Around that time (2004?) I had looked into a few IPO-worthy companies, with Vonage and Under Armour at the top of the list. Vonage was hated, and I wish I had the time to pull up the old articles from the way-back machine... but I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.
Also, up until this lawsuit, Vonage was actually beginning to turn a profit. Not anymore.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=VG&annual
Now, I don't know how they figure their "Selling General and Administrative" liability, but for the last three years this has cost them more than their "Total Revenue" and even though their Revenues increased like crazy (almost tripling each year), so did their costs. And even if you add a couple of hundred million dollars that they had to spend in court to deal with the lawsuit, they are still losing money. And the are still in a market that is flooded with competition. Another post said that there are other, cheaper, better, more under-the-radar VOIP companies out there... and probably run a better business than Vonage because their costs are way out of proportion for what an internet business should be.
About a year or two I was attempting to upload HD quality video to GVideo and was severely disappointed with their compression quality. I had to re-export my videos at a lower quality, and those ended up being a little better (but still not great).
The kicker was I had a 90 minute compilation of my videos that came up to several Gigs in the standard HD format, but around 500 MB in the lower quality export that I tried to send to Google. After several iterations through their upload software, I have never been able to get more than 25 minutes of that particular video to copy and play in GVideo.
For what it cost (free), I have no complaints. But I HOPE, HOPE, HOPE that this means that their servers are better suited to deal with significantly larger files. Especially considering the way that prices for consumer HD camcorders (with built-in HDs for recording) have come down in recent years.
Vonage's shares have dropped 87% since their IPO, now hovering around $1.50 per share.
Seriously, anybody who didn't see Vonage's failure coming before the IPO deserves this. They were an unprofitable company in a saturated market with a product (Voice-Over-IP) that doesn't appeal to most folks.
Sure, $20-25 per month for phone service is a wonderful deal but the major players with rock solid products have similar prices ($30-40 per month). And in effect, they will be de-listed soon and become another ghost in the great halls of technology company who never made it.
With operating revenues in the billions, Google is getting a huge benefit for a very small outlay with the money flowing into the Mozilla Foundation. These days, it is less common to have a hotlink lingering around for your search engine of choice because they are so ubiquitous that they are expected to just "be there".
And if you run Firefox, the default search engine at the top corner of the screen is none-other-than Google. It is a beautiful interface that has been embraced by users (me and you), the vendor (Google), and the merchant (Mozilla). A rare win-win-win for all. You and I get easy access to search online for anything with the click of a button. Google gets a way to funnel us into their site so they can show us their advertisements. Mozilla gets money to pay their engineers to improve a world class software application.
Given this information, it is silly to think that Google would terminate their beneficial relationship with Mozilla because it would significantly hurt them where it matters most (getting users to their site).
I wasn't trying to imply that there is a sustainability problem. I was merely suggesting that they should be mindful of their supply needs and make strides to ensure that the raw materials will always be available. I don't think either cows or potatoes are at risk of becoming extinct, but sustainable production/consumption is crucial to guarantee this.
And if they can design robots to automate a sustainable production supply chain... then a large portion of their raw materials costs can be reduced. That's where I was going, I guess.
increase their quality. I should know, being a former employee;) but seriously, that would be win-win for them, for sure.
Robotic implementations which take the place of jobs that humans don't want to do are ALWAYS a win-win situation. And if McDonald's can use the additional resources to ensure the sustainability of their supply chain, then it is a win-win-win. And by "sustainable supply chain" I mean ensuring that their cows and potatoes are produced and consumed at equal rates. By ensuring the this, they prevent themselves from pillaging Mother Earth and as a result the environment would be a benefactor, in addition to the business and the customer.
Hell, a company that could pull this together would have me as a willing and completely enthusiastic customer for the rest of my life.
I can't be the only person who not only does not have the time, but absolutely hates cooking, can I?
You wouldn't be the customer. McDonalds would be. And they are already working with technology companies to bring this to their stores to reduce their cost of doing business.
My post was from a business/profits/marketing perspective. I'm sorry if you failed to get that. From a technical perspective, as long as source code is available then who cares about the business... if the product is worthwhile then the community will develop it even if the business fails.
