iSights 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (478) comment rss

  • On the post: HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community

    iSights ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2011 @ 03:02pm

    Re: Re: I'm not sure you understand...

    "This is a company that puts out computers that cost $400 more than competitors' computers, and still sells them. (This is from manufacturers, not when building your own.)"

    Odd. Then why did the manufacturers recently try to strong-arm Intel into dropping processor prices so that they could compete in the same price range as the Air?

    If there's an "Apple Tax," then why is it that HP and Samsung and RIM can't build an equivalent tablet for significantly less than the iPad?

    It's odd, but it seems that when everyone else attempts to build to the same specs -- and to the same quality level -- their products are just as expensive.

    If not more.

  • On the post: HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community

    iSights ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2011 @ 02:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: $250-300

    $318 for parts. Still need $10/unit for assembly.

  • On the post: HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community

    iSights ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2011 @ 02:46pm

    Since they would still have to pay for the development and engineering team as an ongoing expense, it's hardly "sunk".

    And you need to use the $328 cost, not the $318 one. (I assume that people want to purchase an assembled tablet, and not a box of parts.) And then there's the retail markup, which again you kind of glossed over.

    Basically, to sell at $250 means $25 or so going to the retailer. Even at $328, and ignoring everything in the COGS equation, that means HP is going to eat $100/unit, or $100 million dollars for every million sold to the public at Best Buy. (More like $200 million.) That's not pocket change.

    All to build up some nebulous idea of "market share", which buys them what, exactly? How -- exactly -- is HP going to make money going forward from the deadbeats who only wanted a cheap tablet?

    Hope they'll pay double for the next version? Didn't happen this time. Raise the price, piss off everyone who wanted the cheap version, and watch sales evaporate, again, just as they already did at $499? Blow through millions more, hoping component prices drop enough for you to make at least a few pennies on the dollar? And hope that people will stay buy when your machine hits the low end of the scale?

    (And pray that Apple doesn't do the same with the existing iPad 2, now at $299.)

    One more thing. Manufacturing something and selling below cost is called dumping, and there are one or two laws associated with that practice.

    If you want a $250 price point today, look at the Amazon Kindle tablet. 7" screen, single-core processor, only 6GB of NAND, plastic case, forked version of Android tied to Amazon. And that's the subsidized price.

    Amazon can can afford to to do that, because they've got something else to sell: Books. Music. Movies. Magazines. They make their dollars downstream, and they've got a roadmap for how to do it.

    HP has none.

    Lose millions. Make it up in volume. Gotta laugh...

  • On the post: HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community

    iSights ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2011 @ 01:58am

    Re: Re: uh, no... HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price

    Is this what passes for analysis here now, wishful thinking? Can no one even bother to do a few scant minutes research into product pricing?

    The $99 fire sale tells us that people are willing to spend $250 on a scarce device where the PARTS ALONE cost $318, and that retailed for $500.

    But you want them to eat the difference between $318 and $250 ($68), and somehow make it up in volume. Except that it's not just $68.

    You see, $318 does't include assembly. Doesn't include shipping. Doesn't include admin and marketing and legal expenses. Doesn't include patents and licensing. Doesn't include any R&D and development costs. And doesn't include paying off a $1.2B investment.

    And most certainly doesn't include distribution and markup at the retail level. (Remember, retailers are not in this for their health.)

    Not to mention one single dime's worth of profit.

    It doesn't matter what it's "valued at" if you can't afford to build it for that and sell it for that. All of those costs are baked into the price of the product. Forget $250. Even retailing it at the part cost of $318 you'd lose money hand over fist. Same for $399.

    And your next brilliant plan is to wait for the parts to go down? Fine. Why would the parts go down? Perhaps because people have moved on to quad-cores and retina-level displays?

    In which case who's going to buy your underpowered previous-generation POS tablet again? How many people bought underpowered POS Dell Streaks?

    But hey. Let's say you did decide to lose your shirt in order to gain market share... and you do begin to see a little traction... and then Apple, whose current BOM on the iPad 2 is $268 and with $70B in the bank, drops the price of the previous generation iPad 2 base model to $299. Boom.

    The iPad is aggressively priced. Everyone and their kid brother are having problems meeting the price NOW with comparable units. What happens if they get even more aggressive? They can afford it? Can you?

  • On the post: This Post Is Not About Steve Jobs

    iSights ( profile ), 25 Aug, 2011 @ 12:19pm

    Re: Re: Meh.

    "... could be enough pointing your 'captive' readers to the proper source if you have nothing better to say about it."

    So? You still covered it, and there's still a headline (which is what Mike was counting with his Google search).

    Besides, how do you know that many simply didn't repost the resignation notice and/or press release? Why do a one sentence blurb that links them to another site, when all THEY did is post the notice?

    Why make your readers do extra work? That's not how you keep readers.

    FInally, as the parent said, there are a LOT of Apple sites and a LOT of tech sites, each followed by their own audiences. Just because TUAW posted an article doesn't mean that the audience following MacUser or Ars Technica saw it.

