queries".
You're kind of hinting on something I've been wondering: what is the API for this? There's nothing currently out there like OpenPL (Open Physics Language); they apparently have this proprietary thing called Rocket and NovodeX, but unless there's a standard way to talk to cards (and have others make cards to really get innovation going), this will take some time to gain traction.
I also have to say I'm a bit miffed because I've had a similar idea floating around in my brain for a while. I really need to start trying to get some of my ideas off the drawing board I guess.
This is all well and good, except that unless there is a way to automatically determine metadata, or the person creating the document can forsee what type of metadata searches people in the future will use, this will not be that great a thing. In fact, it sounds like it will add all sorts of process overhead.
I know, for instance, that in my company we'd have to develop a process for writing the metadata, reviewing the metadata, and that sort of thing. Adding more data to something isn't going to improve the ability to find it; it's just more information. It's trading off one set of memory for another; instead of remembering where a file was, you have to remember what metadata you gave it.
I'd classify the "metadata" approach to file storage as a cute technology that is just another side of the same coin that looks good because it's new but really doesn't solve the underlying problem of information management.
I don't know why this AC got modded down to zero, because his/her observation is correct:
The problem with a lot of software patents is they patent results, not a process. If you look historically at the patent process, they are to patent 'mechanisms and processes', not results. When you patent a result, you stifle innovation. When you simply patent a process, you encourage innovation because other people have to find new methods to obtain a result.
This is how I would modify the patent system, actually: enforce the novelty, usefulness, and non-obviousness clauses and add a clause that states that the patent cannot be on an end result (for instance, "produces torque" or "blocks pain receptors" or "refines gasoline from crude oil" or "allows people to purchase something").
Hrm. I think I would also add a clause that "the invention is not inherently exclusive" to preclude the use of algorithms that are the "only" method of doing something, like the solution to a differential equation or something of that nature.
Anyway, that's my not-so-random thought on this matter for today...
I agree with this, but my point was that the exotic methods the big software houses are proposing are unnecessary. My sentiments are pretty much those of the AC who also replied to you: not checking for overflows and stuff is naive. But, again, perhaps that's because I too am involved with safety-critical embedded systems (I develop engine controllers) and we have to make sure that we account for things that should never happen (i.e., always put a default in a switch block that recovers even if the only expected values are covered in explicit cases - if the internal state machine gets corrupted, we have to try and compensate).
But seriously, how hard is it to put an "if index is greater than limit..." check in your code? I don't know. I've never thought it all that difficult a concept.
I don't even think it's due to not checking pointers and NX bits or anything like that. The problem is the way in which our modern OSs map out the memory. Intel chips have the capability to map segments to be either code or data, and the chip will generate a fault if you try to execute anything in a data segment (inherent NX capability). This is part of the segment descriptors used in all programs. The problem is that, as far as I can tell, Windows maps both the code and data segments to the same logical addresses! This is kind of foolish; it should be possible to simply map these two segments to different areas and be completely transparent to the application. As long as applications are behaved and don't have segment overrides all over the place, this should be just fine. Then, when you try to jump to an address that's in the stack, the processor will trip a general protection fault (because the stack must be in a segment defined as data, well, stack to be precise).
Basically this is just laziness in the Windows architecture that overlaps the code and data segments. Separate these and the problem is solved with no new hardware, minimal application rework, and the like.
Incidentally, my perusal of the setup routines in Linux (well, it was version 1.0, so I don't know if this is still the case) show that it also maps code and data to the same actual addresses, which makes it vulnerable as well.
Sure, you can use "smart" languages and NX bits and stuff like that, but it's all assembly at some level, and the processor manufactures actually built in sufficient protection decades ago when they came up with segmented memory. (PowerPC architecture can also distinguish between code and non-code).
I am always amused at how the memory management community hasn't nipped this one in the bud ages ago when the tools to fix it already exist.
