A penny per email will make money, whereas a penny per ride will bankrupt the idiots who try this dumb idea.
You do realize that today, taxis have static and even display-based advertising, right? That's right, they pay to install an LCD panel and whatever small computer and connectivity is required to drive the ads.
Advertising is priced on sales conversion.
See an ad for McD's on a web page: low conversion rate. Forced to stare at a screen for 20 minutes in the backseat of a taxi: higher conversion rate. Forced to wait at McD's for 20 minutes: high conversion rate.
The only idiots are the people that are blind to the effects of advertising. Hundreds of billions are spent on advertising each year. It works, and it works well. It's dangerous to be in a mindset where you aren't even aware.
Except that advertising does not earn that moch money per person.
You think there's a difference between seeing an ad for McDonalds on a web page, and being forced to wait for 20 minutes at a McDonalds? Would one of those tend to produce more sales?
Let's go back to trying to ban music ripping while we're at it.
Ripping music for your own use is fine (and legal). Multi-streams within your own household is fine too. Ripping it to distribute to others is not, neither is sharing your account to others.
I know it's open source, but a lot of stuff can get hidden in code...
Because we're all running background checks on the authors of the OSS we use, right? Or maybe you are looking to see if they use words like "comrade" in their comments. That's probably good enough.
making an app like that doesn't take super programming abilities, just some time and effort\
Sooo.... like most software?
But my main worry is why should I trust an App built by a guy who admitted stealing NSA data?
It's OSS. I guess you hope that not a few people will be pouring over the code looking for issues. https://github.com/guardianpro...
I seriously doubt Snowden had much to do with this other than giving it his stamp of approval. The primary (only?) contributor is not Snowden (obviously).
If you think that's a realistic view of the future, I weep for your parents
Thinking it's realistic and thinking it's awesome are different. I can think it's realistic and still think it's awful.
Anyway, people have shown time and again that they are willing to trade privacy, subjection to advertising for a free product or service. Seems pretty realistic to me.
You are right, it's not illegal. It's against their TOS. Morality is of course subjective.
No prices will go up.
Do you really think that if every Netflix subscriber shared their account 4 ways, it wouldn't impact prices? Can you really think that?
I guess you never had econ 101 or equivalent. More streams require more resources. Resources are not free. You know, things like electricity, bandwidth, developers, payoffs to Big Cable. If the cost of doing business goes up, prices go up. This is all very well understood.
You pay for the number of simultaneous streaming devices 1, 2 or 4. What do you think that's for?
I think (know) it's to allow a single household to have multiple streams. If you have any question, call Netflix support and ask them what it's for.
At this point I have to conclude I'm being trolled or you are mentally handicapped, so I'm going to bow out of the discussion. Good luck.
I am paying Netflix for 4 streams whether I use them or someone else does.
No, you are not. If you have any question, I suggest you call Netflix support and ask them. If you are going to pick and choose, why bother considering any of the rules? At least be honest with yourself.
No other rationalization is needed.
Agreed, life is simpler if you just don't think about how your actions effects others.
If Netflix changes things so my wife and I can't share as easily, then us and our respective parents will decide how we all want to spend our money, like people in a normal market economy do.
Exactly. So you'll break the rules until someone has a way to force you to stop. Like I said, ponder if you will how society would operate if everyone followed that creed.
it's the baby boomer generation parents coasting on their children
Are you really so simple that you are breaking this down to a "my generation vs. their generation" argument? Sheesh. Really, your point is what now? You are such a massive contributor to society that it offsets your stealing? Really solid thinking there.
Keep on stealing what you can. Cheating your taxes, hiring a personal injury lawyer when you slip at the grocery or get in a fender bender, whatever. Life is about grabbing all you can at the expense of others.
No, he's paying for 4 streams / household. If you are going to ignore the rules, you might as well ignore all of them. At least then you are honest with yourself.
* - We are between GenX and Millenial... both born in 1980. Make whatever assumption you want. It will not change the reality.
What reality? That you are illegally sharing accounts?
You may have some naive fantasy that you are "sticking it to the man" You aren't. When you share your account, it increases traffic and keeps cash flow to Netflix the same. What do you think happens? Do you think Netflix says "oh well, less profit for us!". No, they raise prices. So basically your logic is I'll steal what amounts to an entire subscription, but the associated loss will be spread over the entire subscriber base. Win for you!
If you need help deciding if your actions are moral, just ask yourself what would happen if everyone did this. Well, Netflix would go out of business, or the subscriptions prices would double or triple. It's all good as long as it's only you scamming the system though right? After all, grab what you can in life.
I'm sure all of those millennials sharing their parents' passwords will immediately sign up for cable as soon as the restrictions take effect.
That's like saying if I put a fence up around my field people will stop stealing my apples. And... what's the downside?I get more apples to sell to paying customers, and I lose nothing otherwise. I guess I had to pay for a fence.
I know "screw the cable companies" and all that, but the bottom line is that if there's more traffic on their networks and fewer paying users the price goes up for those of us that do pay fairly. People have this fantasy that they are sticking it to the man. They aren't they are sticking it to the people.
