Re: Re: Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels. - More genius from the TAMTard
RD, as always you manage to be a moron.
If the product was dirt cheap to start with and they prices it so high that nobody was buying, that was their own problem.
Try to understand the topic and issues before you post, it will make you look better in the long run, instead of like a child who has to take AUTOMATIC EXCEPTION at everything just because.
I understand the topic. The question is: Is it profitable? If it is still profitable with a 75% lower price, then they were likely 75% overpriced.
But again, it is a question of numbers. What is the overhead per transaction (including things like CC processing, back office accounting, and all those other actual marginal costs per transaction). It's one of the odd things you learn when you actually run a business, that the product is only part of the cost, not the whole cost. Each transaction creates it's own costs.
So all the percentage numbers and all that are nice, but the question remains: at 75% less, was it still bottom line profitable? If so, was their retail price 75% too high?
I am not taking exception, I am saying there is a lack of information (and everyone else is just guess and tossing numbers about without really knowing).
The only thing scarce in this discussion is your brain cells. Perhaps you want to learn to read what I post before you go off on me? Dumbass!
Quite simply, this is proof that the borg have too much information, a no separation between their products.
Google should not be allowed to share information from product to product without your personal approval at each step. I find it frightening sometimes to log into something and realize that they have dragged non-related information from another product into the frame.
Google is getting so very close to getting a government beat down.
we keep having Hollywood insiders tell us in our comments that indie filmmakers who distribute online can't possibly make back enough money to cover their costs
I don't know about any hollywood insiders, but I can certainly say that this one be a rare bird.
While I am sure someone will poop on me for this, I have a feeling there is a whole bunch more to this story that isn't being told.
Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels.
13x more sales, yes, but not 13x more profits. a cut in price by 50 or 75% often means you have just tossed your profits out the window and have sunk into paying people to take stuff away.
If they could cut their price by 75% and still be profitable, they were probably charged about 75% too much before.
As the AC mention, the financial info would be much more useful than percentages.
Your local governments are too broke and too incompetent to manage it. They can't pick up your trash and clean the sidewalks, can you imagine what it would be like if you have a last mile problem? It could be years before you got service back.
U.S. urban centers fall behind every other major city in the world that use the "one physical infra-structure for all" approach in terms of price, speeds and numbers of ISP's?
The government has mostly been putting money on the table for rural networking. The companies build where they get paid to build. They aren't getting paid to build in the city. They have an existing infrastructure that they aren't in a rush to upgrade past where they are at. I would suspect that the threat of forcing them to share the infrastructure is making them even less interested in building it up, because they won't have long to recoup the money.
You sort of have to look back at the last 100 years of deals made by government, direction, and how things worked out in the US to understand how it all happened. Instead of spending public money to buy the last mile, they let the phone and cable companies own it, and have done nothing to change it. Now it is pretty much too expensive to change.
I can't help but wonder if this is an attempt at a fake "streisand"... set up a false bad thing you don't want to get out, and make a big stink out of it, getting the media and the fans all looking for what is really a ghost.
It reads more like someone trying to convince us that he is so hot that the people wanted to see his digitally stripped body.
I have to assume that english isn't your first language, or that you haven't finished 6th grade. I am hoping it's just a second or third language issue.
Actually, Rogers, Bell, and Shaw are pretty much the borg of Canada. They have to many fingers in too many pies, and control everything from the distribution to the source material, and every step in between.
Google is trying to go it to an even greater extent. They want to be the internet provider in all senses, from search to entertainment to operating systems to connectivity both wired and wireless. They want to be the borg, because they want to be part of everything you do all the time.
You will be assimilated. You will become one with google, and share their hive mind.
Google won't stop until the US government tells them to stop. They have the money and the market cap to spend a whole to lot to dominate any market they choose. It looks like broadband is next.
don't quite get this line. Your saying it will open competition where there is already service, but service doesn't equal competition. The way I see it is that is the whole point. Open competition where there is service now.
it is sort of complicated. Yes, it would bring competition in the area that already have service, but it would not bring service for those who don't already have it. That goes against the stated government policies in the last 10 years.
