No, it is not a marketing question, it is a business strategy question (yes, there is a difference).
Writing software for the sake of writing software, without consideration of the investment the developer has to make (food, shelter, education, time, testing, etc.); is in fact an exercise to lose one's shirt. Granted, like you so said money can be made though F/OSS, but one has to take into account that your gambling that someone will need support and will pay you for that support. By charging for software and not releasing the crown jewels, you are positive you will get paid for your hard work. By giving the source code away, someone else can just setup shop and offer support - a lower price - than you and reduce your revenue.
There are more issues, but that's just one that sticks out most in my mind at the moment.
Methinks you don't understand what Bait and Switch is. It says clearly in th App Store, must be TWC Basic or higher and RR customer, in your own home?
What is so difficult about those requirements? The app is free. You did not PAY for the app (though I think they should have charged 2.99 - 4.99for it).
Perhaps if I didn't feel the "wheel" was being reinvented over and over again for no real purpose other than to say, "I don't like you, I'm taking my ball and going home" I might feel like open source was worth something.
Of course this is the same stuff that is given away for free, without consideration that the cost of designing, writing, testing, and marketing software definitely is not free (but, hey don't let me ruin anyone perceptions or feelings.)
If enough people drink the feel good kool-aid, perhaps we can all live in star trek land or some shit like that.
Why would he have a hard time on that list? I think the real genius of Gates is that he could not only understand the technology he also understood business (something most technical types dislike/abhor/ do not want to be involved in). Like I wrote in a case study a few months ago, Kildall (as an example) was definitely one of your "average guys" who could have been great. But he chose not to (we could argue the semantics later).
The bottom line is the poll asked Americans (which included more than the technical thinkers). Regardless of your or my opinion, Gates is a popular guy (who is bloody rich to boot).
I'm gonna go the opposite way and say FB shares are severely undervalued. The amount of information that people willingly give FB is staggering. If you a marketer, you are chomping at the bit for FB to open that access even more. If your investor and are able to get in now, I would do it in a heart beat, because Day 1, 09:30:01 those shares are gonna rocket higher and faster than Mentos in a Diet Coke bottle (and they are not coming back in).
I beg to differ. The rules are definitely NOT illogical, since contamination of DOD unclassified networks, requires a massive decontamination effort of tracking each and every machine that has been contaminated with classified documents (this is a very time consuming / labor intensive process). Additionally, the security manager (and all related personnel) who pretends like this is no big deal, more than likely will be facing an Article 15 inquiry, and probably special (at minimum) court-martial.
And considering the very time consuming indoc / exit briefing one has to listen to or read and sign regarding spillage, I'd say the Air Force commander who ordered this is smart for covering his (and his airmen's) sixes.
While I see your point of view, one has to consider which would sell more articles: "The LHC produced its first bang." or "The LHC produced a "Mini Big-Bang".
Sensible reasoning aside the latter is not directed at you (per se), but to those who do look for articles with "cool" headlines.
IE 6 was better than Netscape's offerings (at the time).
IE 6 was better than Opera's offerings (at the time).
However, IE 6, lived far past its time (you could say by design, choice, whatever). My point being is that MS may not have had the best offering (technically or visually) but they had a "good enough" product with the right pricing (i.e. what the consumer was willing to pay). You can argue the semantics all day (and I would agree with most of them), but the bottom line is, is that consumers that generally use Microsoft products is similar to why Wal-Mart is the world's largest retailer.
Perhaps this is just my observation, but it seems that if you have 95% marketshare you are the standard, and that did not sit well with some people (due to some very rabid and intense hatred of Microsoft and a feeling that one company should not control a standard). Now I don't care either way, since personally IMO, one company controlling the show can be just as bad as a bunch of people controlling the show (both will make mistakes and / or move as slow as molasses).
That being said making snide comments about companies who deserve what they get because they did not think the way you (just a generalization of how a lot of technical types think, myself included) is tacky. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. Microsoft (a legally monopoly and convicted criminal), generally has always understood what most technical types fail to understand. Presentation matters. IE 6 was presented in a better way than what was out there at the time, and assumed that the market would standardize on their platform (a reasonable assumption when you have 95% marketshare and control a considerable portion of the consumer software ecology).
And the $50,000 dollars they gave Seattle Computing Club for QDOS (which became MS-DOS) was what, a bribe? C'mon I know Microsoft has done some questionable practices, but that is not one of them.
Having used an eTextbook (after my school decided to stop mailing textbooks) for two semesters, I wouldn't wish that evil on my worse enemy.
I'd rather purchase the international edition, as its (1) generally costs far less money than the domestic version and (2) I have a physical textbook I can add to my library or sell if I want.
