pissing your money away every month to a landlord who does own the building and making a profit off of you is much better
You mean the bank?
I have been telling people as of late that interest rates need to go up to 11%-14%. People simply cannot afford a house at $3000/mo payments; more generally, a house isn't sold by a price tag, but by a monthly payment. People will pay a particular monthly payment, which is why the falling interest rates came with rapidly rising house prices: that $120,000 house that cost $1150/mo became a $350,000 house that cost $1150/mo.
In any loan, you have a balance to be paid every month, and a continuous compounding interest. That means you may start the month with a $300,000 balance and an $1150 payment, but you'll make your first payment on a balance of around $350,600--meaning your balance only comes down about $500. We tell the lay person there's a "principle" and "interest" payment, but that's sort of a defrauding view, as the simplification precludes a lot of interesting financial management.
Truth be told, your $300k house at an incredibly low interest rate (2.5% would be an $1185/mo payment) will command a $560 principle payment in the early months, and around $625 of interest. You can skip payments by paying those next months's principle, not payment in full: if you pay $5,600, you'll skip ten months's payment, and save $6,250 off the total cost. Most people can't find an extra $560/month, or $5,600 regularly.
At a price of $100k and a high interest rate (14% would be an $1185/mo payment), the situation changes. The total cost still comes to about $325k; however, your early principle payments are around $18. That means coming up with an additional $200 in that first month's payment skips around 10 payments, saving you $11,700 in total. Even scrounging up a few tens of dollars each month takes thousands off the final total--a $100/mo extra payment cuts over 12 years off the 30-year loan, and saves $162k, more than six times the *total* interest paid on a 2.5% interest loan.
Take that all into consideration, the effect of a high-interest-rate market in driving prices down means we only want the lowest interest rate we can get in the highest interest rate *market* we can manage to buy in: we want a 14% market, but we want to secure a 12.25% loan in that market, if we can. Most homeowners only process that they want a low rate, but not what market they want the rate in; they jump at low-rate markets, instead of shying away.
Remember the rich always had 5-10 year mortgages, up until FDR created the 30-year mortgage. Us poor and middle-class came into the market on lifelong bank slavery, never living in an age of general 10-year mortgages. What I describe above implies an easy route to get down to a 15-year mortgage, if the market rates are high, by putting little additional payment onto the home--an additional 8% payment to save 50% off the total purchase cost of the home. If we could spread the idea far enough, consumers may decide the extra is worth it; more importantly, consumers would become accustomed to 15 or even 10 year loans, and so consumers who *can't* afford the extra $150 (or, to get to 10 years, $400) would become wary of buying, driving prices downward.
In other words: a high-interest-rate market gives an opportunity to educate consumers to get 15-year loans. Widespread middle-class consumption of 15- and 10-year mortgages will drive middle class wealth sharply upwards, as people in their 20s enter their 30s suddenly free of that $1200 or $1500 or $2000 monthly payment--filthy motherfucking rich. Besides the broader economic effect, the public mind may react to this by assuming 30-year mortgages are untenable bullshit (especially when the costs of long-term, high-balance debt are understood), and so the poor may refuse to lock themselves into interminably-long loans, requiring a lowering of house prices to keep the housing market solvent.
Nice thing about writing "Contains no GMO" and "organic" on your box is you can sell it for 3x as much, which then raises the acceptable price of food, which reduces competition pressure, which raises the price of shit food, which helps keep the poor poor and improve the rate of starving niggers.
What you describe seems more likely in hybridization than in GMO. At least in GMO we know what we're doing; in hybridization, we slap two things together and see what happens.
Probably because this isn't marketed at the premium price point
Your argument is: "premium shit costs like $500 and this costs $300, so their +$50 offer isn't a premium option."
The problem is they sell two options: the basic 16GB option and the premium 64GB option. The fact that their PREMIUM OPTION is cheaper than some Rolls Royce bullshit doesn't mean it's not a premium option.
Right, so even if that $30 is completely profit off the top thanks to peoples' willingness to pay it, what's your point? Who cares?
The original argument was that availability of SD card slots would suppress the market value of in-phone storage. This is a fairly complex concept.
First off, SD card readers in wide-spread use (in many base-model phones) would sway customers away from non-SD phones if storage space becomes a consideration. At the same time, a market where most phones do not have SD cards readers would capture very little market by putting an SD card reader in the phone, yet would drive its existing customers away from its premium, higher-storage version to its lower-storage version. Thus the market implications of putting an SD card reader in a particular model depends on the general phone market as well as what other models are available in the particular product line.
