You're one of those people who wouldn't have been caught dead with a computer 25 years ago when technology wasn't utilized by the popular cliques. Now that all those "fucking nerds" have done the work to bring technology into the mainstream culture and it is socially acceptable to be a tech geek, you're going to try to make yourself feel superior because you use a Mac?
"But what do you get in hardware? All sorts of things. For example: Magsafe connects don't exist on ANY PC laptops. Neither do any PC laptops have unibody cases."
First, we were discussing the Mac Mini not MacBooks. I'm not building my own laptop.
"A pen with a built in clock and a can opener isn't better than a good quality pen."
Your implying the pen with the built in clock is inferior as a writing instrument and projecting that inferiority on the PC I choose. You are assuming the components used in my PC are inferior quality to those in the Mac, and that is where your argument fails.
I can use the same components that Apple uses (aside from the pretty case) and still build my PC for less. So again, the difference in price has nothing to do with the hardware specs or quality and everything to do with OS X and the aesthetics.
"A good tool is a pleasure to use, is reliable, and has a solid company behind it offering excellent support."
The PC I am currently using is 4 years old and the only problem I have had is the DVD drive. It cost me $22 to replace it versus the $99 for the external SuperDrive or the $119 for the Lacie external drive. (I don't have a Mac, so I don't know what the actual service charge for replacing the internal drive would be from Apple, but you can order an official internal Superdrive here for $179 ON SALE!!!!)
Perhaps you should read this article, this website or maybe cruise through the Apple forums. Just because Apple products cost more does not mean they inherently last longer or run better. They still have problems just like all PCs.
Apple has a few black eyes over the years for how they have handled their customer support as well.
You're kidding, right?
What extra value do you get in a Mac that you do not get in a PC? The only thing you get on a Mac that you can't a PC is Mac OS. As was stated: "That means the rest of that price is what you are paying for OSX and the fancy looks. If that is what makes you happy, fine and dandy."
The value for my money is recognizing I can buy/build a PC that does everything I need it to do at a much better price. That doesn't mean i just buy the cheapest system/hardware.
Perhaps you have so much money that you do not have to concern yourself with budgeting your finances, but most of us do not have that luxury. So, yes, Macs are "expensive" as they cost more than most people feel they are worth.
"I think it compares more with the luxury car market. You pay more for a car that will last longer, look nicer, and run better. It's the same thing with computers. Apple only sells premium models so I know any Apple product I buy will be high quality."
Perhaps you should read this article, this website or maybe cruise through the Apple forums. Just because Apple products cost more does not mean they inherently last longer or run better. They still have problems just like all PCs.
"Last year's Mac hasn't devalued the way last year's PC has because people know the Mac isn't going to need replaced every other year."
Really? PCs need to be replaced "every other year"?
I think the high resale value of Macs have more to do with the fact that Apple can sustain their inflated price point because they are the only ones selling their product. PC vendors on the other hand have competition to think about and must adjust their pricing accordingly.
"So to get them more computer for less money, requires just replacing the computer, and keeping the peripherals."
"The last time they bought a computer it cost the same (because it came with all the peripherals) so it doesn't feel like they're having to pay more for the mac."
Except this time they are paying the same price but not getting the peripherals! How can you possibly say it doesn't "feel" like your paying more, when you are getting less for the same price?
Unless, of course, you consider PC users to be complete morons who can't tell when they are getting milked by clever marketing?
"In other words, nowhere does it say your data is protected by encryption."
Well, I never said it DID. I said: "Sounds to me like they are implying your data is secure until you have a chance to wipe it remotely." Which is exactly what they are doing in the following statements:
"Protect your privacy with Remote Wipe."
"Your iPhone contains important and personal information -- information you probably don't want in the hands of a stranger. So if you lose your iPhone...you can initiate a remote wipe to restore it to the factory settings."
These statements imply that your data will be safe because you can do a remote wipe. Just because they omit the fact that the data can be easily hacked before the remote wipe is performed does not negate the fact that they are touting this feature as a way to protect your data. The average consumer will read that description and think: "What a great feature! I feel better knowing that my personal info is safe if I lose my phone."