Perhaps if they stop trying to ass-rape students with insane prices or foist eTextbooks (which unless they have interactive applications, are patently not worth the effort) on students, they might get a better reception.
Seems like I'm saying this a lot lately, lol; but I digress: How is Microsoft to blame again? A bunch of companies competed, Microsoft came out top (the method of which is irrelevant).
I've said it before, and it bears repeating: technical types need to consider that the general population does not give a shit about technical merits of a product or service. It just needs to do what they want it to do
(the particulars are irrelevant generally, but for a few who truly care about quality).
Perhaps its just my observation, but just because something is technically superior, does not make it ideal. Betamax was superior to VHS, yet it lost. Why? Because most technical types can't understand a basic marketing premise.
It has to appeal (i.e. connect) to the consumer , not just function well. Microsoft understands this (even if as of late they've forgotten this simple rule).
The quicker more technical experts figure this out, the quicker you can a firm like Microsoft.
Because most computers users know Powerpoint (whether they like it or not). Not to mention, OpenOffice's Presentation sucks, don't know Impress, never used (will look into).
It may become moot anyway; Google's exclusive license to the Pagerank algorithm expires in 2011. And while I suspect they will throw a chunk of money at Stanford to re-license the technology,
I could honestly see several potential alternatives:
(1) Microsoft and / or Yahoo paying Stanford NOT to grant Google a new, exclusive license.
(2) Stanford (in the interest of advancing technology) NOT granting Google a new, exclusive license.
or (3) any number of various governments (to include the U.S. government) wringing some sort of concessions (let your imagination wonder about this one...)
Wow... it takes a lot to make me spit my drink at my screen (btw. you owe me a 22' monitor, j/k), LOL
All joking aside though I totally agree with your interpretation. What gets me the most is the incredible vindictiveness over some of the more seemingly small infractions (such as suicide). I mean isn't bad enough the person has just killed themselves, now you want to punish them for all ETERNITY for it too?! That's just nuts. (I won't even touch Lot and his psycho daughters...)
Slashdot Mirror
No, it is not a marketing question, it is a business strategy question (yes, there is a difference).
Writing software for the sake of writing software, without consideration of the investment the developer has to make (food, shelter, education, time, testing, etc.); is in fact an exercise to lose one's shirt. Granted, like you so said money can be made though F/OSS, but one has to take into account that your gambling that someone will need support and will pay you for that support. By charging for software and not releasing the crown jewels, you are positive you will get paid for your hard work. By giving the source code away, someone else can just setup shop and offer support - a lower price - than you and reduce your revenue.
There are more issues, but that's just one that sticks out most in my mind at the moment.
Too soon...
If you go to the app store you would see the app is Free. And the reduction is temporary in anycase.
Methinks you don't understand what Bait and Switch is. It says clearly in th App Store, must be TWC Basic or higher and RR customer, in your own home?
What is so difficult about those requirements? The app is free. You did not PAY for the app (though I think they should have charged 2.99 - 4.99for it).
SMH sheesh...
Don't know where they cut channels; I've still got 32 HD live channels.
Possibly, but one can be violent without committing a crime; unless you are saying just being violent is a crime.
Perhaps if I didn't feel the "wheel" was being reinvented over and over again for no real purpose other than to say, "I don't like you, I'm taking my ball and going home" I might feel like open source was worth something.
Of course this is the same stuff that is given away for free, without consideration that the cost of designing, writing, testing, and marketing software definitely is not free (but, hey don't let me ruin anyone perceptions or feelings.)
If enough people drink the feel good kool-aid, perhaps we can all live in star trek land or some shit like that.
Why would he have a hard time on that list? I think the real genius of Gates is that he could not only understand the technology he also understood business (something most technical types dislike/abhor/ do not want to be involved in). Like I wrote in a case study a few months ago, Kildall (as an example) was definitely one of your "average guys" who could have been great. But he chose not to (we could argue the semantics later).
The bottom line is the poll asked Americans (which included more than the technical thinkers). Regardless of your or my opinion, Gates is a popular guy (who is bloody rich to boot).
I'm gonna go the opposite way and say FB shares are severely undervalued. The amount of information that people willingly give FB is staggering. If you a marketer, you are chomping at the bit for FB to open that access even more. If your investor and are able to get in now, I would do it in a heart beat, because Day 1, 09:30:01 those shares are gonna rocket higher and faster than Mentos in a Diet Coke bottle (and they are not coming back in).
Which affects a Canadian citizen, how? Cause I believe "Not at all" is the correct answer.
The Google's exclusive use of the PageRank algorithm expires next year (unless Stanford lets Google renew it).
A lack of citation does not necessarily make the information contained any less true. (I get your point however).