Second, price suppression isn't as simple as people going after the cheapest, lowest-storage phone. A 1GB phone will have trouble installing apps and overloading with data that can't go to the SD card; whereas a 16GB phone will be more than comfortable, and even more so if all videos, music, and photos go to the SD card. The availability of an SD card reader affects in-phone storage prices above some minimum which the user perceives as necessary: once users learn that phones with less than 4GB or 8GB of storage have trouble after the apps have had time to fill mandatory in-phone storage, they'll refuse to purchase phones with less storage; but they'll also more often refuse to buy additional storage at a premium when they can spend a tenth as much to add that same amount of additional storage.
The point was overall market effect. Why don't phones have SD storage? Why doesn't *this* phone have SD storage? You can argue that price gouging doesn't matter in this case, or whatever you want; that doesn't change the cost of components and the market effects I describe. These are the reasons phones don't generally carry SD storage: it's more lucrative to not offer it.
People don't seem to understand the point of typing multiple capital letters in a row, as they hold shift with a pinky to type COBOL or UNIX. Chromebooks put that useless search button where capslock goes.
You're all thinking in terms of technical implications; I'm thinking in terms of economics.
How many people can you find who can't flip a hamburger or fill a box of french fries?
Making everyone a programmer--indeed, the whole concept of universal access to college--is just a campaign to make a minimum wage job out of *everything*. College itself is a great thing, and good higher education options are important for a society; but access to those options needs restriction, and not by quota or the color of your blood.
Giving absolutely everyone unrestricted access to career education means a strong job market in a field only encourages everyone, unknowing of how many actual jobs are available and how many of their peers are entering that market, to go into vocational training for that field. After that, you have ten times the trained professionals ready to take up those jobs than there are jobs available, and so unemployment increases, employer negotiation power goes up, employee power goes down, and, with that, salaries and benefits decrease as well. Were I the type to maximize my systematic abuse of my employees, I would lobby heavily for a public college infrastructure--loans-based especially, but also free college, even if it were paid for entirely by taxes on businesses--in order to put my employees constantly on low ground, allowing me to stomp all over them as I see fit.
The bare reality is businesses need us. That's not an ego statement or a rally cry; every business have a strategy to execute, the vital plans required to maximize their profits, and that strategy relies on the capability to perform certain types of labor. Just like a merchant requires salesmen and inventory managers, a software company requires programmers; an aircraft company requires engineers; and a construction company requires construction workers. Without trained, if not experienced, laborers available in the market, these businesses must pay exorbitant salaries to hire talent from competitors, greatly increasing costs; on the other side, their talent may be hired away, greatly increasing risks.
My own economic theory suggests this creates a good argument for free, public college: raising costs and risks (risks only become greater costs) raises the cost of products; and, as I've said many times, we increase wealth by *lowering* the cost of production--lowering labor costs, essentially, by reducing labor or reducing the unit cost of labor--and so it seems reducing these costs and risks will bring us cheaper products and, thus, greater residual wealth and opportunities for new markets, meaning new jobs. Unfortunately, this direction also implies the middle-class will shrink--we lower cost by squeezing down middle-class salaries--and the power and wealth of the great many laborers is diminished, which is socially not in line with my own philosophies.
Fortunately for my philosophies and for my grasp of economics, this is not the only way to reduce those risks and their associated costs.
As a matter of strategic management, businesses routinely project what load they will put on their resources in the future--indeed, that's what work performance information and human resource management are for. Even the most oblivious employers I've worked for have 2-3 years of foreknowledge about what departments they need expand; of course, since there is so much available labor out there, they simply squeeze everyone they have (in management, this is called "running lean") until they break, and then put out "urgent need" postings just before collapse. Management is, however, fully capable of predicting their labor needs, and approves the hiring budgets 6-18 months before hiring actually begins.
With the public effectively barred from college by the barrier of sheer individual cost, the labor pool for these needed skilled laborers drops as I suggest. Those "running lean" tactics don't work. Instead, as Miyomoto Musashi observed, a successful business would strategically hire on unskilled
Hitler did, in fact, collect up all the guns while explaining that the S.S. would protect everyone. They then proceeded to protect everyone from living in communities with jews, gays, or anyone they didn't like. Second Amendment nannies are so up in arms about everything that restricts their firearm freedom, in part, because of that example; they are, of course, loonies, and nobody will listen to them as they scream loudly into the night about a government which wants to "protect" us by expansion of domestic spying and enforcement power.
