"Windows XP accounts for about 63 percent of all Internet-connected computers, according to March 2009 statistics from Hitslink, while Windows Vista makes up about 24 percent."
I wonder if this makes Windows Vista the only generation not to outsell the previous one.
On a not-so-personal level, take a look at American automakers. The unions are strangling them, and one of the reasons they turn out junk is because of the unions. American cars are decidedly average, and that's what unions promote: being average.
Actually, non-American cars, decidedly better-than-average, are produced by factories where unions prevail and they are at least as powerful as unions in American automakers' plants.
Having been in the past an addicted player of Starcraft for years, I thought I'd add my two cents.
I never bought any other game for two or so years. I didn't even feel the urge to try anything new. That game was so good that I spent hours on hours on it. Week after week. For months. Always lingering between 'chobo' and 'gosu', as the strategies of the game evolved, it never ceased being interesting.
Was that good for Blizzard? No. Because I wasn't the only one. They could see the devotion millions (literally) of people showed and they couldn't tap on it. I bet they had really gone crazy. OK, they published an extension, everybody got it, but that was that. And it's a thing that just won't die. (And even Warcraft III, "well, you know, it's OK, but it's not Starcraft." That was a major blow.) Not as popular after its original release (it has been 7 years or so, after all), it still has a strong following. People are asking for Starcraft 2, but only casually.
The new model is good. It's good, because it means that a good game will not only sell more units, but it will also generate revenue for a longer time per unit. Profit is not longer a function of a units, but of units by time. Think profit squared, for a really engaging game.
If they figure out a way to give us Starcraft 2 without our thinking they're ripping us off charging for what was free at Battle.net, I'd expect it any day now. But it's not easy, that's a concept better suited to WoW and the likes.
about a tenth cheaper than its nearest competitor ----
Definition of 'nearest competitor' aside, I'd be very interested to know in what ways savings of such magnitude were realised. Cheap labour shouldn't account for much, here.
Disclaimer: I am neither a linguist nor a native English speaker.
This discussion reminds me a lot of similar discussions held over the ages on the proper or not grammar, spelling and syntax of Greek (which is my native language). Long story made short: change is inevitable and will take the language to a direction that, collectively, most will not like. However, each small change will have been approved and, more significantly, adopted by a large majority.
Sticking to what is perceived at any time as 'correct' (which is, of course, debatable even at that time) may be the only weapon in the hands of those who do not like the directions their everyday expression tool is taken. They cannot, however, hold back the inevitable. This is true for every language, except for dead ones, but even more so for the universal language of each era. Ancient greek degenerated into common greek (the language in which the Gospels were written for those not familiar, which is pretty much the same with modern greek and not that bad, in any case), latin into vulgar latin (a term, I have nothing against it) and english into american english (I just could not resist the joke). I am sure this has happened many more times in other areas of the world.
This transition is neither good nor bad. What's more, it can definitely not be decided neither right nor wrong. What is striking, though, is the fact that, at least for the examples I have in mind, such change was brought by non-native speakers, while the native speakers held the flag of purity up high. I cannot base this on facts, but I feel that with English it is the other way round. Non-native speakers try hard to adhere to the rules and spirit of the language, while native speakers, especially those in the worlds of tech and cool, choose to differentiate themselves by straying away from the common path.
I have thought this may be due to the fact that English was an amalgam of languages almost from the very beginning and thus both open to and unprotected from drift (in the genetics meaning). But I am sure there are many a lot more qualified to express an opinion on this.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if this makes Windows Vista the only generation not to outsell the previous one.
-m-
Actually, non-American cars, decidedly better-than-average, are produced by factories where unions prevail and they are at least as powerful as unions in American automakers' plants.
-m-
Having been in the past an addicted player of Starcraft for years, I thought I'd add my two cents.
I never bought any other game for two or so years. I didn't even feel the urge to try anything new. That game was so good that I spent hours on hours on it. Week after week. For months. Always lingering between 'chobo' and 'gosu', as the strategies of the game evolved, it never ceased being interesting.
Was that good for Blizzard? No. Because I wasn't the only one. They could see the devotion millions (literally) of people showed and they couldn't tap on it. I bet they had really gone crazy. OK, they published an extension, everybody got it, but that was that. And it's a thing that just won't die. (And even Warcraft III, "well, you know, it's OK, but it's not Starcraft." That was a major blow.) Not as popular after its original release (it has been 7 years or so, after all), it still has a strong following. People are asking for Starcraft 2, but only casually.
The new model is good. It's good, because it means that a good game will not only sell more units, but it will also generate revenue for a longer time per unit. Profit is not longer a function of a units, but of units by time. Think profit squared, for a really engaging game.
If they figure out a way to give us Starcraft 2 without our thinking they're ripping us off charging for what was free at Battle.net, I'd expect it any day now. But it's not easy, that's a concept better suited to WoW and the likes.
As I said, just the 2 cents of a former addict.
-m-
about a tenth cheaper than its nearest competitor
----
Definition of 'nearest competitor' aside, I'd be very interested to know in what ways savings of such magnitude were realised. Cheap labour shouldn't account for much, here.
-m-
Disclaimer: I am neither a linguist nor a native English speaker.
This discussion reminds me a lot of similar discussions held over the ages on the proper or not grammar, spelling and syntax of Greek (which is my native language). Long story made short: change is inevitable and will take the language to a direction that, collectively, most will not like. However, each small change will have been approved and, more significantly, adopted by a large majority.
Sticking to what is perceived at any time as 'correct' (which is, of course, debatable even at that time) may be the only weapon in the hands of those who do not like the directions their everyday expression tool is taken. They cannot, however, hold back the inevitable. This is true for every language, except for dead ones, but even more so for the universal language of each era. Ancient greek degenerated into common greek (the language in which the Gospels were written for those not familiar, which is pretty much the same with modern greek and not that bad, in any case), latin into vulgar latin (a term, I have nothing against it) and english into american english (I just could not resist the joke). I am sure this has happened many more times in other areas of the world.
This transition is neither good nor bad. What's more, it can definitely not be decided neither right nor wrong. What is striking, though, is the fact that, at least for the examples I have in mind, such change was brought by non-native speakers, while the native speakers held the flag of purity up high. I cannot base this on facts, but I feel that with English it is the other way round. Non-native speakers try hard to adhere to the rules and spirit of the language, while native speakers, especially those in the worlds of tech and cool, choose to differentiate themselves by straying away from the common path.
I have thought this may be due to the fact that English was an amalgam of languages almost from the very beginning and thus both open to and unprotected from drift (in the genetics meaning). But I am sure there are many a lot more qualified to express an opinion on this.
-m-