Further, this sort of competition might actually take money away from extending the infrastructure, and concentrate that money more in the city centers, widening the digital divide. It might also take away enough financial incentive that incumbent right holders may not want to wire areas if there isn't enough money to be had for doing it.
Competition would only be for the haves, it wouldn't be for the have nots, and that just doesn't jive with the policies in place for at least 3 US administrations now.
Much of this comes down to a question of population density.
According to Wikipedia (easiest source) UK has a population density of 254 people per square kilometer, where the US has 32.
One of the places that has the best and cheapest broadband (and 3G, cell service, etc) is Hong Kong. 100MB DSL style connections for 99 HK dollars, or about $13 US per month. Population density? 6348 people per square km.
The question isn't competition over existing lines as it would only open competition where there is already service. This is where government policy is a problem, because it is "no rural hermit left behind", effectively not wanting to advance the cities too far past the most remote regions. Much of the money thrown around by the US government for infrastructure has been earmarked to run high speed internet into the middle of nowhere, serving few people for a high cost, all courtesy of the taxpayers.
The other point that is important is that any competitive systems would have to require all providers to share their infrastructure. I don't think the cable companies are very interested in that sort of thing, they may not be able to support it.
My point is if they can't make money on youtube with no cost for content, cheapest bandwidth on the planet (google), cheapest cloud of computers (google), etc... then how would you expect NBC to make money on it?
NBC is doing what smart people do when they find themselves in a hole... they have stopped digging.
Was it Viacom filming, or is it a third party company? Perhaps the producer on scene decides it would be better to have both versions and allow Viacom upper management to choose which route they want to go. Rather than risking that the entire shoot is waste, just film an alternate version of that one piece, in case it needs to be replaced.
It isn't like there is a lawyer on scene making these choices right then and there, it is likely someone without the production pointed out that they didn't have a music performance license, and rather than risk having Viacom reject the episode, they decides to play it safe. It's sort of what happens when you have spent a crap load of money, have a live audience, and want to make sure you get a product you can use rather than flushing your money down the toity.
I wouldn't be shocked to see the singing version on the air, but I think the producers played it safe and played it right, they gave themselves options.
I don't know why you think I am saying differently.
His open WiFi is an open WiFi, period. If he makes thing available (sharing, open P2P network, whatever) that can be seen on that open WiFi without any passwords or any other security requirements, then it is open.
If you leave your gate open and lock your front door, you don't have any issues, and you have an expectation of privacy.
If you leave your gate open, leave your front door open, and stand there having a very loud discussion with someone about your next drug deal, you have little expectation of privacy.
The open WiFi is just that, an open invitation. If he wasn't sharing stuff, there would be no issue.
Open WiFi is pretty much the same as putting your computer screen up against your living room window. Anyone who walks by can see what is on your screen.
it is the electronic equivalent of leaving your curtains open at night and turning on a lot of bright lights inside your house. Don't be surprised when someone walking by can see what you are doing.
Another way to look at it as electronic "plain sight", sort of like a wide open garage, the passenger seat of a car in a traffic stop, or the like.
I wonder why the type of network used should really determine the level of 4th Amendment protections.
It isn't any different from those rights in real life. The police can work from what they can see in plain sight. If the guy had locked his network, sort of like putting something in the glove box instead of leaving it on the passenger seat of the car, or whatever, he would have no issue. As soon as law enforcement would have to break security or hack a key, it wouldn't be plain sight anymore.
I am surprised you are even asking, it's pretty obvious.
Re: There doesn't have to be pirated content, NBC!!!
As youtube shows, there isn't enough money to support it online.
NBC is getting their ass handed to them this year, they bid for the Olympics when advertising and the economy was doing well, and now in a down time, they are set to lose a buttload of cash.
I can't see them spending the large sums required to put all this stuff online in a timely manner, to distribute it, and whatnot just to lose some more money.
On the post: Online Gaming Store Lowers Prices 75%, Sees Sales Shoot Up 5500%
Re: Re: Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels. - More genius from the TAMTard
If the product was dirt cheap to start with and they prices it so high that nobody was buying, that was their own problem.
Try to understand the topic and issues before you post, it will make you look better in the long run, instead of like a child who has to take AUTOMATIC EXCEPTION at everything just because.
I understand the topic. The question is: Is it profitable? If it is still profitable with a 75% lower price, then they were likely 75% overpriced.