Not entirely; The overall cycle has a net of zero, but the instantaneous amount of carbon in the atmosphere will definitely not remain constant if we start using this type of scheme. I can't claim to know if the net CO2 levels would increase or decrease, but I know they wouldn't stay the same.
The reason is that the rate of consumption of atmospheric CO2 is not the same as the rate of production; while the average net is zero, you'll have this really bizarre dynamic equilibrium thing happening. I'm guessing that this won't be any better or worse than the current CO2 situation; I'd like to see if anyone has really done any reports on the what the effects of fluxuating CO2 levels have rather than the level itself...
The oil would be cheap enough to use, but you would be paying more for meat; you really think this wouldn't change the price you have to pay for meat if the meat-producers had to pay to get rid of waste? I'd rather pay less for food and more for oil; this promotes proper conservation. (or, if the gov't subsidised it, you'd pay somewhere else - in taxes or reduced gov't services).
Yes, but so does every other process in the known universe(*). The point is that they are taking "waste" and getting use out of it. This wouldn't be a net energy "source" like drilled oil, but it would be an energy currency like hydrogen. The advantage here is that, since it is hydrocarbons they are producing, you can use it in manufacturing of plastics, etc.; hydrogen's not a useful construction resource (until metallic hydrogen becomes practical, that is).
With the volatility of crude oil the way it is (heck, it's gone up over 5% today!) for no logical reason (they cite "unseasonably cold weather in the northeast US and Britain" - winter is always cold, and our reserves are higher than they were last year - go figure), any other alternatives that don't require a huge infrastructure change are welcome. Producing "petroleum" from waste is potentially a great way to reduce the volatility of crude oil.
It does nothing, though, to address the issues of using a carbon-based energy currency and the CO2 byproducts from that. It's definitely a novel idea, and the sooner we develop alternatives the better (it's a whole lot more difficult to develop alternatives when your reserves are depleted due to increased periodic costs - i.e., higher cost for crude oil).
* As my physics prof put it: "The first law says the best you can do is break even, and the second law says you can't even come close."
I'm with you man - even with "total immersion" and "realistic physics engines" that others in this thread have noted, it's all pointless without good games. Gameplay has been seriously lacking of late; while I do hear of the occasional refreshing new idea (Katamari Damacy!?!), mostly games are either sports sequels, movie or TV marketing, or another FPT or RTS; even RPGs are starting to lack on gameplay but at least many of stories are still good! About the only thing "more power" and "more realism" is going to improve are things like simulations (Gran Turismo for driving, for instance. Though, I still have yet to see a good console flight sim...).
So, in essense, it boils down to the fact that having more hardware capability will not guarantee better games. It will probably guarantee better looking games, but the rest is up to creativity and execution and a good balance between revenue plans and creative risk.
Actually, this points at a more fundamental issue. What happens if you simply take the extension off the file and set the MIME type to something like "binary stream" and just send it "raw"? I often have to rename files to get them through company (*ahem* outlook) filters that block files.
Associating the name of a file with its content type is quite ludicrous; Apple used to do a better job of this with the file resources (the average user couldn't change file type - the name wasn't the type!) but with the transition to OS X (Unix) the metadata with files can be lost and is associated via file extension again.
This boils down to the fact that digital data is inherently untyped; there is no way to tell if something is *really* a word document, bitmap, executable, or a random collection of bits (you can use signatures in the data to help with this, but that's about it).
However, more on topic: I didn't know RAR files had "executable" content. If a file in a.RAR archive has a virus, that's no different than any other "hidden" trojan: shouldn't the virus scanner realise there is a problem as soon as the user tries to do something with the uncompressed/unencrypted file?
It is indeed interesting to see what is on the list. Of the things on the list, only a couple really struck me as being important.
The first are the A/D and D/A converters. This is bad, because these devices are actually used in things well beyond the scope of music. Think your cars, think thermometers, think anything that requires a sensor and a computer. It's a sad day when people want to keep people from using tools because 'the tools might be used for something illegal'! This argument doens't fly with "physical" tools like an axe, screwdriver, or hammer, so why should it be made to apply to electronic tools? (We'd probably have a revolution if you had to be 'licensed' to manufacture or purchase a hammer!)