  • On the post: Dear MPAA: Stomp Your Feet And Repeat It As Many Times As You Want, But Infringement Is Not Theft

    iSights ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2011 @ 04:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lollerskates!

    A [sic] in quotes or as part of a repeated comment is an editorial comment on an error. A self-sic is not a quote, but a editorial comment by the individual in question that he has misused a word... deliberately.

    "Maybe Mike could have offered other alternatives, but the focus is on how we paying customers are tired of being called thieves..."

    Partly. But the MPAA was ranting about people who illegally downloaded commercial content for free, and called them thieves.

    Mike, however, immediately jumped on the rant about illegal downloads with, "Poor Ms. Swartsel. No one ever shared a DVD with you? No one ever invited you over to their house to watch a TV show together? Sometimes "sharing" is just that. It's not stealing."

    Again. It's not theft, it's not not stealing. Those are bad words. It's "sharing". It's not about distributing content to thousands of strangers, it about "sharing" with a friend. It's SHARING....

    It's about how the Republicans and Democrats each choose their words in order to frame the debate. Where letting a temporary tax cut expire is suddenly framed as "raising taxes!"

  • On the post: Dear MPAA: Stomp Your Feet And Repeat It As Many Times As You Want, But Infringement Is Not Theft

    iSights ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2011 @ 01:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lollerskates!

    A surefire way to further a discussion???

    "... makes you look even more stupid..."
    "... someone here needs to be educated..."
    "...you're a fool and need to educate yourself..."
    "Hardly adult debate..."
    "Your attempt to mock detractors by acting like a fool..."
    "... In that case, educate yourself..."
    "... OK, this is apparently too complex for you..."
    "Yeah, resorting to swearing and insults..."

    For someone who's seemingly dedicated to adult discourse, you manage to spend quite a bit of time insulting your opponent.

    "I'm no journalist..."

    Sigh. Look up self-sic. To wit: "While chiefly used in text that is not one's own, occasionally, a sic is included by a writer after his or her own word(s) to note that the language has been chosen deliberately, especially where a reader may naturally doubt the writer's intentions."

    There. You've learned something new today.

    "In that case, educate yourself on the other methods of transferring to mass audiences."

    Insults again. But the point was not about whether or not you're using BitTorrent or Limewire [RIP] or some other form of distribution technology.

    The POINT -- which you've continually failed to address -- was how the varied sides in the argument are using language loaded with specific connotations in order to frame their respective arguments.

    Theft implies criminal and immoral activity. "Sharing" implies desirable behavior; all sweetness and light and ponies.

    Despite the fact that "sharing" itself is a continuum that goes all the way from loaning a book to a friend to the mass distribution of material you don't own -- via whatever means -- to thousands of complete and total strangers.

    Now. If you'd like to address the point, and if you can manage to avoid loading every paragraph with an insult, then feel free to do so.

    Otherwise...

  • On the post: Dear MPAA: Stomp Your Feet And Repeat It As Many Times As You Want, But Infringement Is Not Theft

    iSights ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2011 @ 10:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Lollerskates!

    Where to begin?

    I (from an editorial standpoint) sic'd "Googleweb" because it's an inaccurate but irreverent ] term for the Internet that someone "without an education" might use. Doing a personal [sic] should let you know that I recognize the fact, but used the term anyway. This is accordance with standard usage by the CMS, and the AP Stylebook.

    Next, from the Pirate Bay FAQ, "The Pirate Bay is the worlds largest bittorrent tracker. ... To be able to upload torrent files, write comments and personal messages one must register at the site."

    Continuing, "Only torrent files are saved at the server. That means no copyrighted and/or illegal material are stored by us."

    To repeat: Only torrent files are saved at the server.

    Yes, there are other ways to "share", but to get them out to to my hypothetical 10,000 strangers, your 100 torrents are going to need to be seen on a site like TPB or via a similar search engine. I doubt you're going to go to the time, trouble, or expense to sneaker net a CDR or thumb drive to 10,000 strangers.

    And while there are many sides to the debate (more like a continuum, really), TFA itself contrasts the MPAA's efforts to equate infringement with theft, while Mike attempts to ridicule their position and portray it as simply "sharing" among a few friends.

    Thus there's the MPAA side, and Mike's side. Theft. "Sharing."

    Their side. Mike's side. One. Two.

    Now, since you apparently can't even count to two, go out and get a ****ing education yourself.

  • On the post: Dear MPAA: Stomp Your Feet And Repeat It As Many Times As You Want, But Infringement Is Not Theft

    iSights ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2011 @ 04:57pm

    Re: Re: Lollerskates!

    Are there not hundreds, if not thousands, of sites (and as such, servers) on the Googleweb [sic] dedicated to storing torrent files? Are there not torrent search engines?

    If my intent was to "share" a hundred songs with 10,000 people, would I not need to upload the torrent files describing them to someplace like the Pirate Bay (and its servers) 's that other people could find them?

