From my limited investigation on subscription prices for The Times and The Sunday Times, it seems that they are asking about £6 a week.
With the £1 a day for the online edition, they're asking MORE money than for the paper subscription.
It makes absolutely no (business) sense to me, why anyone would do that.
But I might be wrong on the subscription price, they don't really list it anywhere on their website.
if it ain't got an RSS feed for me to peruse, it ain't worth my time.
I'm assuming that because of the paywall, I won't be able to 'subscribe' to an RSS feed? Well then I don't have any business on that news site.
Lost sales is an intangible that would be included in the delta between forecast sales and actual sales.
I set up a pizzeria, and I forecast a thousand pizzas sold each week.
But suddenly there is a competitor on the block who makes the same pizzas but offers them for free, and because of that I only sell about 500... should I start suing the 500 people who went to the competing pizzeria and thus didn't buy my pizzas?
Or should I start competing with the other pizzeria, by offering a better pizza, or more amenities to sweeten the deal of my pizzas?
well, he just admitted that he 'left his house open' by letting it be distributed on bittorrent networks. If he were to make an insurance case about it, he'd have no leg to stand on, as clearly he didn't try hard enough to keep it locked up, in essence he left the keys in the door and is now crying because he got robbed.
Oh wow, now I got an ad hominem attack from an industry person. I feel so honoured.
Instead of insulting us, why not try to converse with us?
You know, talk to your customers.
Piracy doesn't need to be an issue, if the industry folks were just willing to think about it or talk to their customers about it.
Then they'd learn that:
1) locking everything up behind perpetual copyright won't solve anything, but rather, it would annoy fans.
2) the cd are overpriced for many people, and that by lowering the prices they might actually compete with free.
3) piracy isn't the industry's biggest threat, it's their own actions against piracy that's causing their industry the most harm, as they are alienating a lot of people who could've been their biggest fans. Causing schoolkids to go bankrupt may make some (weird) sense in the extremely short term, but in the long term that doesn't make any business sense. Those who are bankrupt have no money to spend on media, and their friends are much less likely to support an artist whose label caused their friends to go bankrupt.
4) suing fans actually causes the opposite from what they were trying to achieve.
5) that customers get annoyed when they are being accused of being thieves when they legally bought a dvd. (the totally bogus and very misleading "You wouldn't steal a car" promo) which aren't on the pirated copies.
6) if they were to focus on adding value for customers instead of trying to gain/keep control, they'd actually be able to keep more money.
7) DRM schemes don't work, and only cost money. Money that they'd then be able to use for more useful projects such as promotion.
8) video clips act as a promotional tool, and are not a given cash cow.
9) people only have so much money to spend on media, and in a recession period, they tend to spend less on media and more on stuff like food. You know, the really useful stuff.
But listening isn't the best quality of the record and motion picture industry.
I hate to bring this to you, but Jack Valenti died a few years ago.
You might want to update your information on the MPAA.
A. Robert Pisano is now the (interim) Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America.
In Humble Indie Bundle's case, they add value to the same package by adding an extra game and adding source code of a few of the games to the package.
Basically giving me 2 more reasons to buy the package.
In EA's case, they ask more money for the privilege of playing a second hand game.
How are those two even remotely the same?
And in the case of EA, it's indeed punishing their customers. Because if I were to download a pirated copy, I wouldn't need to pay extra to play it.
But if I were to buy that game second hand (which is perfectly legal), I'd have to pay extra to be allowed to play that game, basically equaling the price of a second hand game to that of a retail first hand game. What would be the point for me to buy that package? What would be my reason to buy it in that case?
Firstly, the games will still be 'for pay' even though the source code is available. It's free as in speech, not free as in beer.
Secondly, this ADDS value to the products I just bought. It's not as if they forbid me access to the source code because I donated to the cause before they opened it.
These people put their money where there mouth is, and PROVE that you can make money by not pissing off their customers. When are you going to do that?
"I don't know how those playboxes and iwhatchamacallits work, but I'm sure they are up to no good and are in fact ruining our kids."
Stick to the facts, mister President. Leave the tech to people who DO know a thing or two about them.
BTW, is the internet also a big truck in the White House?
well if the MPAA want their PPV offerings to fail, they should go ahead and fuck with their customers... Meanwhile many people will be downloading their shit without paying a single dime.
Sure, artists and movie-makers should be paid for their hard work, but these big companies (Like Warner, Sony BMG, Universal, FOX, etc) that are represented by the RIAA and the MPAA don't give a damn about the artists, all they want to do is control the way you consume their crap.
Charge ridiculous amounts of money for stuff they invested as little as possible on.
Because they don't see us consumers as clients, but rather as money bags. They are not geared towards a consumer-friendly way of doing business.
It's just maffia 2.0, "nice mediabox you got there, would be a damned shame if something happened to it, like for instance be made useless".
Though I'm afraid I might have insulted the maffia with comparing them to the clueless scumbags that run the RIAA and the MPAA, who couldn't find a new business model if it dropped in their lap.
On the post: Pentagon: If You Don't Let The US Gov't Spy On Your Network, You Place American Lives At Risk
It seems that there are some people at the top that need to see Enemy Of The State. Or maybe we should just install a webcam in their homes.
On the post: Times Online Says Competitors Will Go Out Of Business Without A Paywall
With the £1 a day for the online edition, they're asking MORE money than for the paper subscription.
It makes absolutely no (business) sense to me, why anyone would do that.
But I might be wrong on the subscription price, they don't really list it anywhere on their website.
