Usually, when someone decries the situation,/. is the place to find comments who point out the exceptions, the good alternatives, the ones that don't fit the formula.
So, where are they? Which Freemium games aren't part of the Zynga conspiracy, are being made by actual game designers, and aren't designed as drugs, but as games?
I'd really, really love to hear about them. As a gamer with dramatically changing amounts of spare time, I don't do subscription-based games anymore, because I know there are long periods of time, as long as a month or two, during which I won't be able to play at all, or maybe an hour a month. So Freemium games are a real alternative for me, and I don't mind paying here and there, as long as it's still a game I'm paying for.
I don't see Apple as cheap when it comes to the extras they put into the package. I usually find stuff inside that I'm pleasantly surprised with. Like the changeable extension cords for the MacBook Pros. In a time where the printers you buy usually come without whatever cables (USB nowadays) you need to actually connect them. I don't think they really worry about a couple cents for paper and ink. And since they still do write them, but only distribute them in electronic form, that's all they would be saving.
I guess that you are not aware that Apple purchased the company that made Siri
They do that all the time. The multitouch technology was developed by a company called TouchStream, which Apple bought. I happen to own a multitouch keyboard that TouchStream developed before Apple bought them, and long before multitouch was "hot".
But TouchStream only had the technology. They built keyboards and touchpads with it. In fact, one of their products was pretty much a Magic Trackpad, just 10 years earlier. But they didn't realize that people weren't ready for multitouch yet, and the lack of tactile feedback was a killer. Apple was who realized that merging display and multitouch would break that barrier down and not only be a killer product by itself (others had realized that as well), but would also open up people to accept multitouch.
That is in a good part due to management stupidity. No, let me re-phrase that: Idiocity.
A huge problem with our economy is that management, and I'm talking C-level and above here, bases many of their major decision on anecdotes and make-believe. For example, in many markets the acting top-players believe that there is only room for 3 players. The top-dog will do fine, the 2nd one will be doing ok and the 3rd one will barely manage. Everyone after that will be losing money, and thus be forced to leave the market or close down sooner or later. That sounds nice and rational. Many mergers are done because #4 and #5 are joining forces in order to become #2 or some such. The problem is that aside from anecdotes and "personal experience", there's no evidence that this is true at all. When you think about it, there is nothing magical about positions in a market. If the top-dog is a near-monopolist, he can split into two companies who would then be #1 and #2 - now tell me how doing so can push #3 from profitable (if just so) to making a loss. Of course it wouldn't. The whole thing is a rule-of-thumb that has some truth to it, but is at best a vast oversimplification of complex interactions.
And still, massive mergers are orchestrated, thousands of people losing their jobs, because top management goes by rules like this.
With a lot of the cool things Apple do, they aren't the one to first do something, they are the first to do it in a way that appeals to the mainstream.
Almost. They are usually not the first ones to make something, but they are usually the first ones to make it good.
I used to own a Palm III back in the days. Extra geek credits if you remember the year without looking it up, I think it must've been 1999 or so. I tried to run Linux on a HP iPAQ. When the iPhone came out, my first thought was: There's the PDA I've always wanted. And, in fact, it still is. I don't really use it as a phone all that much, though it's handy that it's a phone as well.
It's not just "mainstream", it's that Apple is usually the guys who get all the usability and design right.
Windows Mobile phones were around way before the iPhone, but they were never popular in the mainstream because they didn't have the "cool factor".
Actually, it was because they sucked. I've had work colleagues with windows mobile phones. It was painful just watching them use it. I'm sure I would've experienced actual physical pain if I had been forced to use the crap myself. I don't know the latest windows mobile incarnation, but the old ones were horrible abominations on par with Vista and with a usability you couldn't measure because your scale was lacking negative numbers.
Without knowing what's really going on, but it seems that someone there has decided that a principle is more important than the quarterly report, and I applaud that. It will probably benefit them in the long run (e.g. leverage in the next negotiations), but it's always interesting when a company gives a reason other than "it was the profitable thing to do".
