Got that right. There is a communication problem in any big organization. This can be taken advantage of if you know the system.
The rest of your comment aside, a warehouse worker or truck driver shouldn't need to know the price of the items they are packing and delivering - they get their marching orders from a printout (or electronic message) that tells them what to pack and likely prints a shipping label for them.
I admit to being a huge consumer on Amazon. It's simply far easier, faster, and cheaper to buy online (with free shipping) than to spend time going to B&M stores (factor in gas and pollution in addition to my time), or to order online elsewhere (which I do when I find it's a worthwhile amount cheaper). I even have my pet food on subscription. Out of probably over 500 orders since signing up with Amazon over 10 years ago, I've probably used 1-click maybe 3 times using my mobile phone. While I also have multiple cards and shipping addresses, the vast majority of the time I use the default card/address.
However, I don't get how they determine that the value of the patent can be so much unless people have actually paid that for licensing, because I seriously doubt many 1-click purchases wouldn't have been made if 1-click wasn't available.
I believe human beings give life intrinsic value, but I don't think that's what economists do. Certainly the government does things out of safety, but only because government generally represents the will of the people (in some small way, sadly, despite the fact it should be the majority of what government concerns itself with). But what these people are doing is placing an explicit (and wrong) monetary value on a human being's life. Even if someone, over their lifetime, contributes that kind of value to society, they largely do so up until retirement age, at which they largely become net negatives. That retirement age is around the time the effects of the environment are catching up to most people. It's not that I don't support green energy (I certainly do), it's that this "report" is f#@ked up.
I agree 100%. If those fossil fuel producers need to charge more for proper disposal (for one thing), then so be it - then the people that are using it more are paying the costs. That's "fair." Your example pretty much describes just about how EVERY subsidy is unfair to tax payers AND other players/competitors in the field.
If you believe that's what libertarianism is, then... well... that's just plain wrong. Believe it or not, one of the primary aspects of being a libertarian is respecting the rights of others, not walking all over them because "I can." If your view of libertarians is a "survival of the fittest" mentality, then you learned that perhaps from people calling themselves libertarian but without any concept of what libertarian means. Objectivism != Libertarianism. Not by a long shot.
Agreed, and want to also suggest that the majority of governance should be coming from the local levels because that gives the individual a lot more say in how the government affects their lives. Some things belong at the federal level, but most things should be pushed down, not up the chain.
It doesn't suit extremists to admit there's a middle ground, that government can exist without excessive regulations that infringe on personal rights and freedoms and have negative impacts on society.
It seems like the stats they are using (the value of one's life) they are counting the entire life and not just the portion unused due to early death.
As with cigarettes, we're talking about at-or-near retirement age. What's the economic impact of someone dying right at the age of retirement? Positive, I'd suspect. But a lot of people don't consider that "old age" until after you reach that point. It also happens to be around the time healthcare costs skyrocket for an individual.
As far as the discussions of bad estimations go, sometimes you have to estimate... but when you make bad estimate after bad estimate (compounding the "badness"), the conclusion becomes pointless.
Not that I don't support "green" alternatives... I do, but wild assertions leading to wild conclusions doesn't really help.
Money != Greed. Money is a medium through which we exchange goods and services; money is a "good thing" unless you want to get chickens or have your wagon wheel repaired in exchange for writing software.
I'd also point out that even the oft misused quote "money is the root of all evil" is a wrong - the actual quote is ".... for the love of money is the root of all evil."
Exactly - it explains clearly in the article they hope to sell your marketing data to advertisers. The problem is you're worth pennies, maybe a buck, to advertisers - certainly not the cost of a full price movie ticket. That's why a lot of us are saying it's a terrible business model; I'm suggesting it's a good deal for some consumers until the company goes bankrupt; it's a bad deal all around for investors.
At least there's that.... far too many network shows just abruptly end on cliffhangers, and the networks don't give a crap. If ratings are down on the whole, it might be because people (like me) refuse to start watching a show unless we know it'll be around for a while.
It may be true that the outside content providers that Netflix licenses with are not producing the greatest stuff; not only that, but the most desirable stuff doesn't end up on Netflix streaming service for a very long time, if at all. I will stick with Netflix for now, I like some of the original content, but that's not why I signed up with Netflix years ago so, on the whole, I've been very disappointed with streaming services in general. The divergence of content (providers like Disney forking off their own service) doesn't help matters any.
You're not getting it - MoviePass doesn't make any money on concessions because the theater does. MoviePass != the Theater or Theater Chain. They are a separate service. They do not have deals or get kickbacks from the theaters. Completely separate. Read the article!