I beg to differ. The rules are definitely NOT illogical, since contamination of DOD unclassified networks, requires a massive decontamination effort of tracking each and every machine that has been contaminated with classified documents (this is a very time consuming / labor intensive process). Additionally, the security manager (and all related personnel) who pretends like this is no big deal, more than likely will be facing an Article 15 inquiry, and probably special (at minimum) court-martial.
And considering the very time consuming indoc / exit briefing one has to listen to or read and sign regarding spillage, I'd say the Air Force commander who ordered this is smart for covering his (and his airmen's) sixes.
While I see your point of view, one has to consider which would sell more articles: "The LHC produced its first bang." or "The LHC produced a "Mini Big-Bang".
Sensible reasoning aside the latter is not directed at you (per se), but to those who do look for articles with "cool" headlines.
IE 6 was better than Netscape's offerings (at the time).
IE 6 was better than Opera's offerings (at the time).
However, IE 6, lived far past its time (you could say by design, choice, whatever). My point being is that MS may not have had the best offering (technically or visually) but they had a "good enough" product with the right pricing (i.e. what the consumer was willing to pay). You can argue the semantics all day (and I would agree with most of them), but the bottom line is, is that consumers that generally use Microsoft products is similar to why Wal-Mart is the world's largest retailer.
Its just "good-enough".
Perhaps this is just my observation, but it seems that if you have 95% marketshare you are the standard, and that did not sit well with some people (due to some very rabid and intense hatred of Microsoft and a feeling that one company should not control a standard). Now I don't care either way, since personally IMO, one company controlling the show can be just as bad as a bunch of people controlling the show (both will make mistakes and / or move as slow as molasses).
That being said making snide comments about companies who deserve what they get because they did not think the way you (just a generalization of how a lot of technical types think, myself included) is tacky. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. Microsoft (a legally monopoly and convicted criminal), generally has always understood what most technical types fail to understand. Presentation matters. IE 6 was presented in a better way than what was out there at the time, and assumed that the market would standardize on their platform (a reasonable assumption when you have 95% marketshare and control a considerable portion of the consumer software ecology).
And the $50,000 dollars they gave Seattle Computing Club for QDOS (which became MS-DOS) was what, a bribe? C'mon I know Microsoft has done some questionable practices, but that is not one of them.
Having used an eTextbook (after my school decided to stop mailing textbooks) for two semesters, I wouldn't wish that evil on my worse enemy.
I'd rather purchase the international edition, as its (1) generally costs far less money than the domestic version and (2) I have a physical textbook I can add to my library or sell if I want. Perhaps if they stop trying to ass-rape students with insane prices or foist eTextbooks (which unless they have interactive applications, are patently not worth the effort) on students, they might get a better reception.
Seems like I'm saying this a lot lately, lol; but I digress: How is Microsoft to blame again? A bunch of companies competed, Microsoft came out top (the method of which is irrelevant).
I've said it before, and it bears repeating: technical types need to consider that the general population does not give a shit about technical merits of a product or service. It just needs to do what they want it to do
(the particulars are irrelevant generally, but for a few who truly care about quality).
The quicker you can beat a firm like Microsoft (apologies).
How is this a victory, exactly?
Perhaps its just my observation, but just because something is technically superior, does not make it ideal. Betamax was superior to VHS, yet it lost. Why? Because most technical types can't understand a basic marketing premise.
It has to appeal (i.e. connect) to the consumer , not just function well. Microsoft understands this (even if as of late they've forgotten this simple rule).
The quicker more technical experts figure this out, the quicker you can a firm like Microsoft.
Not sure this is flamebait, as it is truth-in-advertising (for once).
Because most computers users know Powerpoint (whether they like it or not). Not to mention, OpenOffice's Presentation sucks, don't know Impress, never used (will look into).
It may become moot anyway; Google's exclusive license to the Pagerank algorithm expires in 2011. And while I suspect they will throw a chunk of money at Stanford to re-license the technology,
I could honestly see several potential alternatives:
(1) Microsoft and / or Yahoo paying Stanford NOT to grant Google a new, exclusive license.
(2) Stanford (in the interest of advancing technology) NOT granting Google a new, exclusive license.
or (3) any number of various governments (to include the U.S. government) wringing some sort of concessions (let your imagination wonder about this one...)
Wow... it takes a lot to make me spit my drink at my screen (btw. you owe me a 22' monitor, j/k), LOL
All joking aside though I totally agree with your interpretation. What gets me the most is the incredible vindictiveness over some of the more seemingly small infractions (such as suicide).
I mean isn't bad enough the person has just killed themselves, now you want to punish them for all ETERNITY for it too?! That's just nuts. (I won't even touch Lot and his psycho daughters...)