The summary here fails to note an important distinction in the original article:"It’s not compulsory, according to this BBC report, but all the staff use it." That supports what AnonC and Cable have been saying, that this is regarded as a good thing in Japan.
This is why comment sections are great -- they allow balance through discussion of other viewpoints. Thank you both for educating me. (See, westerners _can_ learn.)
I don't think generalizing people on here saying it's "something that most western people would never get" is much better than westernizing the view of the thing in the first place, if that's what happened. Instead of just criticizing, you could try to educate us.
I can appreciate that a culture that prides itself on public appearance (we Brits spent lots of time doing this) would value ways to improve that image. While the Japanese have a strong sense of honour and duty to what they do, there are always personal limitations and emotional repercussions tied into everything as well.
Would scanners be more effective at encouraging employees something like than supervisors doing occasional cursory checks?
Who thinks that anyone lobbying is doing it for anything other than their own interests? Even people lobbying for "good" causes are just lobbying for what they're interested in.
The guy also said "Less well-known sites also aired the video and the New York Post ... printed a grainy clip from the video."
Clearly the guy doesn't understand what the internet is and is not.
I didn't make it all the way through myself, but the last sentence of the first paragraph is "added all together, it looks pretty shady, and reminds us of the Gizmondo scandal back in 2005."
I think the average person will glean that this isn't an endorsement. While this blog doesn't claim objectivity, this article struck me as unusually (though not unfairly) biased.
Thank you for a balanced response. This is what I took away from the article. I'm worried that more people weren't able to grasp that there's a middle ground and you don't have to abandon all knowledge or individual responsibility to foster collaborative work.
" by having it look like it helps people save money"
It's interesting to note how you're putting a negative spin on it. Mike pointed out "many (the article claims) from people who have never been able to save much money". Therefore it is helping them by having them put money in a bank. If the bank gets more for it, the banks will continue doing it. It helps everyone involved. There isn't anything stopping the people reinvesting in normal plans later.
Bottom line: even savings with zero interest are a better investment than giving your money away to the state lottery.
An an (ex?) engineer, I have to agree that it's a matter of having the correct measuring devices in place. You still need a model to account for them, but ignoring pieces of the puzzle will always corrupt the image you're trying to create.
How would a "hot-news" paywall help a news site? The whole "thing" with the news is to be first. It's the news. A delay sounds like an excellent way to constantly appear to be last, and thus drive people to other sites.
"All you are doing is artificially creating a need that wasn't there"
Wrong: there is no need. You'll point this out in a few more words yourself, but the point is that nothing changes for most people. The stories are already delayed so that people have time to respond & discuss before the next story pops up. Look at virtually any blog and you'll find this is the case. It's how you foster a community.
"the right to be a few minutes ahead of others on information that doesn't really get stale very fast."
And here you go pointing out that it has no value, therefore you aren't missing out on anything. Congratulations on eating your own tail.
I'd be very curious to know how many people contribute money because of the Crystal Ball. I'll guess very few.
You make excellent points, and your perspective is definitely a unified one. Phrased that way, it makes complete sense.
The problem (? That's not really the right word.) lies in most people not seeing it like that. The "gifts" are supposed to incentivize someone to contribute more (either here or on PBS). If you negate their value, then there isn't any point in having them in the first place. Just make a blank box for people to fill in whatever amount they want to give.
You're right that I was assigning the content of the gifts' to Techdirt, which it truly isn't. However, I doubt many people would (could?) separate the tote bag from PBS, even though the TV is the core product. That's a tough distinction for most people to make, and thus it becomes fair question for this model/example. Most people just want to know "what am I getting for my money?"
It will be interesting to see if enough of this type of business model is practiced, how (if?) common mentality will switch along with it. It will have to for this to be sustainable on a wide scale.
Have you noticed how the articles aren't published all at once, but rather come out periodically over the course of the day? That's still how it's going to work.
If doesn't work that way because Mike and the other authors are spending all the intervening time writing the next article. They're preloaded, but designed to post throughout the day so discussion can happen in between. The "crystal ball" just lets you see that queue. The articles will still post when they otherwise would've, so you aren't losing anything if you stay anonymous.
You're right. My language didn't make that distinction. My point was that the content of the albums/books could be distributed for free, but weren't being offered (here) that way.
Mike's selling the scarce goods, which I get. It's not giving away digital versions that I felt was out of line with what he praised elsewhere.
Thanks for the response (and apologies for the second iteration). I guessed it might be something like that. Might I suggest adding links to sites where people can find the content? The easier it is for people to find the material, I suspect the more likely I think they'll be to buy.
I'm off to roam the internet. I'll be back with my PayPal account once I've (not) found what I need.
Mine is a genuine question from a big fan of this blog, not an attempt at trolling. Why isn't the content being offered for free to attract attention, and then having people buy the special packages?
The question stems from my own reaction to the packages. I probably won't buy the Music Club because the collection doesn't seem like my style. If I could listen to it all easily though, I might change my mind. Similarly, the Book Club interested me, but I don't know that I want to donate $150 based on book descriptions alone.
Having watched multiple presentations you've made via YouTube, this seems incongruent with everything you've touted Trent Reznor (and others) doing. I'm genuinely curious why you didn't follow the model that you've spoken so much about.
Is it just you've done "CwF + RtB" without giving anything away, so therefore you don't have to give anything away? Was it a question of server load for distributing more than some HTML? Were all the artists and authors involved not willing to buy into your "free" model? I don't need names or anything. I just want to understand the business decisions better.