That's the OnePlus One. The OnePlus Two gives additional RAM on top of NAND; the One only gives 64GB or 16GB of storage as options, with the same amount of RAM. I was discussing Bacon.
Why would you ever price based on those numbers when the premium market by and large is willing to open their wallets quite a bit wider for a little more storage? Do you not like maximizing your profits? $30 this way or that won't sway people onto or away from your phone.
It's not simply that. This is an incredible example of careful diplomatic speech. Read something like Off Armageddon Reef (a better example than The Gap Cycle or Dune) and you'll see this shit all over the place--importantly, with attention drawn to it for storytelling purposes. In context, there's a whole several paragraphs around the statement discussing the theft and publication of secret information, for which Snowden must face trial; but, when examined closely, the blunt statement I describe is in fact made.
On a technicality, you can take apart my analysis and show that no such thing was ever said--which is exactly the point. The listener will hear the statement I describe: "If something is wrong, speak up; but don't expect to escape consequence, as do all men who fight and die for what they believe is right." The speaker can, of course, point out the context of the statement and show no such thing has been stated.
This is how politicians work on a large population over a long span of time. The statements they make incite a certain type of thought, certain emotions, specific beliefs and understandings in response. Things like, "Remember that God has ultimately given us all the ability to think, and to know evil from good when we see it," which a pastor can point out was in the context of those around us--our peers, our parents, our secular leaders--may lead us astray, all the while catching the Church in that sweeping statement--a heretical proclamation that the church may be wrong. Such a pastor could protect himself even from the Spanish Inquisition, claiming he was protecting the Church from outside influences who would lead their good followers away, all while setting up for his followers to recognize and resist a corrupt Church.
It really is an amazing thing to watch; unfortunately, it's much more terrifying to observe in real life than in fiction.
More importantly, the message here is that being right doesn't matter; being good and obedient preserves you, while being right only makes you a martyr. If you expose the corruption of those in power, that's well and good, and a great civil duty; however, you must understand that you will be punished.
The implication is that, civil duty or not, you should think long and hard about pitching your own skin into the cause, because we sure as hell aren't going to reward you just for doing a great service to humanity. Read carefully and you'll notice the government said he'd even have to accept the consequences of speaking out and engaging in constructive protest: they decree you can dissent against their rule, and that's well and good, as long as they can punish you for your dissent--which is precisely the situation in North Korea, where you may speak out against Kim Jong-Un, and, importantly, accept the consequences of speaking out against him.
So, find the parts that OnePlus put in the One and show the cost that they paid for those parts.
OnePlus One with 16GB NAND: $300
OnePlus One with 64GB NAND: $350
Run the cost of NAND chips. 64GB MLC NAND chips fluctuate at a spot price between $1.60 and $4.34. Adding 64GB of NAND to a platform costs $4.34, much less switching from an expensive 16GB NAND platform to a 64GB platform. A 32GB chip fluctuates between $1.70 and $2.93--two of those would cost $3.40 to $5.86--and the next common size down is 4GB MLC NAND. Once the manufacture process is reliable, the sheer silicon wafer size is what counts: a wafer carrying 32GB of NAND costs exactly as much as a wafer carrying 64GB NAND if exactly half of the 64GB NAND chips are non-functional due to manufacture errors and 100% of the 32GB NAND wafers are in working order.
Of course bulk agreements mean we can slim profit margins down: if I were to buy a million chips from a supplier, that supplier would make a large order from his silicon supplier, who would make a large order from his material supplier, who would make a large order from fuel and energy suppliers, and so forth. Each could negotiate a large purchase contract by which a sizable profit is made on large volume and slim margin, at each step compounding the per-unit cost savings in the final product, delivering to me at substantially below-market price.
I don't pretend to know that OnePlus paid $4 or $1.60 or so per 64GB chip; I am fully aware they likely paid substantially below-market, and that the market price I cite assumes they went fully off-the-shelf for small batches (which may have happened) and so paid more than they otherwise would have. I can't very well conjecture about how much less they might have paid than the amount I cite; I've had to run this based on the most expensive component prices available on the market.
Ask them what their profit margins are on both models, and ask them why the bigger one is $50 more.
The profit margin is demonstrably larger on the one with bigger NAND. You can ask them, but things like profit margins in specific are strategic business information: advertising that you're gouging people for additional luxury is a good way to destroy consumer faith by arrogance and entitlement, and of course lead competitors to create a strategic opportunity by advertising that they don't gouge quite so hard when add extra NAND (the opportunity is to discredit your operations and to capture your market).