Once you've admitted to considering an offer from another company you are now branded disloyal.
That's nonsense. Unless the HR people are total idiots, they know that the job market out there means that their people are also getting offers, or hearing from them. Telling them that you've received an interesting offer is a fact of life. If you were actively job-hunting, and they find out, that's a different thing.
It all depends on how you present the facts. If it sounds like you are looking to leave, that's bad. If it sounds like someone phoned you up and made you a really good offer, that's normal business. The fact that you're telling them alone should clue them in that you're considering taking it. If the offer is considerably better than your current deal, again they would be total idiots to think that's a loyalty issue. Of course, if the difference is small, then it points to a loyalty problem. But if you make a lot more - hello, management are business people, they understand taking the better deal. If you phrase yourself properly in business terms, not forgetting to mention that you have an interest in keeping a good relationship with them, aka leaving on good terms, etc.
When asking for more money, always say why - because you've improved, you've got new responsibilities, the last project went exceptionally well, etc. etc. - never allow them to retreat to some generic, anything-goes field of uncertainty. If they try, ask questions. Ask what the decision will depend upon, if they need all information, and the most important question: If they make any promises whatsoever, ask if you can get them in writing.
And if you're in a situation where you must make a decision now - tell them that you need an answer now. Explain why, at least as much as you're comfortable with.
I disagree on the "top of the list" part. If you play your cards right and say the right words, you can turn an impression of "the guy's going where the money is" into "he got a better offer, but he likes it here so he's giving us a chance to keep him".
It all depends on your company. Have they been loyal to you in the past? What is their behaviour towards other employees? Can you derive from that if they're likely to be loyal to you in the future?
Most companies don't know loyalty. On the first restructuring project, they'll set you free if they don't need you anymore. So why shouldn't you be doing the same?
Some companies, OTOH, will try to keep their employees, even if it means a hit to their baseline. Usually, these are smaller companies run by an owner who is interested in long-term relationships more than quarterly figures.
In general: If you have a better offer, the best thing to do is the honest way: Tell your boss that you have a better offer and are thinking about leaving, and give him the chance to match it (and that doesn't only mean salary!). That way, when they don't and you leave, they can't go whining about it. After all, free market and all, they always love it when it's the source of their profits.
The "only we have freedom of speech" part is a bold lie. Sorry, your country isn't all that special and all that cool. Other countries don't have it as prominent as you do with the 1st Amendment (which, if you face it, really only means it was the first thing they realized they had forgotten in the original document). But it's there alrights. There are nuances and differences in how it's put, how absolute it's seen, etc. - in the real, practical reality, there is not that much difference. The americans are regularily the only people in a discussion who feel that everyone else doesn't have freedom of speech. Everyone else usually disagrees.
I don't believe in "light side" stuff. I do believe that everyone always thinks they are on the right/light side, and I am utterly fascinated by the psychological processes that enable us to think that way.
I do agree on the point, though. The remaining disagreement is only semantical - a right is something given to you by someone else. If you believe there is a god to give you some "natural rights", then you can use that word. Since I don't believe in any gods above me, nobody can give me such a right, thus it isn't a "right" in the sense of the word, but simply an option I always have.
Actually, I believe he would argue that some things don't need a "right". Revolting, by definition, pretty much is the act of saying "fuck you and your rights, you can only write down so much bullshit before we burn it and start again from scratch".
Given that politicians are like software developers in this regard - they never think their product is finished, so sooner or later it is guaranteed to suffer from bloat - it may be necessary to do that every once in a while. Imagine living in a world where every law ever passed since we invented laws were still in effect.
If you are serious about putting restrictions on Free Speech, the very first one should be jailing anyone who speaks about wanting to mess with the 1st.
I don't care if webmasters do extra work or not. I'm fine.
However, if you want to make money from me, then yes, you should be doing the extra work, not me. After all, you're the one who wants to profit from me.
