In his article, Cringlely talks about how Borland gave MS a run for their money, and probably could have won out if not for their own mistakes.
Here's the problem with that argument: Microsoft didn't have much in the way of development tools at the time (i.e., they were vulnerable), so Borland was able to jump ahead and later maintain parity in marketshare with MS.
Apple is not in that situation. MS is very cognizant of the need to control the desktop, they have poured a ton of money into it, and they now control ~90% to Apple's ~5%. Apple is not in a position to leap ahead of MS because MS has already stolen most of the functional advances of the Mac OS, and they continue to steal shamelessly from Apple, from the bundling of video editing software right down to putting an "X" in the OS nomenclature.
Be had a vastly superior OS to Windows 9x; why didn't Be eat MS's lunch? MS was way too far ahead in the game, that's why. BeOS's superior architecture was understood and appreciated by maybe 1% of Windows users, but it wasn't enough to convince the other 99% to switch.
Maybe if Apple could magically convince every existing PC developer to develop for OS X first, and then maybe port to Windows, then yeah, OS X on Intel *might* have a shot at converting people in the long haul. It just ain't gonna happen, though.
Personally, I think Cringely couldn't come up with a good column for last week, so he said to himself, "Hey, I'll just talk about Mac OS on Intel again, that's always good for lively debate!" Cringely is a smart fellow who's well-read about the tech industry. I have a hard time believing that he actually thinks OS X on Intel would serve Apple well in the industry's current monopolistic state. In fact, I found his article disappointing and a little insulting.
People keep telling me that there's this thing called "the free lunch" out there, but I have yet to find it... sigh.
No, it's called "ripping off." You know why? Most artists get FUCKED. Many end up in debt, between the cost of recording an album and everything else that goes into it. It's all usually calculated into their 'salary,' so if the artist flops, they have to pay for it.
Ancient Chinese saying... "You can't get fucked if you don't spread your legs" (ok, I just made that up). The artists have everything spelled out in front of them, and if they don't understand it it's their own fault for not seeking out counsel. If they get fucked, it's because they see the dollar signs in their eyes and not the realities of engaging in business.
If I were to release an album on a major record label with a typical contract and sell 50,000 copies, I would lose money (considering that it was an expensively produced album-which most are these days). If I hadn't gotten an aggressive percentage of ticket and paraphenelia sales(which most artists don't) and then decided to put on a good show for my fans, the record company I'm signed to would make a lot of money, the venue would make a fair deal, and I wouldn't make hardly any- because tour costs would fall on me.
Bad business venture on your part, eh? Then why are you doing it if it sucks that badly?
Obviously, because the potential reward is so great. Those are issues that the business world looks at every day -- "How can I get the greatest reward for the least risk?" How much risk are you willing to tolerate? It depends on the potential reward.
You wouldn't put up with that kind of abuse at McDonald's. Why? Too much risk for too little reward. BUT... if you had the potential to be the next U2... ok, then you're probably willing to take on a LOT more risk. But ultimately you, as the band, decide whether or not to take it on, not the record company.
And if you have misjudged your greatness, then you pay the same price that every failed entrepreneur has paid.
You see, major record companies don't take risks with artists. They don't invest. They are gauranteed to make back their money, even if an artist fails. The artist pays the cost of their failure, and ends up indentured to the record company.
Ever hear of bankruptcy? If an album fails, then the record company may be looking at one of three options: 1) pursue every penny and push these out of work musicians into bankruptcy (and get nothing), 2) negotiate a settlement with them and get pennies on the dollar (repaid over many, many years), or 3) write it off as a bad debt and reduce their amount of taxable income.
I'm willing to bet that option 3 happens a lot more often than 1 or 2.
And BTW, the record companies DO invest, they have potential to lose their money as well as increase it. It's only because they are big enough that they have figured out how to minimize risk on their part. They have the gold, so they make the rules. Don't like it? Then don't do business with them.
