Coffeehouse Thread

40 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

@fanbaby, @bass and especially @beer28

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Bass

    , kettch wrote

    *snip*

    It had the right keywords to attract certain people's attention, but it didn't fit their preferred narrative.

    I was not meaning to respond to this post, but you posed an interesting question. :)

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Bass wrote

    *snip*

    Indeed. You can get far more creative with how you make money when you are no longer trying to sell your software like it was a toothbrush.

    Yeah, making your product compelling enough so that people actually are willing throw down some money to purchase it is such a last-century concept.

    In this century, you should expect that when Google's driverless cars are brought to market, not only will you no longer have to drive yourself, you'll get the vehicle free of charge as long as you're willing to take a ride inside a vehicle that has every square inch of it wrapped with an advertisement for Viagra and forces you to watch commercials for Summer's Eve disposable douche from its in-cabin display.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    Yeah, making your product compelling enough so that people actually are willing throw down some money to purchase it is such a last-century concept..

    Sounds about right, yeah. By the end of this century, money itself (or at least the standard concept of trade) will probably be a last-century concept.

    , cbae wrote

    In this century, you should expect that when Google's driverless cars are brought to market, not only will you no longer have to drive yourself, you'll get the vehicle free of charge as long as you're willing to take a ride inside a vehicle that has every square inch of it wrapped with an advertisement for Viagra and forces you to watch commercials for Summer's Eve disposable douche from its in-cabin display.

    That's an cool advertising profile you got there buddy. Your weekends must be really interesting!

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Bass wrote

    *snip*

    Sounds about right, yeah. By the end of this century, money itself (or at least the standard concept of trade) will probably be a last-century concept.

    So you'll "pay" for goods by viewing advertisements for other products that you'll acquire by viewing advertisements for other products that you'll acquire by viewing advertisements for other products and so on and so forth?

    Yeah, that'll work out great. I'm sure it will go over as well as Google Wave.

    *snip*

    That's an cool advertising profile you got there buddy. Your weekends must be really interesting!

    I used the pronoun "you" for a reason--because it won't apply to me. I'll continue to purchase my vehicles with cash.

     

  • User profile image
    Bass

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    So you'll "pay" for goods by viewing advertisements for other products that you'll acquire by viewing advertisements for other products that you'll acquire by viewing advertisements for other products and so on and so forth?

    Yeah, that'll work out great. I'm sure it will go over as well as Google Wave.

    *snip*

    I used the pronoun "you" for a reason--because it won't apply to me. I'll continue to purchase my vehicles with cash.

     

    You are not the only one that can build a strawman (the idea that Google's self driving cars will always be free) and smugly dismiss it! I mean, surely a company that charges $1500 for some glasses doesn't seem to have a problem charging for things when it suits the current business.

  • User profile image
    kettch

    , Bass wrote

    *snip*

    You are not the only one that can build a strawman (the idea that Google's self driving cars will always be free) and smugly dismiss it! I mean, surely a company that charges $1500 for some glasses doesn't seem to have a problem charging for things when it suits the business!

    What's the difference between charging for hardware and charging for software, and why is one ok, but the other is not? Google could give the cars away, and then charge $500 a month to keep them running. However, unlike a regular car, you'd never actually pay it off.

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    Yeah, making your product compelling enough so that people actually are willing throw down some money to purchase it is such a last-century concept.

    In this century, you should expect that when Google's driverless cars are brought to market, not only will you no longer have to drive yourself, you'll get the vehicle free of charge as long as you're willing to take a ride inside a vehicle that has every square inch of it wrapped with an advertisement for Viagra and forces you to watch commercials for Summer's Eve disposable douche from its in-cabin display.



    Not really. It will be like Android. Open source, filled with HeartBleed apps, more ads in every apps. And most importantly, when it drives down a cliff, Google will deny any responsibility because it is open source.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Bass

    , kettch wrote

    *snip*

    What's the difference between charging for hardware and charging for software, and why is one ok, but the other is not? Google could give the cars away, and then charge $500 a month to keep them running. However, unlike a regular car, you'd never actually pay it off.

    Because software can be copied infinitely using the very computers it runs on? It's not a physical product! Yeah, I know copyright law treats software as a physical product. But the thing is, it's hard as hell to enforce. What makes Microsoft so successful in this, is they need to enforce copyright on OEMs and big businesses mostly. It's harder if you are selling to the general public.

    The other major thing is, software is utilitarian. If you are some huge software company you can corner the market simply by being in a market you need billions of dollars to compete in. If you aren't, someone is going to compete with you. And one or more of them are going to competing with you using a price tag of $0. Software is not like music where we can have a collection of music of the same genre. That's totally normal with movies, or music. Maybe some people "collect" text editors, but that's not normal.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Bass wrote

    *snip*

    Because software can be copied infinitely using the very computers it runs on?