If they are not relying on the encryption to protect the data, then they are misrepresenting the capabilities of the feature at best and being outright deceitful at worst.
Try taking off your rose-colored iGlasses and reread the description and what I actually said instead of trying to discredit my post with an obvious misdirection.
Addresses, phone numbers, email, photos. Your iPhone contains important and personal information -- information you probably don't want in the hands of a stranger. So if you lose your iPhone and displaying a message on it hasn't resulted in its safe return, you can initiate a remote wipe to restore it to the factory settings.* If you eventually find your iPhone, you can restore your email, contacts, and calendars by enabling your MobileMe account on your iPhone. Or connect your iPhone to your computer and use iTunes to restore the data from your most recent iPhone backup."
Sounds to me like they are implying your data is secure until you have a chance to wipe it remotely. Maybe that was the "something" the "/. crowd" saw and jumped to the wild conclusion that their data was actually protected???
"People expect to find used books in a used book store. The last time I checked, Borders doesn't put used books on the shelf next to new books for 10% less, and then confront you at the checkout to ask you if you didn't really want to buy the cheaper used book instead of the new one. That would be pretty trashy, would't it?"
I have never personally witnessed someone being "confronted" at the checkout of any of the three local GameStops where I live. Assuming you are correct though, are you somehow forced to buy the used game? Just being asked if you would like to save money by getting the used copy is not "trashy".
Borders doesn't stock used books because they are not a used book store. GameStop is a used game store. They may sell some new copies of the latest and greatest games, but that is not their market. Some used book stores also carry some new items, but that is not the focus of their business.
In most cases, the people going to GameStop are actively looking for used items. Why would you go there if your prime goal was to get a new copy of a game. There are plenty of other places that have copies and are usually at a better price.
"Interestingly enough, if the contract was worded properly the studio could still owe the Tolkien estate money even if the works were public domain. Of course, if the contract was set to expire when the work enters the public domain that would not be the case, and I would imagine that that is in there."
I was wondering the same thing. If there was a clause that voided the contract when the copyright expired, the studio would have sole rights to production and could then sit on the work until the copyright expired. This would allow them to make the movie without paying the rights holder and lock them out from entering into a deal with any other studio.
Of course, you would have to wait a while to make your movie, but it worked out fine in this case. I don't think Tolkien would allow a clause like that if he was smart enough to ask for a cut of the gross.
"Maybe the thing they created is lousy, no-one ever buys a copy, and the make no money. Maybe it is great and they make a fortune."
One problem with the current system, however, is the absence of accountability for the industry. If a movie or music studio puts out a quality product and people purchase the music or pay to see the movie in one form or another, everything works out well for everyone. The media pipeline from the artists/actors to the distributors make their money and the customer feels fulfilled that they received a quality product.
Now, what if the product they produce is a "one-hit wonder" or a movie like Gigli? The consumer pays for the music or to see the movie and is dissatisfied with the product. There is no recourse. You cannot return the CD or DVD to the store, nor get a refund from the theater. You, as the consumer, just have to suck it up. The media pipeline may not make the same profits as before. They may even take a production loss, but it is not a total loss. Why? Because they leverage that loss across all the media they produce. They charge a high enough amount so that the quality products cover the losses of the crappy work and still net them a handsome profit.
On top of this, they utilize the copyright laws to extend their profits from the quality works "indefinitely". This allows the continuation of the endless stream of crap shoot producing that takes place. Let's find one musician or movie that sells and flood the market with anything that comes along that remotely resembles the original.
There has to be some accountability. One result of the ease of "piracy" is that consumers don't have to participate in this blind taste test anymore hoping that they get a steak this time and not a c*ck like the last time. I don't know how many times I regretted buying an album from hearing a song on the radio only to find out that was the only decent song on the whole album. It is the classic bait and switch, but it has been the accepted way of doing things for years.
