that's like saying a home builder will sell you a "Starter Edition" house that, once you open the door (he threw the door in as a bonus!), find out the house is basically a shell on top of the foundation.. no fixtures, cabinets, flooring, drywalls, just framing.
And if you just use mostly F/OSS, getting basic would probably annoy the hell out of you.
Except when Customers X,Y,Z has no clue what the difference is between the products and decides just not to buy and to stick with what came with their computer.
Consumer wallets aren't a switch that can be flipped on by market theory.
and this is exactly why a room full of MBA's can only stagnate a company, and not innovate.
Market segmentation only works when doing so has benefits for the consumer, the customer demands or understands what they're getting or not getting, and it doesn't cause confusion.
Your example of GPS and stereos has nothing to do with segmentation. You're just talking about companies charging for the convenience of having something pre-installed on delivery.
The pricing tiers with Red Hat is there because not all businesses need the same thing. Businesses like to pay for only what they need.
The reason why Microsoft is being picked on for their practice of segmenting a consumer product marketed towards the general public is because the general public isn't a business.
And this is something that microsoft doesn't understand. The Mojave thing by microsoft illustrated very clearly that non-computer nerd consumers can't identify Vista. What chance is there that they'll know what to buy between the different versions of Vista/Win7? If anything else, it'll turn customers off, and they'll just stick with what they know - which just so happens to be whatever OS their computer came with.
the problem is with what the stock market's evolved into.
originally, the stock market is there for people to invest in companies and to participate in its success
what the stock market is now are millions of day traders who care nothing about the company they're investing in, and are staring at stock tickers, waiting to profit off of intra-day price changes.
so what's next? do all executives for all companies now also have to file quarterly reports on:
1)what they eat
2)how often they sneeze
3)their food allergies
4)how often they exercise
5) etc....
if i were to run a decently profitable business, i'd do everything i could to not trade my company publicly.
investors and money in the stock market doesn't care about people. they only care about profit.
the same investors who would've chopped the early 90's apple up and sold it for profit are the same people who want to know everything about Jobs so they can get out of the market and make money.
greed isn't creative.
greed is near sighted.
greed is an indiscriminate killer of all things, not just lives.
no you won't. if they did offer that, then you'd come up with another reason why not to buy it.
stop lying and just say you don't like paying for music. it's ok.
This has less to do with the RIAA deciding to switch tactics in enforcing copyrights and it has more to do with the RIAA not wanting a legal precedent set about file sharing.
they know their patent claim is pretty thin, and that all other cell phones are in themselves prior art as they only filed for this patent last year.
sounds to me that they've chosen to target the iPhone because it was only released last year, therefore being least likely for a company to claim prior art
oh there's plenty of demand... why do you think telecoms are pushing so hard against net neutrality? they're already seeing load and demand on their networks exceeding or getting close to peak capacity.
the right thing to do would be to upgrade their capacity.
the cheaper and easier thing to do is to throttle connections.
Slashdot Mirror
i think that the subtlety here is in the line:
Wow, this is how it works.
which strongly proves that Lars has no idea what he's being such a strong opponent of.
please list all of your spectacular accomplishments
shareholders seem to forget the risk that they've decided to take to share in the prosperity or ruin of a company.
if you don't like what they're doing with your shareholder money, simply sell your stock, get your money back, and stop complaining.
what's not fair competition? apple's selling computers+osx to compete against dell+hp+lenovo+whomever+microsoft
with apple gone, the only player in the consumer PC market would be windows.
linux still isn't there as an option (though it's getting there slowly slowly)
tell that to the recording industry
what do you think all those built for Vista stickers are all about?
and MS doesn't make computers.
read up on history. apple's clone experiment back in the 90's cannibalized sales and almost killed the company.
if they did that, apple would need to spin off the itunes music store in order to avoid a conflict of interest and anti-trust issues
that's like saying a home builder will sell you a "Starter Edition" house that, once you open the door (he threw the door in as a bonus!), find out the house is basically a shell on top of the foundation.. no fixtures, cabinets, flooring, drywalls, just framing.
