Because they aren't responsible for the equipment. Remember, these are franchises. Every piece of equipment you add onto the business operations increases the startup costs and reduces the purchases of new franchise licenses.
Additionally, iPhone users are tech savvy people who love their toy. There is WAY more chance of the iPhone ordering process actually being used than a random kiosk sitting there. No one is going to love that kiosk, which you allude to later in your own comment.
> If they really thought this would work, a Kiosk would work better.
Not from a cost-benefit analysis, it isn't.
> If you limit your self to an iPhone app (or even an app for most of the > major smartphone platforms) you're limiting the possibilities for this > "expedited" (that's what they'd call it) service to, at most, 25-30% of > the population.
At extremely little cost! Returns diminish significantly in your attempt to get the next 40-50%.
> If you keep insisting that corporations don't deserve all of their tax breaks > and special treatment by the government, the really greedy ones may be put > out of business.
Taxes closing businesses? At least you recognize that's what will happen.
> Then, the network of Fortune 1000 CEOs might make less money, and they might > have to actually work, or not even receive hundreds of millions of dollars > in bonuses when their businesses are failing.
How many CEOs do you know? I'm guessing zero. Real CEOs have no lives and are working 24/7.
> This may lead to the end of large, bureaucratic, inefficient mega corporations > which exploit people and resources for short term profit, using monopoly tactics > and sleazy practices like bribing politicians or using tax havens or ripping off > their customers.
Oh, yeah. The corporations are sleazy for bribing helpless politicians.
> You might end up with unions, four week vacations, the right to health care, and > a lower poverty rate!
Health care is not a right, it's a product. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so. Increasing taxes will never, ever reduce the poverty rate (and you really didn't even make an argument to the contrary; you just stated it).
Which is why it doesn't make sense. There has to be more to it. I think this is step 1 to doing what McD's has always wanted to do... eliminate cashiers. What if there was an iPhone app that let you order from the McD's menu. Would you use it?
I don't know. I think they might be flirting with the idea of allowing ordering over the iPhone when there are lines and/or you don't want to deal with idiot cashiers getting your order wrong.
McD's isn't stupid, and I don't understand why they are offering free wifi. There has to be a bigger plan.
The issue is not that investigative journalism isn't valuable. The issue is that the distribution model for the results of investigative journalism is no longer viable. The work is still valuable, and it will continue in a different form.
You believe that the way to accomplish your goals is through collectivism. He very clearly believes it's through individual action.
The irony is, of course, that the fact you're so frustrated with this one individual's actions "screwing up" your methods is the very reason that trying to achieve your goals through collectivism is naive.
Sorry, why can I not pay his fine on his behalf? Pretty sure that is perfectly acceptable and they would have to accept it as payment.
The bank is free to do whatever it pleases to not piss off its client (though I doubt it would, given that its client has a small-potatoes account). But, assuming the monetary laws are similar, fiat currency is fiat currency, and every citizen is required by the judiciary to accept it for ALL DEBTS. I do not agree, from a legal perspective, that the lawyer CAN reject the payments AND keep its claim on the fine money.
It is, indeed, quite clever.
(The only real possible negative in the plan is that the court MAY decide that TPB is now liable for the transaction costs. Honestly, I can't see this happening. But, I could see the court deciding that TBP ended up not paying its fine due to the transaction costs and is therefore liable for the portion of the transaction costs that voided the payment of the fine. But, I'm not lawyer...)
Did you guys read the article? The attack is due to volume, where transaction costs are greater than the amount of money received. They are not fraudulent payments; it's an exploit of dumb contract terms, to which the law firm agreed.
Dude, these are two different things. Please point to investigative journalism that goes on NOW. Were you sleeping during the last 8 years?
What you "simpletons" aren't getting is that the crap being distributed in the old model is not valuable enough to cover the costs of production. If you want to do investigative journalism, fine; I think that is clearly still valuable. But you need to deliver it in an appropriate manner. Or, if you insist on being nostalgic, the industry needs to consolidate such that there are only 1-2 newspapers for the whole country.
People like you who try to tell people like me that this isn't an advancement are doing so only because you don't have enough creativity to see that there are business models available that differ from the ones you've already seen. The position that technology is the enemy of something that is truly valuable is just nonsense.
I don't understand how you can have that position in the face of all the data suggesting that newspaper readership is dropping off at an alarming rate. Will it go to zero? Surely not. But every industry has fixed costs of production, and with newspaper those fixed costs are VERY high relative to the variable costs of printing 1 more copy. So, as quantity goes down, profit per unit shrinks much faster than in other industries where fixed costs are smaller.
Nothing should be done about it. It's a dead business model. It's called economic advancement, and it raises the standard of living of everyone in the long run. Yes, in the short run people lose their jobs and have to retool. But currently they are in a position where they create things of little value, and they should be moved into something that creates more value.
