You know, it just occurred to me that without the internet, I don't even know how I'd find music anymore. I don't even have tv, so no ads or shows there. I've hardly listened to the radio in forever (and don't generally like it when I do), so nothing there. I do all my music discovery (and purchasing, for that matter) online. I probably buy 5-10 albums a month, but without the resources online I don't think I'd ever actually buy music simply because I couldn't find stuff I liked.
She could sell specific timeslots. Instead of selling it as $1000/hr, she could sell it as $1000 for 1-2pm on Wednesday (for example). Then she gets to control how many timeslots exist. She could also do this and auction them off as someone mentioned above. Start it at $100 and let people bid up to a few hours before the slot and whoever has the highest bid gets it.
"I mean, even the article stated that it seemed like Google enjoyed having people think that something wasn't true; how is that NOT dishonest?"
I don't understand what your point is here. The article says that Google seemed to enjoy it, but then surprisingly set the record straight. To use your words: how is that NOT honest?
Really, Google isn't perfect (it's not possible to please all the people all the time, etc.), but they're a large step up from just about everyone. They provide many services whose only cost is non-intrusive ads, they support open source (Android, Chrome, ChromeOS, etc.), they generally stand on the "right" side of major tech issues (according to general consensus, anyway), etc.
Also, the link you posted about making Google illegal really has nothing to do with Google specifically. It's about search engine liability, of which Google happens to be one. I don't think arguments being made about search engines in general can really be used as any kind of specific attack on Google.
Just to add to this, movies and music are not at all the same. Generally, once you see a movie you're done with it, at least for awhile. On the other hand, music is listened to over and over again. In other words, while HBO showing a movie actually might dissuade people from buying it elsewhere (since they've already seen it), hearing a song on the radio is much more likely to encourage a purchase since it can be listened to repeatedly.
RSS
Twitter
Finding Music (as antimatter3009)
You know, it just occurred to me that without the internet, I don't even know how I'd find music anymore. I don't even have tv, so no ads or shows there. I've hardly listened to the radio in forever (and don't generally like it when I do), so nothing there. I do all my music discovery (and purchasing, for that matter) online. I probably buy 5-10 albums a month, but without the resources online I don't think I'd ever actually buy music simply because I couldn't find stuff I liked.
Re: Re: Re: Tossing two cents into the pool... (as antimatter3009)
She could sell specific timeslots. Instead of selling it as $1000/hr, she could sell it as $1000 for 1-2pm on Wednesday (for example). Then she gets to control how many timeslots exist. She could also do this and auction them off as someone mentioned above. Start it at $100 and let people bid up to a few hours before the slot and whoever has the highest bid gets it.
Re: The Future (as antimatter3009)
http://www.bash.org/?240849
Re: Re: Re: Re: (as antimatter3009)
"I mean, even the article stated that it seemed like Google enjoyed having people think that something wasn't true; how is that NOT dishonest?"
I don't understand what your point is here. The article says that Google seemed to enjoy it, but then surprisingly set the record straight. To use your words: how is that NOT honest?
Really, Google isn't perfect (it's not possible to please all the people all the time, etc.), but they're a large step up from just about everyone. They provide many services whose only cost is non-intrusive ads, they support open source (Android, Chrome, ChromeOS, etc.), they generally stand on the "right" side of major tech issues (according to general consensus, anyway), etc.
Also, the link you posted about making Google illegal really has nothing to do with Google specifically. It's about search engine liability, of which Google happens to be one. I don't think arguments being made about search engines in general can really be used as any kind of specific attack on Google.
Re: Re: Re: Re: from the business model as a "right" department... (as antimatter3009)
Just to add to this, movies and music are not at all the same. Generally, once you see a movie you're done with it, at least for awhile. On the other hand, music is listened to over and over again. In other words, while HBO showing a movie actually might dissuade people from buying it elsewhere (since they've already seen it), hearing a song on the radio is much more likely to encourage a purchase since it can be listened to repeatedly.