Before deciding to fight open source and to lock your customers into dependence on your company so that they cannot escape, step back and ask yourself a question. Do I want to make money by doing good for people, or by deceiving and manipulating them?
There are basically two different ways to run a company. One is to make your customers happy and strive to serve them as best you can, trusting that they will reward you for it with loyalty. The other is to trick people somehow, by being dishonest, selling them something they don't need, locking them in to your service, or sticking them with extra fees. Both approaches can be profitable, but only one can actually make the world a better place.
I love companies that take the former approach. For example: NewEgg.com (Low prices, honest customer reviews posted even if they are negative, excellent customer service.) Monoprice.com (For the same reasons.) Netflix (Fast service, easy to use website, honest communication and refunds for rare service outages.) My local coffee shop (High quality drinks that are much better than the chains, friendly staff, good food with custom menu items that change frequently.)
On the other hand, there is no shortage of examples of the latter approach. Best Buy (Selling HDMI cables for $50-75 which can be purchased for $5-8 on Monoprice.com.) Most places that sell glasses (for excessive markups. An online market for glasses at vastly reduced prices is now springing up.) Most cell phone providers (for charging excessive fees, making it difficult to switch providers or move phones to other plans, and designing their plans to overcharge customers who don't guess correctly how many minutes they will talk and at what time.) I could go on.
It's probably easier to make money going the evil route, or at least it requires less originality. But I hope that at least a fraction of MBA students would be interested in something more than the bottom line of profit.
The parent post brings up a really good point though. There are questions which are illegal to ask in a job interview, religion and sexual orientation being two good examples. If it's not legal to ask, why would it be legal to do a web search which is likely to reveal that information?
You're correct - I do have a choice. When I said that people have no choice, I meant that people have no good choices. Either they skip cell phones altogether or they get ripped off. Surely there should be a third, better choice.
Also consider that while it is a matter of convenience for me, it is a job requirement or a practical necessity for many to have a cell phone.
If you elect for option 1 and wind up using 700 minutes, you are charged $79.99. If you had signed up for option 3 and made the same calls, you would be charged $59.99. The only difference is how good you are at predicting the future. It was the same cost to Sprint either way. What twisted definition of fair does that fall under?
Here is a fair pricing structure:
m = base price of providing coverage for a month (overhead)
d = Sprint's cost per minute for daytime calls
x = Minutes of daytime calls placed in a given month
n = Sprint's cost per minute for nighttime calls
y = Minutes of nighttime calls placed in a given month
p = Profit margin for Sprint
t = taxes
total bill = p * (m + d*x + n*y) + t
Of course, Sprint is not going to tell you their actual costs and margins, but the phone bill should increase linearly as usage increases. There is no need for guessing how many minutes you will use ahead of time and reserving them as a block.
Do you really think people are happy with overpaying? Or is it that they have no choice?
I've been avoiding owning a cell phone for years because of the costs and the pricing models. However, it's becoming more and more inconvenient not to have one.
There are no good options. If I get a pay-as-you-go phone, the minutes cost much more than a monthly plan if I use the phone often. If I get a monthly plan, I am forced to guess how many minutes I will use. If I choose a plan with a lower number of minutes and go over, those extra minutes are charged at a vastly higher rate. It's all very unfriendly and designed to extract as much money as possible from the customer.
If a provider would come along and offer a more fair plan, I think people would flock to it. If there was genuine competition in this market, providers would be forced to offer better plans in order to compete. There may not be collusion in the "smoky back room" sense, but the reality is that nothing changes because there is no market force driving these companies to change. They are happy to sit around and keep making money at everyone's expense.
If the nature of the cellular marketplace is that the normal laws of competition do not apply, that is the point at which the government needs to step in. Redefine the market so that the companies must compete. Allow people to switch providers easily and take their phones with them. Regulate pricing for services like texting which cost next to nothing to provide. I don't know the best answer, but it is high time that something be done.
Help to save the world from being destroyed by a black hole! The specs to the LHC (Large Hole Creator) are available. Create a detailed proof showing that the LHC will create a planet-destroying black hole when it is switched on. Send the proof, with your $75 entry fee, directly to me. The person submitting the first valid proof will be awarded a prize of $50 Million, to be awarded on Sept 12th.