When the media corporations stop playing a shell game with their product and quit trying to charge me for the same product every time a new medium comes out, maybe I'll start respecting their copyrights. Frankly, if they have to tighten their belts a little, maybe they will become more selective in the product they produce and re-design their business model to catch up with current technology and consumer demand. We can only hope.
"I know four languages, and I found that every language has its own nuances of meanings that you simply can't express in other languages. Air in French does not mean the same as air in English. It has other associations to it. The nice thing about everybody in Luxemburg speaking at least four languages, is that you can use them all in conversation. This greatly enhances the depth and detail of it. Which is a very beautiful thing. You should try it."
I'm sure the ability to convey your meanings better by utilizing different languages is superior to being limited to one language. However, the international scientific community utilizes English as the primary language. The reason is to prevent one person from communicating in one language and another translating to their native tongue. As you said, some words have different meanings in different languages. The chances of misinterpretation and error are too great.
I don't think it is necessarily arrogance that an English-speaking person assumes English would be the first choice for an international standard. The precedent is already set in many important sectors. Is English the BEST language to choose? Maybe not. English is one of the harder languages to learn due to the variances in how it is used.
You must remember that most Americans live in states roughly the size of many European countries. Unless they live in a larger city like New York or San Francisco, the majority of the people they encounter in their daily life speak English. Our country may be a "melting pot" of many different cultures, but we have established some standards across the entire country and English is one of them. Just like we use one form of currency among all states. Even the European Union has adopted a common currency to make trade easier.
Due to the close proximity of European countries, it is natural that you have more mingling between the citizens of different countries and cultures. Since there is no standard language established, you must learn other languages to navigate through everyday life. Even in the US, there are certain areas, such as the southwest and southern Florida, where there is a larger percentage of the population that speaks Spanish as a second language. This is due to the integration with Hispanic cultures.
I have traveled to different countries, mostly in Asia, so I have a different outlook on the world than many Americans. You wouldn't blame a native tribe that has lived in seclusion in the Amazon because they aren't multilingual. They have no need to learn other languages. This may be an extreme example, but there are some similarities. I'm sure there are many citizens in Europe who are not multilingual or do not speak English due to where they live. To dismiss Americans as arrogant just because most are not multilingual is small minded in itself.
"What you don't realize is that when you pirate movies and music you are actually keeping costs at ridiculously high rates."
First of all, I never brought piracy into the equation. That is the excuse that record companies and movie studios use to justify their pricing model.
Most companies evaluate the cost of producing a product and then set the price to get the profit margin they desire. If that price is too high, then they will lower the price to a level the consumer is willing to pay. Thus, their profit margin is decreased. If the public is unwilling to pay a price that generates enough profit to justify producing the product, then they stop producing.
The entertainment industry, on the other hand, have a profit margin that they are accustomed to. Now that technology has changed the environment in which they sell their product, they are unwilling to alter their business model or accommodate the change in consumer demand. They want to maintain the same pricing structure even though it costs them LESS to produce the product. This results in a larger profit margin for them.
Other manufacturers can factor in the cost of loss through theft because they have physical property stolen. The RIAA and MPAA cannot do this because there is no physical property stolen, so they just attribute any decline from their desired profit as being caused by theft.
This is their justification for making ridiculous claims about monetary losses. You seem eager to defend this fraudulent behavior while critically attacking anyone who disagrees as a "thief".
Basically, a reverse auction which is already in use in other formats. Priceline.com comes to mind.
Implementing this "method" should be interesting if there are multiple carriers in your area. Do you set a price per session you are willing to pay on your phone and then the phone automatically connects to the first carrier that drops to your acceptable price? What if your price is too low? Do you get a denial of service? How long does it take for this negotiation to take place?
I don't see how this works unless the phone just automatically accepts the lowest "bid" received from the carriers. Then, if the competition is sparse or nonexistent, you either pay what they want or do without. If there are multiple carriers that offer the same bid, how does your phone "choose" which one it accepts??