For the rest - I've laid out my argument in length, you're not even trying to refute any of it.
All I'm hearing is "I'm selfish". The non-selfish thing to do is to not visit those sites if you don't like that they're paid for by ads.
Your hearing is impaired.:-)
One, I was talking about unsolicited advertisement - how am I to know that a site is paid for by ads prior to visiting it? Two, I was talking about using an adblocker - even if I visit a site, I don't see any ads and I don't know (and don't care, that is the one point where you are right) if they rely on ads to pay for their operations. And no, you can not simply assume that they do - all of my own sites are ad-free, and cover their costs of operation either by donations or out of my pocket. Three, I was talking about basic contract law, which requires a two-sided agreement. If you run your site on ads and expect visitors to see the ads, thus paying for your site, that is a one-sided agreement. As I have not agreed to anything, I am under no obligation to follow your plan.
Once again, the part you completely ignored: If you put up a paywall, or a "please disable your adblocker, I need the money" wall - I withdraw my argument and will decide on a case-by-case basis if I accept your ads and visit your site, or don't consider it worth it and leave. At that point we do have a two-sided agreement.
Heck, even a notice saying "This site paid for by advertisement, please disable your adblocker" would be a step forward.
What I reject utterly is the attitude you are trying to ascribe to me - that running a site and putting ads on it somehow gives you a right. That the visitors of your site are obliged to follow your plan, that you can somehow create an implicit contract simply by putting ads on your site.
Again, before you twist my words around: I mind the unsolicited part of advertisement, and the assumption that your act of putting them on your site somehow creates an obligation for me to watch them. If you want to create an obligation for me, the least you need to do is tell me about it. Everything else is ridiculous and dishonest.
There are already specific points at which a corporation does not protect its executives or owners. And yes, whenever such a thing comes up in court, it works like a charm.
There's a story about a major german corporation, one of the biggest in fact, that simply refused to comply with some legal requirement, exhibiting a pretty open "so sue me" attitude. Well, someone did. Corporation prepared to laugh it off, put a bit of money on the side to pay the fine and otherwise ignore the matter. Judge didn't like that atittude one bit and ordered the entire board of directors to be imprisoned for contempt until they wised up. The police had not even entered the building when the board had in an emergency meeting pulled a full 180Â on the original matter.
However, it is also good that liability limitation usually works. Otherwise, things like this would stop being exceptional and would thus lose their effectiveness.
Money is easy to simply figure into the cost of operating, and that's exactly how corporations deal with fines. I've had enough closed-door meetings with C-Level executives where these things were quite openly discussed.
Getting put in jail is, to appropriate the business terms for a person, an interruption of operating. You can't simply include it and otherwise proceed as normal. More importantly, it also effectively prevents you from committing further crimes, at least for a time.
The only times I actually encounter the assholes would be when I'm coming home at night myself. At which time I'm unlikely to have a bucket of anything with me, and by the time I'd return with one, they would be gone.
Yes, I've thought this through, including the risk part.
I fully intend to kick them against the wall so that they piss all over themselves and then crash down into the puddle, yes. Unfortunately, in their drunken state, neither smell nor disgust are likely to penetrate the haze of alcohol. Physical pain, on the other hand... the threshold for pain is higher if you're drunk, but not unlimited.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually, when someone decries the situation, /. is the place to find comments who point out the exceptions, the good alternatives, the ones that don't fit the formula.
So, where are they? Which Freemium games aren't part of the Zynga conspiracy, are being made by actual game designers, and aren't designed as drugs, but as games?
I'd really, really love to hear about them. As a gamer with dramatically changing amounts of spare time, I don't do subscription-based games anymore, because I know there are long periods of time, as long as a month or two, during which I won't be able to play at all, or maybe an hour a month. So Freemium games are a real alternative for me, and I don't mind paying here and there, as long as it's still a game I'm paying for.
A real manual is larger than the kind of machine you are talking about.
