I think this is one key point: micro payments need to be micro. I'm not paying $.25 to read the on-line version of an AP article on the NYT site. If you figure there are 100 articles in the weekly edition of the NYT, then a single article is worth something less than 1/2 a cent, in print. If you eliminate the printing and distribution costs, say 1/4 or 1/8 a cent per article. I might pay a few pennies to read the entire site, but I'm not willing to pay anywhere near the dead-tree price for on-line news.
Another point: whatever they take for micropayments it has to be something easy and ubiquitous. I'm not jumping through hoops so that I can pay 1/8th of a cent to read the obits. And whatever it is, it can't be something that only works one place. I'm not signing up for "NYTCa$h" that can't be used anywhere but the NYT site.
My personal opinion is that news will continue to be ad-supported for the foreseeable future. As technology improves and ads become more targeted, they will be increasingly effective and less annoying. Hopefully this will happen soon enough to keep journalism alive.
If newspaper reporters, photographers, or even editors are making millions where you live, you must live somewhere where print journalism works differently than any market I've ever seen. The same if your local TV reporter (sportscaster, weather girl, etc) is making millions.
As far as I know, the only people making that kind of money in journalism are cable and network anchors who are nationally recognized figures. This is a handful of people in the whole country--and lowering that limited overhead is not going to save the business of journalism.
The main thing that needs to happen is better targeting. Targeting of news content (already happens, but needs to get better) targeting of ads (currently almost useless) and targeting of audience. If news outlets can get their act together and find a niche that works then they'll survive, micro payments or not. The ones that can't adjust to this new reality will either die off or get federal funding.
I can see all the cool kids paying 'the geek' $50 each to wear a bevy of these and wander around the mall while they all head over to Cheryl Cheerleaders house for a pool party.
They're not "errors" made by the engineers working on the lamps, they are marketing terms made up by the marketing guys.
This is why you see CFLs and LED lamps marketed as being "equivalent" (not equal) to incandescent lamps, with light output rated as "intensity" (rather than in lumens, an absolute value). Go to any "green" lamp site and you'll see the weasel-words pile up faster than you thought possible.
And they get away with it because while it's unethical, it's not illegal.
First, a lot of "computer specialists" are rip-off artists. When I was a teacher, I used to help fellow teachers with computer problems. You cannot even imagine the line of bull some of these teachers were handed by techs at places like Best Buy. (Your six-year-old computer is running slow because it needs more RAM. It uses "old" RAM that's hard to get, but we'll install new RAM for about the price of a new PC)
Second, software problems, unlike problems with a physical machine, are a different class--when my washing machine belt is broken and the drum won't turn, I can tell it's broken and I can see when it's fixed. With a lot of malware that "hides" in the background, it's hard to tell if the "expert" really fixed the problem or not.
Third, there's still a lot of "DIY" spirit out there. When automobiles were at the stage computers are now (becoming the "must-have" consumer item) a lot of people _did_ work on their own cars. For anything small, like an oil change or similar at least. Heck, I remember helping my dad tune up the family car back when there were points and condensers. As cars got more complicated (and computers came into play in cars) that became less possible. But for a lot of people their OS hides the complexity of their computer, so they still think "I can do this myself"
Finally, OS suppliers have been trying to sell computers with the "it's easy to do yourself" idea for a long time. People seem to be completely indoctrinated with the idea that computers are supposed to be easy to use and "anyone can use them" I believe that this also contributes.
I don't think it's a cut-and-dried as you seem to believe.
I was in a motorcycle accident last year (here in the U.S) and spent three weeks in the hospital, six surgeries, and associated care from one of the best orthopedic surgeons (head of Ortho at Stanford Medical). The cost was several hundred thousand dollars, of which I personally paid less than 500. For INSURED people (people with personal or employer-subsidized coverage), the system works fairly well. Not perfectly, but then again what does? For the UNINSURED (not uninsured by choice), the system sucks--their care is the ER or a clinic. It's too bad that the zealots on both sides of the issue can't get together and solve the problem without completely abolishing the system. (A high proportion of U.Sians surveyed are happy with their health care)
It's quite possible that our experience with other government agencies taints our ability to see "government-run" health care as a good thing. After having dealt with the various agencies here, you aren't too keen on medical care that has cost overruns like the military, the speed and convenience of the DMV, and the kindly bedside manner of the IRS. Maybe in other countries your local/regional/national government is all sweetness and light?
