..and, since you don't seem to get it, "do no evil" has an (I thought) implied "to our customers" at the end of it. So, anything they do to help the consumer you should be on board with.. unless you don't consider yourself a consumer. (or, I suppose, if you are paid for your viewpoint)
If they disrupt every market, causing lazy, bloated incumbents to have to actually innovate again and compete, they are doing a whole helluva lot of good. For Everyone.
I used to do it all the time. See a book that looks interesting, but not worth the Hardcover price. By the time paperback comes out, I've all but forgotten about the book.
Making me wait for what I want is the real lost sale.
I fail to see how any licensing issues could possibly get in the way. What are the possible outcomes?
Nintendo licensed someone else to make the movie, and the fan movie was worse: The fan movie is quickly overshadowed by the official one, no one watches the fan one, no harm done.
Nintendo licensed someone else to make the movie, and the fan movie was better: Nintendo has the chance to endorse the fan movie, gaining goodwill. Further, the fan flick becomes an internet phenomenon, driving more sales to the games. No one watches or remembers the official movie, a la Mario Brothers.
Nintendo did not license the movie, the fan movie sucks: People, in talking about how shitty the movie was, become nostalgic about the old games and purchase them on the Wii.
Nintendo did not license the movie, the fan movie is good: Do I need to explain the benefits of this?
Also:
Heck, a poorly made movie could negatively impact the public's perception of the game entirely.
This is a complete untruth. The Mortal Combat movie sucked beyond all reason but I can promise you that no one ever thought that meant the *game* also sucked. It doesn't work that way. Did you suddenly stop liking Taco Bell because of Demolition Man? Of course not.
People around here seem to think you are useful because you bring up good points, Harold, but I have yet to see it. As someone commented yesterday, feel free to skip a few of Mike's posts if you have a weaker than usual argument against it, it will save you some face and us some nose bleeds.
McVeigh would have had a hell of a time getting a truck-load of manure on a plane, I'll wager. :)
The Nigerian was on a terrorist watch list, was he not? The only bigger red flag would be if he was holding a over-sized cartoon bomb with the fuse lit. Being on such a list should warrant a more extensive search, I'd think. As it is now, we all might as well be on a terrorist watch list, since we're *all* going to get extensive screening.
Maybe they are taking notes from the IP industry's zealous nature regarding DRM, which only serves to inconvenience honest people while doing little to nothing to stop the actual people they are trying to stop.
This type of if-it-is-a-hassle-then-it-must-be-working thinking rears its head anytime the solution to a problem is of the knee jerk variety. We, the public in general, are partly to blame; If our leaders said that they needed a few weeks to decide how best to handle the situation, the public would jump down their collective throats demanding immediate action. Hence, body-scanners, no standing the last hour of flights and nothing in your lap for that last hour, as well. (Terrorist time-out?)
I dread the day a terrorist decides the best place to hide an IED is in his butt.
Colg: Were there no patents at all perhaps the competition of the two resulting companies would have driven innovation and the evolution of the light bulb and there wouldn't be so many dim bulbs today...
Perhaps it's error on my end, but it seems to me that Colg says things would have worked out better without patents, and you're saying they only worked out so well *because* of them. Those two ideas don't mesh.
Oh, I get it. Mike reads what he responds to, and you just skim. You sly dog you. Very clever.
Look on the bright side: If you can't stream the music you want outside the US, you can always power up your favorite BT Client and just download the music.
Not that I condone pirating, mind you, I'm just saying that it seems that they intentionally drive people to pirate music. Probably because it's far more lucrative to sue for copright infringement than sell digital copies. (Or stream them!)
Google will once again leverage it's incredible financial clout to come into a market and sell at a loss
I'm sorry, you're probably a troll, but I'll bite. Do you *really* think that it costs $0.15 to send a text message? C'mon, consumers have been fleeced regarding wireless plans. Google hopefully disrupt all the needlessly expensive markets. Oh, you want to sell Turn-by-turn GPS software for $99? Funny, we can give it away for free by crowdsourcing the data. You want to charge $120 for an Office Suite? Odd, we can put it in the cloud and get rid of the plethora of features 3% of users need, and give it away for free.