Now, Indie labels(Fat Wreck Chords, Matador, Hopeless, A-F Records, etc.) take risks. They release CD's at reasonable prices. They don't fuck the artists with the contracts. They don't make shit off of concerts, because they don't charge much for them.
Isn't competition a wonderful thing? That's the beauty of capitalism. If one company or group of companies gets too greedy, well there's always somebody waiting in the wings to eat their lunch.
So, what have the Indie labels done? They've reduced the amount of risk that the artists take on, but they have also reduced the potential reward. Again, if the artist feels that he/she has real talent, and is willing to take on much more risk, then they can step up from the Indie label.
But the bands of Indie labels aren't living rock and roll dreams with big houses. The truth is, there's a handful of people living that life. A lot of them own their own labels, or they're experienced enough in the business to force major record companies to give them fair contracts.
Oh, so some musicians with the big labels DO make big money... I've got a dozen people here telling me that they don't!
So, somebody out there is proving that capitalism works. Taking on a great amount of risk is not a guarantee of success (more a guarantee of failure, that's why it's called "risk"), but when that increased risk pays off, it pays off big.
Agreed. I've always argued if you're dumb enough to enter into that bad of a contract then you deserve everything that you get (or don't get).
Well, it's a shot at massive fame and fortune, of course they're going to go for it and try to beat the odds. Sure beats flipping burgers at the local BK (except then you get all your Whoppers free).
Per the high risk of modern music and need for a high return, you're right. In fact, just like small businesses, they're quite risky. Guess what? If I get a loan for my small business, I make 100% of the money that customers pay me, and then I repay 100% of my loan from my proceeds. If I'm a signed musician, I get 7% of the money that customers pay for me, and then I repay 100% of my record company loans from my proceeds. Do you see a problem with this equation??
Yes, I see a big problem. Go walk into your local bank and ask for a $7 million dollar loan so that your band, StinkySkivvies, can record an album and then go a world tour.
What? They didn't give it to you? Wow, finding capital must be harder than/.'ers make it seem to be.
WRONG. Contracts last for a set number of *albums* - there is absolutely no year limit. Also, the record company will *not* necessarily spend a given amount of capital promoting the artist - they will typically have X$$ to promote 10 groups out of the 20-30 they signed that year. The others will be cut at the end of the year.
Ok, so the artists who are truly talented get to enjoy a nice long career, and the one-hit wonders get to live the life of their dreams for a year.
Is there a problem with that? I'd quit my dayjob right now if I could go travel around the world and play my ukelele to packed arenas for a year.
It's no different than what happens in the business world. Some entrepreneurs have staying power, most don't. Oh well. Ride the wave while you can.
You mean Waylon Jennings? Merle Haggard? TLC? Guess what, between all of them, they have never received a royalty check despite selling tens of millions of records and CDs.
Really? You mean they've never sold their images for mechandising? Never had TV or movie opportunities? Never went on tour?
Wow, it really sucks when you don't know how to capitalize on a brand, doesn't it?
And since I don't have the means of verifying your comment, I'll leave it at that.
Are you a record company shrill? You speak like one. Courtney Love and Hole are not mega sellers, and likely will make less than $1 million net for their careers, divided by 4 members *and* 8-10 years. That comes out to $25,000-$31,000 per year per member before taxes - if they're lucky. 99% of all artists signed to the labels will not see a royalty check - coupons will be a necessity for them.
Read my prior comment again.
Love may or may not be getting much in royalties, but her record company has made a tremendous investment in the Courtney Love brand, something that they can't take away from her. If she hasn't capitalized on it, then its time to fire her manager and hire someone with some competence.
Answer me this, then... The record company gives you an advance of $1 million to produce the album. You spend every penny. So, if the album sells 5 copies, total, who has lost money? The band or the record company?
The band will just slink back to their Burger King jobs, and meanwhile the record company has a loss of $1 million on their books.
So, I'll rephrase the question. Who's money is on the line?
Now to take a macro look at the situation... the record company has deep pockets, we all know. But suppose they make similar investments in 30 new bands this year. $30 million dollars. Now let's say that every one of those 30 did marginally well. On a few of those investments, the record company got reimbursemed for their advance, and on others they took a loss.
