That's a good point, and one of the reaons why I'm pretty ambiguous on this whole situation. If it was relating to something more serious, I might care more. I don't understand why people get in such apoplectic fits about such a trivial matter.
Clearly the GP thinks there should be a level playing field, while I suspect you probably fall into the camp of those who think it is right and proper that Sony should be given the power to protect their investment.
I'm pretty agnostic on the whole situation. What I find fascinating is the idea as espoused so often on slashdot, that some mythical "free market" will solve any problem one could name, resulting in a world of perfect compatibility, no market shortages, etc. Except this is never really explained properly.
I can see pros and cons on both sides. Ultimately, however, whatever system we have, the powerful companies will find a way to have people beholden to them and take their dollars. Copyright laws will be abused. Lack of copyright laws will also be abused.
They can, but the only effect from that in a competetive market is that their competitors step in and provide that supply instead.
Right, and isn't that exactly what is happening with Wii and Xbox? Are you arguing we don't have a competitive market? that seems like a pretty absurd argument to make.
A free market guarantees that there will be an economic incentive for competitors to enter a market when demand outstrips supply.
How does it "guarantee" this?
Really, I'd like to know the specifics of the mechanism. A free market doesn't guarantee that all products will be available, or that all products are profitable. Even if it was profitable, there's nothing to guarantee that anyone takes advantage of the profit incentive.
Not when you have a market lock in your equipment and need to create a consumer group who will provide you with revenue, no.
What do you mean here by "market lock"?
In a free market, you wouldnt get that lock;
Why not? What's to stop it?
Here you see another reason why free markets drive compatibility; proprietary systems are a pain to create such an ecosystem for.
But to the victor goes the spoils. Again, you should explain your reasoning for "free markets drive compatibility" - because I don't see anything that guarantees that. In your "free" market, companies might even get more draconian, and lock up their hardware and software even tighter. Especially if they don't have protections of copyright/patent law.
Compare with the free PC market; vendors dont have to introduce at below-price to build market, consumers dont have to worry they're dumping money into a soon-to-be-dead platform.
And, as a consequence, there is very little innovation in the PC hardware market. It reverts to lowest-common-denominator shit. And I'm not sure what you mean by the "free" PC market - it is very heavily tied to Microsoft and Intel.
Try releasing a PS3 clone and see.
Well, if that's all you're talking about. But if there were not intellectual property protections, companies would just come up with technological protections to prevent their systems from being cloned.
I don't really respect cloning as competition, anyway. It seems (as per your argument about the PC platform) your idea of competition is just everybody copying each other. How about originality and innovation? That has a much higher value to me than cheap cloning. Cheap cloning and your "free" PCs have held computers back and kept them crappy for the past couple of decades.
Again, back to compatibility. If intellectual property is properly used as intended, that would likely help compatibility - because the monopoly expires, and the IP becomes public domain. Just like we have free access to out-of-copyright artworks. But without IP, there would be less incentive to create things in the first place - and there would be more incentive to really lock things up so they can't be reverse-engineered or made compatible.
If native binaries for the apps don't fucking exist for the Intel Mac, then it's not "deceptive". I'll send you a shiny dime if you can point out the deception in the statement: "DV (Digital Video) did a test with the new Core2Duo and did a variety of tasks on the same machine in OS X and XP; XP blew OS X away". They did, and it did.
So, Windows is obviously incapable of editing video, because a Windows-native binary of Final Cut Pro doesn't exist? Performance doesn't get much worse than zero.
I'm not sure why you're blaming the Mac instead of Avid.
For instance, for those using AVID, more people will use a PC over a Mac
That's because Avid software blows chunks. They couldn't program their way out of a wet paper bag. Their support for the Mac is only token. Why the hell is anyone using Avid anymore, anyway?
1. Floating the price higher to reduce demand is an effective way to prevent "scalping". If it's not working, the price just hasn't been raised enough.
That would most likely backfire. If you raised the price enough to match what the early adopters (a very small market) will pay - it would totally kill the buzz, and turn the majority of the market off your product - even if you lowered prices later. End result, raising the price, even if only temporarily, results in less profit. Worst case, your company's name become dirt, and no consumer will ever trust you again. Sony already has enough trouble in that department.
There's a lot more to the console market than just the retail price of the hardware. You need to have support from developers, the fanbase, and a thriving "ecosystem."
Bind warranty service to first purchaser, and make sting purchases through enough of the larger setups, and nail the scalpers by publicly denying support to them
In a real free market, there would be any number of producers making consoles capable of playing the games in question; you dont see people fighting in queues for the newest Dell PC.
If the market was a "real" free market, then why wouldn't companies be able to restrict supply as much as they like? Would you have the government force them to make more units to meet demand?
The reason people don't fight over Dell PCs is because they are crap. And when you say there could be "any number" of companies making consoles that are compatible - "any number" includes the number zero. Nothing about a free market guarantees that there will be competitors making compatible equipment.