Isn't Red Hat's core business servicing RHEL and developing it is secondary to being able to provide that support?
Thank you for your clarification about CentOS. I stand-by my assertion that if I have a need for a system that needs to work that my target is still RHEL and that Fedora is like OEM/pirated Windows.
Unless there are system administrators who would defend state that they would prefer CentOS over RHEL, I don't think Red Hat's core market is at risk... because those big customers running mission critical systems are where the money is.
RHEL, CentOS, and Fedora are all competing brands under the same umbrella. Fedora is great for cutting edge developers and home users. CentOS is good for people who desire the better tested software. RHEL is targeted at enterprises (hence the 'E' in the acronym) who need things working all the time (99.9999%). The three different markets are comparable to the different brands offered by Microsoft (Server, Workstation, Home). The only difference is that Red Hat doesn't make any money from CentOS or Fedora.
But take a step back and think about Microsoft a bit more. Imagine you have a business laptop which was provided to you by your company. It runs 2000 or XP or (god forbid) Vista and the company has a site license for you to run that software. Microsoft is happy to slash margins for the individual site license which you have as long as they can continue to service the servers and infrastructure which run the business critical systems of your company. Similarly, if you are a developer or home user... your copy of Windows came from an OEM or you pirated it. Sure, Microsoft gets money from Dell and the other OEMs... but (I imagine) so do the Linux companies who have been able to get involved in that method of distribution.
In the end, you help Red Hat by using CentOS or Fedora just like you help Microsoft by using pirated Windows. Simple enough?
is it really that bad if the other participant in the conversation isn't actually in the restaurant?
I was eating out last weekend and a man on his cell phone was pacing around with a bluetooth device trying to give directions to somebody else who was on their way to the restaurant. All of the things that were annoying about the situation could have easily been solved without anybody being annoyed.
The man could have gone outside the restaurant to talk
The man could have sat at his table to talked instead of walking back and forth near my table
The man could have turned off his bluetooth device, because it is *just weird* to have to be around people who you have to pay your attention to so that you can determine that they are having a conversation with somebody else and not plainly crazy. Bluetooth is for when you are cooking so you can use your hands. If you are walking around in a social environment, leave it off.
The man could have texted the person he was talking to an address or restaurant name, and had the other person get directions from the internet
The man could have coordinated the meeting beforehand so the other person could acquire directions in the printed format
So yeah, the problem is that some people use technology as a crutch to get things done because more conventional methods have been forgotten (having a fold-up map of the city that fits in your pocket) and better technology isn't ubiquitous yet (internet queries on mobile devices). Thus, current technology gets mis-used. Compound this with the fact that there are a lot of inconsiderate people out there and you've got a recipe for annoying situations to occur.
The article seems to hint that confrontation is inevitable, but I think most people are non-confrontational and would rather deal with minor annoyances then create a scene. At the restaurant the other day, that's what I did. *shrug*
DHS to change agency name to Ministry of Love. That would make DoD the Ministry of Peace. The media would be the Ministry of Truth. And the Ministry of Plenty would be... what? the oil companies?
America is at war with terrorism. America has ALWAYS been at war with terrorism.
Thank you for the obligatory 1984 reference.
The problem is a combination of citizen informants
For the information of those who HAVEN'T read 1984, this is how the thought-police work. It isn't any magical "mind-reading powers". It is mainly brainwashing the children and giving them the authority to turn their parents over to the authorities.
Also, if I may be so bold as to do a little self-promotion (because it is relevant)... if you've got interests in post-modern societies, I would urge you to click the link in my signature to be taken to a page which is hosting a novel that I have written. This work shares some themes which 1984, and it provides some interesting viewpoints in a similar way that Orwell's novel does. Thanks.
People don't seem to grasp the Ollie North effect: just because you "deleted" something doesn't mean it was removed from existence.
No, it is understood that deleting is not the same as destruction... but it will almost always mean that an extra effort would be needed to get access to the supposedly purged information. Even if getting access to the data is only a matter of adding an "IS_DELETED='Y'" term to a SQL Query, the extra effort will be a big enough barrier against most attempts to access my data.