I'm not an advocate for the record companies, but I can see why they do the things they do. Giving the artists an advance allows them to invest in a much greater range of musicians, and then it's up to the musician to prove they've got what it takes to succeed. If the company absorbed the cost of the studio production, then far fewer artists would make it into the pipeline. Reversing their policy would ultimately hurt a broader group of musicians, while only helping a few.
Well, it's not called "ripping people off," it's called investing. Record companies put up a huge amount of capital to produce records, market bands, and finance tours. Because there's a great deal of risk involved in promoting musicians, the recording industry demands a very high rate of return. Yes, the musicians create the content, but without financial backing, you never would have heard of Metallica. Remember the Golden Rule, that whoever has the gold makes the rules.
Band contracts last for a set number of years, and during that time, the record company will spend a gratuitous amount of capital promoting them. Once that contract expires, the band typically retains the band name, for which a tremendous amount of branding work has been done. They can take their brand and cash in on it themselves. The end result is that bands that have longevity will eventually get to live a fairy-tale existence, riding off into the sunset with millions and millions tucked away into their mutual funds.
Let me just say that, while I sympathize with people like Courtney Love, I won't shed a tear if she ends up with $15 million in the bank instead of $35 million. She can probably have her chauffer start clipping coupons out of the Sunday paper to help her make ends meet.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the internet and technology advances equalizing the revenues of the entertainment industry, as high-quality audio and video content becomes ridiculously cheap to create and distribute.
Does anyone remember the LONG period where PayPal gave $5 to each user and $5 for each referral, even if you never used their service? I had a slightly popular website and made nearly $200 off of referrals. I've used PayPal, but only as a sender, so I've never given PayPal a dime back.
Actually, you did. First off, it's important to understand that PayPal makes its money off of the float; i.e., off of the interest earned on the money in its coffers between the time it's deposited and the time it's withdrawn. And because PayPal only receives cash electronically, there's no lag time waiting for deposited checks to clear; the money can be put to work immediately. If someone requests that PayPal cut them a check for their account balance, then PayPal continues to accrue interest on that money during the time it takes to travel through the mail and then clear through the bank. The short of it is, if you've moved any money through their system, then PayPal has been making money off of you.
Secondly, you've made $200 off of referrals; you've thus referred 40 people. You may not have maintained a balance for very long, but some of those 40 people probably did, and if those 40 people referred an additional 40 people, who referred an additional 40 people, and so on, then you can see that your recruitment efforts have had a significant impact.
Third, PayPal had set its cost of acquiring new customers at $10, and they did it through a very efficient referral program. Millions of people do their marketing for them, and they only pay out when a new customer is actually acquired. Compare that to the gamble of doing a multi-million dollar advertising blitz that may (or may not) result in a significant increase in new customers. You've helped PayPal save a ton of marketing moolah by promoting their referral program, and doing a pretty good job at that.
Lastly, when PayPal pays out for its referral program, it pays directly into your account. A lot of people won't take out that money right away. So, even though they've paid out their marketing expenses, that money is still working for them! Very slick. In fact, it reduces their customer acquisition costs. On paper, they pay out $10 for new customers, but the net cost is probably something much lower. Again, back to the 40 people... you may have withdrawn that money immediately, but odds are that many of them didn't, nor did many of the people they referred.
There's two ways to do an IPO. The most common one is that the underwriter(s) buy all of the stock at a certain price from the issuing company, and if the stock price rises during the IPO, then the underwriter pockets the difference. It's their compensation for taking on the risk of buying all the stock (gross margin). The difference between what the underwriter paid and what the underwriter sold the stock for during the IPO is part of the cost of the IPO (spread), and if the stock price explodes, then you have a lot of weepy executives back at the issuing company, because they sold their stock waaay too cheap and missed out on a boatload of cash.
