Europeans have used their military forces many times since the second world war.
Reluctance to use them doesn't equate to a fear to use them. Consider it instead a more mature and reasoned approach to world politics.
Incidenally I do have a problem with corrupt, incompetent regimes, which is why I didn't want one illegally attacking Iraq. I'm still extremely annoyed that the UK went into that war - not because I was afraid, but because it was the wrong war to start.
First bank in the UK to have ATMs, first online-only bank in the UK.. hardly technophobic.
$8 wall clock, pay for putting it on the wall, pay for replacing batteries, pay for correcting the time at least twice a year (summer time); with over 100 meeting rooms it's suddenly into the tens of thousands.
Would you spend the money on clocks, or on improving service to our customers and returns to our owners?
(Ironically we do both. We have clocks in many meeting rooms, but don't keep them as well maintained as perhaps we could)
I work for a bank, we don't have clocks in all the meeting rooms or in the canteen (a common location for shorter 2 person meetings) and back-to-back meetings are regretably commonplace.
Yet many people buy 4GB MP3 players. Not everybody has a humungous music collection, and even fewer feel the need to take their whole collection with them all the time.
Not that I can talk, I have a 32GB disk based player in my bag that holds all the music I own. But it'll go when I buy my next phone - it'll have more capacity than my mp3 player in a smaller form factor, and also be a general computing device, mobile telephone, GPS and camera.
I own a solar powered Casio which uses radio time signals to reset its time according to atomic clocks. If you want to know the time, then digital is right now significantly ahead.
I like that Casio. I use it to correct the time on my mechanical watch that I wear every day:)
My phone has already made the netbook obsolete for me. Why buy a limited device with a sub-optimal screen that wont fit in my pocket when I already have a comparable device in my pocket?
For work and at home I still prefer a proper notebook, and when I work on the train that's what I use, but at other times it's my G1 (soon to replaced by a Nokia n900).
Similarly, although gaming on a DS is better than on my G1, I have the G1 with me. I don't have the DS with me (and in fact didn't buy one based on how rarely I had the Gameboy with me).
Clearly you have a job that doesn't have meetings. Sadly I have a job with a strong social dynamic to it, and being able to buy someone coffee without making them wait for me is often the difference between full cooperation and active sabotage.
The last. For many people, the convenience of an adequate quality camera always available is extremely valuable.
People have limited carrying capacity. They realise that they can get mobile telephony, a personal organiser, access to their music collection and the ability to capture photographs in a single device, and are happy to compromise on one or more of those capabilities if it avoids them having to carry a second device.
Many people are happy with the quality of their phone camera. Many more are unhappy with it, but not unhappy enough to carry a second device around to take photographs.
The poor quality photo taken with your phone is immeasurably superior to the photo you didn't take because your camera was at home.
Agreed. I'm weird, I take my watch off when I sit down. It sits on the desk by the computer, on the arm of the sofa, right now it's on my bedside table. But I pick it up and put it on when I move, unless I'm coming back withing a couple of minutes.
My phone on the other hand I also put to the side. Except that that it stays there unless I'm significantly changing location. Different building, or extended visit to another room.
Even at work, my phone sits on my desk for hours while I'm at meetings. My watch goes to meetings with me.
And why would anyone need to pawn their phone or their wristwatch?
Indeed. How on earth are all these pawn shops staying open.
No wonder there is so much advertising on TV at the moment for 'cash for gold' companies. They must be having to advertise heavily just to find anybody willing to sell their gold jewellery at all.
As for those idiots that bought gold necklaces because they had secure jobs and some disposable income, why, if they'd only saved all that cash for when the economy took a nosedive, they'd be laughing now and wouldn't have to sell a thing.
Yeah, I think he was suggesting that people would spend $15k on a wrist watch then may subsequently find themselves needing rather more liquid assets. Circumstances change, and initial affordability doesn't necessarily come into it.
Just to confirm, my limited edition Omega Speedmaster has never got me laid.
It does make me happy, but frankly, it's not going to get me laid.
While I concur it will pawn for rather more than every mobile phone I've owned added together, I would be distressed if I ever needed the money that badly.
maintains their reputation as the most customer friendly consumer electronics company.
What reputation? I know a lot of people that refuse to buy Apple products precisely because they have a reputation of being very consumer unfriendly.
"Do it the Apple way or go fuck yourself" is not consumer friendly.
That they continue to boost sales is because they have some good products and some excellent marketing. It's got nothing to do with consumer friendliness.