Well, actually, the DACs and ADCs were the only thing that piqued my interest. The argument I had about the 'regulate the use, not the tool' also applies to things like Napster and Morpheus, I suppose; but it doesn't apply to things like Betamax (the format - it would apply to "a tool used for recording stuff").
Gasoline tax is already a scaling on fuel efficiency; you have a more fuel-efficient vehicle, you pay less gas tax (because you use less gas).
What they are wanting is to increase revenue ostensibly for the purpose of road maintenance. The appropriate place to do this is vehicle registrations: road wear and tear is a function of vehicle weight generally, not how many miles you travel. My vehicle grosses about 2800lbs when I'm sitting in it; that's going to do orders of magnitude less damage to the roads than a vehicle that weighs in at only 5600 lbs (stress durability is not a linear function of load).
Adding the burden of GPS to automotive construction isn't a great thing - but I'm guessing that over time it will happen. Hopefully the general populous of the country will use their Constitutional right to squash this though and say, "we don't want to be taxed for this; figure out a more efficient way to maintain your roads!"
The thing is, this is a conflict between emissions (better fuel economy is good for pollution) and road maintenance (better fuel economy is bad for revenue). You can't have your cake and eat it too in many situations...
I think that I agree with your definitions of "liberty" but I don't think it's possible to have a society if you take those meanings literally.
Take, for instance, "The condition of being free from restriction or control" and "The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing." If you take those at face value, any form of criminal law infringes on freedom - you are, for instance, restricting the freedom of one person to take something that someone else wants ("stealing").
I know that's not what people mean when they say "freedom", but that's what "freedom" really means. I think what we want is a system where we can affect what controls and restrictions we have upon us - that is what the US Founding Fathers meant by "freedom" (the whole taxation without representation thing). After all, I don't think people really want to live in a world without restriction or control. Anyway, that's why we have this thing called a representative democracy - the Founding Fathers knew that the only way to practically guide what controls should be in place or not was the way they set it up. The problem is, people have been gradually saying they don't want the responsibility of deciding things any more and then when a decision is made they don't like they complain. The problem is that we *do* have freedom here, but people choose to not excersise that freedom.
If the issue is over what control we have imposed upon ourselves, the appropriate action is to get involved and change those controls; not sit around and complain and cry "my rights are violated!"
(Incidentally, the Bill of Rights is intended to be a limit on the types of control that may be imposed to help protect against instances where the people are not as involved as they should. Another brilliant piece of work. The trouble is, we let relativism get in the way to interpret what those things mean, instead of just following what the Bill says.)
Well, it becomes a really fuzzy issue. Health care is a direct cost the employer must pay, and it's a *benefit*, not an obligation. Companies could get around the whole issue with people smoking and simply say "If you smoke, we won't pay your health insurance. We'll still offer it to you, but it will be deducted in full from your paycheck, or you can acquire your own insurance." Add to that policies like, "you can't smoke on company property" and they should be fine - just don't fire the people! (Another thing employers could do is say, "look, we're trying to be nice and offer you insurance and all, but we're only going to pay X amount for it. The insurance company says you're a high risk so they want to charge Y. We'll continue to pay X, but you have to pay Y-X.") This way employers can still employ and keep their costs under control, and employees could feel free to act how they desire - if they are willing to pay for it. I'm all for having people have to be a bit more aware of the (financial) consequences of their actions (being unhealthy is expensive!).
As far as blogs go, it's not as clear cut because there is no direct cost associated to a company if the blog is not divulging secrets, served off company hardware, or written on "company time". The blog may result indirectly in lost sales or something like that, but I don't know if that would fall under most employee contracts which say something about "not harming the company business."
Indeed. 60 kps is way past escape velocity for the solar system; from Earth mean orbit, solar escape velocity is only 42kps (give or take)!