Far less common would be a scenario where the underwriter promises to do their best efforts to sell the IPO stock, and they can return any unsold shares. Obviously, there's far less risk involved for the underwriter, and thus far less reward.
In the former scenario, the underwriter has strong motivation to sell the stock and to get the best price possible. In the latter, the underwriter may not be willing to expend as much energy because their profit is relatively slim.
At $60, you might think it a little pricey to solve a single keystroke issue, but overall it's one of the best utilities available for the Mac.
Re:In 10 years you'll be glad your Mac runs Linux
on
Linux on the iMac G4
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Since Apple have a propensity to obsolete their hardware, and OSes rather quickly.
Look at 68k macs - no longer supported by any current version of the MacOS...
Look at Pre-G3 Power Macs - unsupported by OS X, or any Apple Unix...
Apple can't support their products like the Open Source community can, they seem to be of the opinion that if a machine is more than 2 years old, it is useless and you should buy a new one.
Yes, but...
The 68040 Macs became obsolete when Mac OS 8 came out. It was terribly, terribly slow. The 68040 Mac shipped with either System 6 or System 7. System 6, the last Mac system to fit on a floppy, was nice and lean; A full install of System 7 was ~24 MB, and added a bunch of features that slowed it down considerably, and Mac OS 8 added more still that made it virtually unusable on pre-PPC Macs.
Same situation with the pre-G3 PowerMacs running OS X. They can run OS's 7 through 9, but running OS X is going to be unbearably slow, especially because of Aqua. I have a 400 mhz B&W G3 in my office (Apple's last G3 tower), and it's "tolerable" with OS X. OS X really needs a G4 with Altivec.
Apple's doing the right thing; they worry about the future, and let others (like LinuxPPC) address the past.
Nah, it'll be much simpler than that... we'll see a ton more product placements in the actual shows. When Courtney Cox picks a soda up off the table, there'll be a tight shot of the profile of her face, with the Pepsi emblem on the can clearly displayed.
Probably a lot like The Truman Show, but without being that obvious, where the on-air personality is delivering a slogan directly into the camera.
Actually, that's the beauty of it. The Spam is sent, traffic to the site surges, and then they cut off the spammer so that they don't have to pay him the referral fees.
Their anti-spam policy isn't costing them anything, it's SAVING them thousands, maybe tens of thousands.
...against Palm Beach voters. They've figured out where the cup holder is on their computers, but haven't figured out why you need a rodent to operate it.
Yes, but the question is why do they cap bandwith right now?
The reason is that the cable providers are already facing a problem of saturation of their networks, because they have over-sold access. If this technology is on the level, it will allow them significantly reduce their loads during peak times, increase the number of subscribers, and possibly even lower their prices.
Believe me, cable companies will be salivating over this.
Personally, I have to say that I lean towards the conclusions found in Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee. I think they make a very compelling argument for there being far fewer earth-like planets than all of these starry-eyed astronomers are predicting.
Boy, I'll miss that guy! One of the many people who triggered lots of tech interest in me and made me who I am!
Tech interest? This is the guy who, when he found out that Apple had a project with an INTERNAL code name of "Sagan," had his lawyer write Apple some nasty letters.
Apple complied by renaming the project to "BHA," the meaning of which you could guess from the subject line of this message.
OrangeMicro used to manufacture an x86 processor card that fit into the PCI slot of Macs. At the time it was much, MUCH faster than trying to run VirtualPC or SoftWindows on a PPC601 or 68040 system. Unfortunately, it cost as much as an entire PC system, and the fact that Macs are now fast enough to run VPC at acceptable speeds did the product in. You could probably throw in as a contributor to the product's demise that it wasn't all that expandable.
Cool idea in theory, but the target audience for it was very narrow.
Slashdot Mirror
In his article, Cringlely talks about how Borland gave MS a run for their money, and probably could have won out if not for their own mistakes.
Here's the problem with that argument: Microsoft didn't have much in the way of development tools at the time (i.e., they were vulnerable), so Borland was able to jump ahead and later maintain parity in marketshare with MS.