Wouldn't this lead to all companies needing to purchase a data loss insurance policy, much like doctors need malpractice insurance? The end result would be richer lawyers and insurance companies, more wasted time in court, and companies not needing to change because they have insurance.
I do think these companies need to be held responsible, but I think that they are already afraid of the PR hit from losing data, and their IT managers should already be afraid for their jobs if a data breach occurs. I really doubt that this sort of law is going to help.
Did you reply to the wrong post? I agree that a fair queueing/throttling system is perfectly reasonable if the goal is to provide the best possible service.
However, if Comcast is favoring their own content over the content of others, AND there are little to no other options to turn to for broadband service, that is pretty much the definition of unfair.
If they throttle only users that aren't using Comcast VOD, it's going to be much harder to prove, since there aren't any fake packets being inserted in the stream. Also, since net neutrality is not the law, that sort of throttling might even be legal.
How will you define and measure performance? At the end of each week, I will grade by performance from 0 to 100 and email the grade to my boss.
Will creativity suffer? I have access to many electronic devices in my home which inspire creative thought. If that fails, I know where to obtain a "supply" of creativity enhancing substances that aren't even in the office's supply cabinet. Creativity is going to soar, man!
What about employees stuck in the office? They have my sincere laughter.
Of those 42%, how many are aware that technically they could be prosecuted under various laws regarding hacking and system intrusion? They could go to jail. It's highly unlikely, of course, but if they get caught in the wrong situation by the wrong prosecutor, it could happen.
At 0.001% of Nanos affected, it's probably more likely that your plane's engine bursts into flame than a Nano brought onto the flight.
Irrelevant. Regardless of the chance of your plane's engine bursting into flame, the chance of a fire happening on the plane still increases with a Nano on board.
Well. what's interesting here is that these companies are allowing any developer to write apps for their phone, turning them into micro versions of PCs. Are RIM and Nokia making a similar effort? If so, we'll discuss them too.
No, what we we need is people who are talented at writing and editing to get involved in creating open-source textbooks. There are many people out there who can write, and many people who would love to find a way to make a difference in the lives of young people. This is something volunteers could do at odd hours and without leaving their homes.
What we really need is to raise awareness and find better ways to organize and motivate volunteers. This is something that can be done at a very low cost and which has potential to actually change the world. That's a tremendous opportunity.
Think of the time people have spent contributing to Wikipedia, to open source software, and even to online CD and television databases. People will get excited about this. I know I would be happy to contribute to open source textbooks, and so would my girlfriend. We just need to know how to get started.
So you're saying there are 2 ways of thinking - either think that there are only 2 of everything, or think that there are more than 2 sides to everything?
If I had Apple stock, I would sell. They have executed amazingly well over the last decade, but they also got lucky. With portable music players, Apple was at the right place at the right time and got out ahead of everyone. Will there be another chance like that? The iPhone is doing well, but it faces heavy competition from companies that are much more prepared this time around. With the Air and Apple TV, they're trying to stay ahead, but not gaining much traction.
Apple's use of slick looking devices and clean, optimized UI gives them an advantage and allows them to mark up prices. However, other companies are going to learn to do these things nearly as well, and then Apple will have to compete more on price. They aren't going anywhere, because they have cash reserves, faithful customers, and they do make fine products. But I think they've peaked.
Then again, perhaps I'll look back at this post in 10 years and laugh, as Apple's valuation approaches $1 trillion and they buy out an ailing Microsoft...
It's general knowledge that people in general are lacking in knowledge? That means they could very well be wrong, in which case people in general are not lacking in knowledge. But if that's true... ow, my brain!
Slashdot Mirror
Before deciding to fight open source and to lock your customers into dependence on your company so that they cannot escape, step back and ask yourself a question. Do I want to make money by doing good for people, or by deceiving and manipulating them?
There are basically two different ways to run a company. One is to make your customers happy and strive to serve them as best you can, trusting that they will reward you for it with loyalty. The other is to trick people somehow, by being dishonest, selling them something they don't need, locking them in to your service, or sticking them with extra fees. Both approaches can be profitable, but only one can actually make the world a better place.