The problem correlates to what makes the Internet so successful: it's a wide-open, essentially unregulated space.
With no centralized authority, you get benefits like anonymity (see how long that lasts once the bureaucrats get their hooks in it--oh noes! the terrorists! think of the children! we must track each user), innovation (in just a few years we've gone from hypertext to graphical MMORPGs--I can just see trying to get the paperwork through on that one) and freedom (I don't suppose the good people at 760 United Nations Plaza would be interested in protecting the freedom of expression of fascists, for instance).
Of course, with anonymity comes spam, with innovation you get new and better malware, and with freedom you get a lot of crazy talk. But unless you're ready to throw the baby out with the bath water, it's probably best to leave well enough alone. Since politicians of all stripes are essentially unable to understand opportunity costs or unintended consequences, I shudder each time I read one of these FUD-o-thons.
Why can't they know when something is "complete"? Because despite all the claims to the contrary, Hollywood (indeed, the entire entertainment industry) is NOT about "art"--it's about money. There are a lot of individuals in the industry who think of themselves as artists, and there are a few (a very few) who actually are artists--or at least craftsmen--but most of the decisions about what gets produced, and how those productions are edited, marketed, and then "slowly milked to death" are made by people who are in it for the money.
Case in point: at one time there were some companies out there editing DVDs to cut out the "objectionable" parts. Directors sued because the companies in question were "ruining their artistic vision." But you'll notice that in almost every case, the directors were silent when their films were edited for television (almost the same edits that these companies were making) and they got a cut of the action.
As in most areas of human endeavor, if you're wondering why something happens a useful starting point is to look at who profits (in money, influence, power, etc)
Yes, they are--because they made a mistake. When someone screws up and admits it, they take flack (appropriately) for their error. That's the way the world is. You don't get a free pass with your mea culpa.
But putting spin on the mistake to make it seem like they're doing something good isn't the same as admitting to a actual mistake. When someone screws up and admits it, we criticize the mistake. When someone screws up and then tries to make it look like they did something wonderful, that deserves another level of criticism. In my opinion, they would have looked like they were "forced" to release the code if they'd done so without the spin, but they look worse because they released the code and tried to spin it.
And you have to wonder what genius in Redmond thought that this was a good idea... how it it not obvious that this would eventually come out and their spin would be shown for what it is.
While red light cameras aren't universally supported, they're not universally hated, either.
Near my parent's house, there's an intersection with a turn signal that, as far as I can tell, is run pretty much every time it changes. The left arrow tuns green and ten or twelve cars make it through, then three or four more on the yellow, and then three or four more enter the intersection after it turns red. Seriously, I NEVER sat at that light without seeing a couple of cars run it. About once a month there was an accident there, and about twice a year there was a fatality. A year ago they installed a red light camera and now I've yet to see a car run the light. I still have quite a few friends, family members, and in-laws in that town and they're pretty much unanimously in support of that particular camera.
Basically, red light cameras are a reaction to the State's inability to enforce the law with its current resources. Revenue enhancement may be a factor in the installation, but in a lot of cases they are a reaction to a serious safety issue.
Listen. Understand. That Terminator is out there. It can't be reasoned with, it can't be bargained with...it doesn't feel pity of remorse or fear... and it absolutely will not stop. Ever. Until the researcher is dead.
But as a poster above pointed out, my tax dollars aren't collected and distributed to musicians, insurance salesmen, or bartenders. On the other hand, when the government pays a scientist to study why bears crap in the woods, that's money that could be spent on research more likely to produce something useful.
I'm not arguing that utility is the ultimate yardstick, or that pure research doesn't have any value. But it's easy to see why some folks object to funding a $3 million dollar study of sea otter mating habits when there are other, seemingly more important projects that go wanting.
Actually, the military does both: they offer an enlistment bonus AND a retirement package. The amount of bonuses fluctuate based on how difficult it is to get recruits as well as the quality of recruit. When I joined, I got a $6000 enlistment bonus--and guys who joined two years later were getting a good bit less. And in my opinion, this is probably the only way for the system to work--you give an "instant gratification" bonus to people to get them in, and then you offer inducements for them to stay.