Apple is not in that situation. MS is very cognizant of the need to control the desktop, they have poured a ton of money into it, and they now control ~90% to Apple's ~5%. Apple is not in a position to leap ahead of MS because MS has already stolen most of the functional advances of the Mac OS, and they continue to steal shamelessly from Apple, from the bundling of video editing software right down to putting an "X" in the OS nomenclature.
Be had a vastly superior OS to Windows 9x; why didn't Be eat MS's lunch? MS was way too far ahead in the game, that's why. BeOS's superior architecture was understood and appreciated by maybe 1% of Windows users, but it wasn't enough to convince the other 99% to switch.
Maybe if Apple could magically convince every existing PC developer to develop for OS X first, and then maybe port to Windows, then yeah, OS X on Intel *might* have a shot at converting people in the long haul. It just ain't gonna happen, though.
Personally, I think Cringely couldn't come up with a good column for last week, so he said to himself, "Hey, I'll just talk about Mac OS on Intel again, that's always good for lively debate!" Cringely is a smart fellow who's well-read about the tech industry. I have a hard time believing that he actually thinks OS X on Intel would serve Apple well in the industry's current monopolistic state. In fact, I found his article disappointing and a little insulting.
Wow, I just want to lick it....
People keep telling me that there's this thing called "the free lunch" out there, but I have yet to find it... sigh.
No, it's called "ripping off." You know why? Most artists get FUCKED. Many end up in debt, between the cost of recording an album and everything else that goes into it. It's all usually calculated into their 'salary,' so if the artist flops, they have to pay for it.
Ancient Chinese saying... "You can't get fucked if you don't spread your legs" (ok, I just made that up). The artists have everything spelled out in front of them, and if they don't understand it it's their own fault for not seeking out counsel. If they get fucked, it's because they see the dollar signs in their eyes and not the realities of engaging in business.
If I were to release an album on a major record label with a typical contract and sell 50,000 copies, I would lose money (considering that it was an expensively produced album-which most are these days). If I hadn't gotten an aggressive percentage of ticket and paraphenelia sales(which most artists don't) and then decided to put on a good show for my fans, the record company I'm signed to would make a lot of money, the venue would make a fair deal, and I wouldn't make hardly any- because tour costs would fall on me.
Bad business venture on your part, eh? Then why are you doing it if it sucks that badly?
Obviously, because the potential reward is so great. Those are issues that the business world looks at every day -- "How can I get the greatest reward for the least risk?" How much risk are you willing to tolerate? It depends on the potential reward.
You wouldn't put up with that kind of abuse at McDonald's. Why? Too much risk for too little reward. BUT... if you had the potential to be the next U2... ok, then you're probably willing to take on a LOT more risk. But ultimately you, as the band, decide whether or not to take it on, not the record company.
And if you have misjudged your greatness, then you pay the same price that every failed entrepreneur has paid.
You see, major record companies don't take risks with artists. They don't invest. They are gauranteed to make back their money, even if an artist fails. The artist pays the cost of their failure, and ends up indentured to the record company.
Ever hear of bankruptcy? If an album fails, then the record company may be looking at one of three options: 1) pursue every penny and push these out of work musicians into bankruptcy (and get nothing), 2) negotiate a settlement with them and get pennies on the dollar (repaid over many, many years), or 3) write it off as a bad debt and reduce their amount of taxable income.
I'm willing to bet that option 3 happens a lot more often than 1 or 2.
And BTW, the record companies DO invest, they have potential to lose their money as well as increase it. It's only because they are big enough that they have figured out how to minimize risk on their part. They have the gold, so they make the rules. Don't like it? Then don't do business with them.
Now, Indie labels(Fat Wreck Chords, Matador, Hopeless, A-F Records, etc.) take risks. They release CD's at reasonable prices. They don't fuck the artists with the contracts. They don't make shit off of concerts, because they don't charge much for them.
Isn't competition a wonderful thing? That's the beauty of capitalism. If one company or group of companies gets too greedy, well there's always somebody waiting in the wings to eat their lunch.