Small business or not, you'd be a fool to be that transparent.
Right, that's why they're selling an unlocked top-shelf phone for $329, because they're all about making as much profit as possible and they really want to control exactly how you use the device.
Do you deny that the OnePlus One 64GB cost $50 more than its $16GB counterpart, while holding exactly the same specifications aside from an extra 48GB of NAND?
You seem to be using "since this, thus unrelated" logic: the phone is a low-cost phone, therefor all parts inside must not be overpriced. More directly, you're using a fallacy of division: since the phone itself is not an over-priced piece of shit, each part inside must carry no inflation of cost. The phone is cheap for its hardware, therefor the inclusion of $16 more hardware at a price of $50 additional simply must be an established falsehood--even though we can clearly demonstrate that the hardware does indeed cost less than $50.
you think they didn't include a removable SD card because of some profit motive. I bet its the other way, I bet they're trying to keep costs down.
An SD slot with working controller costs $1.66, including all the voltage regulators, capacitors, and resistors to support the interface. You may need a dedicated $1.30 Atmel 8-bit microcontroller to control it, or you can pipe it into an existing microcontroller on your board (truth be told, a dedicated microcontroller probably won't save you the bus pins). Additional NAND costs $16, and they charge $50 for it.
Wireless power is excessively inefficient. Current projections suggest cell phones use 10% of the world's energy per year; wireless power is 10% as efficient as direct contact charging, meaning the total worldwide energy draw required for wireless charging would be just about 100% of the world's current energy consumption.
How about putting your phone right side up in your pocket so when you take it out you can see your program right side up.
When reaching down into your pocket, your arm is oriented downward, wrist spatially above your hand. When you raise your hand up to your face, your wrist is spatially below your hand. Through the movement, you rotate the phone 180 degrees: the part of your phone at the bottom of your pocket is the part of your phone pointed upward when raised to view. This is largely because your hip is below your elbow and shoulder, while your face is above your elbow and shoulder.
I put my phone in my pocket while listening on headphones. Without a bottom jack, I must rotate it in my hand, then place it in my pocket; then, on retrieval, I must rotate it back. Each rotation is a complex free movement with an exceedingly high chance of dropping the phone, or a two-handed affair which carries a low but significant chance of dropping the phone. A bottom jack means the phone leaves and returns to my pocket with a firm grip upon it, due to already holding it firmly or being unable to remove it from my pocket without holding it firmly.
I suppose you could put a bulky, over-sized, insufficient case on your phone, making it 3 times thicker and more ungainly to handle--and still prone to damage when dropped.
My OnePlus One has NFC, but the OnePlus 2 doesn't. I used NFC to transfer my Google account settings, which didn't really transfer much. From what I can find, NFC is incredibly difficult to configure and use--sending an MMC to transfer a picture or video is a lot faster and easier.
Wireless charging is also a waste. You have to be right up with it, and it uses 10 times as much power to provide as much charge to the phone. Likewise, quick charging, while nice, just doesn't make much sense when every car with bluetooth has a USB port, and every car add-on to connect a phone to a non-bluetooth radio has a charge port for your phone, and both have dash controls so your phone isn't hampered by being cabled. While I find it tough to actually get a 100% charge on my OnePlus One, I've had trouble getting it under 80% as well--even with just charging it for an hour to 90%-95% each night.
I'm not sure why front speakers are supposed to be any better than bottom speakers, although I see quite well why a bottom headphone jack is far superior to a top headphone jack. On the other hand, they could have gone hardware buttons or gone screen area for those bottom buttons, instead of hardware touch buttons.
The big drawbacks are really no slide-out keyboard and no SD slot.
Wait, so besides the obvious defamation, conspiracy, and direct attack on a large business not to simply comment on their business in earnest, but to negatively affect their stock price by manufactured slander and libel, this attorney general is also guilty of obstruction of justice?
Neonicotines aren't showing any sort of impact on honeybees. In continental areas where they're banned (bees travel like 3 miles; banning them in half the fucking EU means you don't have any neonicotines 10 years later).
We actually think a new parasite evolved somewhere about 2009...
Slashdot Mirror
pissing your money away every month to a landlord who does own the building and making a profit off of you is much better
You mean the bank?
I have been telling people as of late that interest rates need to go up to 11%-14%. People simply cannot afford a house at $3000/mo payments; more generally, a house isn't sold by a price tag, but by a monthly payment. People will pay a particular monthly payment, which is why the falling interest rates came with rapidly rising house prices: that $120,000 house that cost $1150/mo became a $350,000 house that cost $1150/mo.