I think a lot of the people bashing these commercials can't put down their MS hating goggles long enough to see the true intent of the commercials. I think you summed it up well.
"It would, however, be interesting if XBOX dropped out and left only Sony and Nintendo."
Everyone should be thanking MS for jumping into the console market. Whether you like the XBox or not, the competition has made the market better.
Bash MS all you want, but they introduced more versatility in the XBox than Sony did with the PS2 (ie. harddrive, online multiplayer, custom soundtracks). Sony had a virtual monopoly in the console market and MS forced them to work harder. That only benefits the consumer.
Sure MS has lost a ton of money breaking into this market. Did anyone actually think it would be easy wrestling market share from a monopoly??? (If it were, Linux would have a much larger share of the PC platform. Yeah, yeah...mod me down. I'm writing this from a "Hardy" box.)
The RRoD is a serious goof by MS. Still, they have made great strides in establishing a position in the market considering this is their 2nd gen. and they are just now getting some of the franchise titles that were previously exclusive to Sony. Not to mention the benefit of having the enormous library of games Sony built up with the PS and PS2.
Whether you prefer the 360 or the PS3, you should want MS to stay in this market for the long haul. The competition will only improve the consumers experience.
Slashdot Mirror
You're one of those people who wouldn't have been caught dead with a computer 25 years ago when technology wasn't utilized by the popular cliques. Now that all those "fucking nerds" have done the work to bring technology into the mainstream culture and it is socially acceptable to be a tech geek, you're going to try to make yourself feel superior because you use a Mac?
Very nice.
"But what do you get in hardware? All sorts of things. For example: Magsafe connects don't exist on ANY PC laptops. Neither do any PC laptops have unibody cases."
First, we were discussing the Mac Mini not MacBooks. I'm not building my own laptop.
"A pen with a built in clock and a can opener isn't better than a good quality pen."
Your implying the pen with the built in clock is inferior as a writing instrument and projecting that inferiority on the PC I choose. You are assuming the components used in my PC are inferior quality to those in the Mac, and that is where your argument fails.
I can use the same components that Apple uses (aside from the pretty case) and still build my PC for less. So again, the difference in price has nothing to do with the hardware specs or quality and everything to do with OS X and the aesthetics.
"A good tool is a pleasure to use, is reliable, and has a solid company behind it offering excellent support."
The PC I am currently using is 4 years old and the only problem I have had is the DVD drive. It cost me $22 to replace it versus the $99 for the external SuperDrive or the $119 for the Lacie external drive. (I don't have a Mac, so I don't know what the actual service charge for replacing the internal drive would be from Apple, but you can order an official internal Superdrive here for $179 ON SALE!!!!)
Perhaps you should read this article, this website or maybe cruise through the Apple forums. Just because Apple products cost more does not mean they inherently last longer or run better. They still have problems just like all PCs.
Apple has a few black eyes over the years for how they have handled their customer support as well.
That means Bluto and the sea hag were just misunderstood and Popeye was truly the bad guy?!?!?!
My whole world has come undone...
value for money philosophy???
You're kidding, right?
What extra value do you get in a Mac that you do not get in a PC? The only thing you get on a Mac that you can't a PC is Mac OS. As was stated: "That means the rest of that price is what you are paying for OSX and the fancy looks. If that is what makes you happy, fine and dandy."
The value for my money is recognizing I can buy/build a PC that does everything I need it to do at a much better price. That doesn't mean i just buy the cheapest system/hardware.
Perhaps you have so much money that you do not have to concern yourself with budgeting your finances, but most of us do not have that luxury. So, yes, Macs are "expensive" as they cost more than most people feel they are worth.
"But I hate MS like I hate Ford."
:)
According to the article, Linus thinks you're diseased.
Just an observation...
"I think it compares more with the luxury car market. You pay more for a car that will last longer, look nicer, and run better. It's the same thing with computers. Apple only sells premium models so I know any Apple product I buy will be high quality."
Perhaps you should read this article, this website or maybe cruise through the Apple forums. Just because Apple products cost more does not mean they inherently last longer or run better. They still have problems just like all PCs.