What's that? You want to charge $0.15 for 120 characters of text *and* require a data plan? Funny, we can not only make that into data, but we can turn those pesky "wireless minutes" into data too.
It sucks for Verzion and AT&T, but it's awesome for the consumer. Seeing as I'm a consumer, I'm okay with that. What are *you*?
Oh yeah, the Google wireless network will BETA for 7 years.
..and AT&T's network is clearly out of Beta, right?
I know what you're getting at, and you throw light on the overall problem with *all* digital media.
You might not know, but in a *competitive* market, everything's price trends to the actual cost to produce it. However, as you so astutely pointed out, ebooks (and music, and movies) are *not in a competitive market*. All the labels sell their music for the same price, all movie downloads are the same price, all ebooks are the same price. Regardless of Label/Studio/Publisher. Odd, isn't it?
Further, underpricing (as you call it) an ebook would give you the competitive edge over your competition-- if I saw two sci-fi ebooks from an unknown (to me) author, and one was $5 and the other was $10, guess which one I'd buy. Exactly. Now, how much does it cost to make a copy of a hardcover versus a copy of an ebook. Yup, much cheaper. (actually, close to nothing for the latter) That's why anyone who lives in the real world wonders why ebooks cost $10.
To further prove how out of touch these people are, I submit Exhibit A. Please explain those prices to me.
Re: Re: Re: How do I impose my standards on a live event?
I'm sorry, maybe I didn't point out the flaws in that line of thinking bluntly enough. Allow me to elaborate.
how do I do that with a live event if there are no broadcast standards?
Dare I ask, sir or ma'am, how you manage to take your sweet little snowflake outside, into the real world? There could be nipples out there! Oh, the horror! What? You're only concerned about female nipples? Well, that's certainly strange. You weren't too concerned when your child was an infant.
The fact that the infamous nipple occurred in the middle of a sporting even in which large men bash into each other astounds me. No one seemed to care about 2 hours of violence but half a second of a body part *everyone* has and shit hits the fan?? I really don't understand. No sarcasm, I'm very, very confused. If you have time, please explain.
Even cartoons are violent. Unless Ninjas (Teenage/Mutant or otherwise) have a different job than I thought they did, that's violence. Where is the moral panic?
Humans are a strange species, for sure.
The bottom line: As you said, the networks will self regulate to keep the an-ounce-of-ignorance-is-worth-a-pound-of-education type parents happy and watching the ads. We really don't need the government to do it for us.
I, however, know that a boob has never ruined a child, but parent who over-sheltered a child has.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure your 13 year old daughter has seen a nipple.
Also, what happens to a 13 year old girl when she sees "simulated sex acts" that is so harmful? You might have to talk about sex. I know, scary, right? Most middle/high schoolers (as was mentioned above) know a good deal about that subject already. It's everywhere. You simply *can't* hide her from it. The only way to protect your child is to arm her with a working brain and the knowledge of potential consequences.
Disclaimer: I have no children at the time of writing this comment. Maybe that will change my mind, but I seriously doubt it.
On the post: Google Isn't Targeting iPhone Users; It's Targeting Everyone Else (Maybe)
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Isn't Targeting iPhone Users; It's Targeting Everyone Else (Maybe)
Re:
..and, since you don't seem to get it, "do no evil" has an (I thought) implied "to our customers" at the end of it. So, anything they do to help the consumer you should be on board with.. unless you don't consider yourself a consumer. (or, I suppose, if you are paid for your viewpoint)
If they disrupt every market, causing lazy, bloated incumbents to have to actually innovate again and compete, they are doing a whole helluva lot of good. For Everyone.
On the post: CNN's Take On 'Book Piracy'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Book Piracy
On the post: CNN's Take On 'Book Piracy'
Re: Re: Re: Re: J. K. Rowling and piracy
I used to do it all the time. See a book that looks interesting, but not worth the Hardcover price. By the time paperback comes out, I've all but forgotten about the book.