I'd be surprised. We're talking a 30" iMac there. ;-)
No, I know what you're getting at. But it doesn't matter. Size wasn't an issue until you brought it up there. The GP made an entirely different point.
I don't see Apple as cheap when it comes to the extras they put into the package. I usually find stuff inside that I'm pleasantly surprised with. Like the changeable extension cords for the MacBook Pros. In a time where the printers you buy usually come without whatever cables (USB nowadays) you need to actually connect them. I don't think they really worry about a couple cents for paper and ink. And since they still do write them, but only distribute them in electronic form, that's all they would be saving.
I guess that you are not aware that Apple purchased the company that made Siri
They do that all the time. The multitouch technology was developed by a company called TouchStream, which Apple bought. I happen to own a multitouch keyboard that TouchStream developed before Apple bought them, and long before multitouch was "hot".
But TouchStream only had the technology. They built keyboards and touchpads with it. In fact, one of their products was pretty much a Magic Trackpad, just 10 years earlier. But they didn't realize that people weren't ready for multitouch yet, and the lack of tactile feedback was a killer. Apple was who realized that merging display and multitouch would break that barrier down and not only be a killer product by itself (others had realized that as well), but would also open up people to accept multitouch.
That is in a good part due to management stupidity. No, let me re-phrase that: Idiocity.
A huge problem with our economy is that management, and I'm talking C-level and above here, bases many of their major decision on anecdotes and make-believe. For example, in many markets the acting top-players believe that there is only room for 3 players. The top-dog will do fine, the 2nd one will be doing ok and the 3rd one will barely manage. Everyone after that will be losing money, and thus be forced to leave the market or close down sooner or later.
That sounds nice and rational. Many mergers are done because #4 and #5 are joining forces in order to become #2 or some such.
The problem is that aside from anecdotes and "personal experience", there's no evidence that this is true at all. When you think about it, there is nothing magical about positions in a market. If the top-dog is a near-monopolist, he can split into two companies who would then be #1 and #2 - now tell me how doing so can push #3 from profitable (if just so) to making a loss. Of course it wouldn't. The whole thing is a rule-of-thumb that has some truth to it, but is at best a vast oversimplification of complex interactions.
And still, massive mergers are orchestrated, thousands of people losing their jobs, because top management goes by rules like this.
With a lot of the cool things Apple do, they aren't the one to first do something, they are the first to do it in a way that appeals to the mainstream.
Almost. They are usually not the first ones to make something, but they are usually the first ones to make it good.
I used to own a Palm III back in the days. Extra geek credits if you remember the year without looking it up, I think it must've been 1999 or so.
I tried to run Linux on a HP iPAQ.
When the iPhone came out, my first thought was: There's the PDA I've always wanted. And, in fact, it still is. I don't really use it as a phone all that much, though it's handy that it's a phone as well.
It's not just "mainstream", it's that Apple is usually the guys who get all the usability and design right.
Windows Mobile phones were around way before the iPhone, but they were never popular in the mainstream because they didn't have the "cool factor".
Actually, it was because they sucked. I've had work colleagues with windows mobile phones. It was painful just watching them use it. I'm sure I would've experienced actual physical pain if I had been forced to use the crap myself. I don't know the latest windows mobile incarnation, but the old ones were horrible abominations on par with Vista and with a usability you couldn't measure because your scale was lacking negative numbers.
Raines has set up a Web site that urges people to call officials at Raytheon and the National Science Foundation.
With the purpose of what? Endangering more lives? This isn't a rational plea for help, it's irrational panic.
I realize they don't shoot themselves in the foot just because.
But "interest" is a different animal than "profit". You can have other interests besides money.
Without knowing what's really going on, but it seems that someone there has decided that a principle is more important than the quarterly report, and I applaud that. It will probably benefit them in the long run (e.g. leverage in the next negotiations), but it's always interesting when a company gives a reason other than "it was the profitable thing to do".
