Well said. Google bashers always baffle me with their lack of factual support. A healthy caution of companies that have so much information is justified. If someone wants to avoid Google for that reason, then fine. But they should not pretend it is because Google has shown any pattern of abuse. If anything, they have been much better than most companies.
I saw someone in another forum using Google's slogan "don't be evil" as some kind of argument that they are evil... asking why they would need such a motto. From my perspective, "don't be evil" is one of the few corporate slogans worth anything. Unfortunately, it is something that cannot be taken for granted. It's sad, but that's the world we live in. And "don't be evil" is certainly more meaningful than most of the warm/fuzzy tripe that other companies spew in their mission statements.
Agreed. Governments are the one entity that can actually defend an open standard by simply saying that no patents apply to it. If someone thinks they have a claim, then they can raise the issue before it gets that far. But even then, if given the choice between denying someone a sanctioned monopoly (patent) or denying the entire world a viable standard, it's hard to justify the monopoly. Even reasonable patents are generally more an inevitable result of the state of technology than of some unique, singular leap. People are denied patents all the time. For every granted patent, there are any number of people doing equivalent work that are not only denied the patent but may be denied even the right to use their own work since it then violates the patent. Limiting patents as they apply to open standards hardly seems like a high price to pay.
It is pretty clear that the real impediments to open standards are a matter of "follow the money".
The point is that the rabid anti-piracy techniques used by a lot of publishers do not just hurt pirates; they hurt legitimate customers.
I do not pirate software. I do exactly as you describe... "If you dont approve with the price, you just dont get it then". And as a paying customer, I expect the money I provide to be used to produce a good product, not to make me suffer through invasive anti-copy software, key codes, etc. Actually, the key codes are not so bad, but why should I put up with them when pirates don't. Almost all software gets cracked, and cracked versions often lack these anti-features. And THAT is what really pisses me off. I give these companies my money, and how do they reward me? They make me go through all this crap that does not even stop the pirates. At best, I am punished for no good reason, and in some cases, the pirates are actually rewarded with less crippled software than me. And when it's all done, even if piracy is curtailed, what has been gained? Maybe one sale for 2500 stopped piracies. That is NOT an effective use of my money.
And by the way, if most people seriously followed the "If you dont approve with the price, you just dont get it then" policy, then that really would impact sales. As someone who follows it, I can say that "just dont get it then" is the most common result.
I see a few possible explanations as to why companies continue to cause customers pain in the name of fighting piracy... - The the people in charge are stupid. - They have a hatred (or at least disdain) for their own customers. - Stopping piracy is not the real goal. A lot of publishers would love it if they could dictate exactly when, where, and how customers access the media we pay for. It's really just an obsession with control.
I think it is a little bit of all of these in conjunction.
Did you read my full post? I did not advocate any action against the InfiniteSMS app developers. You should also read my other response that explains how this is different from web browsers. My point was just that InfiniteSMS differentiated their app (and thus made money) by using the Google SMS service rather than by outperforming competing messaging apps in other ways. The Google SMS service is why many people chose this app over others. I did not make any legal or moral claim about it.
Yes app developers have a right to make use of the services available. Unfortunately, in this case, the high level of usage resulted in the service provider scaling back their service.
The important factor is where the effective value comes from, not a line item bill. As an extreme example, let's say I'm selling a toaster for $5000, and it comes with a free luxury car. If I stop offering the free car, do you think people will still buy the toaster. Stated price is not always a reflection of real value.
The reason that web browsers are different than InfiniteSMS is that there is a strong competitive market of browsers that all use the same internet access. Therefore, browsers must distinguish themselves by some means other than simply having internet access. In the case of InfiniteSMS, I think the competing messaging apps are not using Google's service. When people buy the app, Google's service is the distinguishing factor, not the app itself.
When people buy this app, they are paying for the functionality that comes from the combination of the app's software and Google's service. If a major differentiator for the app is its use of Google's service, then they are effectively charging for that service.
Ask yourself this. Of all the apps people could buy, why would they buy this one? Does its competitive advantage come from the excellence of the app itself or from its use of Google's service?
Does this constitute "abuse"? I'm not sure that it does, and I think even Google has not claimed such. But it is overuse, even if unintentional, and it is a form of "charging".
... so all those people who write viruses for Windows... do they get paid by machine or flat rate? Or is Windows just so easy to hack that it requires no "brains and knowledge"?
Not that I'm denying Mac fanaticism, but let's be realistic. This test was not meant to show that Macs are bulletproof-- no operating system is. It was meant to provide a counterpoint to a previous misleading article, which it did and did well.
I agree in part, but you must be careful how you define a free market. A market ceases to be free if any one entity (or a close-knit group) effectively has control of the market. This is true whether that entity is a government or a business. The role of government is not to take control of markets but merely to prevent anyone else from taking too much control. This is the purpose of regulation.
In situations where some level of monopoly is difficult to avoid, such as utilities, the government itself provides the counter-balance to the commercial entity by limiting the actions that the company can take. This is not perfect since it depends on intelligent regulation by the government, but it is better that having a powerful company with little or no check on that power.
For a distinct character/symbol like Mickey Mouse, isn't a trademark enough? Trademarks can be renewed indefinitely. Did Disney push for copyright extension primarily to protect their other IP?