Making me wait for what I want is the real lost sale.
On the post: Time For 'Israelification' Of U.S. Airports?
Re:
Link please, I'd be interested to read that.
On the post: Nintendo Shuts Down Fan-Made Zelda Movie
Re: Re:
Nintendo licensed someone else to make the movie, and the fan movie was worse: The fan movie is quickly overshadowed by the official one, no one watches the fan one, no harm done.
Nintendo licensed someone else to make the movie, and the fan movie was better: Nintendo has the chance to endorse the fan movie, gaining goodwill. Further, the fan flick becomes an internet phenomenon, driving more sales to the games. No one watches or remembers the official movie, a la Mario Brothers.
Nintendo did not license the movie, the fan movie sucks: People, in talking about how shitty the movie was, become nostalgic about the old games and purchase them on the Wii.
Nintendo did not license the movie, the fan movie is good: Do I need to explain the benefits of this?
Also:
Heck, a poorly made movie could negatively impact the public's perception of the game entirely.
This is a complete untruth. The Mortal Combat movie sucked beyond all reason but I can promise you that no one ever thought that meant the *game* also sucked. It doesn't work that way. Did you suddenly stop liking Taco Bell because of Demolition Man? Of course not.
People around here seem to think you are useful because you bring up good points, Harold, but I have yet to see it. As someone commented yesterday, feel free to skip a few of Mike's posts if you have a weaker than usual argument against it, it will save you some face and us some nose bleeds.
On the post: Time For 'Israelification' Of U.S. Airports?
Re: Different situation
The Nigerian was on a terrorist watch list, was he not? The only bigger red flag would be if he was holding a over-sized cartoon bomb with the fuse lit. Being on such a list should warrant a more extensive search, I'd think. As it is now, we all might as well be on a terrorist watch list, since we're *all* going to get extensive screening.
Also, for perspective: Terrorism is less deadly than salmonella and the true odds of airborne terroism.
The true goal of terrorism is not to kill, it's to cause fear and thus negatively impact our quality of life.
Mission Accomplished.
On the post: CNN's Take On 'Book Piracy'
Re: Re: J. K. Rowling and piracy
That *is* a lost sale.
On the post: CNN's Take On 'Book Piracy'
Re: Re:
Hmm.. I wonder how long a 'Pirating for Dummies' book would last before the recording/movie/software industry killed it. :)
On the post: CNN's Take On 'Book Piracy'
Re: Re:
On the post: Time For 'Israelification' Of U.S. Airports?
DRM
This type of if-it-is-a-hassle-then-it-must-be-working thinking rears its head anytime the solution to a problem is of the knee jerk variety. We, the public in general, are partly to blame; If our leaders said that they needed a few weeks to decide how best to handle the situation, the public would jump down their collective throats demanding immediate action. Hence, body-scanners, no standing the last hour of flights and nothing in your lap for that last hour, as well. (Terrorist time-out?)
I dread the day a terrorist decides the best place to hide an IED is in his butt.
On the post: GSM Encryption Cracked... GSMA's First Response? That's Illegal!
Re: Re: /sigh
On the post: Amazon Sued In Germany For Offering Good Prices On Books
Free Market?
Why not fix the price of everything? That way independent [noun]-store owners won't have to undercut the prices of other [noun] chains.
In related news, the more I learn, the more pity I feel for humans.
On the post: How Thomas Edison, Patron Saint Of Patent Holders, Copied Others' Works To 'Invent' The Light Bulb
Re: Re:
Colg: Were there no patents at all perhaps the competition of the two resulting companies would have driven innovation and the evolution of the light bulb and there wouldn't be so many dim bulbs today...
Perhaps it's error on my end, but it seems to me that Colg says things would have worked out better without patents, and you're saying they only worked out so well *because* of them. Those two ideas don't mesh.
Oh, I get it. Mike reads what he responds to, and you just skim. You sly dog you. Very clever.
On the post: Do Your Rights To Listen To Legally Licensed Music Stop At The Border?
Bit Torrent.
