Say you have $120. Without used you can buy two games. With used you can sell those two games for $40 each and buy another game. That's a 50% increase in sales to EA that used is directly responsible for.
The used people aren't lost sales. They're either frugal or limited income (often children). Either way they're people who aren't going to pay $60 for a game anyways. If there's no used they'll wait until it hits the clearance rack.
Online play is a service they provide. It's distinct from the game. It requires their servers. They can allow who ever they want on their servers. First sale has nothing to do with it.
Regardless it's 61 people. It's not worth spending resources on. There are any number of things that the same resources would have a much greater effect on. For example the much larger pool of car accident victims.
WTF? The stats you provide show the exact opposite of what you claim. Construction deaths in a workzone is akin to being struck by lightning. Literally. Murder accounts for some 306 times as many deaths. Driving account for some 670 times as many deaths.
844 deaths in a 7 year period. 120.5 deaths a year.
No more than half of those are caused by cars. 60.25
At most, likely less due to mobile equipment, 61 people a year die in work zones from cars. Nationwide.
I feel like I should have a standard "I told you so" post that I paste in for stories like this. Since I don't it's story time.
Yesterday I went to store and tried to buy a copy of the Ironman DVD. They (multinational big box electronics retailer) were all out. WTF? An item with almost zero unit cost and you have none available. I went home.
Based on the standard ~1.3GB of DVD rips it would have taken me less time to download it than to go to the store, 20 minute roundtrip plus browsing time. And I would have ended up with a copy of the movie.
let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. HTML5 will allow you to completely bypass the app store and will completely remove Apple from having any say in what code runs on your device.
You're right. I didn't answer the question. I won't. It's a highly loaded question custom tailored to the discussion at hand with no bearing on reality.
I hope you never interview anyone. You completely judge him on one action. One action that you know nothing about. For all we know is a publicity stunt by Apple. Everyone makes mistakes. If you judge people on those mistakes it's impossible to hire anyone. You have to judge people on how they handle those mistakes.
If he sat in front of me the first question would be the about the iPhone. You are going to learn so much about him from the response. More than your going to learn from any other candidate.
Since you want to be pedantic. App has a distinct meaning the iWorld. I'm talking about apps. As in there's an app for that. As in the chunks of code acquired from the app store. As in things that require Apple's permission to be run.
Um that's exactly what he's doing. He runs one of the largest closed systems in the world and then blasts another company for being closed. That's the epitome of hypocrisy.
From the article: It's not open. "While Adobe's Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system."
Here is I fixed it for you version: It's not open. "While Apple's products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Apple and available only from Apple. By almost any definition, Apple is a closed system."
Psystar lawsuit. Apple must approve all iThing apps. You can't even write for your own device. Even little things like scrambling the names of media files on your iPod so you can't copy them yourself even if you have the rights to.
So what if they're media rental companies? That's merely a pedantic statement which speaks nothing to the point.
The fact that both these companies are doing well and growing shows that your position does not represent the current situation.
The media companies can never charge whatever they want. Netflix and Gamefly prove this. If the media companies could charge whatever they wanted then people would not be using these subscription services. They also wouldn't be using Blockbuster and Redbox.
Your position is predicated on the fallacy that people must buy media. It also completely ignores the concept of Supply and Demand. If they raise the prices too much people go to alternate sources. Netflix and gamefly have easy to use lower cost alternatives. If the media companies get rid of them people will still find different alternative sources. We'll see a return of the cheap seat theaters. More people will start obtaining illegal copies.
As relayed by a VP there: Around 2000 Charter Communications started jacking up the price of PPV porn. They honestly believed the price was inelastic. Once they passed somewhere in $15-20 range their revenue tanked, significantly. People simply stopped buying. They immediately backed off and dropped the price back down.
You, like most customers, seem to forget that you are in control. All you have to do is stop giving them money. They're completely dependent on you. You're in no way dependent on them.
For the price of half a DVD a month you can get a library of thousands streamed to your house. Plus an additional hundreds of thousands via mail.
*points to gamefly*
For less than 1/6th of the price of a game you can play a new game every month.
I can't recommend gamefly. They have major distribution and supply issues (to the point I canceled it because they were too slow and lost aprox infinitely more discs (3 in 2 years) than netflix (0 in 10 years) but they're a step in the right direction if they can clean up their act.
If your goal is cost effective consumption of media both of these subscription models beat the pants off of purchasing.
The whole idea is predicated on the fact that one minor fuck up will screw him for life.
And yes the fuck up is extremely minor. Apple gets a ton of free press. There's not a single thing innovative in the new model. The changes are boring iterative refinements.
I could imagine Apple never giving him another device but career ending? That's nonsensical. There's no customer impact. There's no company impact.
Anyone who's been in charge of a customer facing system and had unscheduled down time has done worse.
Slashdot Mirror
We also didn't have a technological marvel known as the internet.
Are you going to make a point?
Exactly.
Say you have $120. Without used you can buy two games. With used you can sell those two games for $40 each and buy another game. That's a 50% increase in sales to EA that used is directly responsible for.
The used people aren't lost sales. They're either frugal or limited income (often children). Either way they're people who aren't going to pay $60 for a game anyways. If there's no used they'll wait until it hits the clearance rack.
But it doesn't hurt the pirates. It only hurts the used people. You can get any DLC you want on BT.
First sale doesn't apply.
Online play is a service they provide. It's distinct from the game. It requires their servers. They can allow who ever they want on their servers. First sale has nothing to do with it.
Regardless it's 61 people. It's not worth spending resources on. There are any number of things that the same resources would have a much greater effect on. For example the much larger pool of car accident victims.
