...And we probably would not have the iPhone, which flowed from the iPod business.
And that means we probably would not have Android, which exists because carriers like Verizon needed a device to competite against the exclusive iPhone carriers like AT&T.
Lots of comments around this point - that the Kaleidoscope costs too much.
I agree, but that is completely irrelevant. Bear in mind that early versions of successful products often cost too much, then they get economies of scale, then competitors take note of the market and build competing products, and prices normalize.
The iPhone first cost the full unsubsidized $600. It did OK. The first VCRs and DVD players were over a thousand dollars. Now they are $35ea. Laptops? $2,000 plus. Garmin Streetpilot GPS? $1,200.
That's how it goes...unless some douchebaggery stops it cold, such as the MPAA is doing here. THEN what happens is it NEVER gets affordable, market tested, scale economies, improved, etc. And then so few customers notice or care, that John Q. Public doesn't even know they've been screwed out of a good product category, even to the point of saying something like "What do I care. Darn thing costs $4k, who wants it anyway?"
The problem I was getting at is that too many people seem to think that a Free Market is a Perfect Market. It is not. There is not a pareto optimal equilibrium, because of distortions such as information dis-symmetry.
BTW, both printers and Keurig machines often give the user enough "starter" coffee or ink to get through the 15 day return period. Also, people are not keen to return things, since this effort is an additional cost.
I appreciate your love for the free market. I, too would love one. But this isn't it.
Read my response to Brian, just above.
There are ways to make money in the free market. But an easier way has always been to "game" the market. To find some way to distort it in your favor.
Free market evangelists (the far right in the USA) always choose to act like this possibility doesn't exist. I'm sure it makes life simpler, but it doesn't make it true.
Not so. The "free market" implies perfect information. Most consumers won't know/care enough about this issue when they shop their coffee maker, and will find themselves "trapped". Without perfect information that they will be "locked in" when they buy the machine, the consumer cannot be expected to send the correct market signal to the supply side.
Do you think Keurig will put the information in bold on the box? "This machine will not let you use off-brand pods." Hmm. I don't think they will.
There is often an information dis-symmetry between the suppliers (who spend all day thinking about the coffee and pod business), and consumers. Suppliers take advantage of this dis-symmetry to game the market. Thus, it isn't a perfect or free market.
Yeah. I agree with you. I generate this waste at my office. And I have weighed the waste against the convenience it offers my staff, and chosen the convenience in a no-brainer.
But still...lots of waste packaging. But I DO pay a pretty hefty price for waste processing, so there are fewer externalities than in places where garbage removal is "free" with residency.
I agree. I have a Brother label printer that does this. It has a Patented system where the label rolls come on a plastic roller. The roller mounts in the printer and has a system of dots drilled out that tell the printer the width of the label roll. That "communication" between print media and printer is the innovation that was patented, so you can only buy the rolls from Brother.
Or, you get out a hacksaw, glue, and grinder, and rig a system to create a re-usable label roller. Then, you could buy the labels at 1/3 the cost.
My staff make fun of me for going to this effort to save a few bucks...but then, they don't pay the bills. And they don't understand the personal satisfaction I get from the FU factor. Aaargh, mateys!
Amen that. We have anti-trust law, which is hard and arduous to prosecute. Yet we don't have anti-lock laws, with fines and penalties.
Meanwhile, we do have anto-lock-breaking laws like the DMCA. These monstrosities are frequently enforced, prosecuted, settled, and fines levied. What backwards BS.
Why do we have triple penalties for willfull patent infringement, but not triple penalties for "lock down anti-trust" actions.
We could start with cellular SIM locking. It should be illegal to place a SIM lock, NOT illegal to undo one. (Bulk or otherwise.)
Re: Only idiots use pods anyway, the coffee SUCKS and is expensive
No. You are stupid. Stupid because you think all consumers have the same desires, needs, and usage patterns you have. Perhaps for YOU, brew or french press is a better method, but for me, Keurig (single brew)is better.