"Last year's Mac hasn't devalued the way last year's PC has because people know the Mac isn't going to need replaced every other year."
Really? PCs need to be replaced "every other year"?
I think the high resale value of Macs have more to do with the fact that Apple can sustain their inflated price point because they are the only ones selling their product. PC vendors on the other hand have competition to think about and must adjust their pricing accordingly.
OK, your argument is a bit paradoxical.
"So to get them more computer for less money, requires just replacing the computer, and keeping the peripherals."
"The last time they bought a computer it cost the same (because it came with all the peripherals) so it doesn't feel like they're having to pay more for the mac."
Except this time they are paying the same price but not getting the peripherals! How can you possibly say it doesn't "feel" like your paying more, when you are getting less for the same price?
Unless, of course, you consider PC users to be complete morons who can't tell when they are getting milked by clever marketing?
"In other words, nowhere does it say your data is protected by encryption."
Well, I never said it DID. I said: "Sounds to me like they are implying your data is secure until you have a chance to wipe it remotely." Which is exactly what they are doing in the following statements:
"Protect your privacy with Remote Wipe."
"Your iPhone contains important and personal information -- information you probably don't want in the hands of a stranger. So if you lose your iPhone...you can initiate a remote wipe to restore it to the factory settings."
These statements imply that your data will be safe because you can do a remote wipe. Just because they omit the fact that the data can be easily hacked before the remote wipe is performed does not negate the fact that they are touting this feature as a way to protect your data. The average consumer will read that description and think: "What a great feature! I feel better knowing that my personal info is safe if I lose my phone."
If they are not relying on the encryption to protect the data, then they are misrepresenting the capabilities of the feature at best and being outright deceitful at worst.
Try taking off your rose-colored iGlasses and reread the description and what I actually said instead of trying to discredit my post with an obvious misdirection.
"The real issue at hand is how much time nerds spend thinking of ways they are right, instead of trying to understand how they might be wrong."
Maybe you should follow your own advice. From the Apple MobileMe Site:
"Protect your privacy with Remote Wipe.
Addresses, phone numbers, email, photos. Your iPhone contains important and personal information -- information you probably don't want in the hands of a stranger. So if you lose your iPhone and displaying a message on it hasn't resulted in its safe return, you can initiate a remote wipe to restore it to the factory settings.* If you eventually find your iPhone, you can restore your email, contacts, and calendars by enabling your MobileMe account on your iPhone. Or connect your iPhone to your computer and use iTunes to restore the data from your most recent iPhone backup."
Sounds to me like they are implying your data is secure until you have a chance to wipe it remotely. Maybe that was the "something" the "/. crowd" saw and jumped to the wild conclusion that their data was actually protected???
Cracker Please!!
Sorry, don't know what happened with my previous link.
Cracker Please!!
Cracker What??
"People expect to find used books in a used book store. The last time I checked, Borders doesn't put used books on the shelf next to new books for 10% less, and then confront you at the checkout to ask you if you didn't really want to buy the cheaper used book instead of the new one. That would be pretty trashy, would't it?"
I have never personally witnessed someone being "confronted" at the checkout of any of the three local GameStops where I live. Assuming you are correct though, are you somehow forced to buy the used game? Just being asked if you would like to save money by getting the used copy is not "trashy".
Borders doesn't stock used books because they are not a used book store. GameStop is a used game store. They may sell some new copies of the latest and greatest games, but that is not their market. Some used book stores also carry some new items, but that is not the focus of their business.
In most cases, the people going to GameStop are actively looking for used items. Why would you go there if your prime goal was to get a new copy of a game. There are plenty of other places that have copies and are usually at a better price.
SPORE
Sorry, Couldn't help myself.
It must have been the use of the adjective "bloody".
:)
The moderator must have a weak stomach.
"Interestingly enough, if the contract was worded properly the studio could still owe the Tolkien estate money even if the works were public domain. Of course, if the contract was set to expire when the work enters the public domain that would not be the case, and I would imagine that that is in there."