Incidentally, I want to see their 60 kps calculation... that's a huge momentum change over an hour! The average acceleration for 60000 m/s in 3600 seconds is: ~16.7 m/s2. I don't know about you, but methinks they got a decimal point wrong. Or their entire ship was made of aerogel and has very little mass...
Here's some fun math: 60 MW of (1mm/300GHz) microwaves will carry a momentum of 0.2 N; if the sail absorbs all of the photons, the force would be 0.2 N; if it reflects them completely the force would be 0.4 N. To get an acceleration of 16.7 m/s2 you need a force of 16.7 N per kilogram. All this says is that they're getting a lot of force from breaking the chemical bonds in the paint. Kind of like burning fuel.
Show my work: Energy per photon is h*f where h is plank's constant and f is the frequency. For 300 GHz microwaves, f = 3e11 Hz and h is always 6.626e-34 J.s; each photon has ~2e-22 J. 60 MW means you have ~3e29 photons per second. Momentum per photon is p = h/w, where w is the wavelength (1e-3 m), so each photon has a momentum of ~6.6e-31 N.s. 3e29 photons per second of 1 mm microwaves have a momentum flux of 0.2 N.
I would agree only that certain software makes sense as a subscription service. I think that something like web-mail might be a valid candidate for this, as are things like MMORPGs, news, etc.
I do not think, however, that something along the lines of a desktop application (word processor, spreadsheet, CAD application, programming suite) works with the subscription model (that's why the largest enterprise apps typically sport "service contracts" - as far as I know most will allow you to continue to use a four-version-old build of an application without continiuting to pay).
Think of it this way, software falls into two categories: tools and services. Services are things like the web, sorting already existing data, and the like. Tools are things like compilers, database construction kits, graphics programs, and the like. I don't pay Sears a subscription for my lawnmower (a tool) but I do pay a "subscription" to my barber, dentist, etc.
When I purchase a (traditional) game, spreadsheet, or even an operating system, in my mind I'm buying a tool. If I have to pay a subscription for a word processor, I'm going to buy from someone who offers it as a tool (Heck, WordPerfect (or any other "old" word processor - GeoWrite anyone?) still works just fine for wordprocessing - if I was still running a PC!).
If a software company cannot innovate enough that people will purchase new versions of its tools, that's its fault; the public should be savvy enough to not fall into the trap of paying for "software subscriptions" when software 10 years old still functions usually adequately enough.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm also not sure I agree with your statement that you always have a market, even if the population is zero. This could be pedantic, but if the "market" is zero interested parties, then I'd argue that there is no market.
I agree that you should have the rights to control the distribution of what you produce, assuming people are interested in the product/service. I also agree that this needs to be done within the construct of currently established laws (see my original post on this matter, the last paragraph). I would say, though, that some methods of controlling distribution are of more merit than others.
As far as the GPL or BSD licenses: While I don't know that I would personally use those licenses, I support them as the copyright holders (within our current legal system) should be able to pick whatever distribution scheme they desire. As such, I respect the terms of those licenses and would support them in that sense. However, I find the GPL and BSD slightly awkward in that they do not grant complete freedom with the code; they put restrictions on it. For a license to be completely free, it would have to be something like "you can do whatever you want with this except keep other people from doing whatever they want with this." My biggest hesitation with the GPL is with the concept of what constitutes a derivative work; I'm not familiar with the BSD license though so I can't speak to that. For instance, if I use some GPL library in my application, I don't consider my application to be derived from it; I could plug in any other functionally equivalent piece of code instead. If, however, I extend the functionality of that library or modify the library code, that is definitely a derivative work. I'm sure there is grey area in the middle, and I know there's philosophical arguments all over the spectrum. The way I see it there is a difference between "derived from" and "relies upon". So, in short, while I support the GPL, I don't agree with it. Again, that's probably pedantic with the semantics, but I want to make the distinction clear.
I could talk more on this, but I think that answers most of your questions.