Good idea, but it won't work. You're essentially asking the community that is currently giving away software to decide, collectively, to start charging for it. That isn't going to work, for the same reason that music CDs no longer sell. There will always be a way to get a comparable product for free.
The value of software is no longer its functionality. It's intellectual property (controversial to say here, I know), warranty, support, and documentation.
Think back a decade ago when we were all getting paid $40/hr to "code" HTML. The market eventually realized that HTML is not a valuable skill. Today, it is an expected add-on that has little marginal value.
Hey Mr. Buzzkill, no one asked you to use logic. We're trying to bash Microsoft, here. Take your insightful comments to the Apple-bashing articles, where there are still enough people here who will defend the company.
Not sure I follow how I'm mixing things up, but I'm no lawyer. The question I'm posing is whether I am able to follow in my car any other person in their car. The attitude seems to be "the person in their car is in the public, therefore there is no expectation of privacy, therefore the police can track them". Would those two not also support any citizen following any other citizen, as well as any citizen following a police officer?
I guess I was more saying: if my explanation was "I was following the person", is that illegal? If there is no expectation of privacy in a public place, then why would it be illegal?
I know your point is basically that the police wouldn't like it. That isn't what I'm asking. I'm asking if I can be arrested or fined for doing it.
Maybe, maybe not. Is it legal for you to tail a police officer? If so, then I guess you are right, and we could do the same with GPS data. If not, then the argument doesn't hold. (I don't know the answer, and google wasn't any help.)
One more thing... is it legal for you to tail a police officer? I guess that would be the deciding factor, because the argument seems to be that a police officer could tail anyone without a warrant, therefore there is no expectation of privacy and using GPS to track the movements is perfectly legal.
You say 'probably', and I agree with you. But has anyone done this analysis? Before we dismiss this, we should look at the decision and determine the implications. At the very least, it would force a clarification of the law, and that clarification could be easier to strike down on constitutional grounds.
Slashdot Mirror
> Truly? Why an iPhone app?
Because they aren't responsible for the equipment. Remember, these are franchises. Every piece of equipment you add onto the business operations increases the startup costs and reduces the purchases of new franchise licenses.
Additionally, iPhone users are tech savvy people who love their toy. There is WAY more chance of the iPhone ordering process actually being used than a random kiosk sitting there. No one is going to love that kiosk, which you allude to later in your own comment.
> If they really thought this would work, a Kiosk would work better.
Not from a cost-benefit analysis, it isn't.
> If you limit your self to an iPhone app (or even an app for most of the
> major smartphone platforms) you're limiting the possibilities for this
> "expedited" (that's what they'd call it) service to, at most, 25-30% of
> the population.
At extremely little cost! Returns diminish significantly in your attempt to get the next 40-50%.
> If you keep insisting that corporations don't deserve all of their tax breaks
> and special treatment by the government, the really greedy ones may be put
> out of business.
Taxes closing businesses? At least you recognize that's what will happen.
> Then, the network of Fortune 1000 CEOs might make less money, and they might
> have to actually work, or not even receive hundreds of millions of dollars
> in bonuses when their businesses are failing.
How many CEOs do you know? I'm guessing zero. Real CEOs have no lives and are working 24/7.
> This may lead to the end of large, bureaucratic, inefficient mega corporations
> which exploit people and resources for short term profit, using monopoly tactics
> and sleazy practices like bribing politicians or using tax havens or ripping off
> their customers.
Oh, yeah. The corporations are sleazy for bribing helpless politicians.
> You might end up with unions, four week vacations, the right to health care, and
> a lower poverty rate!
Health care is not a right, it's a product. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so. Increasing taxes will never, ever reduce the poverty rate (and you really didn't even make an argument to the contrary; you just stated it).
> You fell for it! Bravo, douchebag.
Ditto.
Which is why it doesn't make sense. There has to be more to it. I think this is step 1 to doing what McD's has always wanted to do... eliminate cashiers. What if there was an iPhone app that let you order from the McD's menu. Would you use it?
I don't know. I think they might be flirting with the idea of allowing ordering over the iPhone when there are lines and/or you don't want to deal with idiot cashiers getting your order wrong.
McD's isn't stupid, and I don't understand why they are offering free wifi. There has to be a bigger plan.
Offering something other than food results in people doing things other than eating. News at 11.
Sir, if I knew that, I would have quit my job and started a new business.
The issue is not that investigative journalism isn't valuable. The issue is that the distribution model for the results of investigative journalism is no longer viable. The work is still valuable, and it will continue in a different form.
If someone pays the fine on your behalf, I would assume that would not have any affect on admission of guilt.