This argument is faulty. It sounds like a pretty nifty contradiction, but it simply is not true. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. You *can* have both convenience and privacy, but much like a software project that meets the requirements *and* is on time... it is going to cost more.
and some people are shocked, shocked i tell you, to find out that a lot of people don't treat their private life with the security protocols of a swiss bank. because they simply don't care
"Privacy data" means different things to different people in different situations. Some people are very comfortable sharing intimate details with strangers. Some people have trouble discussing their feelings with their spouses. I prefer to err on the side of Openness (we demand it of our business executives, do we not?) but I think a lot of people will broadcast data that you think might be "private" because they have the opinion that the information is safe to be considered public.
A seemingly scary invasion of privacy that I came across recently is a site that lets you query information of public education professionals in New Jersey. Because this is "private" data, I think it shouldn't be made available. But because the professionals are "public servants" it is arguable that the information should be provided because of full disclosure of the rights of parents. Here's the infringing site: http://php.app.com/edstaff/search.php . If you went to public high school in New Jersey, knock yourself out.
Centralized data source? The operators of the data source are always a security concern. They need to be both honest (and not invade your privacy) and noble (and not sell your data to third parties for a profit). It seems like pointing this out is the focus of the article, but it is not new information.
Decentralized data source? You operate what data goes where, but it is a much harder system to support. The reason MySpace and Facebook are popular is because they are easy-to-use and non-technical people have adopted them as de-facto social meet/discussion places. I dare you to implement an easy-to-use decentralized social network.
For Facebook in specific, it sucks that they took $$$ from Microsoft. This puts them in bed with a powerful influence in the software arena... and one that is not trustworthy for having any business ethics. By itself, I trusted Facebook. I still won't put anything on my Facebook profile that I would need to keep private. With Microsoft, maybe it is time to delete anything personal from the site...
Are we becoming a society where we just need less people? Except, of course, as consumers...
Yes, we have a very efficient society that can support a larger number of people than the number of people required to maintain the grand social order.
As consumers, there is still much progress to be made. The goal of the economy is to eliminate scarcity of resources... so as long as there exists a resource in the world which you cannot have because of the underlaying economic state of the global economy, consumerism is not fulfilled.
The good news is that automation of certain tasks captures the world's most important resource (time), and makes more of it available to the workforce. With more time, it is easier to achieve the goal of the economy (i.e. no scarcity of resources).
there are plenty of "pointless" jobs that do need to be done but can't just be replaced with a machine.
All jobs can be replaced by machines. Farming, Textiles, Medical Procedures, Lawyers, Garbage Collection, and especially IT. The thing that prevents these things from occurring is that the current systems work very well. People won't try to automate unless systemic failures begin to occur. I believe the saying in favor of maintaining the status quo is, "Don't reinvent the wheel". However, if the world's supply of rubber suddenly shifts chemically to become more porous then you better believe that people will re-invent the wheel instead of pumping up their tires every morning.
Neither engineers nor managers like dealing with bureaucratic IT, so avoid that or you will be targeted. The added bureaucracy forces the people doing the important work to "refill the tires every time they want to go for a ride".
you don't *need* cable. If people are paying the cable bill over, say, rent, groceries, or health insurance, there's a clear imbalance of priorities here.
What's the status of Over-the-Air Broadcast TV? Is that still available? I have cable but I am moving soon and I don't want to sign up for cable but would be happy to get the basic 5 or 6 channels that are supposed to be free. Do the rabbit ears still do the trick? Will I need to upgrade to a "digital broadcast" receiver when the government cuts off the broadcast of TV (which I think is scheduled for 2008)?
Comcast and Time Warner might be patting each other on the back so that they don't step on each other's toes, but Verizon will fuck up the cable companies friendly agreement and provide cheaper cable through their fiber pipes. I've got no idea if *this* specifically is what the story intends to make happen... but never underestimate the ability for competition to regulate and improve the state of the art of content delivery.
Surely, if Verizon doesn't do it, then Google will. They are all competing for the same market, at this point.
The age for House of Representatives is 25. My apologies for inadvertently confusing these two regulations. I am 25 and have proudly voted for two losing Presidential candidates. Third time is a charm, right?