The FT reports that Microsoft 'promised' the Commission it would keep Skype interoperable and supported on rival operating systems."
Is that promised as in "they mentioned it during the talks" or promised as in "they made a binding commitment in writing" ?
Because the former, with corporations in general and with MS in particular, is worth exactly 0.00 â.
Once you've admitted to considering an offer from another company you are now branded disloyal.
That's nonsense. Unless the HR people are total idiots, they know that the job market out there means that their people are also getting offers, or hearing from them. Telling them that you've received an interesting offer is a fact of life. If you were actively job-hunting, and they find out, that's a different thing.
It all depends on how you present the facts. If it sounds like you are looking to leave, that's bad. If it sounds like someone phoned you up and made you a really good offer, that's normal business. The fact that you're telling them alone should clue them in that you're considering taking it. If the offer is considerably better than your current deal, again they would be total idiots to think that's a loyalty issue. Of course, if the difference is small, then it points to a loyalty problem. But if you make a lot more - hello, management are business people, they understand taking the better deal. If you phrase yourself properly in business terms, not forgetting to mention that you have an interest in keeping a good relationship with them, aka leaving on good terms, etc.
That's why you don't ask for a raise.
When asking for more money, always say why - because you've improved, you've got new responsibilities, the last project went exceptionally well, etc. etc. - never allow them to retreat to some generic, anything-goes field of uncertainty. If they try, ask questions. Ask what the decision will depend upon, if they need all information, and the most important question: If they make any promises whatsoever, ask if you can get them in writing.
And if you're in a situation where you must make a decision now - tell them that you need an answer now. Explain why, at least as much as you're comfortable with.
I disagree on the "top of the list" part. If you play your cards right and say the right words, you can turn an impression of "the guy's going where the money is" into "he got a better offer, but he likes it here so he's giving us a chance to keep him".
It all depends on your company. Have they been loyal to you in the past? What is their behaviour towards other employees? Can you derive from that if they're likely to be loyal to you in the future?
Most companies don't know loyalty. On the first restructuring project, they'll set you free if they don't need you anymore. So why shouldn't you be doing the same?
Some companies, OTOH, will try to keep their employees, even if it means a hit to their baseline. Usually, these are smaller companies run by an owner who is interested in long-term relationships more than quarterly figures.
In general: If you have a better offer, the best thing to do is the honest way: Tell your boss that you have a better offer and are thinking about leaving, and give him the chance to match it (and that doesn't only mean salary!). That way, when they don't and you leave, they can't go whining about it. After all, free market and all, they always love it when it's the source of their profits.
The "only we have freedom of speech" part is a bold lie. Sorry, your country isn't all that special and all that cool. Other countries don't have it as prominent as you do with the 1st Amendment (which, if you face it, really only means it was the first thing they realized they had forgotten in the original document). But it's there alrights. There are nuances and differences in how it's put, how absolute it's seen, etc. - in the real, practical reality, there is not that much difference. The americans are regularily the only people in a discussion who feel that everyone else doesn't have freedom of speech. Everyone else usually disagrees.
I don't believe in "light side" stuff. I do believe that everyone always thinks they are on the right/light side, and I am utterly fascinated by the psychological processes that enable us to think that way.
I do agree on the point, though. The remaining disagreement is only semantical - a right is something given to you by someone else. If you believe there is a god to give you some "natural rights", then you can use that word. Since I don't believe in any gods above me, nobody can give me such a right, thus it isn't a "right" in the sense of the word, but simply an option I always have.
As you've set your mind in stone, any argument is wasted.
Our goddess is probably ashamed of you, and has gone drinking the pain away somewhere.
Actually, I believe he would argue that some things don't need a "right". Revolting, by definition, pretty much is the act of saying "fuck you and your rights, you can only write down so much bullshit before we burn it and start again from scratch".