In a real free market, the price would follow the demand curve; creating stronger incentives for other producers to enter the market when profits are high, and driving down costs of production. Now we have ebaying elderly chinese filling the gap, which hardly increases the production rate.
So, you are arguing that the PS3 should be more expensive? That would not be a good business strategy. This "early adopter" consumption will be very short-lived. And if Sony had priced the PS3 at $2,000 to match what the early adopters would pay, there probably wouldn't be any interest in the first place. The early adopters would realize that there would never be a big enough market at that price to have an ecosystem of games and accessories and other support. So, even if the early adopters are willing to pay $2,000 for a $600 console on release day, they probably wouldn't pay $2,000 for a $2,000 console.
This isnt any form of free market failure; this one can be squarely blamed on the state protectionism scheme called intellectual 'property'.
Huh? How is intellectual property stopping any company from releasing a game console that competes with the PS3?
I guess "Johnny Cache" got tired of trolling for media coverage about his non-existent MacOS wireless exploit, and decided to publish the less sensational information about the OS and systems that it actually affects. So, instead of being a big bad boy who rocks the world by pwning Macs, it's just one more of thousands of boring Windows exploits.
By the way, what is this guy's name? I've seen it published as "Erlich" and "Elich" before, and now slashdot says it's Ellch. One thing's for certain. Anybody who calls themself "Johnny Cache" must be a total dick.
Unlikely. Without Windows being around, there would likely be a much better proprietary OS in dominance, and a lot more competition in the commercial OS market. So, Linux wouldn't have had as great a chance to get a foothold, without the dominant OS being so crappy.
There's no logical inconsistency with being gay and opposing gay marriage.
only if you also oppose heterosexual marriage. And let's face it, the Republicans are anti-gay. That's why the gay marriage rhetoric works so well. If there wasn't a bias against gays, then that would never get the support it does. It's just a way of being anti-gay while claiming it's all about sanctity of marriage, without explicity stating that gays are evil.
There's nothing irrational about hating Diebold. What they're doing, whether deliberately or by incompetence, is tantamount to treason.
I'm actually surprised there's so little outrage. What excuse is there for keeping the working of their machines a "proprietary secret" - when it is involved in critical democratic processes, and should belong to the American people? That's a disgusting attitude. They obviously care more about money than transparency. A decent company would do it non-profit, for the love of democracy.
What if I just waltz in on the appropriate day and put my tent in front of theirs?
Well, in theory they would shiv you for cutting in line. That's how normal society works. But these are weak nerds who have been weakened even more by waiting in the cold. So, they might cry and collapse in despair.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither did the retailer who sold the PS3 for profit, nor the Sony executive in charge of marketing. By the way, how do you "right" a line of code?
That's a good point, and one of the reaons why I'm pretty ambiguous on this whole situation. If it was relating to something more serious, I might care more. I don't understand why people get in such apoplectic fits about such a trivial matter.
Next thing you'll be saying is Pacman is gay. Hello? Ms. Pacman? Pacman is a red-blooded heterosexual disc with a triangle cut out.
I'm pretty agnostic on the whole situation. What I find fascinating is the idea as espoused so often on slashdot, that some mythical "free market" will solve any problem one could name, resulting in a world of perfect compatibility, no market shortages, etc. Except this is never really explained properly.
I can see pros and cons on both sides. Ultimately, however, whatever system we have, the powerful companies will find a way to have people beholden to them and take their dollars. Copyright laws will be abused. Lack of copyright laws will also be abused.
Right, and isn't that exactly what is happening with Wii and Xbox? Are you arguing we don't have a competitive market? that seems like a pretty absurd argument to make.
A free market guarantees that there will be an economic incentive for competitors to enter a market when demand outstrips supply.
How does it "guarantee" this?
Really, I'd like to know the specifics of the mechanism. A free market doesn't guarantee that all products will be available, or that all products are profitable. Even if it was profitable, there's nothing to guarantee that anyone takes advantage of the profit incentive.
Not when you have a market lock in your equipment and need to create a consumer group who will provide you with revenue, no.
What do you mean here by "market lock"?
In a free market, you wouldnt get that lock;
Why not? What's to stop it?
Here you see another reason why free markets drive compatibility; proprietary systems are a pain to create such an ecosystem for.
But to the victor goes the spoils. Again, you should explain your reasoning for "free markets drive compatibility" - because I don't see anything that guarantees that. In your "free" market, companies might even get more draconian, and lock up their hardware and software even tighter. Especially if they don't have protections of copyright/patent law.
Compare with the free PC market; vendors dont have to introduce at below-price to build market, consumers dont have to worry they're dumping money into a soon-to-be-dead platform.
And, as a consequence, there is very little innovation in the PC hardware market. It reverts to lowest-common-denominator shit. And I'm not sure what you mean by the "free" PC market - it is very heavily tied to Microsoft and Intel.
Try releasing a PS3 clone and see.