Slashdot Mirror
Well said. Google bashers always baffle me with their lack of factual support. A healthy caution of companies that have so much information is justified. If someone wants to avoid Google for that reason, then fine. But they should not pretend it is because Google has shown any pattern of abuse. If anything, they have been much better than most companies.
I saw someone in another forum using Google's slogan "don't be evil" as some kind of argument that they are evil... asking why they would need such a motto. From my perspective, "don't be evil" is one of the few corporate slogans worth anything. Unfortunately, it is something that cannot be taken for granted. It's sad, but that's the world we live in. And "don't be evil" is certainly more meaningful than most of the warm/fuzzy tripe that other companies spew in their mission statements.
Agreed. Governments are the one entity that can actually defend an open standard by simply saying that no patents apply to it. If someone thinks they have a claim, then they can raise the issue before it gets that far. But even then, if given the choice between denying someone a sanctioned monopoly (patent) or denying the entire world a viable standard, it's hard to justify the monopoly. Even reasonable patents are generally more an inevitable result of the state of technology than of some unique, singular leap. People are denied patents all the time. For every granted patent, there are any number of people doing equivalent work that are not only denied the patent but may be denied even the right to use their own work since it then violates the patent. Limiting patents as they apply to open standards hardly seems like a high price to pay.
It is pretty clear that the real impediments to open standards are a matter of "follow the money".
The point is that the rabid anti-piracy techniques used by a lot of publishers do not just hurt pirates; they hurt legitimate customers.
... "If you dont approve with the price, you just dont get it then". And as a paying customer, I expect the money I provide to be used to produce a good product, not to make me suffer through invasive anti-copy software, key codes, etc. Actually, the key codes are not so bad, but why should I put up with them when pirates don't. Almost all software gets cracked, and cracked versions often lack these anti-features. And THAT is what really pisses me off. I give these companies my money, and how do they reward me? They make me go through all this crap that does not even stop the pirates. At best, I am punished for no good reason, and in some cases, the pirates are actually rewarded with less crippled software than me. And when it's all done, even if piracy is curtailed, what has been gained? Maybe one sale for 2500 stopped piracies. That is NOT an effective use of my money.
I do not pirate software. I do exactly as you describe
And by the way, if most people seriously followed the "If you dont approve with the price, you just dont get it then" policy, then that really would impact sales. As someone who follows it, I can say that "just dont get it then" is the most common result.
I see a few possible explanations as to why companies continue to cause customers pain in the name of fighting piracy...
- The the people in charge are stupid.
- They have a hatred (or at least disdain) for their own customers.
- Stopping piracy is not the real goal. A lot of publishers would love it if they could dictate exactly when, where, and how customers access the media we pay for. It's really just an obsession with control.
I think it is a little bit of all of these in conjunction.
Did you read my full post? I did not advocate any action against the InfiniteSMS app developers. You should also read my other response that explains how this is different from web browsers. My point was just that InfiniteSMS differentiated their app (and thus made money) by using the Google SMS service rather than by outperforming competing messaging apps in other ways. The Google SMS service is why many people chose this app over others. I did not make any legal or moral claim about it.
Yes app developers have a right to make use of the services available. Unfortunately, in this case, the high level of usage resulted in the service provider scaling back their service.
The important factor is where the effective value comes from, not a line item bill. As an extreme example, let's say I'm selling a toaster for $5000, and it comes with a free luxury car. If I stop offering the free car, do you think people will still buy the toaster. Stated price is not always a reflection of real value.
The reason that web browsers are different than InfiniteSMS is that there is a strong competitive market of browsers that all use the same internet access. Therefore, browsers must distinguish themselves by some means other than simply having internet access. In the case of InfiniteSMS, I think the competing messaging apps are not using Google's service. When people buy the app, Google's service is the distinguishing factor, not the app itself.
When people buy this app, they are paying for the functionality that comes from the combination of the app's software and Google's service. If a major differentiator for the app is its use of Google's service, then they are effectively charging for that service.
Ask yourself this. Of all the apps people could buy, why would they buy this one? Does its competitive advantage come from the excellence of the app itself or from its use of Google's service?
Does this constitute "abuse"? I'm not sure that it does, and I think even Google has not claimed such. But it is overuse, even if unintentional, and it is a form of "charging".
... so all those people who write viruses for Windows ... do they get paid by machine or flat rate? Or is Windows just so easy to hack that it requires no "brains and knowledge"?
Not that I'm denying Mac fanaticism, but let's be realistic. This test was not meant to show that Macs are bulletproof-- no operating system is. It was meant to provide a counterpoint to a previous misleading article, which it did and did well.
I agree in part, but you must be careful how you define a free market. A market ceases to be free if any one entity (or a close-knit group) effectively has control of the market. This is true whether that entity is a government or a business. The role of government is not to take control of markets but merely to prevent anyone else from taking too much control. This is the purpose of regulation.
In situations where some level of monopoly is difficult to avoid, such as utilities, the government itself provides the counter-balance to the commercial entity by limiting the actions that the company can take. This is not perfect since it depends on intelligent regulation by the government, but it is better that having a powerful company with little or no check on that power.
For a distinct character/symbol like Mickey Mouse, isn't a trademark enough? Trademarks can be renewed indefinitely. Did Disney push for copyright extension primarily to protect their other IP?