Keep in mind that one of the reasons that the military wants people to stay on is to ensure continuity and to preserve experience/expertise. So in some sense it's worth it to offer a retirement at colonels pay to colonels if that means you can keep their experience--since there's no "instant gratification" method for enlisting staff officers.
Anyway, you make a good point--it always pays to analyze the incentives your offering so that you can get the best return.
No. Sales tax is also essentially hidden, just like income tax. Just like about every tax and fee imposed on you.
The only way to "unhide" the tax burden the average citizen is under to to collect it all at once, rather than in dribs and drabs along the way. If citizens who made $60,000 got a bill from the IRS in December for $15,000, there would be pitchforks and torches on the Mall in D.C.
This is why politicians don't implement taxes this way, and it's why people fail to comprehend the tax burden they're under.
In this case, the "think of the children" thing is only half of the smokescreen. The other half is that they're only collecting $0.15 per month.
But it's going to be a trade off (like everything else in life) right? Sure, you'll be able to access you content in the same format using the same tool from anywhere... as long as your Internet connection is live. What you're trading off for ubiquity is some level of availability.
As an example, we keep our budget in an Excel workbook that my wife cooked up. The budget has categories with "allocated" monthly amounts and we put in every expense and then check the spreadsheet against our credit card and bank statements at the end of the month. It would be cool if I could access this spreadsheet from anywhere--say when I'm on vacation to access the "original" version rather than moving a copy onto my laptop. But it would be very uncool if I wanted to put expenses in but couldn't access it because AT&T was on the fritz again.
Where I live, the Internet is much less reliable than the electricity. Not that it goes out all that often, but in the four years I've owner my house there have been maybe three power outages--and maybe 10 or 12 times that our Internet connection has either stopped working or been seriously degraded.
Then there are security issues. Would you be willing to upload a document that contains your SSN or CC number to Google docs? What about to some other on-line application provider? And if not, where do you draw the line... at your name and address? Personal details and family photos? Because once you draw a line, you're saying that for some content you'll use the online application and storage, but for others you'll use a local app and storage--which makes things more complicated.
In addition, I have concerns about longevity. Sure, Google is the new hotness right now, but what happens to all my stuff when big G goes belly up in 2050? Will I have enough advanced warning to download all my content to local storage?
Sorry for the long post--I'm not arguing that this isn't something that would be without usefulness, I'm just pointing out that there are trade-offs to be made
This isn't mean to be a flame, because as a fellow parent (of toddlers, no less) I understand that it can be an extremely stressful and fear-inducing thing to lose track of your child. But I agree with the parent: get some perspective on things by waiting for a bit before subjecting your daughter to Big-Brother-like monitoring.
Not only do I think you are overreacting, you are sending the wrong message to your school-age daughter. She doesn't need 24-7 tracking, she needs lessons in dealing with unexpected situations. Instead of jumping directly to an electronic device, teach her what to do if she gets lost... the same strategy that's been used successfully by parents for many, many years: find a "safe" adult (police officer, female adult with kids) and tell them that she's lost. If she's old enough to attend school, she's old enough to learn her phone number and address.
Besides, if she's anything like most kids, anything you "attach" to her (short of a steel shackle) she is going to remove and leave behind or lose.:-)
Again, I understand your reaction (on one level) but I think you're overreacting.
Because 10.0 sucked? I don't know if it was intentional or not, but that was slow enough that I noticed that speed was an issue (and I was using only the most pedestrian of software--browser and email). It was as if the OS was completely unoptimized. If subsequent releases had gotten slower, they'd have been going backwards.
My primary computer, my wife's computer, and our HTPC are all Macs, so I'm not trolling... but damn was it slow.
Slashdot Mirror
Or NPR
Seriously--we HAVE public-funded news here in the U.S.--it's just that nobody's interested in listening :-)
I think this is one key point: micro payments need to be micro. I'm not paying $.25 to read the on-line version of an AP article on the NYT site. If you figure there are 100 articles in the weekly edition of the NYT, then a single article is worth something less than 1/2 a cent, in print. If you eliminate the printing and distribution costs, say 1/4 or 1/8 a cent per article. I might pay a few pennies to read the entire site, but I'm not willing to pay anywhere near the dead-tree price for on-line news.