I was wondering the same thing. If there was a clause that voided the contract when the copyright expired, the studio would have sole rights to production and could then sit on the work until the copyright expired. This would allow them to make the movie without paying the rights holder and lock them out from entering into a deal with any other studio.
Of course, you would have to wait a while to make your movie, but it worked out fine in this case. I don't think Tolkien would allow a clause like that if he was smart enough to ask for a cut of the gross.
Ask the kids performing "arts and crafts" at the Nike factories.
You don't use UML diagrams?
"Maybe the thing they created is lousy, no-one ever buys a copy, and the make no money. Maybe it is great and they make a fortune."
One problem with the current system, however, is the absence of accountability for the industry. If a movie or music studio puts out a quality product and people purchase the music or pay to see the movie in one form or another, everything works out well for everyone. The media pipeline from the artists/actors to the distributors make their money and the customer feels fulfilled that they received a quality product.
Now, what if the product they produce is a "one-hit wonder" or a movie like Gigli? The consumer pays for the music or to see the movie and is dissatisfied with the product. There is no recourse. You cannot return the CD or DVD to the store, nor get a refund from the theater. You, as the consumer, just have to suck it up. The media pipeline may not make the same profits as before. They may even take a production loss, but it is not a total loss. Why? Because they leverage that loss across all the media they produce. They charge a high enough amount so that the quality products cover the losses of the crappy work and still net them a handsome profit.
On top of this, they utilize the copyright laws to extend their profits from the quality works "indefinitely". This allows the continuation of the endless stream of crap shoot producing that takes place. Let's find one musician or movie that sells and flood the market with anything that comes along that remotely resembles the original.
There has to be some accountability. One result of the ease of "piracy" is that consumers don't have to participate in this blind taste test anymore hoping that they get a steak this time and not a c*ck like the last time. I don't know how many times I regretted buying an album from hearing a song on the radio only to find out that was the only decent song on the whole album. It is the classic bait and switch, but it has been the accepted way of doing things for years.
When the media corporations stop playing a shell game with their product and quit trying to charge me for the same product every time a new medium comes out, maybe I'll start respecting their copyrights. Frankly, if they have to tighten their belts a little, maybe they will become more selective in the product they produce and re-design their business model to catch up with current technology and consumer demand. We can only hope.
"I know four languages, and I found that every language has its own nuances of meanings that you simply can't express in other languages. Air in French does not mean the same as air in English. It has other associations to it. The nice thing about everybody in Luxemburg speaking at least four languages, is that you can use them all in conversation. This greatly enhances the depth and detail of it. Which is a very beautiful thing. You should try it."
I'm sure the ability to convey your meanings better by utilizing different languages is superior to being limited to one language. However, the international scientific community utilizes English as the primary language. The reason is to prevent one person from communicating in one language and another translating to their native tongue. As you said, some words have different meanings in different languages. The chances of misinterpretation and error are too great.
I don't think it is necessarily arrogance that an English-speaking person assumes English would be the first choice for an international standard. The precedent is already set in many important sectors. Is English the BEST language to choose? Maybe not. English is one of the harder languages to learn due to the variances in how it is used.
You must remember that most Americans live in states roughly the size of many European countries. Unless they live in a larger city like New York or San Francisco, the majority of the people they encounter in their daily life speak English. Our country may be a "melting pot" of many different cultures, but we have established some standards across the entire country and English is one of them. Just like we use one form of currency among all states. Even the European Union has adopted a common currency to make trade easier.
Due to the close proximity of European countries, it is natural that you have more mingling between the citizens of different countries and cultures. Since there is no standard language established, you must learn other languages to navigate through everyday life. Even in the US, there are certain areas, such as the southwest and southern Florida, where there is a larger percentage of the population that speaks Spanish as a second language. This is due to the integration with Hispanic cultures.