It could be better for the consumer because you can use it ANYWHERE, not just a specific theater or chain. If you normally stick to one theater (as a lot of people do), then it's probably better to use the theater chain's own deal if it includes discounted concessions and no restrictions. My argument is not whether or not MoviePass is a great deal compared to a chain's offering, it's that the business model is different, as a chain gets your ass in the seat for the pre-movie advertisements and they make a lot of money from you even on discounted concessions, whereas MoviePass has no viable way of covering it's costs.
This is different because it's NOT a theater or theater chain. MoviePass doesn't get anything back from the theater - they just pay your full price ticket. They don't get kickbacks from concessions, they don't get a cut of the advertising shown before movies, they get NOTHING. They hope to make it up selling marketing data which, at the cost of tickets, is an untenable proposition. When a theater chain sells you this service, they still get your ass in the seat for advertising, they still sell you concessions - and while you may get a discount, you're still over paying, and you're overpaying more frequently because the pass encourages you to go more often.
Finally someone gets it - this is NOT the gym membership model, this is a crazy f#@king idea, and the only people who are going to come out ahead are the consumers who abuse the hell out of this and the investors who make a killing on the IPO and then get out before MoviePass goes bankrupt.
There is something absolutely crazy about it - MoviePass is a third party, not the theater or theater chain itself. Unlike a theater, it doesn't make money back on advertising shown in theaters before the movie, it doesn't make money back on concessions. All it does is pay the theater the full ticket price and then gets nothing back from the theater. They hope to make it up selling marketing information to advertisers, but the amounts we're talking about just aren't worth it; the only data they get is which movie and where you saw it - hardly an indicator of spending habits.... I'm waiting for someone to show how it's a sustainable business model.
Well, I see your point, but for years people have been coming up with reasons to get out of the house. It's also a social thing that generally works better going out of the home and following up (or preceding) your visit to the theater with dinner or some drinks. I mean, why do people bother going to bars when drinking at home is so much cheaper?
No, it's actually very different - if MoviePass was related to a single theater or a single chain, you could argue they make back their money on concessions, and by bringing along friends and family that may pay because they don't have a pass. But MoviePass doesn't operate that way - they pay the theater full price for every movie you see; they don't get any kickbacks or cut of concessions or anything from the theater. It's a baffling business model where they hope to make it all back by selling marketing data, but marketing data just isn't worth that much.
It's absolutely NOT the "gym membership effect." I've explained it already - if you own a gym and get people to join, you can't lose whether or not they use the gym. It's a great business model. If you wanted to compare what MoviePass is doing, then you'd pay $10/month for "GymPass," who would then pay whatever gym you wanted to use (any gym that allows you to pay a one time fee to use it that day), and then GymPass would pay that fee (since the average ticket price is around $9, let's say it costs $9 to use a gym once). They would pay that every time you used the gym. Now you may not use the gym at all, and GymPass gets your money. But all that has to happen is the next guy uses a gym twice, and GymPass only breaks even (because of overhead). Now if the other guy averages twice a month, you only use the gym ONCE and GymPass is losing money.
You have to understand that MoviePass: 1) has no agreements with movie theaters for discounts or kickbacks, they are an independent third party, 2) pays FULL price for your ticket every time you go to the movies, gets NOTHING from the sale of concessions or anything else at the theater. Once they've paid full price for the ticket, that's the end of it.
The analogy also fails because, with a gym membership, you are locked into a particular gym, and the gym doesn't pay any significant amount when you use the gym - it doesn't matter whether you go or not, or whether the next guy goes or not. People also join gyms because of things like New Years resolutions... nobody makes a New Years resolution to see more movies. On the other hand, MoviePass has to pay the theater EVERY TIME you use it, FULL PRICE, so even if you only use it a few times a year and they "make money" on you, all someone else has to do is use it enough that you both average ONCE per month, and MoviePass losses money (or barely breaks even).
Now, some people from Europe have pointed out that theaters there have membership options, and that can make some sense - you are locked in to that theater (or chain), they make money back on concessions, and they may have limits when it comes to opening nights and so forth - it can certainly be worth it for an individual theater or chain, especially because of concessions - but MoviePass gets NOTHING from the theater, they only PAY full price for your ticket and expect to get back all their money on selling marketing data, which absolutely will not be worth the cost (you're worth pennies, maybe a dollar, but certainly not the price of a movie ticket to advertisers), and the advertisers have no path to deliver advertisements to you, except in spam and snail mail.
The business model makes very little sense. If they pull it off, it's because they're not telling us something, or they are getting marketers to pay way more than the data can possibly be worth.
Slashdot Mirror
Got that right. There is a communication problem in any big organization. This can be taken advantage of if you know the system.
The rest of your comment aside, a warehouse worker or truck driver shouldn't need to know the price of the items they are packing and delivering - they get their marching orders from a printout (or electronic message) that tells them what to pack and likely prints a shipping label for them.