Given that politicians are like software developers in this regard - they never think their product is finished, so sooner or later it is guaranteed to suffer from bloat - it may be necessary to do that every once in a while. Imagine living in a world where every law ever passed since we invented laws were still in effect.
Why not just shoot him in the head, and stop wussing about?
One, I don't own a gun.
Two, I want him to tell his friends, so they think about it twice.
If you are serious about putting restrictions on Free Speech, the very first one should be jailing anyone who speaks about wanting to mess with the 1st.
You're still reading what you want to read.
I don't care if webmasters do extra work or not. I'm fine.
However, if you want to make money from me, then yes, you should be doing the extra work, not me. After all, you're the one who wants to profit from me.
For the rest - I've laid out my argument in length, you're not even trying to refute any of it.
All I'm hearing is "I'm selfish". The non-selfish thing to do is to not visit those sites if you don't like that they're paid for by ads.
Your hearing is impaired. :-)
One, I was talking about unsolicited advertisement - how am I to know that a site is paid for by ads prior to visiting it?
Two, I was talking about using an adblocker - even if I visit a site, I don't see any ads and I don't know (and don't care, that is the one point where you are right) if they rely on ads to pay for their operations. And no, you can not simply assume that they do - all of my own sites are ad-free, and cover their costs of operation either by donations or out of my pocket.
Three, I was talking about basic contract law, which requires a two-sided agreement. If you run your site on ads and expect visitors to see the ads, thus paying for your site, that is a one-sided agreement. As I have not agreed to anything, I am under no obligation to follow your plan.
Once again, the part you completely ignored: If you put up a paywall, or a "please disable your adblocker, I need the money" wall - I withdraw my argument and will decide on a case-by-case basis if I accept your ads and visit your site, or don't consider it worth it and leave. At that point we do have a two-sided agreement.
Heck, even a notice saying "This site paid for by advertisement, please disable your adblocker" would be a step forward.
What I reject utterly is the attitude you are trying to ascribe to me - that running a site and putting ads on it somehow gives you a right. That the visitors of your site are obliged to follow your plan, that you can somehow create an implicit contract simply by putting ads on your site.
Again, before you twist my words around: I mind the unsolicited part of advertisement, and the assumption that your act of putting them on your site somehow creates an obligation for me to watch them. If you want to create an obligation for me, the least you need to do is tell me about it. Everything else is ridiculous and dishonest.
There are already specific points at which a corporation does not protect its executives or owners. And yes, whenever such a thing comes up in court, it works like a charm.
There's a story about a major german corporation, one of the biggest in fact, that simply refused to comply with some legal requirement, exhibiting a pretty open "so sue me" attitude. Well, someone did. Corporation prepared to laugh it off, put a bit of money on the side to pay the fine and otherwise ignore the matter.
Judge didn't like that atittude one bit and ordered the entire board of directors to be imprisoned for contempt until they wised up. The police had not even entered the building when the board had in an emergency meeting pulled a full 180Â on the original matter.
However, it is also good that liability limitation usually works. Otherwise, things like this would stop being exceptional and would thus lose their effectiveness.
While true, this is oversimplified.
Money is easy to simply figure into the cost of operating, and that's exactly how corporations deal with fines. I've had enough closed-door meetings with C-Level executives where these things were quite openly discussed.
Getting put in jail is, to appropriate the business terms for a person, an interruption of operating. You can't simply include it and otherwise proceed as normal. More importantly, it also effectively prevents you from committing further crimes, at least for a time.
Both of these aspects are missing from fines.
The only times I actually encounter the assholes would be when I'm coming home at night myself. At which time I'm unlikely to have a bucket of anything with me, and by the time I'd return with one, they would be gone.
Yes, I've thought this through, including the risk part.
I fully intend to kick them against the wall so that they piss all over themselves and then crash down into the puddle, yes. Unfortunately, in their drunken state, neither smell nor disgust are likely to penetrate the haze of alcohol. Physical pain, on the other hand... the threshold for pain is higher if you're drunk, but not unlimited.