I have traveled to different countries, mostly in Asia, so I have a different outlook on the world than many Americans. You wouldn't blame a native tribe that has lived in seclusion in the Amazon because they aren't multilingual. They have no need to learn other languages. This may be an extreme example, but there are some similarities. I'm sure there are many citizens in Europe who are not multilingual or do not speak English due to where they live. To dismiss Americans as arrogant just because most are not multilingual is small minded in itself.
You're right. Anyone off the street could have done the same thing as Bill and had the same success.
Get over your hate of MS.
Bill Gates saw opportunity that others did not. He was able to buy the code, because the author did not have the vision that Bill had.
There is skill in knowing how, when and where to utilize resources to get the most out of the resources.
"What you don't realize is that when you pirate movies and music you are actually keeping costs at ridiculously high rates."
First of all, I never brought piracy into the equation. That is the excuse that record companies and movie studios use to justify their pricing model.
Most companies evaluate the cost of producing a product and then set the price to get the profit margin they desire. If that price is too high, then they will lower the price to a level the consumer is willing to pay. Thus, their profit margin is decreased. If the public is unwilling to pay a price that generates enough profit to justify producing the product, then they stop producing.
The entertainment industry, on the other hand, have a profit margin that they are accustomed to. Now that technology has changed the environment in which they sell their product, they are unwilling to alter their business model or accommodate the change in consumer demand. They want to maintain the same pricing structure even though it costs them LESS to produce the product. This results in a larger profit margin for them.
Other manufacturers can factor in the cost of loss through theft because they have physical property stolen. The RIAA and MPAA cannot do this because there is no physical property stolen, so they just attribute any decline from their desired profit as being caused by theft.
This is their justification for making ridiculous claims about monetary losses. You seem eager to defend this fraudulent behavior while critically attacking anyone who disagrees as a "thief".
Do you have a financial interest in this issue??
"and who are you to say how much someone can charge for something?"
The Consumer.
You know...the one who decides whether the goods are worth the amount being asked???
That's how the free market works. If you charge too much and people won't pay what you are asking, then you lower your price or go out of business.
Only markets, where the price is fixed through conspiracy of the sellers, is this not true. (i.e. Gas, Movies, Music, etc)
Basically, a reverse auction which is already in use in other formats. Priceline.com comes to mind.
Implementing this "method" should be interesting if there are multiple carriers in your area. Do you set a price per session you are willing to pay on your phone and then the phone automatically connects to the first carrier that drops to your acceptable price? What if your price is too low? Do you get a denial of service? How long does it take for this negotiation to take place?
I don't see how this works unless the phone just automatically accepts the lowest "bid" received from the carriers. Then, if the competition is sparse or nonexistent, you either pay what they want or do without. If there are multiple carriers that offer the same bid, how does your phone "choose" which one it accepts??
Not sure how this one will shake out.
Very good post. Wish I had mod points right now.
I think a lot of the people bashing these commercials can't put down their MS hating goggles long enough to see the true intent of the commercials. I think you summed it up well.
"It would, however, be interesting if XBOX dropped out and left only Sony and Nintendo."
Everyone should be thanking MS for jumping into the console market. Whether you like the XBox or not, the competition has made the market better.
Bash MS all you want, but they introduced more versatility in the XBox than Sony did with the PS2 (ie. harddrive, online multiplayer, custom soundtracks). Sony had a virtual monopoly in the console market and MS forced them to work harder. That only benefits the consumer.
Sure MS has lost a ton of money breaking into this market. Did anyone actually think it would be easy wrestling market share from a monopoly??? (If it were, Linux would have a much larger share of the PC platform. Yeah, yeah...mod me down. I'm writing this from a "Hardy" box.)
The RRoD is a serious goof by MS. Still, they have made great strides in establishing a position in the market considering this is their 2nd gen. and they are just now getting some of the franchise titles that were previously exclusive to Sony. Not to mention the benefit of having the enormous library of games Sony built up with the PS and PS2.
Whether you prefer the 360 or the PS3, you should want MS to stay in this market for the long haul. The competition will only improve the consumers experience.