Another point: whatever they take for micropayments it has to be something easy and ubiquitous. I'm not jumping through hoops so that I can pay 1/8th of a cent to read the obits. And whatever it is, it can't be something that only works one place. I'm not signing up for "NYTCa$h" that can't be used anywhere but the NYT site.
My personal opinion is that news will continue to be ad-supported for the foreseeable future. As technology improves and ads become more targeted, they will be increasingly effective and less annoying. Hopefully this will happen soon enough to keep journalism alive.
If newspaper reporters, photographers, or even editors are making millions where you live, you must live somewhere where print journalism works differently than any market I've ever seen. The same if your local TV reporter (sportscaster, weather girl, etc) is making millions.
As far as I know, the only people making that kind of money in journalism are cable and network anchors who are nationally recognized figures. This is a handful of people in the whole country--and lowering that limited overhead is not going to save the business of journalism.
The main thing that needs to happen is better targeting. Targeting of news content (already happens, but needs to get better) targeting of ads (currently almost useless) and targeting of audience. If news outlets can get their act together and find a niche that works then they'll survive, micro payments or not. The ones that can't adjust to this new reality will either die off or get federal funding.
I can see all the cool kids paying 'the geek' $50 each to wear a bevy of these and wander around the mall while they all head over to Cheryl Cheerleaders house for a pool party.
They're not "errors" made by the engineers working on the lamps, they are marketing terms made up by the marketing guys.
This is why you see CFLs and LED lamps marketed as being "equivalent" (not equal) to incandescent lamps, with light output rated as "intensity" (rather than in lumens, an absolute value). Go to any "green" lamp site and you'll see the weasel-words pile up faster than you thought possible.
And they get away with it because while it's unethical, it's not illegal.
This is /.
They're only "editors" if you put it in quotes
The good news is that the Ministry of Health reports that organ banks have a surplus of "donated" organs!
Maybe it's like MegaMaid? IOW, a transformer!
I think there are a number of reasons for this...
First, a lot of "computer specialists" are rip-off artists. When I was a teacher, I used to help fellow teachers with computer problems. You cannot even imagine the line of bull some of these teachers were handed by techs at places like Best Buy. (Your six-year-old computer is running slow because it needs more RAM. It uses "old" RAM that's hard to get, but we'll install new RAM for about the price of a new PC)
Second, software problems, unlike problems with a physical machine, are a different class--when my washing machine belt is broken and the drum won't turn, I can tell it's broken and I can see when it's fixed. With a lot of malware that "hides" in the background, it's hard to tell if the "expert" really fixed the problem or not.
Third, there's still a lot of "DIY" spirit out there. When automobiles were at the stage computers are now (becoming the "must-have" consumer item) a lot of people _did_ work on their own cars. For anything small, like an oil change or similar at least. Heck, I remember helping my dad tune up the family car back when there were points and condensers. As cars got more complicated (and computers came into play in cars) that became less possible. But for a lot of people their OS hides the complexity of their computer, so they still think "I can do this myself"
Finally, OS suppliers have been trying to sell computers with the "it's easy to do yourself" idea for a long time. People seem to be completely indoctrinated with the idea that computers are supposed to be easy to use and "anyone can use them" I believe that this also contributes.
There are probably others I've missed :-)
Wait, I'm confused by the MS/Apple thing. Did Microsoft buy Apple, or did Apple buy Microsoft?
I don't think it's a cut-and-dried as you seem to believe.
I was in a motorcycle accident last year (here in the U.S) and spent three weeks in the hospital, six surgeries, and associated care from one of the best orthopedic surgeons (head of Ortho at Stanford Medical). The cost was several hundred thousand dollars, of which I personally paid less than 500. For INSURED people (people with personal or employer-subsidized coverage), the system works fairly well. Not perfectly, but then again what does? For the UNINSURED (not uninsured by choice), the system sucks--their care is the ER or a clinic. It's too bad that the zealots on both sides of the issue can't get together and solve the problem without completely abolishing the system. (A high proportion of U.Sians surveyed are happy with their health care)
It's quite possible that our experience with other government agencies taints our ability to see "government-run" health care as a good thing. After having dealt with the various agencies here, you aren't too keen on medical care that has cost overruns like the military, the speed and convenience of the DMV, and the kindly bedside manner of the IRS. Maybe in other countries your local/regional/national government is all sweetness and light?