I love companies that take the former approach. For example: NewEgg.com (Low prices, honest customer reviews posted even if they are negative, excellent customer service.) Monoprice.com (For the same reasons.) Netflix (Fast service, easy to use website, honest communication and refunds for rare service outages.) My local coffee shop (High quality drinks that are much better than the chains, friendly staff, good food with custom menu items that change frequently.)
On the other hand, there is no shortage of examples of the latter approach. Best Buy (Selling HDMI cables for $50-75 which can be purchased for $5-8 on Monoprice.com.) Most places that sell glasses (for excessive markups. An online market for glasses at vastly reduced prices is now springing up.) Most cell phone providers (for charging excessive fees, making it difficult to switch providers or move phones to other plans, and designing their plans to overcharge customers who don't guess correctly how many minutes they will talk and at what time.) I could go on.
It's probably easier to make money going the evil route, or at least it requires less originality. But I hope that at least a fraction of MBA students would be interested in something more than the bottom line of profit.
Random guy on the internet claims that this research study is crap, provides anecdotal counterexample, and gets modded +5 insightful. So useful.
The research may or may not be crap, but I can say with certainty that you are blowing hot air.
You'd better watch out. Pirating a definition like that, you're going to get your ass sued by the DIAA (Dictionary Industry Association of America.)
If they are men without penises, I'd say Unix.
(It would make more sense if I could say it out loud.)
The parent post brings up a really good point though. There are questions which are illegal to ask in a job interview, religion and sexual orientation being two good examples. If it's not legal to ask, why would it be legal to do a web search which is likely to reveal that information?
You're correct - I do have a choice. When I said that people have no choice, I meant that people have no good choices. Either they skip cell phones altogether or they get ripped off. Surely there should be a third, better choice.
Also consider that while it is a matter of convenience for me, it is a job requirement or a practical necessity for many to have a cell phone.
If you elect for option 1 and wind up using 700 minutes, you are charged $79.99. If you had signed up for option 3 and made the same calls, you would be charged $59.99. The only difference is how good you are at predicting the future. It was the same cost to Sprint either way. What twisted definition of fair does that fall under?
Here is a fair pricing structure:
m = base price of providing coverage for a month (overhead)
d = Sprint's cost per minute for daytime calls
x = Minutes of daytime calls placed in a given month
n = Sprint's cost per minute for nighttime calls
y = Minutes of nighttime calls placed in a given month
p = Profit margin for Sprint
t = taxes
total bill = p * (m + d*x + n*y) + t
Of course, Sprint is not going to tell you their actual costs and margins, but the phone bill should increase linearly as usage increases. There is no need for guessing how many minutes you will use ahead of time and reserving them as a block.
Do you really think people are happy with overpaying? Or is it that they have no choice?
I've been avoiding owning a cell phone for years because of the costs and the pricing models. However, it's becoming more and more inconvenient not to have one.
There are no good options. If I get a pay-as-you-go phone, the minutes cost much more than a monthly plan if I use the phone often. If I get a monthly plan, I am forced to guess how many minutes I will use. If I choose a plan with a lower number of minutes and go over, those extra minutes are charged at a vastly higher rate. It's all very unfriendly and designed to extract as much money as possible from the customer.
If a provider would come along and offer a more fair plan, I think people would flock to it. If there was genuine competition in this market, providers would be forced to offer better plans in order to compete. There may not be collusion in the "smoky back room" sense, but the reality is that nothing changes because there is no market force driving these companies to change. They are happy to sit around and keep making money at everyone's expense.
If the nature of the cellular marketplace is that the normal laws of competition do not apply, that is the point at which the government needs to step in. Redefine the market so that the companies must compete. Allow people to switch providers easily and take their phones with them. Regulate pricing for services like texting which cost next to nothing to provide. I don't know the best answer, but it is high time that something be done.