This is a great idea in many ways, and I'm definitely going to buy into it, but I have a question for you Mike:
If you believe the content itself isn't at the center of what makes money, shouldn't you be offering the songs on the Music Club playlist for free download, not "protected" by a Flash player? For that matter, shouldn't you make all the music and all the books freely downloadable? That *is* the model you've been touting.
On the post: Japan's Smile Scanners A Classic Misuse Of Technology
AnonC and Cable have a point
This is why comment sections are great -- they allow balance through discussion of other viewpoints. Thank you both for educating me. (See, westerners _can_ learn.)
On the post: Japan's Smile Scanners A Classic Misuse Of Technology
Re: Re: Re:
I can appreciate that a culture that prides itself on public appearance (we Brits spent lots of time doing this) would value ways to improve that image. While the Japanese have a strong sense of honour and duty to what they do, there are always personal limitations and emotional repercussions tied into everything as well.
Would scanners be more effective at encouraging employees something like than supervisors doing occasional cursory checks?
On the post: Japan's Smile Scanners A Classic Misuse Of Technology
Re:
Is your claim that the Japanese prefer to be constantly checked to see if they're smiling?
On the post: Russian Telcos: Skype Is Hurting Our Business And Must Be Stopped
Re:
On the post: AT&T Blocks 4chan Over DDoS... But May Not Like What Happens Next...
On the post: Erin Andrews Nude Video Means We Should Regulate The Internet?
Re: Re: Re: Yes! OF Course!
On the post: Erin Andrews Nude Video Means We Should Regulate The Internet?
On the post: The Zer01 Story: Lots Of Buzz, But Is It Actually Real...?
Re: Re: Re:
I think the average person will glean that this isn't an endorsement. While this blog doesn't claim objectivity, this article struck me as unusually (though not unfairly) biased.
On the post: Is It Cheating Or Is It Collaboration?
Re: The facts are the building blocks
On the post: Is It Cheating Or Is It Collaboration?
Re: Re: Never disagreed more
This is one of the most enjoyable sentences I've seen in a while. Kudos, sir.
On the post: Can The Lottery Make People Save More?
Re: Great spin on the story
It's interesting to note how you're putting a negative spin on it. Mike pointed out "many (the article claims) from people who have never been able to save much money". Therefore it is helping them by having them put money in a bank. If the bank gets more for it, the banks will continue doing it. It helps everyone involved. There isn't anything stopping the people reinvesting in normal plans later.
Bottom line: even savings with zero interest are a better investment than giving your money away to the state lottery.
On the post: Is The Connected World Killing Predictive Modeling?
Re: The models are wrong.
On the post: CwF + RtB = Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: A Rose
On the post: CwF + RtB = Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: A Rose
Wrong: there is no need. You'll point this out in a few more words yourself, but the point is that nothing changes for most people. The stories are already delayed so that people have time to respond & discuss before the next story pops up. Look at virtually any blog and you'll find this is the case. It's how you foster a community.
"the right to be a few minutes ahead of others on information that doesn't really get stale very fast."
And here you go pointing out that it has no value, therefore you aren't missing out on anything. Congratulations on eating your own tail.
I'd be very curious to know how many people contribute money because of the Crystal Ball. I'll guess very few.
On the post: CwF + RtB = Techdirt
Re: Re: A real question
You make excellent points, and your perspective is definitely a unified one. Phrased that way, it makes complete sense.
The problem (? That's not really the right word.) lies in most people not seeing it like that. The "gifts" are supposed to incentivize someone to contribute more (either here or on PBS). If you negate their value, then there isn't any point in having them in the first place. Just make a blank box for people to fill in whatever amount they want to give.
You're right that I was assigning the content of the gifts' to Techdirt, which it truly isn't. However, I doubt many people would (could?) separate the tote bag from PBS, even though the TV is the core product. That's a tough distinction for most people to make, and thus it becomes fair question for this model/example. Most people just want to know "what am I getting for my money?"
It will be interesting to see if enough of this type of business model is practiced, how (if?) common mentality will switch along with it. It will have to for this to be sustainable on a wide scale.
On the post: CwF + RtB = Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: CwF + RtB = Techdirt
Re: Re:
Mike's selling the scarce goods, which I get. It's not giving away digital versions that I felt was out of line with what he praised elsewhere.
On the post: CwF + RtB = Techdirt
Re: Re:
I'm off to roam the internet. I'll be back with my PayPal account once I've (not) found what I need.
On the post: CwF + RtB = Techdirt
A real question
The question stems from my own reaction to the packages. I probably won't buy the Music Club because the collection doesn't seem like my style. If I could listen to it all easily though, I might change my mind. Similarly, the Book Club interested me, but I don't know that I want to donate $150 based on book descriptions alone.
Having watched multiple presentations you've made via YouTube, this seems incongruent with everything you've touted Trent Reznor (and others) doing. I'm genuinely curious why you didn't follow the model that you've spoken so much about.
Is it just you've done "CwF + RtB" without giving anything away, so therefore you don't have to give anything away? Was it a question of server load for distributing more than some HTML? Were all the artists and authors involved not willing to buy into your "free" model? I don't need names or anything. I just want to understand the business decisions better.
On the post: CwF + RtB = Techdirt
If you believe the content itself isn't at the center of what makes money, shouldn't you be offering the songs on the Music Club playlist for free download, not "protected" by a Flash player? For that matter, shouldn't you make all the music and all the books freely downloadable? That *is* the model you've been touting.
Next >>