Basic economics is always a good thing, and lots of debt isn't necessarily a bad thing. While I think Bush has done a lot of damage to the economy, there have been instances in history where debt has been used to stabilize a failing economy (i.e. post Great Depression).
Unfortunately, Bush took an EXCELLENT Clinton Administration economy and turned it to shit in the name of "Fighting Terrorism". In retrospect, it has not been money well spent.
Slashdot Mirror
Around that time (2004?) I had looked into a few IPO-worthy companies, with Vonage and Under Armour at the top of the list. Vonage was hated, and I wish I had the time to pull up the old articles from the way-back machine... but I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.
Also, up until this lawsuit, Vonage was actually beginning to turn a profit. Not anymore.http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=VG&annual
Now, I don't know how they figure their "Selling General and Administrative" liability, but for the last three years this has cost them more than their "Total Revenue" and even though their Revenues increased like crazy (almost tripling each year), so did their costs. And even if you add a couple of hundred million dollars that they had to spend in court to deal with the lawsuit, they are still losing money. And the are still in a market that is flooded with competition. Another post said that there are other, cheaper, better, more under-the-radar VOIP companies out there... and probably run a better business than Vonage because their costs are way out of proportion for what an internet business should be.
About a year or two I was attempting to upload HD quality video to GVideo and was severely disappointed with their compression quality. I had to re-export my videos at a lower quality, and those ended up being a little better (but still not great).
The kicker was I had a 90 minute compilation of my videos that came up to several Gigs in the standard HD format, but around 500 MB in the lower quality export that I tried to send to Google. After several iterations through their upload software, I have never been able to get more than 25 minutes of that particular video to copy and play in GVideo.
For what it cost (free), I have no complaints. But I HOPE, HOPE, HOPE that this means that their servers are better suited to deal with significantly larger files. Especially considering the way that prices for consumer HD camcorders (with built-in HDs for recording) have come down in recent years.
Seriously, anybody who didn't see Vonage's failure coming before the IPO deserves this. They were an unprofitable company in a saturated market with a product (Voice-Over-IP) that doesn't appeal to most folks.
Sure, $20-25 per month for phone service is a wonderful deal but the major players with rock solid products have similar prices ($30-40 per month). And in effect, they will be de-listed soon and become another ghost in the great halls of technology company who never made it.
I want to rock and roll all night, and obey the law everyday,
I want to rock and roll all night, but not get sued for stealing it today
I might be wrong, but I doubt KISS would have sold as many albums with those lyrics.
With operating revenues in the billions, Google is getting a huge benefit for a very small outlay with the money flowing into the Mozilla Foundation. These days, it is less common to have a hotlink lingering around for your search engine of choice because they are so ubiquitous that they are expected to just "be there".
And if you run Firefox, the default search engine at the top corner of the screen is none-other-than Google. It is a beautiful interface that has been embraced by users (me and you), the vendor (Google), and the merchant (Mozilla). A rare win-win-win for all. You and I get easy access to search online for anything with the click of a button. Google gets a way to funnel us into their site so they can show us their advertisements. Mozilla gets money to pay their engineers to improve a world class software application.
Given this information, it is silly to think that Google would terminate their beneficial relationship with Mozilla because it would significantly hurt them where it matters most (getting users to their site).
I wasn't trying to imply that there is a sustainability problem. I was merely suggesting that they should be mindful of their supply needs and make strides to ensure that the raw materials will always be available. I don't think either cows or potatoes are at risk of becoming extinct, but sustainable production/consumption is crucial to guarantee this.
And if they can design robots to automate a sustainable production supply chain... then a large portion of their raw materials costs can be reduced. That's where I was going, I guess.
Robotic implementations which take the place of jobs that humans don't want to do are ALWAYS a win-win situation. And if McDonald's can use the additional resources to ensure the sustainability of their supply chain, then it is a win-win-win. And by "sustainable supply chain" I mean ensuring that their cows and potatoes are produced and consumed at equal rates. By ensuring the this, they prevent themselves from pillaging Mother Earth and as a result the environment would be a benefactor, in addition to the business and the customer.
I can't be the only person who not only does not have the time, but absolutely hates cooking, can I?