Sell that phone at 400eur/380gbp on this side of the pond, where a LOT of phones are bought flat out,
There's no one EU market that comes anywhere close to the sales potential of the US, and releasing in many different smaller markets is a supreme pain in the ass.
No device is going to be a success unless it can first succeed in China or the US.
We're also dealing with parents who treat smartphones like it's their left arm, so no surprise their kids consider a smartphone and social media access as vital as breathing.
I take a strong "do as I say not as I do" in these situations.
At the end of the day, there's just the music. If I can get that reliably with a decent interface there's not a whole lot more to can do to make it better. The issue here is marketing, and possibly price. It's not the quality of the service.
So we have Google Play Music. We have YouTube Red. And they are creating ANOTHER subscription music service?
The new service, internally referred to as Remix, would include Spotify-like on-demand streaming and would incorporate elements from YouTube, such as video clips, the people said. YouTube has reached out to artists to seek their help in promoting the new service, one of the people said.
Both of their existing services have on-demand streaming and video clips. One thing that's a pretty rule rule of the internet: people aren't going to suddenly pay for something that they've been getting for free for a decade. Regardless of how snazzy you might make it.
Also, children under 13 cannot make responsible choices. I think that's pretty much understood.
But their parents can (hopefully).
If you think a parent can stop intense peer pressure... well, I have a bridge to sell you.
You can are going to let you child do something that you vehemently is wrong because you don't want them to experience peer pressure? Please do not have children.
Netflix in particular has driven the need to massively increase bandwidth across the whole internet. The rest of the internet is subsidizing their business, in effect. That's not exactly fair, either.
Uh, no. Netflix pays it's ISPs to send data to users. Users pay their ISP to receive data - from Netflix, and other places. Anything else is double dipping.
The result of this isn't a transfer of profits from Netflix to Comcast. Oh no. Netflix will raises prices. This is just a way of Comcast double-charging YOU the consumer. You pay your bill, and also pay to receive certain other services. In case you felt the $179 a month you are paying Comcast is unfair to them.
Slashdot Mirror
A penny per email will make money, whereas a penny per ride will bankrupt the idiots who try this dumb idea.
You do realize that today, taxis have static and even display-based advertising, right? That's right, they pay to install an LCD panel and whatever small computer and connectivity is required to drive the ads.
Advertising is priced on sales conversion.
See an ad for McD's on a web page: low conversion rate.
Forced to stare at a screen for 20 minutes in the backseat of a taxi: higher conversion rate.
Forced to wait at McD's for 20 minutes: high conversion rate.
The only idiots are the people that are blind to the effects of advertising. Hundreds of billions are spent on advertising each year. It works, and it works well. It's dangerous to be in a mindset where you aren't even aware.
The only people willing to put up with this are people desparate for a free ride (to the doctor, to the job agency, etc).
Good thing those type of people do not exist.
Except that advertising does not earn that moch money per person.
You think there's a difference between seeing an ad for McDonalds on a web page, and being forced to wait for 20 minutes at a McDonalds? Would one of those tend to produce more sales?
Let's go back to trying to ban music ripping while we're at it.
Ripping music for your own use is fine (and legal). Multi-streams within your own household is fine too. Ripping it to distribute to others is not, neither is sharing your account to others.
I know it's open source, but a lot of stuff can get hidden in code...
Because we're all running background checks on the authors of the OSS we use, right? Or maybe you are looking to see if they use words like "comrade" in their comments. That's probably good enough.
making an app like that doesn't take super programming abilities, just some time and effort\
Sooo.... like most software?
But my main worry is why should I trust an App built by a guy who admitted stealing NSA data?
It's OSS. I guess you hope that not a few people will be pouring over the code looking for issues.
https://github.com/guardianpro...
I seriously doubt Snowden had much to do with this other than giving it his stamp of approval. The primary (only?) contributor is not Snowden (obviously).
If you think that's a realistic view of the future, I weep for your parents
Thinking it's realistic and thinking it's awesome are different. I can think it's realistic and still think it's awful.
Anyway, people have shown time and again that they are willing to trade privacy, subjection to advertising for a free product or service. Seems pretty realistic to me.
Hi troll, it's not working.
Nothing illegal. Nothing immoral.
You are right, it's not illegal. It's against their TOS. Morality is of course subjective.
No prices will go up.
Do you really think that if every Netflix subscriber shared their account 4 ways, it wouldn't impact prices? Can you really think that?
I guess you never had econ 101 or equivalent. More streams require more resources. Resources are not free. You know, things like electricity, bandwidth, developers, payoffs to Big Cable. If the cost of doing business goes up, prices go up. This is all very well understood.
You pay for the number of simultaneous streaming devices 1, 2 or 4. What do you think that's for?
I think (know) it's to allow a single household to have multiple streams. If you have any question, call Netflix support and ask them what it's for.
At this point I have to conclude I'm being trolled or you are mentally handicapped, so I'm going to bow out of the discussion. Good luck.
I am paying Netflix for 4 streams whether I use them or someone else does.