In any loan, you have a balance to be paid every month, and a continuous compounding interest. That means you may start the month with a $300,000 balance and an $1150 payment, but you'll make your first payment on a balance of around $350,600--meaning your balance only comes down about $500. We tell the lay person there's a "principle" and "interest" payment, but that's sort of a defrauding view, as the simplification precludes a lot of interesting financial management.
Truth be told, your $300k house at an incredibly low interest rate (2.5% would be an $1185/mo payment) will command a $560 principle payment in the early months, and around $625 of interest. You can skip payments by paying those next months's principle, not payment in full: if you pay $5,600, you'll skip ten months's payment, and save $6,250 off the total cost. Most people can't find an extra $560/month, or $5,600 regularly.
At a price of $100k and a high interest rate (14% would be an $1185/mo payment), the situation changes. The total cost still comes to about $325k; however, your early principle payments are around $18. That means coming up with an additional $200 in that first month's payment skips around 10 payments, saving you $11,700 in total. Even scrounging up a few tens of dollars each month takes thousands off the final total--a $100/mo extra payment cuts over 12 years off the 30-year loan, and saves $162k, more than six times the *total* interest paid on a 2.5% interest loan.
Take that all into consideration, the effect of a high-interest-rate market in driving prices down means we only want the lowest interest rate we can get in the highest interest rate *market* we can manage to buy in: we want a 14% market, but we want to secure a 12.25% loan in that market, if we can. Most homeowners only process that they want a low rate, but not what market they want the rate in; they jump at low-rate markets, instead of shying away.
Remember the rich always had 5-10 year mortgages, up until FDR created the 30-year mortgage. Us poor and middle-class came into the market on lifelong bank slavery, never living in an age of general 10-year mortgages. What I describe above implies an easy route to get down to a 15-year mortgage, if the market rates are high, by putting little additional payment onto the home--an additional 8% payment to save 50% off the total purchase cost of the home. If we could spread the idea far enough, consumers may decide the extra is worth it; more importantly, consumers would become accustomed to 15 or even 10 year loans, and so consumers who *can't* afford the extra $150 (or, to get to 10 years, $400) would become wary of buying, driving prices downward.
In other words: a high-interest-rate market gives an opportunity to educate consumers to get 15-year loans. Widespread middle-class consumption of 15- and 10-year mortgages will drive middle class wealth sharply upwards, as people in their 20s enter their 30s suddenly free of that $1200 or $1500 or $2000 monthly payment--filthy motherfucking rich. Besides the broader economic effect, the public mind may react to this by assuming 30-year mortgages are untenable bullshit (especially when the costs of long-term, high-balance debt are understood), and so the poor may refuse to lock themselves into interminably-long loans, requiring a lowering of house prices to keep the housing market solvent.
A generation of selle
They did it over 14 years in diverse areas.
In such conditions, shouldn't parked cars leave their parking lights on?
The passenger-side headlight in US cars points up and rightward on purpose; the driver-side lamp is cast downward.
GMO grains command a higher price; they do not *cost* more.
Nice thing about writing "Contains no GMO" and "organic" on your box is you can sell it for 3x as much, which then raises the acceptable price of food, which reduces competition pressure, which raises the price of shit food, which helps keep the poor poor and improve the rate of starving niggers.
What you describe seems more likely in hybridization than in GMO. At least in GMO we know what we're doing; in hybridization, we slap two things together and see what happens.
It's not a technical solution; they'll just throw a handful of leaves on the ground and piss on that.
Probably because this isn't marketed at the premium price point
Your argument is: "premium shit costs like $500 and this costs $300, so their +$50 offer isn't a premium option."
The problem is they sell two options: the basic 16GB option and the premium 64GB option. The fact that their PREMIUM OPTION is cheaper than some Rolls Royce bullshit doesn't mean it's not a premium option.
Right, so even if that $30 is completely profit off the top thanks to peoples' willingness to pay it, what's your point? Who cares?
The original argument was that availability of SD card slots would suppress the market value of in-phone storage. This is a fairly complex concept.
First off, SD card readers in wide-spread use (in many base-model phones) would sway customers away from non-SD phones if storage space becomes a consideration. At the same time, a market where most phones do not have SD cards readers would capture very little market by putting an SD card reader in the phone, yet would drive its existing customers away from its premium, higher-storage version to its lower-storage version. Thus the market implications of putting an SD card reader in a particular model depends on the general phone market as well as what other models are available in the particular product line.