I'm not trying to justify. I would highlight though that not everybody that downloads software without paying for it never buys software.
On other platforms many people download a lot of software and buy the smaller amount that they can afford. I imagine the iPhone is similar, and your mp3 experience sounds to be comparable.
It's not a simple binary flag, and it's very possible for people to engage in such activities despite their feeling of guilt and an underlying acknowledgement that really it's not the best thing to be doing.
However, my initial post was highlighting that the "it's only 99c" argument disregards the rather more complex environment and decisions being made.
Consider that only people in the US are spending $1440 on their iPhones. In the UK I could pick up an unlocked iPhone for around $900 and that's going for a brand new legitimate purchase from a reputable retailer.
Now throw in the cheaper markets than the UK, include the second hand market, include the black and grey markets and throw in the iPod thing.
Then see the other response I've made in this article which highlights that focussing on the $2 cost of the apps is a specious argument.
I'm confused at all of the "It's only 99c, just pay it" comments in this article.
99c is throwaway money to you. Hell, $10 is throwaway money to a lot of Slashdot posters. In fact, a few wont blink twice at dropping $300 on a night out.
Is $300 throwaway money to you? 99c isn't throwaway money to a lot of other people.
Just because someone has an iPhone doesn't mean that they're wealthy. It may mean that they've managed to satisfy their technolust by spending a significant percentage of their income on one. They may literally have no spare money for applications. They may have the cash, but would rather buy a cake to go with dinner than an app on their iPhone.
Then there's another class of user. There are over 100,000 applications on the app store. Can you afford to buy them all? What if you have the sort of personality that wants to see them all, give them a try. There are people like that out there.
Then there are the people in the middle. I saw a few weeks back someone on Slashdot posting about a plan where you pay $1 a day, and get a new iPhone game every day. 365 games a year! Now imagine you know that person, and they keep showing you their new games. Simple envy will encourage many people to achieve a comparable stream of new applications. Suddenly we're talking about $365 over the course of a year. That's a lot of money to a lot of people.
There are many demographics, and the fact that a single app may only cost $1 disregards the myriad of complicating factors involved.
(Apologies for replying to you rather than the 30 other posters - the rest of your post is well reasoned)
No, a pre-release of Wave is available now, for those willing to put up with the data loss, constant "Please reload" requests and inability to handle large-volume discussions.
Although Africa, India and Central/South America are indeed massive opportunities to improve education and quality of life, not to mention make money, you've highlighted exactly why a network based model isn't the best approach.
To really target those areas you need something that can access the network, but that can also run standalone when the network is down/unavailable/out of range. Because frankly, it's going to be that way for a non-trivial percentage of the time.
My anecdote is sufficient to disprove your "everyone", and casts doubts on the credibility of your other statements.
I think adware applications are being developed because there are so few 'for pay' apps that do something you can't download a 'free' app (from the market) for that most users seek the free app first and don't expect to pay.
It may indeed be the only fucking way to make money on the platform, but your inability to accurately state the facts doesn't mean that piracy is the only (or even the main) underlying issue.
Nokia n800? Archos PMP? How about an Android netbook, an Android tablet device, the other 87 Android phones currently in development or already released?
Ah, so that's why it's possible to make money on Windows, OSX, Linux, consoles, the iPhone, Palm, Series60: they have no piracy.
"Everyone" is not stealing the applications. I don't know a single Android phone user that's stolen applications. (I don't know any that have downloaded any commercially sold apps without paying for them either.)
Speaking personally, while I haven't paid for a single downloaded app on my Android phone, I've also only installed applications released for free.
Incidentally I do know an iPhone user that's jailbroken their phone and installed commercial applications without paying for them. I guess they've just single-handedly destroyed the whole iPhone market.
I can understand frustration and disappointment at finding out users are avoiding paying for your software, but do please avoid generalisation, hyperbole and misinformation.
Slashdot Mirror
Europeans have used their military forces many times since the second world war.
Reluctance to use them doesn't equate to a fear to use them. Consider it instead a more mature and reasoned approach to world politics.
Incidenally I do have a problem with corrupt, incompetent regimes, which is why I didn't want one illegally attacking Iraq. I'm still extremely annoyed that the UK went into that war - not because I was afraid, but because it was the wrong war to start.
I think it was standard practice pre-decimalisation in the UK.
5'6 is five shillings and sixpence.
Of course, these days 5'6 is five foot 6 inches tall - ideal for a slim attractive lady in her stockings (make it 5'9 to 5'10 in heels).