Your example is very appropriate for the situation: the company set their price at $1 hoping to get 1 million customers, but they only got 800k instead. The reason is that, for their price point, some other product beat theirs out (in this case, $0 with a slight chance of legal action). The question is, if they lowered their price to $0.90, could they get 1.1 million customers to make their $1 M requirement? I'd say that, given your example, the market for their product at $1 is only 800k; the other 200k folks wanted the item but weren't willing to pay that price so they went to a distributor with lower cost (the "risk" of getting caught with an illegal copy). As I mentioned above, it's really two products: the software with no legal consequences for $1, or the software with a low chance of legal consequences for $0.
The companies are looking at it like they didn't get what they were due, when it was really that they forecasted demand incorrectly at the price point they picked. The thing is, there is no magic formula that guarantees what your sales volume will be based on price. You can guess, but "past performance is not an indicator of future performance."
I think people forget that demand curves aren't just a function of the price of a given product, but also the prices of alternatives to that product. With "downloadable" products, the two alternatives are what I stated above: the same item with potential legal consequence or without.
I did realize, however, that your example pointed out how smaller demand causes prices to rise; if there is only a market for 800k at $1, the supplier would raise prices to, say, $1.50 and hope they could get 670k to pay (note they shouldn't expect 800k customers at the higher price!). The price did not rise, however, because people stole their product; the price rose because they weren't at the equilibrium point on the curves. What nobody knows, though, is if the people who didn't pay would pay if there were no alternatives (if there was not a $0 option). That's the only way you could claim lost revenue, and that is not a determinable number. (The reason it cannot be determined is because the decision process is a complex beast between all available alternatives; when the set of alternatives changes, the assumptions that worked before probably no longer hold true).
If people are not willing to pay the price for a piece of software, music, a book, or whatever, then they are saying with their money that it has very little value, so if it wasn't there they would not feel like they were missing out. The "producers" would then have to go produce something that is valued to get revenue and perhaps produce the "unvalued" item/service for personal enjoyment. Nowhere in economics does it state that you are entitled to always have a market for the thing you want to produce.
Incidentally, this doesn't address at all the issue of non-exclusive commodities.
Like I said, Econ 201; even if you don't like the implications.
The issue here is that software is not a "limited commodity" in that when I'm using a piece of software I am not preventing someone else from using that piece of software. This is different than, say, a hammer: if I'm using a hammer, you can't use the same hammer. The solution is to create a second hammer, which has an appreciable cost. The replication cost of software / music is almost zero though. A DVD, however, is a limited commodity, because if I'm watching a DVD at my house, the guy down the street can't be watching the same DVD at his house. That's why I'm willing to pay for a DVD; I like the quality and exclusivity of the thing.
Because software / music / etc. is not a type of thing where use is exclusive, the traditional models people use to set prices and make purchases breaks down.
This is like folks saying, "We lost $5M last year due to downloads"; that's not true, that's "we couldn't convice people to pay us for our product." That's not "lost sales" or anything, that's "poor marketing" (I include price setting in "marketing").
That's the real core of the matter though: ownership rules on software and such aren't the same as for automobiles. The old idea of copyrights and stuff isn't going to work any more and we're seeing the first sign of it. What "authors" and "performers" need to do is say, "I'll keep making stuff as long as I get enough people to pay me enough for me to keep doing this." This is a change of outlook from "I want to get as much money as I can from this". Put it this way, if I write a decent piece of software, and people want me to keep writing software, they will be willing to pay me for my programming services. If they don't pay me, I will do something else - supply and demand at its simplest. Under this new scheme, people will still pay musicians because a performance is an exclusive thing - you can only get the experience of being at the performance by, well, being at the performance.
The higher prices you pay for software are to pay for the enforcement of rules, not to protect the software! The other way to look at it is this: If I'm building cars and I need to sell 1,000,000 to pay for the people to make them, I better hope to get that many sales. With software, if I need to sell 1,000,000 to pay for the people to make them, I'd better set my price so that 1,000,000 people pay for it. If I get that sales volume at the price I set, I've done my job; if I want more profit I'd be better to adjust the price / features to get more people to pay me. If some people *don't* pay me, though, I should not care because it doesn't actually cost me anything if they don't pay me. Note that this only applies to downloads and copies, not purchased media (because of the exclusive nature of media)!