I have a small office, people all want different brews, and they want them at different times of the day. I could have a couple of Bunn brewers, and then pay an admin to keep them fresh. Or I could have what most offices have, bitter, old coffee and people who finish the pot, but don't re-brew. OR, I could put in one of these machines, and spend more per cup, yet everybody gets what they want, clean-up is basically non-existant, none of my staff wastest 5 minutes brewing and waiting on a new pot, and we don't pour out old coffee.
Don't be so egocentrical. The whole world doesn't share your viewpoint, and it doesn't make them stupid. Yet your self-centered view of the world IS making you so.
PS: Screw Keurig 2.0. I'll brew before I give them their pound of flesh.
True. A "perfect market" requires perfect information. But there is tremendous information dis-symmetry, and of course the telecom industry has a great informational advantage over the consumer.
We can't expect consumers to choose correctly, and signal the marketplace correctly, when they barely understand what SIM locking is. Scratch that, they simply don't understand it.
Thus, the market receives the signal that SIM locking is just fine, and supplies it in volume.
I got a pair. They're called noise-cancelling headphones. The electronics dulls out the engines, and the over-the-ear dulls out the background noise.
I also have a Code Red emergency baby plan, and carry foam earplugs as well. If seated next to an unhappy baby, I go earplugs AND NC headphones, crank my tunes up, and don't hear a thing around me.
Please, don't bother commenting about "Social isolation". When I go Code Red, that is precisely the objective.
As a telecom guy, I can tell you that they ALL do this. But it's not as nefarious as you think. That's just how network planning is done, and it's not just done that way by greedy corporates, but that's how university researchers would suggest networks be built.
Network capacity is always designed based on expected average use. It is not built to handle the peak load of each user using their full individual capacity. This is just like roads planning, hallway planning in buildings, seating planning in theaters, etc.
To build based on peak load would waste resources, and the price of the service would normally go up as a result.
Now, that said, it is a marketing choice of the ISPs if they claim you can get 50mbps, when they always oversubscribe the networks. However, you'll probably find an asterisk with an "up to" and a "Best effort" disclaimer.
PS. to the guy getting slow Internet, you should consider buying a DOCSIS 3 modem online, and installing it yourself. Two reasons: if you currently have a DOCSIS 2 modem, you *may* get better performance from the more recent technology, EVEN if your provider uses DOCSIS 2. Second, most of us pay a $7/mo lease for our cable modem, where if you buy it once for $90, you can save money.
Clapper = hypocrite. Does Clapper and the CIA not *constantly* put our agents at risk, by merely deploying them or assigning them missions abroad? Covert missions are dangerous, no? But I suppose they justify THAT risk because they think the risk is worth the benefit. That is reasonable.
So how is it any different that Snowden might put some agents at risk, while the benefit is the defense of our rights, the constitution, and the 4th Amendment?
Interestingly, so far, it's pretty clear to me that Snowden HAS benefited me, as a citizen. I'm not so sure that's true for Clapper. Gov't repeatedly fails to provide evidence that their surveillance has provided results.
Snowden Clapper Has put agents at risk ? Y Defends citizens/rights Y N Self-Righteous Y Y Pants on fire ? Y
The score favors team Snowden.
*as a side note, I proposed, for argument's sake, that Snowden DID put agents at risk, but I am not convinced that this is even true. Yet it is certain that the CIA puts the CIA agents at risk.
On the post: Hollywood's Piracy Fears Turn Potentially Useful Product Into A $4,000 Brick
Re: iPod 6 - Now with a built-in CD drive!
And that means we probably would not have Android, which exists because carriers like Verizon needed a device to competite against the exclusive iPhone carriers like AT&T.
On the post: Hollywood's Piracy Fears Turn Potentially Useful Product Into A $4,000 Brick
Re: Re:
At MWC last week in Barcelona, Sandisk showed a 128GB micro SD card. It's on Amazon now for $109.
On the post: Hollywood's Piracy Fears Turn Potentially Useful Product Into A $4,000 Brick
Re:
I agree, but that is completely irrelevant. Bear in mind that early versions of successful products often cost too much, then they get economies of scale, then competitors take note of the market and build competing products, and prices normalize.