I suspect the issue is that the ATM dispensed 115 Euro but charged the account 11500 Euro.
I'd read the article to find out but it's more fun to speculate.
Not that expensive if you prioritise accurate time over jewellery:
http://www.amazon.com/Casio-Waveceptor-Atomic-Watch-WVA109HDA-2BV/dp/B0013M6C60/ref=pd_sbs_watch_3
Admittedly I went for a more expensive model in the range with a far more elegant dial:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/WAVE-CEPTOR-TITANIUM-SOLAR-100M/dp/B0006FL86Y/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=watch&qid=1258970541&sr=8-5
However, the strap is still cheap and tacky and nasty and as jewellery the watch just doesn't cut it.
Technology inside is nice though, and for jewellery I have the elegant Swiss mechanical watch that gains seconds a day...
First bank in the UK to have ATMs, first online-only bank in the UK.. hardly technophobic.
$8 wall clock, pay for putting it on the wall, pay for replacing batteries, pay for correcting the time at least twice a year (summer time); with over 100 meeting rooms it's suddenly into the tens of thousands.
Would you spend the money on clocks, or on improving service to our customers and returns to our owners?
(Ironically we do both. We have clocks in many meeting rooms, but don't keep them as well maintained as perhaps we could)
I work for a bank, we don't have clocks in all the meeting rooms or in the canteen (a common location for shorter 2 person meetings) and back-to-back meetings are regretably commonplace.
Now, where is my sliderule...
Mine is on my watch.
Yet many people buy 4GB MP3 players. Not everybody has a humungous music collection, and even fewer feel the need to take their whole collection with them all the time.
Not that I can talk, I have a 32GB disk based player in my bag that holds all the music I own. But it'll go when I buy my next phone - it'll have more capacity than my mp3 player in a smaller form factor, and also be a general computing device, mobile telephone, GPS and camera.
I own a solar powered Casio which uses radio time signals to reset its time according to atomic clocks. If you want to know the time, then digital is right now significantly ahead.
I like that Casio. I use it to correct the time on my mechanical watch that I wear every day :)
My phone has already made the netbook obsolete for me. Why buy a limited device with a sub-optimal screen that wont fit in my pocket when I already have a comparable device in my pocket?
For work and at home I still prefer a proper notebook, and when I work on the train that's what I use, but at other times it's my G1 (soon to replaced by a Nokia n900).
Similarly, although gaming on a DS is better than on my G1, I have the G1 with me. I don't have the DS with me (and in fact didn't buy one based on how rarely I had the Gameboy with me).
Clearly you have a job that doesn't have meetings. Sadly I have a job with a strong social dynamic to it, and being able to buy someone coffee without making them wait for me is often the difference between full cooperation and active sabotage.
The last. For many people, the convenience of an adequate quality camera always available is extremely valuable.
People have limited carrying capacity. They realise that they can get mobile telephony, a personal organiser, access to their music collection and the ability to capture photographs in a single device, and are happy to compromise on one or more of those capabilities if it avoids them having to carry a second device.
Many people are happy with the quality of their phone camera. Many more are unhappy with it, but not unhappy enough to carry a second device around to take photographs.
The poor quality photo taken with your phone is immeasurably superior to the photo you didn't take because your camera was at home.
Agreed. I'm weird, I take my watch off when I sit down. It sits on the desk by the computer, on the arm of the sofa, right now it's on my bedside table. But I pick it up and put it on when I move, unless I'm coming back withing a couple of minutes.
My phone on the other hand I also put to the side. Except that that it stays there unless I'm significantly changing location. Different building, or extended visit to another room.
Even at work, my phone sits on my desk for hours while I'm at meetings. My watch goes to meetings with me.
I'm jealous. You can't do that where I live. It's usually raining..
And why would anyone need to pawn their phone or their wristwatch?
Indeed. How on earth are all these pawn shops staying open.
No wonder there is so much advertising on TV at the moment for 'cash for gold' companies. They must be having to advertise heavily just to find anybody willing to sell their gold jewellery at all.
As for those idiots that bought gold necklaces because they had secure jobs and some disposable income, why, if they'd only saved all that cash for when the economy took a nosedive, they'd be laughing now and wouldn't have to sell a thing.
Yeah, I think he was suggesting that people would spend $15k on a wrist watch then may subsequently find themselves needing rather more liquid assets. Circumstances change, and initial affordability doesn't necessarily come into it.
Just to confirm, my limited edition Omega Speedmaster has never got me laid.