    Forgive my technological shorthand, as I assumed that someone with an education (or half a brain) would recognize it as such, and we could have an actual discussion on how both sides are attempting to frame the debate.

  • On the post: Dear MPAA: Stomp Your Feet And Repeat It As Many Times As You Want, But Infringement Is Not Theft

    iSights ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2011 @ 12:32pm

    "Poor Ms. Swartsel. No one ever shared a DVD with you? No one ever invited you over to their house to watch a TV show together? Sometimes "sharing" is just that. It's not stealing. "

    Sometimes it is. But Techdirt loves to call out the use of the words "steal" and "theft". Why? Because those words are loaded with negative connotations and are seen as biasing the argument.

    Instead, you talk about "sharing", another word loaded with connotations... and which tends to bias the argument the other way. Lending a book or a CD to a friend is "sharing". Watching a DVD with some friends may be sharing.

    Putting a hundred downloaded songs on a torrent server so ten thousand or so strangers can also download them is NOT sharing, and attempting to label it as such or frame it as such biases the argument just as badly.

  • On the post: The Latest Entrant Into The Economically Clueless, Luddite 'Internet Is Evil' Book Category

    iSights ( profile ), 15 Aug, 2011 @ 10:33am

    "There's a serious book to be written on the subject, but it's not this one."

    I suppose a "serious" book on the subject is one that would support your opinions?

  • On the post: It's Not About 'Free,' It's About Sharing

    iSights ( profile ), 11 Aug, 2011 @ 07:00am

    Re: It is not about free, it is about value

    You realize that everything you said basically boils down to: it's expensive, but I want it anyway?

  • On the post: Disappointing: The Onion Tests A Paywall

    iSights ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2011 @ 11:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sorry, I can't afford it.

  • On the post: Disappointing: The Onion Tests A Paywall

    iSights ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2011 @ 10:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "My guess is that it will not work."

    You're guessing. They're conducting an experiment so they don't have to depend on guesswork.

    I'll take the results of one sold experiment over dozens of opinions and "informed" decisions any day of the week.

  • On the post: Disappointing: The Onion Tests A Paywall

    iSights ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2011 @ 10:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Should every news site opt for implementing paywalls then? And will that increase their profits?"

    BINGO! Someone asked the right question!

    Here's the thing: You may think it's a bad idea. It goes without saying that Mike thinks it's a bad idea. But they don't KNOW if it's a bad idea.

    So as near as I can tell, they're TESTING THE IDEA. You know, testing? As in stop playing guessing games and find out whether or not it works for them?

    Even Mike admits that his CwC/RtB mantra doesn't work for everyone. Not everyone is the same, and different folks need to find out what methods and strategies work for them.

    The Onion is finding out.

  • On the post: Disappointing: The Onion Tests A Paywall

    iSights ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2011 @ 10:32am

    Re: Re:

    "...but I don't pay for content and never will."

    So you're not a customer. Fine. Why should they spend money entertaining deadbeats who'll never buy a thing? Never make a donation? That block ads?

    My local coffee shop has a rule that basically requires people to, you know, buy coffee in exchange for sitting around and enjoying the ambiance.

    No coffee, no sittee.

  • On the post: Disappointing: The Onion Tests A Paywall

    iSights ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2011 @ 10:27am

    Re: Re:

    "And don't forget that content behind a paywall can't be indexed by Big Search and this means that they can't sell advertising next to it."

    Please. It's simple to setup a page where you see the article summary or the first paragraph or so, and then a paywall login or ad to see the rest.

    And as such, "Big Search" can definitely index the "public" portion of the article.

    Don't blindly repeat arguments that aren't true.

  • On the post: Disappointing: The Onion Tests A Paywall

    iSights ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2011 @ 10:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    As the parent point out, it depends on your definition of free. Or in other words, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

  • On the post: Why President Obama Has The 'Jobs' Equation Backwards; Supporting Patent Reform That Limits Jobs

    iSights ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2011 @ 12:21pm

    Competition

    One thing I've not seen discussed is what happens if -- and that's a big if -- we reform our patent structure and even go so far as to eliminate software and business process patents as Mark Cuban desires.

    Many other countries have mirrored our IP and patent laws, and so the problem as I see it is that we've dug ourselves into a very deep, very wide, very big hole.

    If the US eliminates software patents, that opens the door for every other country to come in here and copy whatever they please and then sell the result. We, on the other hand, would still be subject to the laws of every OTHER country in which we do business.

    Nokia and Samsung and others could sell, say, iPad clones here, whereas Apple could still get hit with patent lawsuits across the globe.

    In essence, it's the Cold War unilateral disarmament problem. He who disarms first is at a severe strategic and tactical disadvantage...

  • On the post: Google Being More Aggressive About Bad Patents; But Should It Go Even Further?

    iSights ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2011 @ 06:30am

    A billion dollar bid that they themselves set, if I recall. And they dropped out a little after three billion.

    Quite a bit of money to spend on "bogus" patents.

Next >>