I admit to being a huge consumer on Amazon. It's simply far easier, faster, and cheaper to buy online (with free shipping) than to spend time going to B&M stores (factor in gas and pollution in addition to my time), or to order online elsewhere (which I do when I find it's a worthwhile amount cheaper). I even have my pet food on subscription. Out of probably over 500 orders since signing up with Amazon over 10 years ago, I've probably used 1-click maybe 3 times using my mobile phone. While I also have multiple cards and shipping addresses, the vast majority of the time I use the default card/address.
However, I don't get how they determine that the value of the patent can be so much unless people have actually paid that for licensing, because I seriously doubt many 1-click purchases wouldn't have been made if 1-click wasn't available.
I knew what the post meant, I also know that purveying this "money is evil" nonsense is harmful to open discourse.
I believe human beings give life intrinsic value, but I don't think that's what economists do. Certainly the government does things out of safety, but only because government generally represents the will of the people (in some small way, sadly, despite the fact it should be the majority of what government concerns itself with). But what these people are doing is placing an explicit (and wrong) monetary value on a human being's life. Even if someone, over their lifetime, contributes that kind of value to society, they largely do so up until retirement age, at which they largely become net negatives. That retirement age is around the time the effects of the environment are catching up to most people. It's not that I don't support green energy (I certainly do), it's that this "report" is f#@ked up.
No one is suggestion a world like Logan's Run here, just pointing out how their "estimates" are absolutely wrong.
I agree 100%. If those fossil fuel producers need to charge more for proper disposal (for one thing), then so be it - then the people that are using it more are paying the costs. That's "fair." Your example pretty much describes just about how EVERY subsidy is unfair to tax payers AND other players/competitors in the field.
If you believe that's what libertarianism is, then... well... that's just plain wrong. Believe it or not, one of the primary aspects of being a libertarian is respecting the rights of others, not walking all over them because "I can." If your view of libertarians is a "survival of the fittest" mentality, then you learned that perhaps from people calling themselves libertarian but without any concept of what libertarian means. Objectivism != Libertarianism. Not by a long shot.
Agreed, and want to also suggest that the majority of governance should be coming from the local levels because that gives the individual a lot more say in how the government affects their lives. Some things belong at the federal level, but most things should be pushed down, not up the chain.
Sadly that sort of government depends on politicians with scruples and integrity (and also possibly unicorns).
It doesn't suit extremists to admit there's a middle ground, that government can exist without excessive regulations that infringe on personal rights and freedoms and have negative impacts on society.
Depends what you mean by "old."
It seems like the stats they are using (the value of one's life) they are counting the entire life and not just the portion unused due to early death.
As with cigarettes, we're talking about at-or-near retirement age. What's the economic impact of someone dying right at the age of retirement? Positive, I'd suspect. But a lot of people don't consider that "old age" until after you reach that point. It also happens to be around the time healthcare costs skyrocket for an individual.
As far as the discussions of bad estimations go, sometimes you have to estimate... but when you make bad estimate after bad estimate (compounding the "badness"), the conclusion becomes pointless.
Not that I don't support "green" alternatives... I do, but wild assertions leading to wild conclusions doesn't really help.
Money != Greed. Money is a medium through which we exchange goods and services; money is a "good thing" unless you want to get chickens or have your wagon wheel repaired in exchange for writing software.
I'd also point out that even the oft misused quote "money is the root of all evil" is a wrong - the actual quote is ".... for the love of money is the root of all evil."
Exactly - it explains clearly in the article they hope to sell your marketing data to advertisers. The problem is you're worth pennies, maybe a buck, to advertisers - certainly not the cost of a full price movie ticket. That's why a lot of us are saying it's a terrible business model; I'm suggesting it's a good deal for some consumers until the company goes bankrupt; it's a bad deal all around for investors.
Not that I support population growth, but we were warned about how 3 billion was unsustainable.... then pretty much every billion after that.
At least there's that.... far too many network shows just abruptly end on cliffhangers, and the networks don't give a crap. If ratings are down on the whole, it might be because people (like me) refuse to start watching a show unless we know it'll be around for a while.
It may be true that the outside content providers that Netflix licenses with are not producing the greatest stuff; not only that, but the most desirable stuff doesn't end up on Netflix streaming service for a very long time, if at all. I will stick with Netflix for now, I like some of the original content, but that's not why I signed up with Netflix years ago so, on the whole, I've been very disappointed with streaming services in general. The divergence of content (providers like Disney forking off their own service) doesn't help matters any.
You're not getting it - MoviePass doesn't make any money on concessions because the theater does. MoviePass != the Theater or Theater Chain. They are a separate service. They do not have deals or get kickbacks from the theaters. Completely separate. Read the article!