While I would advocate a massive reform of intellectual property law in general (including trademarks - what's up with the crazy trademarks I see on logos and stuff?), I also submit that there are currently laws on the books that should be honored. The appropriate course of action isn't to ignore or openly disobey the laws, but to put pressure on the appropriate channels to change the laws.
I do have a bit of angst when giving my money to a big corporation, but it's hard (if not impossible) to survive without a bank account. With FDIC I'm not too worried about them "losing" my money. However, what irks me about banks is their tendency to charge me money to get my money, or see what my money is doing, or something of that nature. Especially when they use my money to loan out to others and make money! Granted, it is possible to get no-fee checking, avoid ATM fees and the like, but if I ever need a cashier's cheque or something a little out of the ordinary, I get hit with a charge.
It would be nice to only have cash and not worry about banks or anything; sure you have to have a good safe for lots of cash but standard identity theft isn't going to give people your stash.
My hesitation is that computing would become like banks: not really necessary but because of ubiquity you can't easily function without them (which perhaps means they are, after all, necessary...argh!). It's kind of an odd thought that banks actually limit people's freedom...or that computers could do so in the future.
People like to own things. They want to own their car, their house, their toys, and, likely, their computer.
I don't know that I could ever reach the point where I'd trust a giant company out there to always give me my information and allow me to use the things I want to use. For instance, what if I want to use 10-year old software? Will this be allowed? Do I get my *own* copies of software or do I have to use only the ones they make available? Not to mention ownership issues, liability, and all that other nonsense.
People [sic] complain about people taking away their freedoms and such, and here is another idea where they are just giving away infrastructure for someone else to handle...I'm too much of a control freak to trust someone else with this responsibility.
I'd better stop now...
I might even try and get a patent on this "interface to prevent inadvertant affirmative response to automated queries".
Argh.
I also have to say I'm a bit miffed because I've had a similar idea floating around in my brain for a while. I really need to start trying to get some of my ideas off the drawing board I guess.
(at least, that's my response to this whole debacle...)
I know, for instance, that in my company we'd have to develop a process for writing the metadata, reviewing the metadata, and that sort of thing. Adding more data to something isn't going to improve the ability to find it; it's just more information. It's trading off one set of memory for another; instead of remembering where a file was, you have to remember what metadata you gave it.
I'd classify the "metadata" approach to file storage as a cute technology that is just another side of the same coin that looks good because it's new but really doesn't solve the underlying problem of information management.
The problem with a lot of software patents is they patent results, not a process. If you look historically at the patent process, they are to patent 'mechanisms and processes', not results. When you patent a result, you stifle innovation. When you simply patent a process, you encourage innovation because other people have to find new methods to obtain a result.
This is how I would modify the patent system, actually: enforce the novelty, usefulness, and non-obviousness clauses and add a clause that states that the patent cannot be on an end result (for instance, "produces torque" or "blocks pain receptors" or "refines gasoline from crude oil" or "allows people to purchase something").
Hrm. I think I would also add a clause that "the invention is not inherently exclusive" to preclude the use of algorithms that are the "only" method of doing something, like the solution to a differential equation or something of that nature.
Anyway, that's my not-so-random thought on this matter for today...
But seriously, how hard is it to put an "if index is greater than limit..." check in your code? I don't know. I've never thought it all that difficult a concept.
Basically this is just laziness in the Windows architecture that overlaps the code and data segments. Separate these and the problem is solved with no new hardware, minimal application rework, and the like.
Incidentally, my perusal of the setup routines in Linux (well, it was version 1.0, so I don't know if this is still the case) show that it also maps code and data to the same actual addresses, which makes it vulnerable as well.