A well made 2D Flash version of Portal:
http://portal.wecreatestuff.com/portal.php
Help to save the world from being destroyed by a black hole! The specs to the LHC (Large Hole Creator) are available. Create a detailed proof showing that the LHC will create a planet-destroying black hole when it is switched on. Send the proof, with your $75 entry fee, directly to me. The person submitting the first valid proof will be awarded a prize of $50 Million, to be awarded on Sept 12th.
Wouldn't this lead to all companies needing to purchase a data loss insurance policy, much like doctors need malpractice insurance? The end result would be richer lawyers and insurance companies, more wasted time in court, and companies not needing to change because they have insurance.
I do think these companies need to be held responsible, but I think that they are already afraid of the PR hit from losing data, and their IT managers should already be afraid for their jobs if a data breach occurs. I really doubt that this sort of law is going to help.
Did you reply to the wrong post? I agree that a fair queueing/throttling system is perfectly reasonable if the goal is to provide the best possible service.
However, if Comcast is favoring their own content over the content of others, AND there are little to no other options to turn to for broadband service, that is pretty much the definition of unfair.
If they throttle only users that aren't using Comcast VOD, it's going to be much harder to prove, since there aren't any fake packets being inserted in the stream. Also, since net neutrality is not the law, that sort of throttling might even be legal.
How will you define and measure performance? At the end of each week, I will grade by performance from 0 to 100 and email the grade to my boss.
Will creativity suffer? I have access to many electronic devices in my home which inspire creative thought. If that fails, I know where to obtain a "supply" of creativity enhancing substances that aren't even in the office's supply cabinet. Creativity is going to soar, man!
What about employees stuck in the office? They have my sincere laughter.
Of those 42%, how many are aware that technically they could be prosecuted under various laws regarding hacking and system intrusion? They could go to jail. It's highly unlikely, of course, but if they get caught in the wrong situation by the wrong prosecutor, it could happen.
Call them inertial dampeners!
Irrelevant. Regardless of the chance of your plane's engine bursting into flame, the chance of a fire happening on the plane still increases with a Nano on board.
Well. what's interesting here is that these companies are allowing any developer to write apps for their phone, turning them into micro versions of PCs. Are RIM and Nokia making a similar effort? If so, we'll discuss them too.
No, what we we need is people who are talented at writing and editing to get involved in creating open-source textbooks. There are many people out there who can write, and many people who would love to find a way to make a difference in the lives of young people. This is something volunteers could do at odd hours and without leaving their homes.
What we really need is to raise awareness and find better ways to organize and motivate volunteers. This is something that can be done at a very low cost and which has potential to actually change the world. That's a tremendous opportunity.
Think of the time people have spent contributing to Wikipedia, to open source software, and even to online CD and television databases. People will get excited about this. I know I would be happy to contribute to open source textbooks, and so would my girlfriend. We just need to know how to get started.
So you're saying there are 2 ways of thinking - either think that there are only 2 of everything, or think that there are more than 2 sides to everything?
(Well, am I right or am I wrong?)
Oh man, those were priceless! Of course, so are grass clippings.
Face it, the light is retarded.
If I had Apple stock, I would sell. They have executed amazingly well over the last decade, but they also got lucky. With portable music players, Apple was at the right place at the right time and got out ahead of everyone. Will there be another chance like that? The iPhone is doing well, but it faces heavy competition from companies that are much more prepared this time around. With the Air and Apple TV, they're trying to stay ahead, but not gaining much traction.
Apple's use of slick looking devices and clean, optimized UI gives them an advantage and allows them to mark up prices. However, other companies are going to learn to do these things nearly as well, and then Apple will have to compete more on price. They aren't going anywhere, because they have cash reserves, faithful customers, and they do make fine products. But I think they've peaked.
Then again, perhaps I'll look back at this post in 10 years and laugh, as Apple's valuation approaches $1 trillion and they buy out an ailing Microsoft...
The next step is that Nintendo allows Miyamoto's hobbies to "accidentally" get leaked in order to get Microsoft and Sony to waste all their time.
Word on the street is that he's taken up knitting, and he's started a rock garden. Run with that, Xbox dev team!
It's general knowledge that people in general are lacking in knowledge? That means they could very well be wrong, in which case people in general are not lacking in knowledge. But if that's true... ow, my brain!