Not that I condone pirating, mind you, I'm just saying that it seems that they intentionally drive people to pirate music. Probably because it's far more lucrative to sue for copright infringement than sell digital copies. (Or stream them!)
On the post: As AT&T Complains, People Notice That It Has Decreased Infrastructure Investments, But Wireless Revenue Is Way Up
Re: Re: Profits flat
I'm sorry, you're probably a troll, but I'll bite. Do you *really* think that it costs $0.15 to send a text message? C'mon, consumers have been fleeced regarding wireless plans. Google hopefully disrupt all the needlessly expensive markets. Oh, you want to sell Turn-by-turn GPS software for $99? Funny, we can give it away for free by crowdsourcing the data. You want to charge $120 for an Office Suite? Odd, we can put it in the cloud and get rid of the plethora of features 3% of users need, and give it away for free.
What's that? You want to charge $0.15 for 120 characters of text *and* require a data plan? Funny, we can not only make that into data, but we can turn those pesky "wireless minutes" into data too.
It sucks for Verzion and AT&T, but it's awesome for the consumer. Seeing as I'm a consumer, I'm okay with that. What are *you*?
Oh yeah, the Google wireless network will BETA for 7 years.
..and AT&T's network is clearly out of Beta, right?
On the post: Sony Ebook Boss: DRM Needs To Stay And Ebooks Should Cost More Than $10
Re:
You might not know, but in a *competitive* market, everything's price trends to the actual cost to produce it. However, as you so astutely pointed out, ebooks (and music, and movies) are *not in a competitive market*. All the labels sell their music for the same price, all movie downloads are the same price, all ebooks are the same price. Regardless of Label/Studio/Publisher. Odd, isn't it?
Further, underpricing (as you call it) an ebook would give you the competitive edge over your competition-- if I saw two sci-fi ebooks from an unknown (to me) author, and one was $5 and the other was $10, guess which one I'd buy. Exactly. Now, how much does it cost to make a copy of a hardcover versus a copy of an ebook. Yup, much cheaper. (actually, close to nothing for the latter) That's why anyone who lives in the real world wonders why ebooks cost $10.
To further prove how out of touch these people are, I submit Exhibit A. Please explain those prices to me.
On the post: FCC Hires Law Professor Who Believes Broadcast Indecency Laws Are Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: How do I impose my standards on a live event?
how do I do that with a live event if there are no broadcast standards?
Dare I ask, sir or ma'am, how you manage to take your sweet little snowflake outside, into the real world? There could be nipples out there! Oh, the horror! What? You're only concerned about female nipples? Well, that's certainly strange. You weren't too concerned when your child was an infant.
The fact that the infamous nipple occurred in the middle of a sporting even in which large men bash into each other astounds me. No one seemed to care about 2 hours of violence but half a second of a body part *everyone* has and shit hits the fan?? I really don't understand. No sarcasm, I'm very, very confused. If you have time, please explain.
Even cartoons are violent. Unless Ninjas (Teenage/Mutant or otherwise) have a different job than I thought they did, that's violence. Where is the moral panic?
Humans are a strange species, for sure.
The bottom line: As you said, the networks will self regulate to keep the an-ounce-of-ignorance-is-worth-a-pound-of-education type parents happy and watching the ads. We really don't need the government to do it for us.
I, however, know that a boob has never ruined a child, but parent who over-sheltered a child has.
Sorry for the rant.
On the post: UK Charities Find Out They Need To Pay Yet Another Music Royalty
Re:
On the post: FCC Hires Law Professor Who Believes Broadcast Indecency Laws Are Unconstitutional
Re: How do I impose my standards on a live event?
Also, what happens to a 13 year old girl when she sees "simulated sex acts" that is so harmful? You might have to talk about sex. I know, scary, right? Most middle/high schoolers (as was mentioned above) know a good deal about that subject already. It's everywhere. You simply *can't* hide her from it. The only way to protect your child is to arm her with a working brain and the knowledge of potential consequences.
Disclaimer: I have no children at the time of writing this comment. Maybe that will change my mind, but I seriously doubt it.
Next >>