On the post: Why Should Customs Officers Be Determining What Counts As A Copyright Circumvention Device?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
www.videolan.org
On the post: Why Should Customs Officers Be Determining What Counts As A Copyright Circumvention Device?
Re: Re:
Hmm, I'm coming to the US in July, maybe I should scrub my Linux notebook before taking it across the border. Fresh install.
On the post: Times Online Says Competitors Will Go Out Of Business Without A Paywall
I'm assuming that because of the paywall, I won't be able to 'subscribe' to an RSS feed? Well then I don't have any business on that news site.
So long, farewell Times. We hardly miss ya.
On the post: Company Sues MPEG-LA, Claiming Antitrust Violations Over Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
except overly broad patents.
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're Missing a Point...
I set up a pizzeria, and I forecast a thousand pizzas sold each week.
But suddenly there is a competitor on the block who makes the same pizzas but offers them for free, and because of that I only sell about 500... should I start suing the 500 people who went to the competing pizzeria and thus didn't buy my pizzas?
Or should I start competing with the other pizzeria, by offering a better pizza, or more amenities to sweeten the deal of my pizzas?
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re:
At least that's according to his analogy.
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
On the post: Microsoft Decides It Can't Compete With Salesforce.com; Sues For Patent Infringement Instead
On the post: MPAA And Its Priorities: Asks US Gov't To Stop Soldiers From Buying Bootleg DVDs
Re: Re: Re: Really?
Instead of insulting us, why not try to converse with us?
You know, talk to your customers.
Piracy doesn't need to be an issue, if the industry folks were just willing to think about it or talk to their customers about it.
Then they'd learn that:
1) locking everything up behind perpetual copyright won't solve anything, but rather, it would annoy fans.
2) the cd are overpriced for many people, and that by lowering the prices they might actually compete with free.
3) piracy isn't the industry's biggest threat, it's their own actions against piracy that's causing their industry the most harm, as they are alienating a lot of people who could've been their biggest fans. Causing schoolkids to go bankrupt may make some (weird) sense in the extremely short term, but in the long term that doesn't make any business sense. Those who are bankrupt have no money to spend on media, and their friends are much less likely to support an artist whose label caused their friends to go bankrupt.
4) suing fans actually causes the opposite from what they were trying to achieve.
5) that customers get annoyed when they are being accused of being thieves when they legally bought a dvd. (the totally bogus and very misleading "You wouldn't steal a car" promo) which aren't on the pirated copies.
6) if they were to focus on adding value for customers instead of trying to gain/keep control, they'd actually be able to keep more money.
7) DRM schemes don't work, and only cost money. Money that they'd then be able to use for more useful projects such as promotion.
8) video clips act as a promotional tool, and are not a given cash cow.
9) people only have so much money to spend on media, and in a recession period, they tend to spend less on media and more on stuff like food. You know, the really useful stuff.
But listening isn't the best quality of the record and motion picture industry.
On the post: MPAA And Its Priorities: Asks US Gov't To Stop Soldiers From Buying Bootleg DVDs
Re: Really?
You might want to update your information on the MPAA.
A. Robert Pisano is now the (interim) Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America.
On the post: MPAA And Its Priorities: Asks US Gov't To Stop Soldiers From Buying Bootleg DVDs
Re: What a missed opportunity
On the post: People Start Noticing That The Web Competes With iPad Apps
Re: Oy.
Needing more hints here... ;-)
On the post: Humble Indie Bundle Hits One Million In Sales... Goes Open Source
Re:
On the post: Humble Indie Bundle Hits One Million In Sales... Goes Open Source
Re: Re: Re:
Basically giving me 2 more reasons to buy the package.
In EA's case, they ask more money for the privilege of playing a second hand game.
How are those two even remotely the same?
And in the case of EA, it's indeed punishing their customers. Because if I were to download a pirated copy, I wouldn't need to pay extra to play it.
But if I were to buy that game second hand (which is perfectly legal), I'd have to pay extra to be allowed to play that game, basically equaling the price of a second hand game to that of a retail first hand game. What would be the point for me to buy that package? What would be my reason to buy it in that case?
On the post: Humble Indie Bundle Hits One Million In Sales... Goes Open Source
Re:
Secondly, this ADDS value to the products I just bought. It's not as if they forbid me access to the source code because I donated to the cause before they opened it.
These people put their money where there mouth is, and PROVE that you can make money by not pissing off their customers. When are you going to do that?
On the post: FCC Gives Hollywood The Right To Break Your TV/DVR... Just 'Cause
Re: I hearthily thank for these measures...
On the post: Obama Complains About iPads And Xboxes As Diversions
"I don't know how those playboxes and iwhatchamacallits work, but I'm sure they are up to no good and are in fact ruining our kids."
Stick to the facts, mister President. Leave the tech to people who DO know a thing or two about them.
BTW, is the internet also a big truck in the White House?
On the post: FCC Gives Hollywood The Right To Break Your TV/DVR... Just 'Cause
Sure, artists and movie-makers should be paid for their hard work, but these big companies (Like Warner, Sony BMG, Universal, FOX, etc) that are represented by the RIAA and the MPAA don't give a damn about the artists, all they want to do is control the way you consume their crap.
Charge ridiculous amounts of money for stuff they invested as little as possible on.
Because they don't see us consumers as clients, but rather as money bags. They are not geared towards a consumer-friendly way of doing business.
It's just maffia 2.0, "nice mediabox you got there, would be a damned shame if something happened to it, like for instance be made useless".
Though I'm afraid I might have insulted the maffia with comparing them to the clueless scumbags that run the RIAA and the MPAA, who couldn't find a new business model if it dropped in their lap.
Next >>