    *snip*

    And? Software has R&D, development, technical support, and marketing costs just like physical products, and these costs have to be amortized across each license sold, so there is some minimum number of units that need to be sold before you make a dime in profit.

    On top of that, software also has a "shelf life" like physical products. When a competitor releases a new version of competing software, you lose the ability to sell infinite copies.

    I find it odd that you think so little of making money through selling software, yet you earn a living through developing software. Your situation is not unlike that of those self-loathing, closeted GOP members of Congress that speak out against gay rights.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    And? Software has R&D, development, technical support, and marketing costs just like physical products, and these costs have to be amortized across each license sold, so there is some minimum number of units that need to be sold before you make a dime in profit.

    On top of that, software also has a "shelf life" like physical products. When a competitor releases a new version of competing software, you lose the ability to sell infinite copies.

    I find it odd that you think so little of making money through selling software, yet you earn a living through developing software. Your situation is not unlike that of those self-loathing, closeted GOP members of Congress that speak out against gay rights.

    Wow you are sure getting meaner then usual, who pissed in your cheerios today? I'm just pointing out the problems inherent to the business model of selling software. You can feel free to ignore these problems and do whatever the hell you want.

  • User profile image
    kettch

    , Bass wrote

    *snip*

    Because software can be copied infinitely using the very computers it runs on? It's not a physical product! Yeah, I know copyright law treats software as a physical product. But the thing is, it's hard as hell to enforce. What makes Microsoft so successful in this, is they need to enforce copyright on OEMs and big businesses mostly. It's harder if you are selling to the general public.

    The other major thing is, software is utilitarian. If you are some huge software company you can corner the market simply by being in a market you need billions of dollars to compete in. If you aren't, someone is going to compete with you. And one or more of them are going to competing with you using a price tag of $0. Software is not like music where we can have a collection of music of the same genre. That's totally normal with movies, or music. Maybe some people "collect" text editors, but that's not normal.

    I don't see how any of those are problems that are unique to software. Even physical goods still get duplicated without your permission. See large portions of Chinese manufacturing.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    , kettch wrote

    *snip*

    I don't see how any of those are problems that are unique to software. Even physical goods still get duplicated without your permission. See large portions of Chinese manufacturing.



    It's the inherent business risk amplified here, because people can copy using their own equipment in their own home. Ubisoft claims 93-95% of the copies of their games are pirated for instance. I don't think there are that many faux iPhones around. Maybe one day when we have Startrek-like replicator technology in everyone's home (which is mostly what a computer is to data) we can speak of piracy of physical goods being at the same levels.

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , Bass wrote

    *snip*

    Because software can be copied infinitely using the very computers it runs on? It's not a physical product! Yeah, I know copyright law treats software as a physical product. But the thing is, it's hard as hell to enforce. What makes Microsoft so successful in this, is they need to enforce copyright on OEMs and big businesses mostly. It's harder if you are selling to the general public.

    The other major thing is, software is utilitarian. If you are some huge software company you can corner the market simply by being in a market you need billions of dollars to compete in. If you aren't, someone is going to compete with you. And one or more of them are going to competing with you using a price tag of $0. Software is not like music where we can have a collection of music of the same genre. That's totally normal with movies, or music. Maybe some people "collect" text editors, but that's not normal.

    So you also think that books should be free?

  • User profile image
    Bass

    , Ray7 wrote

    *snip*

    So you also think that books should be free?

    Authors need to get paid so they can write the books in the first place. So not free in the abstract sense. I do think books should be maximally accessible. Treating them as a scarce rivalrous good is pissing in the wind given the nature of computers. Something involving subscriptions or libraries is probably a better way to have a healthy book industry in this day and age.

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , Bass wrote

    *snip*

    Authors need to get paid so they can write the books in the first place. 

    But software engineers shouldn't get paid to write software?

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Bass wrote

    *snip*

    Wow you are sure getting meaner then usual, who pissed in your cheerios today? I'm just pointing out the problems inherent to the business model of selling software. You can feel free to ignore these problems and do whatever the hell you want.

    I guess comparing one to a GOP senator is rather mean-spirited. I apologize for that.

    I might be confused by the point you're trying to make. If you're saying software vendors are relegated to giving it away for free because of the futility of fighting piracy (as opposed to arguing that companies should give away software on principle), then you might have a point. However, as you pointed out, Microsoft has been successful at selling software despite this. Why would it be so difficult for a company with the means of Google to do the same? After all, Google is flush with cash and now has a market capitalization that exceeds that of Microsoft.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    I guess comparing one to a GOP senator is rather mean-spirited. I apologize for that.

    I see what you did there...

  • User profile image
    Bass

    , Ray7 wrote

    *snip*

    But software engineers shouldn't get paid to write software?

    See this.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.