Sure, you can use "smart" languages and NX bits and stuff like that, but it's all assembly at some level, and the processor manufactures actually built in sufficient protection decades ago when they came up with segmented memory. (PowerPC architecture can also distinguish between code and non-code).
I am always amused at how the memory management community hasn't nipped this one in the bud ages ago when the tools to fix it already exist.
The reason is that the rate of consumption of atmospheric CO2 is not the same as the rate of production; while the average net is zero, you'll have this really bizarre dynamic equilibrium thing happening. I'm guessing that this won't be any better or worse than the current CO2 situation; I'd like to see if anyone has really done any reports on the what the effects of fluxuating CO2 levels have rather than the level itself...
The oil would be cheap enough to use, but you would be paying more for meat; you really think this wouldn't change the price you have to pay for meat if the meat-producers had to pay to get rid of waste? I'd rather pay less for food and more for oil; this promotes proper conservation. (or, if the gov't subsidised it, you'd pay somewhere else - in taxes or reduced gov't services).
With the volatility of crude oil the way it is (heck, it's gone up over 5% today!) for no logical reason (they cite "unseasonably cold weather in the northeast US and Britain" - winter is always cold, and our reserves are higher than they were last year - go figure), any other alternatives that don't require a huge infrastructure change are welcome. Producing "petroleum" from waste is potentially a great way to reduce the volatility of crude oil.
It does nothing, though, to address the issues of using a carbon-based energy currency and the CO2 byproducts from that. It's definitely a novel idea, and the sooner we develop alternatives the better (it's a whole lot more difficult to develop alternatives when your reserves are depleted due to increased periodic costs - i.e., higher cost for crude oil).
* As my physics prof put it: "The first law says the best you can do is break even, and the second law says you can't even come close."
So, in essense, it boils down to the fact that having more hardware capability will not guarantee better games. It will probably guarantee better looking games, but the rest is up to creativity and execution and a good balance between revenue plans and creative risk.
Associating the name of a file with its content type is quite ludicrous; Apple used to do a better job of this with the file resources (the average user couldn't change file type - the name wasn't the type!) but with the transition to OS X (Unix) the metadata with files can be lost and is associated via file extension again.
This boils down to the fact that digital data is inherently untyped; there is no way to tell if something is *really* a word document, bitmap, executable, or a random collection of bits (you can use signatures in the data to help with this, but that's about it).
However, more on topic: I didn't know RAR files had "executable" content. If a file in a .RAR archive has a virus, that's no different than any other "hidden" trojan: shouldn't the virus scanner realise there is a problem as soon as the user tries to do something with the uncompressed/unencrypted file?
The first are the A/D and D/A converters. This is bad, because these devices are actually used in things well beyond the scope of music. Think your cars, think thermometers, think anything that requires a sensor and a computer. It's a sad day when people want to keep people from using tools because 'the tools might be used for something illegal'! This argument doens't fly with "physical" tools like an axe, screwdriver, or hammer, so why should it be made to apply to electronic tools? (We'd probably have a revolution if you had to be 'licensed' to manufacture or purchase a hammer!)
Well, actually, the DACs and ADCs were the only thing that piqued my interest. The argument I had about the 'regulate the use, not the tool' also applies to things like Napster and Morpheus, I suppose; but it doesn't apply to things like Betamax (the format - it would apply to "a tool used for recording stuff").
What they are wanting is to increase revenue ostensibly for the purpose of road maintenance. The appropriate place to do this is vehicle registrations: road wear and tear is a function of vehicle weight generally, not how many miles you travel. My vehicle grosses about 2800lbs when I'm sitting in it; that's going to do orders of magnitude less damage to the roads than a vehicle that weighs in at only 5600 lbs (stress durability is not a linear function of load).
Adding the burden of GPS to automotive construction isn't a great thing - but I'm guessing that over time it will happen. Hopefully the general populous of the country will use their Constitutional right to squash this though and say, "we don't want to be taxed for this; figure out a more efficient way to maintain your roads!"