But again, it is a question of numbers. What is the overhead per transaction (including things like CC processing, back office accounting, and all those other actual marginal costs per transaction). It's one of the odd things you learn when you actually run a business, that the product is only part of the cost, not the whole cost. Each transaction creates it's own costs.
So all the percentage numbers and all that are nice, but the question remains: at 75% less, was it still bottom line profitable? If so, was their retail price 75% too high?
I am not taking exception, I am saying there is a lack of information (and everyone else is just guess and tossing numbers about without really knowing).
The only thing scarce in this discussion is your brain cells. Perhaps you want to learn to read what I post before you go off on me? Dumbass!
On the post: Missed Use Case? Google Buzz Reveals Who You Chat With The Most To Everyone
Google should not be allowed to share information from product to product without your personal approval at each step. I find it frightening sometimes to log into something and realize that they have dragged non-related information from another product into the frame.
Google is getting so very close to getting a government beat down.
On the post: Indie Filmmaker Hits It Big With Free Film Online
I don't know about any hollywood insiders, but I can certainly say that this one be a rare bird.
While I am sure someone will poop on me for this, I have a feeling there is a whole bunch more to this story that isn't being told.
On the post: Online Gaming Store Lowers Prices 75%, Sees Sales Shoot Up 5500%
Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels.
If they could cut their price by 75% and still be profitable, they were probably charged about 75% too much before.
As the AC mention, the financial info would be much more useful than percentages.
On the post: What Would Broadband Competition Look Like?
Re: fiber to the door.
On the post: What Would Broadband Competition Look Like?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The government has mostly been putting money on the table for rural networking. The companies build where they get paid to build. They aren't getting paid to build in the city. They have an existing infrastructure that they aren't in a rush to upgrade past where they are at. I would suspect that the threat of forcing them to share the infrastructure is making them even less interested in building it up, because they won't have long to recoup the money.
You sort of have to look back at the last 100 years of deals made by government, direction, and how things worked out in the US to understand how it all happened. Instead of spending public money to buy the last mile, they let the phone and cable companies own it, and have done nothing to change it. Now it is pretty much too expensive to change.
On the post: Movie Star Claims Heathrow Airport Staff Printed Out, Circulated, His Naked Body Images
It reads more like someone trying to convince us that he is so hot that the people wanted to see his digitally stripped body.
On the post: Online Gaming Store Lowers Prices 75%, Sees Sales Shoot Up 5500%
if they are making money at the reduced price and they could support that level of sales constantly, it would be a good thing.
I suspect though either the price is unsupportable, or they would just drain the market more quickly.
On the post: Or Will Broadband Competition Look Like.... Google?
Re: It's just a really tough business to be in,
Actually, Rogers, Bell, and Shaw are pretty much the borg of Canada. They have to many fingers in too many pies, and control everything from the distribution to the source material, and every step in between.
Google is trying to go it to an even greater extent. They want to be the internet provider in all senses, from search to entertainment to operating systems to connectivity both wired and wireless. They want to be the borg, because they want to be part of everything you do all the time.
You will be assimilated. You will become one with google, and share their hive mind.
Google won't stop until the US government tells them to stop. They have the money and the market cap to spend a whole to lot to dominate any market they choose. It looks like broadband is next.
On the post: What Would Broadband Competition Look Like?
Re: Re:
it is sort of complicated. Yes, it would bring competition in the area that already have service, but it would not bring service for those who don't already have it. That goes against the stated government policies in the last 10 years.
Further, this sort of competition might actually take money away from extending the infrastructure, and concentrate that money more in the city centers, widening the digital divide. It might also take away enough financial incentive that incumbent right holders may not want to wire areas if there isn't enough money to be had for doing it.
Competition would only be for the haves, it wouldn't be for the have nots, and that just doesn't jive with the policies in place for at least 3 US administrations now.
On the post: Or Will Broadband Competition Look Like.... Google?
you will be assimilated.
resistance is futile.
Now go eat your google burger and drink your google cola and be quiet.
On the post: What Would Broadband Competition Look Like?
According to Wikipedia (easiest source) UK has a population density of 254 people per square kilometer, where the US has 32.