So, what have the Indie labels done? They've reduced the amount of risk that the artists take on, but they have also reduced the potential reward. Again, if the artist feels that he/she has real talent, and is willing to take on much more risk, then they can step up from the Indie label.
But the bands of Indie labels aren't living rock and roll dreams with big houses. The truth is, there's a handful of people living that life. A lot of them own their own labels, or they're experienced enough in the business to force major record companies to give them fair contracts.
Oh, so some musicians with the big labels DO make big money... I've got a dozen people here telling me that they don't!
So, somebody out there is proving that capitalism works. Taking on a great amount of risk is not a guarantee of success (more a guarantee of failure, that's why it's called "risk"), but when that increased risk pays off, it pays off big.
Be's stock closed at twelve cents today. $500 would buy just over 4,000 shares.
:-D
So, what are the odds of Be being able to siphon off a billion or two from MS?
Agreed. I've always argued if you're dumb enough to enter into that bad of a contract then you deserve everything that you get (or don't get).
Well, it's a shot at massive fame and fortune, of course they're going to go for it and try to beat the odds. Sure beats flipping burgers at the local BK (except then you get all your Whoppers free).
Per the high risk of modern music and need for a high return, you're right. In fact, just like small businesses, they're quite risky. Guess what? If I get a loan for my small business, I make 100% of the money that customers pay me, and then I repay 100% of my loan from my proceeds. If I'm a signed musician, I get 7% of the money that customers pay for me, and then I repay 100% of my record company loans from my proceeds. Do you see a problem with this equation??
/.'ers make it seem to be.
Yes, I see a big problem. Go walk into your local bank and ask for a $7 million dollar loan so that your band, StinkySkivvies, can record an album and then go a world tour.
What? They didn't give it to you? Wow, finding capital must be harder than
WRONG. Contracts last for a set number of *albums* - there is absolutely no year limit. Also, the record company will *not* necessarily spend a given amount of capital promoting the artist - they will typically have X$$ to promote 10 groups out of the 20-30 they signed that year. The others will be cut at the end of the year.
Ok, so the artists who are truly talented get to enjoy a nice long career, and the one-hit wonders get to live the life of their dreams for a year.
Is there a problem with that? I'd quit my dayjob right now if I could go travel around the world and play my ukelele to packed arenas for a year.
It's no different than what happens in the business world. Some entrepreneurs have staying power, most don't. Oh well. Ride the wave while you can.
You mean Waylon Jennings? Merle Haggard? TLC? Guess what, between all of them, they have never received a royalty check despite selling tens of millions of records and CDs.
Really? You mean they've never sold their images for mechandising? Never had TV or movie opportunities? Never went on tour?
Wow, it really sucks when you don't know how to capitalize on a brand, doesn't it?
And since I don't have the means of verifying your comment, I'll leave it at that.
Are you a record company shrill? You speak like one. Courtney Love and Hole are not mega sellers, and likely will make less than $1 million net for their careers, divided by 4 members *and* 8-10 years. That comes out to $25,000-$31,000 per year per member before taxes - if they're lucky. 99% of all artists signed to the labels will not see a royalty check - coupons will be a necessity for them.
Read my prior comment again.
Love may or may not be getting much in royalties, but her record company has made a tremendous investment in the Courtney Love brand, something that they can't take away from her. If she hasn't capitalized on it, then its time to fire her manager and hire someone with some competence.
Answer me this, then... The record company gives you an advance of $1 million to produce the album. You spend every penny. So, if the album sells 5 copies, total, who has lost money? The band or the record company?
The band will just slink back to their Burger King jobs, and meanwhile the record company has a loss of $1 million on their books.
So, I'll rephrase the question. Who's money is on the line?
Now to take a macro look at the situation... the record company has deep pockets, we all know. But suppose they make similar investments in 30 new bands this year. $30 million dollars. Now let's say that every one of those 30 did marginally well. On a few of those investments, the record company got reimbursemed for their advance, and on others they took a loss.