The problem correlates to what makes the Internet so successful: it's a wide-open, essentially unregulated space.
With no centralized authority, you get benefits like anonymity (see how long that lasts once the bureaucrats get their hooks in it--oh noes! the terrorists! think of the children! we must track each user), innovation (in just a few years we've gone from hypertext to graphical MMORPGs--I can just see trying to get the paperwork through on that one) and freedom (I don't suppose the good people at 760 United Nations Plaza would be interested in protecting the freedom of expression of fascists, for instance).
Of course, with anonymity comes spam, with innovation you get new and better malware, and with freedom you get a lot of crazy talk. But unless you're ready to throw the baby out with the bath water, it's probably best to leave well enough alone. Since politicians of all stripes are essentially unable to understand opportunity costs or unintended consequences, I shudder each time I read one of these FUD-o-thons.
Why can't they know when something is "complete"? Because despite all the claims to the contrary, Hollywood (indeed, the entire entertainment industry) is NOT about "art"--it's about money. There are a lot of individuals in the industry who think of themselves as artists, and there are a few (a very few) who actually are artists--or at least craftsmen--but most of the decisions about what gets produced, and how those productions are edited, marketed, and then "slowly milked to death" are made by people who are in it for the money.
Case in point: at one time there were some companies out there editing DVDs to cut out the "objectionable" parts. Directors sued because the companies in question were "ruining their artistic vision." But you'll notice that in almost every case, the directors were silent when their films were edited for television (almost the same edits that these companies were making) and they got a cut of the action.
As in most areas of human endeavor, if you're wondering why something happens a useful starting point is to look at who profits (in money, influence, power, etc)
Yes, they are--because they made a mistake. When someone screws up and admits it, they take flack (appropriately) for their error. That's the way the world is. You don't get a free pass with your mea culpa.
But putting spin on the mistake to make it seem like they're doing something good isn't the same as admitting to a actual mistake. When someone screws up and admits it, we criticize the mistake. When someone screws up and then tries to make it look like they did something wonderful, that deserves another level of criticism. In my opinion, they would have looked like they were "forced" to release the code if they'd done so without the spin, but they look worse because they released the code and tried to spin it.
And you have to wonder what genius in Redmond thought that this was a good idea... how it it not obvious that this would eventually come out and their spin would be shown for what it is.
While red light cameras aren't universally supported, they're not universally hated, either.
Near my parent's house, there's an intersection with a turn signal that, as far as I can tell, is run pretty much every time it changes. The left arrow tuns green and ten or twelve cars make it through, then three or four more on the yellow, and then three or four more enter the intersection after it turns red. Seriously, I NEVER sat at that light without seeing a couple of cars run it. About once a month there was an accident there, and about twice a year there was a fatality. A year ago they installed a red light camera and now I've yet to see a car run the light. I still have quite a few friends, family members, and in-laws in that town and they're pretty much unanimously in support of that particular camera.
Basically, red light cameras are a reaction to the State's inability to enforce the law with its current resources. Revenue enhancement may be a factor in the installation, but in a lot of cases they are a reaction to a serious safety issue.
Listen. Understand. That Terminator is out there. It can't be reasoned with, it can't be bargained with...it doesn't feel pity of remorse or fear... and it absolutely will not stop. Ever. Until the researcher is dead.
But as a poster above pointed out, my tax dollars aren't collected and distributed to musicians, insurance salesmen, or bartenders. On the other hand, when the government pays a scientist to study why bears crap in the woods, that's money that could be spent on research more likely to produce something useful.
I'm not arguing that utility is the ultimate yardstick, or that pure research doesn't have any value. But it's easy to see why some folks object to funding a $3 million dollar study of sea otter mating habits when there are other, seemingly more important projects that go wanting.