It does make me happy, but frankly, it's not going to get me laid.
While I concur it will pawn for rather more than every mobile phone I've owned added together, I would be distressed if I ever needed the money that badly.
maintains their reputation as the most customer friendly consumer electronics company.
What reputation? I know a lot of people that refuse to buy Apple products precisely because they have a reputation of being very consumer unfriendly.
"Do it the Apple way or go fuck yourself" is not consumer friendly.
That they continue to boost sales is because they have some good products and some excellent marketing. It's got nothing to do with consumer friendliness.
I'm not trying to justify. I would highlight though that not everybody that downloads software without paying for it never buys software.
On other platforms many people download a lot of software and buy the smaller amount that they can afford. I imagine the iPhone is similar, and your mp3 experience sounds to be comparable.
It's not a simple binary flag, and it's very possible for people to engage in such activities despite their feeling of guilt and an underlying acknowledgement that really it's not the best thing to be doing.
However, my initial post was highlighting that the "it's only 99c" argument disregards the rather more complex environment and decisions being made.
Consider that only people in the US are spending $1440 on their iPhones. In the UK I could pick up an unlocked iPhone for around $900 and that's going for a brand new legitimate purchase from a reputable retailer.
Now throw in the cheaper markets than the UK, include the second hand market, include the black and grey markets and throw in the iPod thing.
Then see the other response I've made in this article which highlights that focussing on the $2 cost of the apps is a specious argument.
I'm confused at all of the "It's only 99c, just pay it" comments in this article.
99c is throwaway money to you. Hell, $10 is throwaway money to a lot of Slashdot posters. In fact, a few wont blink twice at dropping $300 on a night out.
Is $300 throwaway money to you? 99c isn't throwaway money to a lot of other people.
Just because someone has an iPhone doesn't mean that they're wealthy. It may mean that they've managed to satisfy their technolust by spending a significant percentage of their income on one. They may literally have no spare money for applications. They may have the cash, but would rather buy a cake to go with dinner than an app on their iPhone.
Then there's another class of user. There are over 100,000 applications on the app store. Can you afford to buy them all? What if you have the sort of personality that wants to see them all, give them a try. There are people like that out there.
Then there are the people in the middle. I saw a few weeks back someone on Slashdot posting about a plan where you pay $1 a day, and get a new iPhone game every day. 365 games a year! Now imagine you know that person, and they keep showing you their new games. Simple envy will encourage many people to achieve a comparable stream of new applications. Suddenly we're talking about $365 over the course of a year. That's a lot of money to a lot of people.
There are many demographics, and the fact that a single app may only cost $1 disregards the myriad of complicating factors involved.
(Apologies for replying to you rather than the 30 other posters - the rest of your post is well reasoned)
But Wave is available now
No, a pre-release of Wave is available now, for those willing to put up with the data loss, constant "Please reload" requests and inability to handle large-volume discussions.
Or maybe it's just my account.
the signal is slow and weak and intermittent
Although Africa, India and Central/South America are indeed massive opportunities to improve education and quality of life, not to mention make money, you've highlighted exactly why a network based model isn't the best approach.
To really target those areas you need something that can access the network, but that can also run standalone when the network is down/unavailable/out of range. Because frankly, it's going to be that way for a non-trivial percentage of the time.
My anecdote is sufficient to disprove your "everyone", and casts doubts on the credibility of your other statements.
I think adware applications are being developed because there are so few 'for pay' apps that do something you can't download a 'free' app (from the market) for that most users seek the free app first and don't expect to pay.
It may indeed be the only fucking way to make money on the platform, but your inability to accurately state the facts doesn't mean that piracy is the only (or even the main) underlying issue.
Nokia n800?
Archos PMP?
How about an Android netbook, an Android tablet device, the other 87 Android phones currently in development or already released?
Ah, so that's why it's possible to make money on Windows, OSX, Linux, consoles, the iPhone, Palm, Series60: they have no piracy.
"Everyone" is not stealing the applications. I don't know a single Android phone user that's stolen applications. (I don't know any that have downloaded any commercially sold apps without paying for them either.)
Speaking personally, while I haven't paid for a single downloaded app on my Android phone, I've also only installed applications released for free.
Incidentally I do know an iPhone user that's jailbroken their phone and installed commercial applications without paying for them. I guess they've just single-handedly destroyed the whole iPhone market.
I can understand frustration and disappointment at finding out users are avoiding paying for your software, but do please avoid generalisation, hyperbole and misinformation.