I'm not an advocate for the record companies, but I can see why they do the things they do. Giving the artists an advance allows them to invest in a much greater range of musicians, and then it's up to the musician to prove they've got what it takes to succeed. If the company absorbed the cost of the studio production, then far fewer artists would make it into the pipeline. Reversing their policy would ultimately hurt a broader group of musicians, while only helping a few.
Well, it's not called "ripping people off," it's called investing. Record companies put up a huge amount of capital to produce records, market bands, and finance tours. Because there's a great deal of risk involved in promoting musicians, the recording industry demands a very high rate of return. Yes, the musicians create the content, but without financial backing, you never would have heard of Metallica. Remember the Golden Rule, that whoever has the gold makes the rules.
Band contracts last for a set number of years, and during that time, the record company will spend a gratuitous amount of capital promoting them. Once that contract expires, the band typically retains the band name, for which a tremendous amount of branding work has been done. They can take their brand and cash in on it themselves. The end result is that bands that have longevity will eventually get to live a fairy-tale existence, riding off into the sunset with millions and millions tucked away into their mutual funds.
Let me just say that, while I sympathize with people like Courtney Love, I won't shed a tear if she ends up with $15 million in the bank instead of $35 million. She can probably have her chauffer start clipping coupons out of the Sunday paper to help her make ends meet.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the internet and technology advances equalizing the revenues of the entertainment industry, as high-quality audio and video content becomes ridiculously cheap to create and distribute.
Blocking a particular web mail domain might work if you only have a personal domain that you receive mail at, but that won't fly at 99% of businesses.
Does anyone remember the LONG period where PayPal gave $5 to each user and $5 for each referral, even if you never used their service? I had a slightly popular website and made nearly $200 off of referrals. I've used PayPal, but only as a sender, so I've never given PayPal a dime back.
Actually, you did. First off, it's important to understand that PayPal makes its money off of the float; i.e., off of the interest earned on the money in its coffers between the time it's deposited and the time it's withdrawn. And because PayPal only receives cash electronically, there's no lag time waiting for deposited checks to clear; the money can be put to work immediately. If someone requests that PayPal cut them a check for their account balance, then PayPal continues to accrue interest on that money during the time it takes to travel through the mail and then clear through the bank. The short of it is, if you've moved any money through their system, then PayPal has been making money off of you.
Secondly, you've made $200 off of referrals; you've thus referred 40 people. You may not have maintained a balance for very long, but some of those 40 people probably did, and if those 40 people referred an additional 40 people, who referred an additional 40 people, and so on, then you can see that your recruitment efforts have had a significant impact.
Third, PayPal had set its cost of acquiring new customers at $10, and they did it through a very efficient referral program. Millions of people do their marketing for them, and they only pay out when a new customer is actually acquired. Compare that to the gamble of doing a multi-million dollar advertising blitz that may (or may not) result in a significant increase in new customers. You've helped PayPal save a ton of marketing moolah by promoting their referral program, and doing a pretty good job at that.
Lastly, when PayPal pays out for its referral program, it pays directly into your account. A lot of people won't take out that money right away. So, even though they've paid out their marketing expenses, that money is still working for them! Very slick. In fact, it reduces their customer acquisition costs. On paper, they pay out $10 for new customers, but the net cost is probably something much lower. Again, back to the 40 people... you may have withdrawn that money immediately, but odds are that many of them didn't, nor did many of the people they referred.
There's two ways to do an IPO. The most common one is that the underwriter(s) buy all of the stock at a certain price from the issuing company, and if the stock price rises during the IPO, then the underwriter pockets the difference. It's their compensation for taking on the risk of buying all the stock (gross margin). The difference between what the underwriter paid and what the underwriter sold the stock for during the IPO is part of the cost of the IPO (spread), and if the stock price explodes, then you have a lot of weepy executives back at the issuing company, because they sold their stock waaay too cheap and missed out on a boatload of cash.
Far less common would be a scenario where the underwriter promises to do their best efforts to sell the IPO stock, and they can return any unsold shares. Obviously, there's far less risk involved for the underwriter, and thus far less reward.