The thing is, this is a conflict between emissions (better fuel economy is good for pollution) and road maintenance (better fuel economy is bad for revenue). You can't have your cake and eat it too in many situations...
Take, for instance, "The condition of being free from restriction or control" and "The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing." If you take those at face value, any form of criminal law infringes on freedom - you are, for instance, restricting the freedom of one person to take something that someone else wants ("stealing").
I know that's not what people mean when they say "freedom", but that's what "freedom" really means. I think what we want is a system where we can affect what controls and restrictions we have upon us - that is what the US Founding Fathers meant by "freedom" (the whole taxation without representation thing). After all, I don't think people really want to live in a world without restriction or control. Anyway, that's why we have this thing called a representative democracy - the Founding Fathers knew that the only way to practically guide what controls should be in place or not was the way they set it up. The problem is, people have been gradually saying they don't want the responsibility of deciding things any more and then when a decision is made they don't like they complain. The problem is that we *do* have freedom here, but people choose to not excersise that freedom.
If the issue is over what control we have imposed upon ourselves, the appropriate action is to get involved and change those controls; not sit around and complain and cry "my rights are violated!"
(Incidentally, the Bill of Rights is intended to be a limit on the types of control that may be imposed to help protect against instances where the people are not as involved as they should. Another brilliant piece of work. The trouble is, we let relativism get in the way to interpret what those things mean, instead of just following what the Bill says.)
As far as blogs go, it's not as clear cut because there is no direct cost associated to a company if the blog is not divulging secrets, served off company hardware, or written on "company time". The blog may result indirectly in lost sales or something like that, but I don't know if that would fall under most employee contracts which say something about "not harming the company business."
Incidentally, I want to see their 60 kps calculation ... that's a huge momentum change over an hour! The average acceleration for 60000 m/s in 3600 seconds is: ~16.7 m/s2. I don't know about you, but methinks they got a decimal point wrong. Or their entire ship was made of aerogel and has very little mass...
Here's some fun math: 60 MW of (1mm/300GHz) microwaves will carry a momentum of 0.2 N; if the sail absorbs all of the photons, the force would be 0.2 N; if it reflects them completely the force would be 0.4 N. To get an acceleration of 16.7 m/s2 you need a force of 16.7 N per kilogram. All this says is that they're getting a lot of force from breaking the chemical bonds in the paint. Kind of like burning fuel.
Show my work: Energy per photon is h*f where h is plank's constant and f is the frequency. For 300 GHz microwaves, f = 3e11 Hz and h is always 6.626e-34 J.s; each photon has ~2e-22 J. 60 MW means you have ~3e29 photons per second. Momentum per photon is p = h/w, where w is the wavelength (1e-3 m), so each photon has a momentum of ~6.6e-31 N.s. 3e29 photons per second of 1 mm microwaves have a momentum flux of 0.2 N.
A subtle difference, yet one of importance.
I do not think, however, that something along the lines of a desktop application (word processor, spreadsheet, CAD application, programming suite) works with the subscription model (that's why the largest enterprise apps typically sport "service contracts" - as far as I know most will allow you to continue to use a four-version-old build of an application without continiuting to pay).
Think of it this way, software falls into two categories: tools and services. Services are things like the web, sorting already existing data, and the like. Tools are things like compilers, database construction kits, graphics programs, and the like. I don't pay Sears a subscription for my lawnmower (a tool) but I do pay a "subscription" to my barber, dentist, etc.
When I purchase a (traditional) game, spreadsheet, or even an operating system, in my mind I'm buying a tool. If I have to pay a subscription for a word processor, I'm going to buy from someone who offers it as a tool (Heck, WordPerfect (or any other "old" word processor - GeoWrite anyone?) still works just fine for wordprocessing - if I was still running a PC!).
If a software company cannot innovate enough that people will purchase new versions of its tools, that's its fault; the public should be savvy enough to not fall into the trap of paying for "software subscriptions" when software 10 years old still functions usually adequately enough.