Second, price suppression isn't as simple as people going after the cheapest, lowest-storage phone. A 1GB phone will have trouble installing apps and overloading with data that can't go to the SD card; whereas a 16GB phone will be more than comfortable, and even more so if all videos, music, and photos go to the SD card. The availability of an SD card reader affects in-phone storage prices above some minimum which the user perceives as necessary: once users learn that phones with less than 4GB or 8GB of storage have trouble after the apps have had time to fill mandatory in-phone storage, they'll refuse to purchase phones with less storage; but they'll also more often refuse to buy additional storage at a premium when they can spend a tenth as much to add that same amount of additional storage.
The point was overall market effect. Why don't phones have SD storage? Why doesn't *this* phone have SD storage? You can argue that price gouging doesn't matter in this case, or whatever you want; that doesn't change the cost of components and the market effects I describe. These are the reasons phones don't generally carry SD storage: it's more lucrative to not offer it.
People don't seem to understand the point of typing multiple capital letters in a row, as they hold shift with a pinky to type COBOL or UNIX. Chromebooks put that useless search button where capslock goes.
You're all thinking in terms of technical implications; I'm thinking in terms of economics.
How many people can you find who can't flip a hamburger or fill a box of french fries?
Making everyone a programmer--indeed, the whole concept of universal access to college--is just a campaign to make a minimum wage job out of *everything*. College itself is a great thing, and good higher education options are important for a society; but access to those options needs restriction, and not by quota or the color of your blood.
Giving absolutely everyone unrestricted access to career education means a strong job market in a field only encourages everyone, unknowing of how many actual jobs are available and how many of their peers are entering that market, to go into vocational training for that field. After that, you have ten times the trained professionals ready to take up those jobs than there are jobs available, and so unemployment increases, employer negotiation power goes up, employee power goes down, and, with that, salaries and benefits decrease as well. Were I the type to maximize my systematic abuse of my employees, I would lobby heavily for a public college infrastructure--loans-based especially, but also free college, even if it were paid for entirely by taxes on businesses--in order to put my employees constantly on low ground, allowing me to stomp all over them as I see fit.
The bare reality is businesses need us. That's not an ego statement or a rally cry; every business have a strategy to execute, the vital plans required to maximize their profits, and that strategy relies on the capability to perform certain types of labor. Just like a merchant requires salesmen and inventory managers, a software company requires programmers; an aircraft company requires engineers; and a construction company requires construction workers. Without trained, if not experienced, laborers available in the market, these businesses must pay exorbitant salaries to hire talent from competitors, greatly increasing costs; on the other side, their talent may be hired away, greatly increasing risks.
My own economic theory suggests this creates a good argument for free, public college: raising costs and risks (risks only become greater costs) raises the cost of products; and, as I've said many times, we increase wealth by *lowering* the cost of production--lowering labor costs, essentially, by reducing labor or reducing the unit cost of labor--and so it seems reducing these costs and risks will bring us cheaper products and, thus, greater residual wealth and opportunities for new markets, meaning new jobs. Unfortunately, this direction also implies the middle-class will shrink--we lower cost by squeezing down middle-class salaries--and the power and wealth of the great many laborers is diminished, which is socially not in line with my own philosophies.
Fortunately for my philosophies and for my grasp of economics, this is not the only way to reduce those risks and their associated costs.
As a matter of strategic management, businesses routinely project what load they will put on their resources in the future--indeed, that's what work performance information and human resource management are for. Even the most oblivious employers I've worked for have 2-3 years of foreknowledge about what departments they need expand; of course, since there is so much available labor out there, they simply squeeze everyone they have (in management, this is called "running lean") until they break, and then put out "urgent need" postings just before collapse. Management is, however, fully capable of predicting their labor needs, and approves the hiring budgets 6-18 months before hiring actually begins.
With the public effectively barred from college by the barrier of sheer individual cost, the labor pool for these needed skilled laborers drops as I suggest. Those "running lean" tactics don't work. Instead, as Miyomoto Musashi observed, a successful business would strategically hire on unskilled
Hitler did, in fact, collect up all the guns while explaining that the S.S. would protect everyone. They then proceeded to protect everyone from living in communities with jews, gays, or anyone they didn't like. Second Amendment nannies are so up in arms about everything that restricts their firearm freedom, in part, because of that example; they are, of course, loonies, and nobody will listen to them as they scream loudly into the night about a government which wants to "protect" us by expansion of domestic spying and enforcement power.