No, you are not. If you have any question, I suggest you call Netflix support and ask them. If you are going to pick and choose, why bother considering any of the rules? At least be honest with yourself.
No other rationalization is needed.
Agreed, life is simpler if you just don't think about how your actions effects others.
If Netflix changes things so my wife and I can't share as easily, then us and our respective parents will decide how we all want to spend our money, like people in a normal market economy do.
Exactly. So you'll break the rules until someone has a way to force you to stop. Like I said, ponder if you will how society would operate if everyone followed that creed.
it's the baby boomer generation parents coasting on their children
Are you really so simple that you are breaking this down to a "my generation vs. their generation" argument? Sheesh. Really, your point is what now? You are such a massive contributor to society that it offsets your stealing? Really solid thinking there.
Keep on stealing what you can. Cheating your taxes, hiring a personal injury lawyer when you slip at the grocery or get in a fender bender, whatever. Life is about grabbing all you can at the expense of others.
He is paying for 4 streams.
No, he's paying for 4 streams / household. If you are going to ignore the rules, you might as well ignore all of them. At least then you are honest with yourself.
* - We are between GenX and Millenial... both born in 1980. Make whatever assumption you want. It will not change the reality.
What reality? That you are illegally sharing accounts?
You may have some naive fantasy that you are "sticking it to the man" You aren't. When you share your account, it increases traffic and keeps cash flow to Netflix the same. What do you think happens? Do you think Netflix says "oh well, less profit for us!". No, they raise prices. So basically your logic is I'll steal what amounts to an entire subscription, but the associated loss will be spread over the entire subscriber base. Win for you!
If you need help deciding if your actions are moral, just ask yourself what would happen if everyone did this. Well, Netflix would go out of business, or the subscriptions prices would double or triple. It's all good as long as it's only you scamming the system though right? After all, grab what you can in life.
I'm sure all of those millennials sharing their parents' passwords will immediately sign up for cable as soon as the restrictions take effect.
That's like saying if I put a fence up around my field people will stop stealing my apples. And ... what's the downside?I get more apples to sell to paying customers, and I lose nothing otherwise. I guess I had to pay for a fence.
I know "screw the cable companies" and all that, but the bottom line is that if there's more traffic on their networks and fewer paying users the price goes up for those of us that do pay fairly. People have this fantasy that they are sticking it to the man. They aren't they are sticking it to the people.
Sell that phone at 400eur/380gbp on this side of the pond, where a LOT of phones are bought flat out,
There's no one EU market that comes anywhere close to the sales potential of the US, and releasing in many different smaller markets is a supreme pain in the ass.
No device is going to be a success unless it can first succeed in China or the US.
Who knew competing with companies like Samsung and Apple who spend billions in advertising and billions more in R&D would be so difficult?
We're also dealing with parents who treat smartphones like it's their left arm, so no surprise their kids consider a smartphone and social media access as vital as breathing.
I take a strong "do as I say not as I do" in these situations.
Google Play kicks Spotify's ass.
I agree. I have a family subscription.
At the end of the day, there's just the music. If I can get that reliably with a decent interface there's not a whole lot more to can do to make it better. The issue here is marketing, and possibly price. It's not the quality of the service.
So we have Google Play Music. We have YouTube Red. And they are creating ANOTHER subscription music service?
The new service, internally referred to as Remix, would include Spotify-like on-demand streaming and would incorporate elements from YouTube, such as video clips, the people said. YouTube has reached out to artists to seek their help in promoting the new service, one of the people said.
Both of their existing services have on-demand streaming and video clips. One thing that's a pretty rule rule of the internet: people aren't going to suddenly pay for something that they've been getting for free for a decade. Regardless of how snazzy you might make it.
Also, children under 13 cannot make responsible choices. I think that's pretty much understood.
But their parents can (hopefully).
If you think a parent can stop intense peer pressure... well, I have a bridge to sell you.
You can are going to let you child do something that you vehemently is wrong because you don't want them to experience peer pressure? Please do not have children.
I wonder if ISPs could do something positive with paid prioritization.
Here's what it does: allows them to monetize an existing resource without any additional investment. The Holy Grail for all corporations.
Why do they have to pay your provider also?
Oh, they won't. Netflix will raise your bill. You'll be paying your ISP 2x to receive the same data.
Netflix in particular has driven the need to massively increase bandwidth across the whole internet. The rest of the internet is subsidizing their business, in effect. That's not exactly fair, either.
Uh, no. Netflix pays it's ISPs to send data to users. Users pay their ISP to receive data - from Netflix, and other places. Anything else is double dipping.
The result of this isn't a transfer of profits from Netflix to Comcast. Oh no. Netflix will raises prices. This is just a way of Comcast double-charging YOU the consumer. You pay your bill, and also pay to receive certain other services. In case you felt the $179 a month you are paying Comcast is unfair to them.
Simply a considered opinion, just like yours.
Yes, we both have opinions. So after several days of back and forth, you've worked as back to zero. Good job.
Neither is your Apple-Hating screed.
Apple-hating? No, I have many Apple products. I am just pointing out the level of your naivety.