In the former scenario, the underwriter has strong motivation to sell the stock and to get the best price possible. In the latter, the underwriter may not be willing to expend as much energy because their profit is relatively slim.
There's always QuicKeys
At $60, you might think it a little pricey to solve a single keystroke issue, but overall it's one of the best utilities available for the Mac.
Since Apple have a propensity to obsolete their hardware, and OSes rather quickly.
Look at 68k macs - no longer supported by any current version of the MacOS...
Look at Pre-G3 Power Macs - unsupported by OS X, or any Apple Unix...
Apple can't support their products like the Open Source community can, they seem to be of the opinion that if a machine is more than 2 years old, it is useless and you should buy a new one.
Yes, but...
The 68040 Macs became obsolete when Mac OS 8 came out. It was terribly, terribly slow. The 68040 Mac shipped with either System 6 or System 7. System 6, the last Mac system to fit on a floppy, was nice and lean; A full install of System 7 was ~24 MB, and added a bunch of features that slowed it down considerably, and Mac OS 8 added more still that made it virtually unusable on pre-PPC Macs.
Same situation with the pre-G3 PowerMacs running OS X. They can run OS's 7 through 9, but running OS X is going to be unbearably slow, especially because of Aqua. I have a 400 mhz B&W G3 in my office (Apple's last G3 tower), and it's "tolerable" with OS X. OS X really needs a G4 with Altivec.
Apple's doing the right thing; they worry about the future, and let others (like LinuxPPC) address the past.
Yeah, but what's more painful, passive product placement or having to stop every five minutes and enter some friggen code?
Nah, it'll be much simpler than that... we'll see a ton more product placements in the actual shows. When Courtney Cox picks a soda up off the table, there'll be a tight shot of the profile of her face, with the Pepsi emblem on the can clearly displayed.
Probably a lot like The Truman Show, but without being that obvious, where the on-air personality is delivering a slogan directly into the camera.
That's exactly the point of the article... they are going to transmit data over the powerlines. It's a done deal.
Apparently they've overcome the transformer problem.
Actually, that's the beauty of it. The Spam is sent, traffic to the site surges, and then they cut off the spammer so that they don't have to pay him the referral fees.
Their anti-spam policy isn't costing them anything, it's SAVING them thousands, maybe tens of thousands.
...against Palm Beach voters. They've figured out where the cup holder is on their computers, but haven't figured out why you need a rodent to operate it.
he can do it all in 640k of memory, too!
Yes, but the question is why do they cap bandwith right now?
The reason is that the cable providers are already facing a problem of saturation of their networks, because they have over-sold access. If this technology is on the level, it will allow them significantly reduce their loads during peak times, increase the number of subscribers, and possibly even lower their prices.
Believe me, cable companies will be salivating over this.
Personally, I have to say that I lean towards the conclusions found in Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee. I think they make a very compelling argument for there being far fewer earth-like planets than all of these starry-eyed astronomers are predicting.
Boy, I'll miss that guy! One of the many people who triggered lots of tech interest in me and made me who I am!
Tech interest? This is the guy who, when he found out that Apple had a project with an INTERNAL code name of "Sagan," had his lawyer write Apple some nasty letters.
Apple complied by renaming the project to "BHA," the meaning of which you could guess from the subject line of this message.
Not at all.
Until they show something vaguely resembling "proof", the press release isn't even worth the paper it's printed on.
Put a zero after each one of those numbers, and I think you just about have it...
OrangeMicro used to manufacture an x86 processor card that fit into the PCI slot of Macs. At the time it was much, MUCH faster than trying to run VirtualPC or SoftWindows on a PPC601 or 68040 system. Unfortunately, it cost as much as an entire PC system, and the fact that Macs are now fast enough to run VPC at acceptable speeds did the product in. You could probably throw in as a contributor to the product's demise that it wasn't all that expandable.
Cool idea in theory, but the target audience for it was very narrow.