That's the OnePlus One. The OnePlus Two gives additional RAM on top of NAND; the One only gives 64GB or 16GB of storage as options, with the same amount of RAM. I was discussing Bacon.
Why would you ever price based on those numbers when the premium market by and large is willing to open their wallets quite a bit wider for a little more storage? Do you not like maximizing your profits? $30 this way or that won't sway people onto or away from your phone.
It's not simply that. This is an incredible example of careful diplomatic speech. Read something like Off Armageddon Reef (a better example than The Gap Cycle or Dune) and you'll see this shit all over the place--importantly, with attention drawn to it for storytelling purposes. In context, there's a whole several paragraphs around the statement discussing the theft and publication of secret information, for which Snowden must face trial; but, when examined closely, the blunt statement I describe is in fact made.
On a technicality, you can take apart my analysis and show that no such thing was ever said--which is exactly the point. The listener will hear the statement I describe: "If something is wrong, speak up; but don't expect to escape consequence, as do all men who fight and die for what they believe is right." The speaker can, of course, point out the context of the statement and show no such thing has been stated.
This is how politicians work on a large population over a long span of time. The statements they make incite a certain type of thought, certain emotions, specific beliefs and understandings in response. Things like, "Remember that God has ultimately given us all the ability to think, and to know evil from good when we see it," which a pastor can point out was in the context of those around us--our peers, our parents, our secular leaders--may lead us astray, all the while catching the Church in that sweeping statement--a heretical proclamation that the church may be wrong. Such a pastor could protect himself even from the Spanish Inquisition, claiming he was protecting the Church from outside influences who would lead their good followers away, all while setting up for his followers to recognize and resist a corrupt Church.
It really is an amazing thing to watch; unfortunately, it's much more terrifying to observe in real life than in fiction.
More importantly, the message here is that being right doesn't matter; being good and obedient preserves you, while being right only makes you a martyr. If you expose the corruption of those in power, that's well and good, and a great civil duty; however, you must understand that you will be punished.
The implication is that, civil duty or not, you should think long and hard about pitching your own skin into the cause, because we sure as hell aren't going to reward you just for doing a great service to humanity. Read carefully and you'll notice the government said he'd even have to accept the consequences of speaking out and engaging in constructive protest: they decree you can dissent against their rule, and that's well and good, as long as they can punish you for your dissent--which is precisely the situation in North Korea, where you may speak out against Kim Jong-Un, and, importantly, accept the consequences of speaking out against him.
Should I mention that figure comes from an investigative report by Time magazine?
So, find the parts that OnePlus put in the One and show the cost that they paid for those parts.
OnePlus One with 16GB NAND: $300
OnePlus One with 64GB NAND: $350
Run the cost of NAND chips. 64GB MLC NAND chips fluctuate at a spot price between $1.60 and $4.34. Adding 64GB of NAND to a platform costs $4.34, much less switching from an expensive 16GB NAND platform to a 64GB platform. A 32GB chip fluctuates between $1.70 and $2.93--two of those would cost $3.40 to $5.86--and the next common size down is 4GB MLC NAND. Once the manufacture process is reliable, the sheer silicon wafer size is what counts: a wafer carrying 32GB of NAND costs exactly as much as a wafer carrying 64GB NAND if exactly half of the 64GB NAND chips are non-functional due to manufacture errors and 100% of the 32GB NAND wafers are in working order.
Of course bulk agreements mean we can slim profit margins down: if I were to buy a million chips from a supplier, that supplier would make a large order from his silicon supplier, who would make a large order from his material supplier, who would make a large order from fuel and energy suppliers, and so forth. Each could negotiate a large purchase contract by which a sizable profit is made on large volume and slim margin, at each step compounding the per-unit cost savings in the final product, delivering to me at substantially below-market price.
I don't pretend to know that OnePlus paid $4 or $1.60 or so per 64GB chip; I am fully aware they likely paid substantially below-market, and that the market price I cite assumes they went fully off-the-shelf for small batches (which may have happened) and so paid more than they otherwise would have. I can't very well conjecture about how much less they might have paid than the amount I cite; I've had to run this based on the most expensive component prices available on the market.
Ask them what their profit margins are on both models, and ask them why the bigger one is $50 more.
The profit margin is demonstrably larger on the one with bigger NAND. You can ask them, but things like profit margins in specific are strategic business information: advertising that you're gouging people for additional luxury is a good way to destroy consumer faith by arrogance and entitlement, and of course lead competitors to create a strategic opportunity by advertising that they don't gouge quite so hard when add extra NAND (the opportunity is to discredit your operations and to capture your market).