It could be better for the consumer because you can use it ANYWHERE, not just a specific theater or chain. If you normally stick to one theater (as a lot of people do), then it's probably better to use the theater chain's own deal if it includes discounted concessions and no restrictions. My argument is not whether or not MoviePass is a great deal compared to a chain's offering, it's that the business model is different, as a chain gets your ass in the seat for the pre-movie advertisements and they make a lot of money from you even on discounted concessions, whereas MoviePass has no viable way of covering it's costs.
Agreed.
This is different because it's NOT a theater or theater chain. MoviePass doesn't get anything back from the theater - they just pay your full price ticket. They don't get kickbacks from concessions, they don't get a cut of the advertising shown before movies, they get NOTHING. They hope to make it up selling marketing data which, at the cost of tickets, is an untenable proposition. When a theater chain sells you this service, they still get your ass in the seat for advertising, they still sell you concessions - and while you may get a discount, you're still over paying, and you're overpaying more frequently because the pass encourages you to go more often.
Finally someone gets it - this is NOT the gym membership model, this is a crazy f#@king idea, and the only people who are going to come out ahead are the consumers who abuse the hell out of this and the investors who make a killing on the IPO and then get out before MoviePass goes bankrupt.
There is something absolutely crazy about it - MoviePass is a third party, not the theater or theater chain itself. Unlike a theater, it doesn't make money back on advertising shown in theaters before the movie, it doesn't make money back on concessions. All it does is pay the theater the full ticket price and then gets nothing back from the theater. They hope to make it up selling marketing information to advertisers, but the amounts we're talking about just aren't worth it; the only data they get is which movie and where you saw it - hardly an indicator of spending habits.... I'm waiting for someone to show how it's a sustainable business model.
Well, I see your point, but for years people have been coming up with reasons to get out of the house. It's also a social thing that generally works better going out of the home and following up (or preceding) your visit to the theater with dinner or some drinks. I mean, why do people bother going to bars when drinking at home is so much cheaper?
No, it's actually very different - if MoviePass was related to a single theater or a single chain, you could argue they make back their money on concessions, and by bringing along friends and family that may pay because they don't have a pass. But MoviePass doesn't operate that way - they pay the theater full price for every movie you see; they don't get any kickbacks or cut of concessions or anything from the theater. It's a baffling business model where they hope to make it all back by selling marketing data, but marketing data just isn't worth that much.
It's absolutely NOT the "gym membership effect." I've explained it already - if you own a gym and get people to join, you can't lose whether or not they use the gym. It's a great business model. If you wanted to compare what MoviePass is doing, then you'd pay $10/month for "GymPass," who would then pay whatever gym you wanted to use (any gym that allows you to pay a one time fee to use it that day), and then GymPass would pay that fee (since the average ticket price is around $9, let's say it costs $9 to use a gym once). They would pay that every time you used the gym. Now you may not use the gym at all, and GymPass gets your money. But all that has to happen is the next guy uses a gym twice, and GymPass only breaks even (because of overhead). Now if the other guy averages twice a month, you only use the gym ONCE and GymPass is losing money.
You have to understand that MoviePass: 1) has no agreements with movie theaters for discounts or kickbacks, they are an independent third party, 2) pays FULL price for your ticket every time you go to the movies, gets NOTHING from the sale of concessions or anything else at the theater. Once they've paid full price for the ticket, that's the end of it.
The analogy also fails because, with a gym membership, you are locked into a particular gym, and the gym doesn't pay any significant amount when you use the gym - it doesn't matter whether you go or not, or whether the next guy goes or not. People also join gyms because of things like New Years resolutions ... nobody makes a New Years resolution to see more movies. On the other hand, MoviePass has to pay the theater EVERY TIME you use it, FULL PRICE, so even if you only use it a few times a year and they "make money" on you, all someone else has to do is use it enough that you both average ONCE per month, and MoviePass losses money (or barely breaks even).
Now, some people from Europe have pointed out that theaters there have membership options, and that can make some sense - you are locked in to that theater (or chain), they make money back on concessions, and they may have limits when it comes to opening nights and so forth - it can certainly be worth it for an individual theater or chain, especially because of concessions - but MoviePass gets NOTHING from the theater, they only PAY full price for your ticket and expect to get back all their money on selling marketing data, which absolutely will not be worth the cost (you're worth pennies, maybe a dollar, but certainly not the price of a movie ticket to advertisers), and the advertisers have no path to deliver advertisements to you, except in spam and snail mail.
The business model makes very little sense. If they pull it off, it's because they're not telling us something, or they are getting marketers to pay way more than the data can possibly be worth.