You wouldn't be the customer. McDonalds would be. And they are already working with technology companies to bring this to their stores to reduce their cost of doing business.
the B0fh,
My post was from a business/profits/marketing perspective. I'm sorry if you failed to get that. From a technical perspective, as long as source code is available then who cares about the business... if the product is worthwhile then the community will develop it even if the business fails.
Isn't Red Hat's core business servicing RHEL and developing it is secondary to being able to provide that support?
Thank you for your clarification about CentOS. I stand-by my assertion that if I have a need for a system that needs to work that my target is still RHEL and that Fedora is like OEM/pirated Windows.
Unless there are system administrators who would defend state that they would prefer CentOS over RHEL, I don't think Red Hat's core market is at risk... because those big customers running mission critical systems are where the money is.
RHEL, CentOS, and Fedora are all competing brands under the same umbrella. Fedora is great for cutting edge developers and home users. CentOS is good for people who desire the better tested software. RHEL is targeted at enterprises (hence the 'E' in the acronym) who need things working all the time (99.9999%). The three different markets are comparable to the different brands offered by Microsoft (Server, Workstation, Home). The only difference is that Red Hat doesn't make any money from CentOS or Fedora.
But take a step back and think about Microsoft a bit more. Imagine you have a business laptop which was provided to you by your company. It runs 2000 or XP or (god forbid) Vista and the company has a site license for you to run that software. Microsoft is happy to slash margins for the individual site license which you have as long as they can continue to service the servers and infrastructure which run the business critical systems of your company. Similarly, if you are a developer or home user... your copy of Windows came from an OEM or you pirated it. Sure, Microsoft gets money from Dell and the other OEMs... but (I imagine) so do the Linux companies who have been able to get involved in that method of distribution.
In the end, you help Red Hat by using CentOS or Fedora just like you help Microsoft by using pirated Windows. Simple enough?
I was eating out last weekend and a man on his cell phone was pacing around with a bluetooth device trying to give directions to somebody else who was on their way to the restaurant. All of the things that were annoying about the situation could have easily been solved without anybody being annoyed.
The man could have gone outside the restaurant to talk
The man could have sat at his table to talked instead of walking back and forth near my table
The man could have turned off his bluetooth device, because it is *just weird* to have to be around people who you have to pay your attention to so that you can determine that they are having a conversation with somebody else and not plainly crazy. Bluetooth is for when you are cooking so you can use your hands. If you are walking around in a social environment, leave it off.
The man could have texted the person he was talking to an address or restaurant name, and had the other person get directions from the internet
The man could have coordinated the meeting beforehand so the other person could acquire directions in the printed format
So yeah, the problem is that some people use technology as a crutch to get things done because more conventional methods have been forgotten (having a fold-up map of the city that fits in your pocket) and better technology isn't ubiquitous yet (internet queries on mobile devices). Thus, current technology gets mis-used. Compound this with the fact that there are a lot of inconsiderate people out there and you've got a recipe for annoying situations to occur.
The article seems to hint that confrontation is inevitable, but I think most people are non-confrontational and would rather deal with minor annoyances then create a scene. At the restaurant the other day, that's what I did. *shrug*
Thank you for the obligatory 1984 reference.
The problem is a combination of citizen informantsFor the information of those who HAVEN'T read 1984, this is how the thought-police work. It isn't any magical "mind-reading powers". It is mainly brainwashing the children and giving them the authority to turn their parents over to the authorities.
Also, if I may be so bold as to do a little self-promotion (because it is relevant)... if you've got interests in post-modern societies, I would urge you to click the link in my signature to be taken to a page which is hosting a novel that I have written. This work shares some themes which 1984, and it provides some interesting viewpoints in a similar way that Orwell's novel does. Thanks.
No, it is understood that deleting is not the same as destruction... but it will almost always mean that an extra effort would be needed to get access to the supposedly purged information. Even if getting access to the data is only a matter of adding an "IS_DELETED='Y'" term to a SQL Query, the extra effort will be a big enough barrier against most attempts to access my data.
if you want convenience, you don't get privacy
if you want privacy, you don't get convenience
This argument is faulty. It sounds like a pretty nifty contradiction, but it simply is not true. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. You *can* have both convenience and privacy, but much like a software project that meets the requirements *and* is on time... it is going to cost more.
and some people are shocked, shocked i tell you, to find out that a lot of people don't treat their private life with the security protocols of a swiss bank. because they simply don't care"Privacy data" means different things to different people in different situations. Some people are very comfortable sharing intimate details with strangers. Some people have trouble discussing their feelings with their spouses. I prefer to err on the side of Openness (we demand it of our business executives, do we not?) but I think a lot of people will broadcast data that you think might be "private" because they have the opinion that the information is safe to be considered public.