Small business or not, you'd be a fool to be that transparent.
Right, that's why they're selling an unlocked top-shelf phone for $329, because they're all about making as much profit as possible and they really want to control exactly how you use the device.
Do you deny that the OnePlus One 64GB cost $50 more than its $16GB counterpart, while holding exactly the same specifications aside from an extra 48GB of NAND?
You seem to be using "since this, thus unrelated" logic: the phone is a low-cost phone, therefor all parts inside must not be overpriced. More directly, you're using a fallacy of division: since the phone itself is not an over-priced piece of shit, each part inside must carry no inflation of cost. The phone is cheap for its hardware, therefor the inclusion of $16 more hardware at a price of $50 additional simply must be an established falsehood--even though we can clearly demonstrate that the hardware does indeed cost less than $50.
you think they didn't include a removable SD card because of some profit motive. I bet its the other way, I bet they're trying to keep costs down.
An SD slot with working controller costs $1.66, including all the voltage regulators, capacitors, and resistors to support the interface. You may need a dedicated $1.30 Atmel 8-bit microcontroller to control it, or you can pipe it into an existing microcontroller on your board (truth be told, a dedicated microcontroller probably won't save you the bus pins). Additional NAND costs $16, and they charge $50 for it.
Wireless power is excessively inefficient. Current projections suggest cell phones use 10% of the world's energy per year; wireless power is 10% as efficient as direct contact charging, meaning the total worldwide energy draw required for wireless charging would be just about 100% of the world's current energy consumption.
How about putting your phone right side up in your pocket so when you take it out you can see your program right side up.
When reaching down into your pocket, your arm is oriented downward, wrist spatially above your hand. When you raise your hand up to your face, your wrist is spatially below your hand. Through the movement, you rotate the phone 180 degrees: the part of your phone at the bottom of your pocket is the part of your phone pointed upward when raised to view. This is largely because your hip is below your elbow and shoulder, while your face is above your elbow and shoulder.
I put my phone in my pocket while listening on headphones. Without a bottom jack, I must rotate it in my hand, then place it in my pocket; then, on retrieval, I must rotate it back. Each rotation is a complex free movement with an exceedingly high chance of dropping the phone, or a two-handed affair which carries a low but significant chance of dropping the phone. A bottom jack means the phone leaves and returns to my pocket with a firm grip upon it, due to already holding it firmly or being unable to remove it from my pocket without holding it firmly.
I suppose you could put a bulky, over-sized, insufficient case on your phone, making it 3 times thicker and more ungainly to handle--and still prone to damage when dropped.
My OnePlus One has NFC, but the OnePlus 2 doesn't. I used NFC to transfer my Google account settings, which didn't really transfer much. From what I can find, NFC is incredibly difficult to configure and use--sending an MMC to transfer a picture or video is a lot faster and easier.
Wireless charging is also a waste. You have to be right up with it, and it uses 10 times as much power to provide as much charge to the phone. Likewise, quick charging, while nice, just doesn't make much sense when every car with bluetooth has a USB port, and every car add-on to connect a phone to a non-bluetooth radio has a charge port for your phone, and both have dash controls so your phone isn't hampered by being cabled. While I find it tough to actually get a 100% charge on my OnePlus One, I've had trouble getting it under 80% as well--even with just charging it for an hour to 90%-95% each night.
I'm not sure why front speakers are supposed to be any better than bottom speakers, although I see quite well why a bottom headphone jack is far superior to a top headphone jack. On the other hand, they could have gone hardware buttons or gone screen area for those bottom buttons, instead of hardware touch buttons.
The big drawbacks are really no slide-out keyboard and no SD slot.
Cost of 160GB of SD card NAND: $48
Cost of 48GB of same NAND soldered to the board: $50
They don't want you storing videos, pictures, music, and audio books on SD card; they want you to pay over 3x as much for that same SD card.
Video? What?
Wait, so besides the obvious defamation, conspiracy, and direct attack on a large business not to simply comment on their business in earnest, but to negatively affect their stock price by manufactured slander and libel, this attorney general is also guilty of obstruction of justice?
Neonicotines aren't showing any sort of impact on honeybees. In continental areas where they're banned (bees travel like 3 miles; banning them in half the fucking EU means you don't have any neonicotines 10 years later).
We actually think a new parasite evolved somewhere about 2009...