And if you just use mostly F/OSS, getting basic would probably annoy the hell out of you.
in the case of XP Home, the only way to add features you want is to buy XP Pro.
If an OS requires that you hack and chop stuff off to make it run faster, then maybe the OS needs to be written better.
ya, you might accidentally shoot yourself in the foot.
Except when Customers X,Y,Z has no clue what the difference is between the products and decides just not to buy and to stick with what came with their computer.
Consumer wallets aren't a switch that can be flipped on by market theory.
and this is exactly why a room full of MBA's can only stagnate a company, and not innovate.
Market segmentation only works when doing so has benefits for the consumer, the customer demands or understands what they're getting or not getting, and it doesn't cause confusion.
Your example of GPS and stereos has nothing to do with segmentation. You're just talking about companies charging for the convenience of having something pre-installed on delivery.
The pricing tiers with Red Hat is there because not all businesses need the same thing. Businesses like to pay for only what they need.
The reason why Microsoft is being picked on for their practice of segmenting a consumer product marketed towards the general public is because the general public isn't a business.
And this is something that microsoft doesn't understand. The Mojave thing by microsoft illustrated very clearly that non-computer nerd consumers can't identify Vista. What chance is there that they'll know what to buy between the different versions of Vista/Win7? If anything else, it'll turn customers off, and they'll just stick with what they know - which just so happens to be whatever OS their computer came with.
the subtle thing to note in that quote is that he said "somebody else's CD"
well good. I'm copying a CD that I bought, whose music was licensed to me for my own personal use.
the problem is with what the stock market's evolved into.
originally, the stock market is there for people to invest in companies and to participate in its success
what the stock market is now are millions of day traders who care nothing about the company they're investing in, and are staring at stock tickers, waiting to profit off of intra-day price changes.
jobs is noticeably thinner than he was a couple years ago.
i highly doubt Jobs is starving himself to manipulate the stock market
so what's next? do all executives for all companies now also have to file quarterly reports on: 1)what they eat 2)how often they sneeze 3)their food allergies 4)how often they exercise 5) etc.... if i were to run a decently profitable business, i'd do everything i could to not trade my company publicly.
investors and money in the stock market doesn't care about people. they only care about profit.
the same investors who would've chopped the early 90's apple up and sold it for profit are the same people who want to know everything about Jobs so they can get out of the market and make money.
greed isn't creative.
greed is near sighted.
greed is an indiscriminate killer of all things, not just lives.
no you won't. if they did offer that, then you'd come up with another reason why not to buy it. stop lying and just say you don't like paying for music. it's ok.
This has less to do with the RIAA deciding to switch tactics in enforcing copyrights and it has more to do with the RIAA not wanting a legal precedent set about file sharing.
i've got a better idea:
A) Require a $10 license to sell scrap metal (trivial amount for people and companies doing it legitimately)
B) offer $500 reward to scrap dealers who turn in scrappers that lead to a conviction
C) $10000 fine to businesses who knowingly accept scrap from people w/o a license from part A
now we have a system that rewards honest businesses. Scrap Dealers can choose to report or not to report an offender.
There's some mdoest financial incentive to report. Scrap dealers that are caught buying from scrappers get a big slap across the face.
Doesn't solve the problem, but it makes the business of scrapping harder.
The idea is to make it harder than the next easiest source of quick cash.
and i'll file a patent that adds "in bed"
they know their patent claim is pretty thin, and that all other cell phones are in themselves prior art as they only filed for this patent last year. sounds to me that they've chosen to target the iPhone because it was only released last year, therefore being least likely for a company to claim prior art
oh there's plenty of demand... why do you think telecoms are pushing so hard against net neutrality? they're already seeing load and demand on their networks exceeding or getting close to peak capacity.
the right thing to do would be to upgrade their capacity.
the cheaper and easier thing to do is to throttle connections.
free market and unregulated business only work to provide a better product to the consumer when there's no collusion between said businesses.
in the US case, there's no real incentive to justify the capital investment to upgrade broadband speeds...
why would you when what's already in place is a cash cow.
it would take an act of congress or a rogue company to spark any real work to catch up to the rest of the world