Actually, the military does both: they offer an enlistment bonus AND a retirement package. The amount of bonuses fluctuate based on how difficult it is to get recruits as well as the quality of recruit. When I joined, I got a $6000 enlistment bonus--and guys who joined two years later were getting a good bit less. And in my opinion, this is probably the only way for the system to work--you give an "instant gratification" bonus to people to get them in, and then you offer inducements for them to stay.
Keep in mind that one of the reasons that the military wants people to stay on is to ensure continuity and to preserve experience/expertise. So in some sense it's worth it to offer a retirement at colonels pay to colonels if that means you can keep their experience--since there's no "instant gratification" method for enlisting staff officers.
Anyway, you make a good point--it always pays to analyze the incentives your offering so that you can get the best return.
So the Windows version is a portapotty seat and some toilet paper?
No. Sales tax is also essentially hidden, just like income tax. Just like about every tax and fee imposed on you.
The only way to "unhide" the tax burden the average citizen is under to to collect it all at once, rather than in dribs and drabs along the way. If citizens who made $60,000 got a bill from the IRS in December for $15,000, there would be pitchforks and torches on the Mall in D.C.
This is why politicians don't implement taxes this way, and it's why people fail to comprehend the tax burden they're under.
In this case, the "think of the children" thing is only half of the smokescreen. The other half is that they're only collecting $0.15 per month.
But it's going to be a trade off (like everything else in life) right? Sure, you'll be able to access you content in the same format using the same tool from anywhere... as long as your Internet connection is live. What you're trading off for ubiquity is some level of availability.
As an example, we keep our budget in an Excel workbook that my wife cooked up. The budget has categories with "allocated" monthly amounts and we put in every expense and then check the spreadsheet against our credit card and bank statements at the end of the month. It would be cool if I could access this spreadsheet from anywhere--say when I'm on vacation to access the "original" version rather than moving a copy onto my laptop. But it would be very uncool if I wanted to put expenses in but couldn't access it because AT&T was on the fritz again.
Where I live, the Internet is much less reliable than the electricity. Not that it goes out all that often, but in the four years I've owner my house there have been maybe three power outages--and maybe 10 or 12 times that our Internet connection has either stopped working or been seriously degraded.
Then there are security issues. Would you be willing to upload a document that contains your SSN or CC number to Google docs? What about to some other on-line application provider? And if not, where do you draw the line... at your name and address? Personal details and family photos? Because once you draw a line, you're saying that for some content you'll use the online application and storage, but for others you'll use a local app and storage--which makes things more complicated.
In addition, I have concerns about longevity. Sure, Google is the new hotness right now, but what happens to all my stuff when big G goes belly up in 2050? Will I have enough advanced warning to download all my content to local storage?
Sorry for the long post--I'm not arguing that this isn't something that would be without usefulness, I'm just pointing out that there are trade-offs to be made
This isn't mean to be a flame, because as a fellow parent (of toddlers, no less) I understand that it can be an extremely stressful and fear-inducing thing to lose track of your child. But I agree with the parent: get some perspective on things by waiting for a bit before subjecting your daughter to Big-Brother-like monitoring.
Not only do I think you are overreacting, you are sending the wrong message to your school-age daughter. She doesn't need 24-7 tracking, she needs lessons in dealing with unexpected situations. Instead of jumping directly to an electronic device, teach her what to do if she gets lost... the same strategy that's been used successfully by parents for many, many years: find a "safe" adult (police officer, female adult with kids) and tell them that she's lost. If she's old enough to attend school, she's old enough to learn her phone number and address.
Besides, if she's anything like most kids, anything you "attach" to her (short of a steel shackle) she is going to remove and leave behind or lose. :-)
Again, I understand your reaction (on one level) but I think you're overreacting.
Because 10.0 sucked? I don't know if it was intentional or not, but that was slow enough that I noticed that speed was an issue (and I was using only the most pedestrian of software--browser and email). It was as if the OS was completely unoptimized. If subsequent releases had gotten slower, they'd have been going backwards.
My primary computer, my wife's computer, and our HTPC are all Macs, so I'm not trolling... but damn was it slow.
You have an extra "F" in there.
You know what? You're right