One of the places that has the best and cheapest broadband (and 3G, cell service, etc) is Hong Kong. 100MB DSL style connections for 99 HK dollars, or about $13 US per month. Population density? 6348 people per square km.
The question isn't competition over existing lines as it would only open competition where there is already service. This is where government policy is a problem, because it is "no rural hermit left behind", effectively not wanting to advance the cities too far past the most remote regions. Much of the money thrown around by the US government for infrastructure has been earmarked to run high speed internet into the middle of nowhere, serving few people for a high cost, all courtesy of the taxpayers.
The other point that is important is that any competitive systems would have to require all providers to share their infrastructure. I don't think the cable companies are very interested in that sort of thing, they may not be able to support it.
On the post: Former Music Exec Tells Book Publishers They're Acting Just Like The Recording Industry 10 Years Ago
Re: Re:
As for the main article, all I can say is "former". Perhaps there is a small axe to grind here?
On the post: NBC Continues To Do The Exact Wrong Thing When It Comes To The Olympics Online
Re: TAM
NBC is doing what smart people do when they find themselves in a hole... they have stopped digging.
On the post: Leaving Your WiFi Open Decreases Your Fourth Amendment Rights To Privacy?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Comedian Has To Retell Joke 2nd Time, Because Viacom Couldn't Have Him Sing Four Words: 'We Are The World'
Was it Viacom filming, or is it a third party company? Perhaps the producer on scene decides it would be better to have both versions and allow Viacom upper management to choose which route they want to go. Rather than risking that the entire shoot is waste, just film an alternate version of that one piece, in case it needs to be replaced.
It isn't like there is a lawyer on scene making these choices right then and there, it is likely someone without the production pointed out that they didn't have a music performance license, and rather than risk having Viacom reject the episode, they decides to play it safe. It's sort of what happens when you have spent a crap load of money, have a live audience, and want to make sure you get a product you can use rather than flushing your money down the toity.
I wouldn't be shocked to see the singing version on the air, but I think the producers played it safe and played it right, they gave themselves options.
On the post: Leaving Your WiFi Open Decreases Your Fourth Amendment Rights To Privacy?
Re: Re:
His open WiFi is an open WiFi, period. If he makes thing available (sharing, open P2P network, whatever) that can be seen on that open WiFi without any passwords or any other security requirements, then it is open.
If you leave your gate open and lock your front door, you don't have any issues, and you have an expectation of privacy.
If you leave your gate open, leave your front door open, and stand there having a very loud discussion with someone about your next drug deal, you have little expectation of privacy.
The open WiFi is just that, an open invitation. If he wasn't sharing stuff, there would be no issue.
On the post: Norwegian Supreme Court Explores Whether Private Companies Should Get Access To IP Info
Re: Re:
You saw a car run over granny, it had "ISP" logos on it, and it drove in and parked in the ISP building, and the person went into the ISP building.
Should we just ignore all that?
The rest of your post is just a rant, a bizarre absolute attempt to get away from reality, I think.
On the post: Leaving Your WiFi Open Decreases Your Fourth Amendment Rights To Privacy?
it is the electronic equivalent of leaving your curtains open at night and turning on a lot of bright lights inside your house. Don't be surprised when someone walking by can see what you are doing.
Another way to look at it as electronic "plain sight", sort of like a wide open garage, the passenger seat of a car in a traffic stop, or the like.
I wonder why the type of network used should really determine the level of 4th Amendment protections.
It isn't any different from those rights in real life. The police can work from what they can see in plain sight. If the guy had locked his network, sort of like putting something in the glove box instead of leaving it on the passenger seat of the car, or whatever, he would have no issue. As soon as law enforcement would have to break security or hack a key, it wouldn't be plain sight anymore.
I am surprised you are even asking, it's pretty obvious.
On the post: NBC Continues To Do The Exact Wrong Thing When It Comes To The Olympics Online
Re: There doesn't have to be pirated content, NBC!!!
NBC is getting their ass handed to them this year, they bid for the Olympics when advertising and the economy was doing well, and now in a down time, they are set to lose a buttload of cash.
I can't see them spending the large sums required to put all this stuff online in a timely manner, to distribute it, and whatnot just to lose some more money.
Next >>