Well, if that's all you're talking about. But if there were not intellectual property protections, companies would just come up with technological protections to prevent their systems from being cloned.
I don't really respect cloning as competition, anyway. It seems (as per your argument about the PC platform) your idea of competition is just everybody copying each other. How about originality and innovation? That has a much higher value to me than cheap cloning. Cheap cloning and your "free" PCs have held computers back and kept them crappy for the past couple of decades.
Again, back to compatibility. If intellectual property is properly used as intended, that would likely help compatibility - because the monopoly expires, and the IP becomes public domain. Just like we have free access to out-of-copyright artworks. But without IP, there would be less incentive to create things in the first place - and there would be more incentive to really lock things up so they can't be reverse-engineered or made compatible.
So, Windows is obviously incapable of editing video, because a Windows-native binary of Final Cut Pro doesn't exist? Performance doesn't get much worse than zero.
I'm not sure why you're blaming the Mac instead of Avid.
That's because Avid software blows chunks. They couldn't program their way out of a wet paper bag. Their support for the Mac is only token. Why the hell is anyone using Avid anymore, anyway?
Well, that's pretty stupid, because the "PC guy" in the Mac ads is a PC running Windows. Not an "open system."
Does this officially make the PS3 an addiction? After all, if you will suck dick for it...
So, were they running, or walking? Your title says one thing, your post another. And what's wrong with Chinese people buying things?
That would most likely backfire. If you raised the price enough to match what the early adopters (a very small market) will pay - it would totally kill the buzz, and turn the majority of the market off your product - even if you lowered prices later. End result, raising the price, even if only temporarily, results in less profit. Worst case, your company's name become dirt, and no consumer will ever trust you again. Sony already has enough trouble in that department.
There's a lot more to the console market than just the retail price of the hardware. You need to have support from developers, the fanbase, and a thriving "ecosystem."
Why?
So, it's bad that some poorer individuals make a bit of money? All that money should go to an already insanely-wealthy corporation, instead?
By the way, interesting juxtaposition of "lucky" and "homeless" in your post.
OMG! Somebody gave a free sandwich to a homeless person! Why didn't they just spend that sandwich money on crack, like decent people do?
If the market was a "real" free market, then why wouldn't companies be able to restrict supply as much as they like? Would you have the government force them to make more units to meet demand?
The reason people don't fight over Dell PCs is because they are crap. And when you say there could be "any number" of companies making consoles that are compatible - "any number" includes the number zero. Nothing about a free market guarantees that there will be competitors making compatible equipment.
In a real free market, the price would follow the demand curve; creating stronger incentives for other producers to enter the market when profits are high, and driving down costs of production. Now we have ebaying elderly chinese filling the gap, which hardly increases the production rate.
So, you are arguing that the PS3 should be more expensive? That would not be a good business strategy. This "early adopter" consumption will be very short-lived. And if Sony had priced the PS3 at $2,000 to match what the early adopters would pay, there probably wouldn't be any interest in the first place. The early adopters would realize that there would never be a big enough market at that price to have an ecosystem of games and accessories and other support. So, even if the early adopters are willing to pay $2,000 for a $600 console on release day, they probably wouldn't pay $2,000 for a $2,000 console.
This isnt any form of free market failure; this one can be squarely blamed on the state protectionism scheme called intellectual 'property'.
Huh? How is intellectual property stopping any company from releasing a game console that competes with the PS3?
By the way, what is this guy's name? I've seen it published as "Erlich" and "Elich" before, and now slashdot says it's Ellch. One thing's for certain. Anybody who calls themself "Johnny Cache" must be a total dick.
I see you've never heard of a double major, or doing two degrees separately.
What if you were writing a story about a kid and the relationships he forms via text messaging?
No, you weren't.
Unlikely. Without Windows being around, there would likely be a much better proprietary OS in dominance, and a lot more competition in the commercial OS market. So, Linux wouldn't have had as great a chance to get a foothold, without the dominant OS being so crappy.
only if you also oppose heterosexual marriage. And let's face it, the Republicans are anti-gay. That's why the gay marriage rhetoric works so well. If there wasn't a bias against gays, then that would never get the support it does. It's just a way of being anti-gay while claiming it's all about sanctity of marriage, without explicity stating that gays are evil.
I'm actually surprised there's so little outrage. What excuse is there for keeping the working of their machines a "proprietary secret" - when it is involved in critical democratic processes, and should belong to the American people? That's a disgusting attitude. They obviously care more about money than transparency. A decent company would do it non-profit, for the love of democracy.
Yeah, replace them with nihilists who don't believe in the political process or democracy. That should ensure no problems whatsoever.
What happens when they screw up the candidate list and need to correct it? You know that's bound to happen, it already has in this election.
Well, in theory they would shiv you for cutting in line. That's how normal society works. But these are weak nerds who have been weakened even more by waiting in the cold. So, they might cry and collapse in despair.