The iPhone first cost the full unsubsidized $600. It did OK. The first VCRs and DVD players were over a thousand dollars. Now they are $35ea. Laptops? $2,000 plus. Garmin Streetpilot GPS? $1,200.
That's how it goes...unless some douchebaggery stops it cold, such as the MPAA is doing here. THEN what happens is it NEVER gets affordable, market tested, scale economies, improved, etc. And then so few customers notice or care, that John Q. Public doesn't even know they've been screwed out of a good product category, even to the point of saying something like "What do I care. Darn thing costs $4k, who wants it anyway?"
Sound familiar?
On the post: Keurig Will Use DRM In New Coffee Maker To Lock Out Refill Market
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A free market does not require perfect information.
It is a "Perfect Market" that requires perfect information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_market
The problem I was getting at is that too many people seem to think that a Free Market is a Perfect Market. It is not. There is not a pareto optimal equilibrium, because of distortions such as information dis-symmetry.
BTW, both printers and Keurig machines often give the user enough "starter" coffee or ink to get through the 15 day return period. Also, people are not keen to return things, since this effort is an additional cost.
On the post: Keurig Will Use DRM In New Coffee Maker To Lock Out Refill Market
Re: Re: Re: Only idiots use pods anyway, the coffee SUCKS and is expensive
How can you say a cup isn't good if the drinker enjoys it? Taste is like that. Even if you're a coffee snob, others may fully enjoy a keurig brew.
Anyway, even if you're right, for my office, good enough is good enough. I give staff a coffee. I'm not hiring a talented barista and a masseuse.
On the post: Keurig Will Use DRM In New Coffee Maker To Lock Out Refill Market
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Keurig Will Use DRM In New Coffee Maker To Lock Out Refill Market
Re: Re:
I appreciate your love for the free market. I, too would love one. But this isn't it.
Read my response to Brian, just above.
There are ways to make money in the free market. But an easier way has always been to "game" the market. To find some way to distort it in your favor.
Free market evangelists (the far right in the USA) always choose to act like this possibility doesn't exist. I'm sure it makes life simpler, but it doesn't make it true.
On the post: Keurig Will Use DRM In New Coffee Maker To Lock Out Refill Market
Re: Re:
Not so. The "free market" implies perfect information. Most consumers won't know/care enough about this issue when they shop their coffee maker, and will find themselves "trapped". Without perfect information that they will be "locked in" when they buy the machine, the consumer cannot be expected to send the correct market signal to the supply side.
Do you think Keurig will put the information in bold on the box? "This machine will not let you use off-brand pods." Hmm. I don't think they will.
There is often an information dis-symmetry between the suppliers (who spend all day thinking about the coffee and pod business), and consumers. Suppliers take advantage of this dis-symmetry to game the market. Thus, it isn't a perfect or free market.
On the post: Keurig Will Use DRM In New Coffee Maker To Lock Out Refill Market
Re: Re: Re: Screw Nature!
But still...lots of waste packaging. But I DO pay a pretty hefty price for waste processing, so there are fewer externalities than in places where garbage removal is "free" with residency.
On the post: Keurig Will Use DRM In New Coffee Maker To Lock Out Refill Market
Re: Re: Repeal the DMCA
Or, you get out a hacksaw, glue, and grinder, and rig a system to create a re-usable label roller. Then, you could buy the labels at 1/3 the cost.
My staff make fun of me for going to this effort to save a few bucks...but then, they don't pay the bills. And they don't understand the personal satisfaction I get from the FU factor. Aaargh, mateys!
On the post: Keurig Will Use DRM In New Coffee Maker To Lock Out Refill Market
Re: Re:
The transmission wires ARE one, the generation is not. So we regulate the natural monopolies, and let the free market handle generation.
Are you really advocating for 5 or more different transmission infrastructures uglifying our world? It's not clear, but I think you are.
What "drives you crazy" makes perfect sense to people educated in economics.
On the post: Keurig Will Use DRM In New Coffee Maker To Lock Out Refill Market
Re: Re: Re:
Meanwhile, we do have anto-lock-breaking laws like the DMCA. These monstrosities are frequently enforced, prosecuted, settled, and fines levied. What backwards BS.