I think that's where the "you can reverse the payment" part comes in.
Now who's the arrogant bastard?
You believe that the way to accomplish your goals is through collectivism. He very clearly believes it's through individual action.
The irony is, of course, that the fact you're so frustrated with this one individual's actions "screwing up" your methods is the very reason that trying to achieve your goals through collectivism is naive.
Sorry, why can I not pay his fine on his behalf? Pretty sure that is perfectly acceptable and they would have to accept it as payment.
The bank is free to do whatever it pleases to not piss off its client (though I doubt it would, given that its client has a small-potatoes account). But, assuming the monetary laws are similar, fiat currency is fiat currency, and every citizen is required by the judiciary to accept it for ALL DEBTS. I do not agree, from a legal perspective, that the lawyer CAN reject the payments AND keep its claim on the fine money.
It is, indeed, quite clever.
(The only real possible negative in the plan is that the court MAY decide that TPB is now liable for the transaction costs. Honestly, I can't see this happening. But, I could see the court deciding that TBP ended up not paying its fine due to the transaction costs and is therefore liable for the portion of the transaction costs that voided the payment of the fine. But, I'm not lawyer...)
Did you guys read the article? The attack is due to volume, where transaction costs are greater than the amount of money received. They are not fraudulent payments; it's an exploit of dumb contract terms, to which the law firm agreed.
Dude, these are two different things. Please point to investigative journalism that goes on NOW. Were you sleeping during the last 8 years?
What you "simpletons" aren't getting is that the crap being distributed in the old model is not valuable enough to cover the costs of production. If you want to do investigative journalism, fine; I think that is clearly still valuable. But you need to deliver it in an appropriate manner. Or, if you insist on being nostalgic, the industry needs to consolidate such that there are only 1-2 newspapers for the whole country.
People like you who try to tell people like me that this isn't an advancement are doing so only because you don't have enough creativity to see that there are business models available that differ from the ones you've already seen. The position that technology is the enemy of something that is truly valuable is just nonsense.
I don't understand how you can have that position in the face of all the data suggesting that newspaper readership is dropping off at an alarming rate. Will it go to zero? Surely not. But every industry has fixed costs of production, and with newspaper those fixed costs are VERY high relative to the variable costs of printing 1 more copy. So, as quantity goes down, profit per unit shrinks much faster than in other industries where fixed costs are smaller.
Nothing should be done about it. It's a dead business model. It's called economic advancement, and it raises the standard of living of everyone in the long run. Yes, in the short run people lose their jobs and have to retool. But currently they are in a position where they create things of little value, and they should be moved into something that creates more value.
Good idea, but it won't work. You're essentially asking the community that is currently giving away software to decide, collectively, to start charging for it. That isn't going to work, for the same reason that music CDs no longer sell. There will always be a way to get a comparable product for free.
The value of software is no longer its functionality. It's intellectual property (controversial to say here, I know), warranty, support, and documentation.
Think back a decade ago when we were all getting paid $40/hr to "code" HTML. The market eventually realized that HTML is not a valuable skill. Today, it is an expected add-on that has little marginal value.
Hey Mr. Buzzkill, no one asked you to use logic. We're trying to bash Microsoft, here. Take your insightful comments to the Apple-bashing articles, where there are still enough people here who will defend the company.
Not sure I follow how I'm mixing things up, but I'm no lawyer. The question I'm posing is whether I am able to follow in my car any other person in their car. The attitude seems to be "the person in their car is in the public, therefore there is no expectation of privacy, therefore the police can track them". Would those two not also support any citizen following any other citizen, as well as any citizen following a police officer?
Interesting point. What is the law regarding the police tampering with my personal property?
Is this subject to the "articulable suspicion" threshold, or more than that?
I guess I was more saying: if my explanation was "I was following the person", is that illegal? If there is no expectation of privacy in a public place, then why would it be illegal?
I know your point is basically that the police wouldn't like it. That isn't what I'm asking. I'm asking if I can be arrested or fined for doing it.
Maybe, maybe not. Is it legal for you to tail a police officer? If so, then I guess you are right, and we could do the same with GPS data. If not, then the argument doesn't hold. (I don't know the answer, and google wasn't any help.)
One more thing... is it legal for you to tail a police officer? I guess that would be the deciding factor, because the argument seems to be that a police officer could tail anyone without a warrant, therefore there is no expectation of privacy and using GPS to track the movements is perfectly legal.
You say 'probably', and I agree with you. But has anyone done this analysis? Before we dismiss this, we should look at the decision and determine the implications. At the very least, it would force a clarification of the law, and that clarification could be easier to strike down on constitutional grounds.
If you name some examples of things the Mafia is involved in that you're talking about, I can actually respond to your question.