WTF? The stats you provide show the exact opposite of what you claim. Construction deaths in a workzone is akin to being struck by lightning. Literally. Murder accounts for some 306 times as many deaths. Driving account for some 670 times as many deaths.
844 deaths in a 7 year period. 120.5 deaths a year.
No more than half of those are caused by cars. 60.25
At most, likely less due to mobile equipment, 61 people a year die in work zones from cars. Nationwide.
That's one person a state per year. That's no where near dangerous. Here are some comparison numbers. http://www.weather.gov/os/hazstats.shtml http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf
Deaths per year:
Car Accidents ~40,000
Murder: 18,573
Hurricane 116
Heat 114
Flood 64
Worker struck by Car in Workzone 61
Lightning 59
Tornado 56
Going grocery shopping is more dangerous than construction in a work zone.
Again you're focusing on the mistake more than how he reacts. It's completely the wrong approach.
We're just repeating now. Thanks for the discussion.
Because you don't need input bandwidth in a FPS you need input precision or variability or what ever you want to call it.
With a keyboard you can only turn or not turn.
With a mouse you can not turn, turn quickly, turn medium, turn fast, etc.
I feel like I should have a standard "I told you so" post that I paste in for stories like this. Since I don't it's story time.
Yesterday I went to store and tried to buy a copy of the Ironman DVD. They (multinational big box electronics retailer) were all out. WTF? An item with almost zero unit cost and you have none available. I went home.
Based on the standard ~1.3GB of DVD rips it would have taken me less time to download it than to go to the store, 20 minute roundtrip plus browsing time. And I would have ended up with a copy of the movie.
let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. HTML5 will allow you to completely bypass the app store and will completely remove Apple from having any say in what code runs on your device.
Citation please.
So I can write HTML5 apps and distribute them without having them approved by Apple?
You're right. I didn't answer the question. I won't. It's a highly loaded question custom tailored to the discussion at hand with no bearing on reality.
I hope you never interview anyone. You completely judge him on one action. One action that you know nothing about. For all we know is a publicity stunt by Apple. Everyone makes mistakes. If you judge people on those mistakes it's impossible to hire anyone. You have to judge people on how they handle those mistakes.
If he sat in front of me the first question would be the about the iPhone. You are going to learn so much about him from the response. More than your going to learn from any other candidate.
That's more closed than flash.
Since you want to be pedantic. App has a distinct meaning the iWorld. I'm talking about apps. As in there's an app for that. As in the chunks of code acquired from the app store. As in things that require Apple's permission to be run.
You have to pay money. More importantly you have to ask permission.
That's a closed system.
More closed than Flash in fact. You don't have to ask permission or pay to develop for flash.
So what? Does that somehow negate the fact that the others couldn't be more closed.
What's the cost on that? Why am I limited to 100 devices?
Um that's exactly what he's doing. He runs one of the largest closed systems in the world and then blasts another company for being closed. That's the epitome of hypocrisy.
From the article:
It's not open. "While Adobe's Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system."
Here is I fixed it for you version:
It's not open. "While Apple's products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Apple and available only from Apple. By almost any definition, Apple is a closed system."
Psystar lawsuit.
Apple must approve all iThing apps. You can't even write for your own device.
Even little things like scrambling the names of media files on your iPod so you can't copy them yourself even if you have the rights to.
Apple is The Definition of walled garden.
So what if they're media rental companies? That's merely a pedantic statement which speaks nothing to the point.
The fact that both these companies are doing well and growing shows that your position does not represent the current situation.
The media companies can never charge whatever they want. Netflix and Gamefly prove this. If the media companies could charge whatever they wanted then people would not be using these subscription services. They also wouldn't be using Blockbuster and Redbox.
Your position is predicated on the fallacy that people must buy media. It also completely ignores the concept of Supply and Demand. If they raise the prices too much people go to alternate sources. Netflix and gamefly have easy to use lower cost alternatives. If the media companies get rid of them people will still find different alternative sources. We'll see a return of the cheap seat theaters. More people will start obtaining illegal copies.
As relayed by a VP there:
Around 2000 Charter Communications started jacking up the price of PPV porn. They honestly believed the price was inelastic. Once they passed somewhere in $15-20 range their revenue tanked, significantly. People simply stopped buying. They immediately backed off and dropped the price back down.
You, like most customers, seem to forget that you are in control. All you have to do is stop giving them money. They're completely dependent on you. You're in no way dependent on them.
So what? It's a corporation. They can't throw it in jail and $950 is laughable to them.
*points to netflix*
For the price of half a DVD a month you can get a library of thousands streamed to your house. Plus an additional hundreds of thousands via mail.
*points to gamefly*
For less than 1/6th of the price of a game you can play a new game every month.
I can't recommend gamefly. They have major distribution and supply issues (to the point I canceled it because they were too slow and lost aprox infinitely more discs (3 in 2 years) than netflix (0 in 10 years) but they're a step in the right direction if they can clean up their act.
If your goal is cost effective consumption of media both of these subscription models beat the pants off of purchasing.
A single minor mistake forever damns you?
I hope you are never in a position of power. Everyone makes mistakes yourself included.
The whole idea is predicated on the fact that one minor fuck up will screw him for life.
And yes the fuck up is extremely minor. Apple gets a ton of free press. There's not a single thing innovative in the new model. The changes are boring iterative refinements.
I could imagine Apple never giving him another device but career ending? That's nonsensical. There's no customer impact. There's no company impact.
Anyone who's been in charge of a customer facing system and had unscheduled down time has done worse.
Sensational headline is sensational.
I'm sure Apple already knew who it was. They knew who had them all they had to do was ask to see them.