Why do we have triple penalties for willfull patent infringement, but not triple penalties for "lock down anti-trust" actions.
We could start with cellular SIM locking. It should be illegal to place a SIM lock, NOT illegal to undo one. (Bulk or otherwise.)
On the post: Keurig Will Use DRM In New Coffee Maker To Lock Out Refill Market
Re: Only idiots use pods anyway, the coffee SUCKS and is expensive
I have a small office, people all want different brews, and they want them at different times of the day. I could have a couple of Bunn brewers, and then pay an admin to keep them fresh. Or I could have what most offices have, bitter, old coffee and people who finish the pot, but don't re-brew. OR, I could put in one of these machines, and spend more per cup, yet everybody gets what they want, clean-up is basically non-existant, none of my staff wastest 5 minutes brewing and waiting on a new pot, and we don't pour out old coffee.
Don't be so egocentrical. The whole world doesn't share your viewpoint, and it doesn't make them stupid. Yet your self-centered view of the world IS making you so.
PS: Screw Keurig 2.0. I'll brew before I give them their pound of flesh.
On the post: Cell Phone Unlocking Bill Passes, Bad Last-Minute Changes And All
Re:
We can't expect consumers to choose correctly, and signal the marketplace correctly, when they barely understand what SIM locking is. Scratch that, they simply don't understand it.
Thus, the market receives the signal that SIM locking is just fine, and supplies it in volume.
On the post: Oregon Police Push State Law-Violating ID Scanners On Nightclub And Bar Owners
Utopia?
On the post: Rep. Eshoo Admits Her Net Neutrality Bill Nobody Thought Would Pass -- Won't Pass
Tom Wheeler
make that:
Cellular Telephone Carrier Industry lobbyist from the CTIA.
On the post: Congress Moves to Ban In-Flight Cell Calls, Blowhards at 30,000 Feet
Re: Re: Seat selection:
I also have a Code Red emergency baby plan, and carry foam earplugs as well. If seated next to an unhappy baby, I go earplugs AND NC headphones, crank my tunes up, and don't hear a thing around me.
Please, don't bother commenting about "Social isolation". When I go Code Red, that is precisely the objective.
On the post: Found Him: This Has To Be THE Dumbest Criminal
Re: Please edit the article on those two typos
On the post: Comcast-Backed Lobbyist Insists Seattle Doesn't Want Faster, Cheaper Broadband
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Network capacity is always designed based on expected average use. It is not built to handle the peak load of each user using their full individual capacity. This is just like roads planning, hallway planning in buildings, seating planning in theaters, etc.
To build based on peak load would waste resources, and the price of the service would normally go up as a result.
Now, that said, it is a marketing choice of the ISPs if they claim you can get 50mbps, when they always oversubscribe the networks. However, you'll probably find an asterisk with an "up to" and a "Best effort" disclaimer.
PS. to the guy getting slow Internet, you should consider buying a DOCSIS 3 modem online, and installing it yourself. Two reasons: if you currently have a DOCSIS 2 modem, you *may* get better performance from the more recent technology, EVEN if your provider uses DOCSIS 2. Second, most of us pay a $7/mo lease for our cable modem, where if you buy it once for $90, you can save money.
On the post: Claims About Snowden's 'Harms' Based On Two Assumptions Unlikely To Be True
CIA Puts CIA Agents At Risk And In Harm's Way
So how is it any different that Snowden might put some agents at risk, while the benefit is the defense of our rights, the constitution, and the 4th Amendment?
Interestingly, so far, it's pretty clear to me that Snowden HAS benefited me, as a citizen. I'm not so sure that's true for Clapper. Gov't repeatedly fails to provide evidence that their surveillance has provided results.
Snowden Clapper
Has put agents at risk ? Y
Defends citizens/rights Y N
Self-Righteous Y Y
Pants on fire ? Y
The score favors team Snowden.
*as a side note, I proposed, for argument's sake, that Snowden DID put agents at risk, but I am not convinced that this is even true. Yet it is certain that the CIA puts the CIA agents at risk.
Next >>