A seemingly scary invasion of privacy that I came across recently is a site that lets you query information of public education professionals in New Jersey. Because this is "private" data, I think it shouldn't be made available. But because the professionals are "public servants" it is arguable that the information should be provided because of full disclosure of the rights of parents. Here's the infringing site: http://php.app.com/edstaff/search.php . If you went to public high school in New Jersey, knock yourself out.
Centralized data source? The operators of the data source are always a security concern. They need to be both honest (and not invade your privacy) and noble (and not sell your data to third parties for a profit). It seems like pointing this out is the focus of the article, but it is not new information. Decentralized data source? You operate what data goes where, but it is a much harder system to support. The reason MySpace and Facebook are popular is because they are easy-to-use and non-technical people have adopted them as de-facto social meet/discussion places. I dare you to implement an easy-to-use decentralized social network. For Facebook in specific, it sucks that they took $$$ from Microsoft. This puts them in bed with a powerful influence in the software arena... and one that is not trustworthy for having any business ethics. By itself, I trusted Facebook. I still won't put anything on my Facebook profile that I would need to keep private. With Microsoft, maybe it is time to delete anything personal from the site...
Yes, we have a very efficient society that can support a larger number of people than the number of people required to maintain the grand social order.
As consumers, there is still much progress to be made. The goal of the economy is to eliminate scarcity of resources... so as long as there exists a resource in the world which you cannot have because of the underlaying economic state of the global economy, consumerism is not fulfilled.
The good news is that automation of certain tasks captures the world's most important resource (time), and makes more of it available to the workforce. With more time, it is easier to achieve the goal of the economy (i.e. no scarcity of resources).
All jobs can be replaced by machines. Farming, Textiles, Medical Procedures, Lawyers, Garbage Collection, and especially IT. The thing that prevents these things from occurring is that the current systems work very well. People won't try to automate unless systemic failures begin to occur. I believe the saying in favor of maintaining the status quo is, "Don't reinvent the wheel". However, if the world's supply of rubber suddenly shifts chemically to become more porous then you better believe that people will re-invent the wheel instead of pumping up their tires every morning.
Neither engineers nor managers like dealing with bureaucratic IT, so avoid that or you will be targeted. The added bureaucracy forces the people doing the important work to "refill the tires every time they want to go for a ride".
What's the status of Over-the-Air Broadcast TV? Is that still available? I have cable but I am moving soon and I don't want to sign up for cable but would be happy to get the basic 5 or 6 channels that are supposed to be free. Do the rabbit ears still do the trick? Will I need to upgrade to a "digital broadcast" receiver when the government cuts off the broadcast of TV (which I think is scheduled for 2008)?
Comcast and Time Warner might be patting each other on the back so that they don't step on each other's toes, but Verizon will fuck up the cable companies friendly agreement and provide cheaper cable through their fiber pipes. I've got no idea if *this* specifically is what the story intends to make happen... but never underestimate the ability for competition to regulate and improve the state of the art of content delivery.
Surely, if Verizon doesn't do it, then Google will. They are all competing for the same market, at this point.
How does Vero determine if somebody can qualify as an expert on a subject?
The age for House of Representatives is 25. My apologies for inadvertently confusing these two regulations. I am 25 and have proudly voted for two losing Presidential candidates. Third time is a charm, right?
Basic economics is always a good thing, and lots of debt isn't necessarily a bad thing. While I think Bush has done a lot of damage to the economy, there have been instances in history where debt has been used to stabilize a failing economy (i.e. post Great Depression).
Unfortunately, Bush took an EXCELLENT Clinton Administration economy and turned it to shit in the name of "Fighting Terrorism". In retrospect, it has not been money well spent.
I wish I could reply to you, but I can't because you are an AC. Oh well.