Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
On the Web: Google net neutrality stance gives Net’s future to corporations
superboyac:
And what part of that connects want and need as identical? You're arguing intrinsic value. I don't really care if someone else doesn't (realize) think they're getting screwed. I'm just annoyed by the marketing trends that trying to force people into thinking that they need something, when they don't.
I truly do need a cellphone for my job. What I do not need is a web enabled "smart"phone with texting, GPS, video chat and an entire laundry list of other crap that I have no interest in using. Now do you think I can go into a phone store and fine a (unicorn) plain god damn phone? No. Best I can do is a clamshell with GPS - as if anybody can find (or even see) anything on a 1 inch map. It's a stupid pointless gimmick - that will probably get you killed if you ever actually try to use it.
Nor can I get shed if the inane charges for the silly crap. Every time some dipstick decides to zing me a text message, the carrier in their infinite stupidity, enable texting on my account and delivers the frigging thing. Why..? Because they have this really cool gimmick that auto enables any "feature" on first "use", that then slam charges you for the rest of time.
Just because some book on marketing economics says it's business as usual doesn't make it right. The word quality never appears in advertising any more - but Super, Ultra, Hyper, Cool & Kewl do, constantly. ...Now why is that?
-Stoic Joker (August 13, 2010, 01:02 PM)
--- End quote ---
^^^gets it.
tomos:
The only way to make money is to get people to buy your product. People are only going to buy it if it's something that they want [1], at least to the degree that they value it more than the money that they're paying. Thus, someone making, say, a million dollars is prima facia evidence that they have provided value to others of at least a million dollars.
Of course, you might say that there are ways they could have built their product better, such that it would have been even more valuable to their customers. This is true, but in this case they would also be charging more, extracting, say, two million from customers now because that's how much the improved product is worth (i.e., how much value it provides to customers).-CWuestefeld (August 13, 2010, 09:16 AM)
--- End quote ---
I'm curious how you see this aspect of it:-
there is often demand for things, e.g. iPhones where you can change network provider (or whatever you call it over there) but people dont get it because the company doesnt want to give it. Fair enough, you'd think some competition would come along and pull the rug from under, but instead, now, it looks like they're joining the club.
We cant force someone to provide something, but OTOH it seems you think it's okay to allow them to rig the game any way they like (and no, I'm not asking for regulation - I'm still trying to get my head around all this stuff...) So, as I say, I'm curious how you see that and how you might imagine things developing in the future. I mean do you think there will be real competition at some stage - or do you think, that is *real* competition now ? (I know: vague questions! I'm trying to get an overview without maybe knowing, or even understanding enough of the details)
Talking about competition, that often doesnt work (I'm not saying I know anything better). It hasn't worked with graphic design software - you could say Adobe more or less has a monopoly. That's the fault of their competitiors really... Here's maybe a better example:
In Germany there's only four or five big electricity suppliers. They are artifically keeping the prices high (highest in Europe, or in EU at least). People are saying it's not enough competition, but also to do with apathy of the people. Same with gas prices here (and there's even a 'green' tax on top of that). I dont know what it is. Are people supposed to march for 'real' competition or what?! (or maybe it really is that you simply get what you accept.)
So I for one know I'm *not* getting value for money with these last two examples... so I certainly wouldn't agree your second paragraph above. If people get away with it they'll charge as much as the market can handle - again fair enough, but dont be painting it with a 'value' brush ;) [edit] I note that my last two example are really things I *need* so maybe it's not appropriate to compare fully with people buying things they want but I think the mobile phone example could be somewhere in between [/edit]
kartal:
I hope that these kinds of developements make people think twice about using Google services. I have been saying all these years how messed up Google was.
CWuestefeld:
Now do you think I can go into a phone store and fine a (unicorn) plain god damn phone? No. Best I can do is a clamshell with GPS - as if anybody can find (or even see) anything on a 1 inch map. It's a stupid pointless gimmick - that will probably get you killed if you ever actually try to use it.
-Stoic Joker (August 13, 2010, 01:02 PM)
--- End quote ---
You've just proven my point.
The reason your phone has a GPS in it, is not that the manufacturer thinks it's a nifty gimmick that they can foist on you. It's because of government regulation. The FCC's regulation for E911 service require that cell phone providers be able to locate a phone geographically. You're being forced to buy a GPS because some government regulators decided that your personal values are not important, and that their own ideas should determine how you spend your money.
This is precisely what I'm talking about. We give the government control of something, and initially they've got the best of intentions. But sooner or later, lobbyists get in, people retire from the industry and get jobs in the regulatory agencies, and so on. And before you know it, the agency is no longer trying to work in your best interest, but is instead trying to guarantee the ongoing livelihood of the corporations in the industry.
Now, we don't know today what kind of regulations will be forcing us into such nonsense with our Internet access. If we could know those kinds of things ahead of time, then you wouldn't be stuck with a GPS you don't want. But without exception, this is the lifecycle of all regulatory agencies. If you give the FCC the authority to regulate the Internet, then I can say with absolute certainty that they'll be protecting the service providers, within a matter of a few years.
Before someone disagrees with me: I think that any refutation of my claim must include an actual example of a mature industry whose regulation is free of protections for those corporations. We've got a cultural meme where "common sense" tells us that seeking a profit is inherently evil, and that regulation is necessary before we all fall into the pit of despair. If your response is to advocate regulation based on this meme, please be prepared to show how it is that the regulation won't be worse than the corporations.
And since I'm showing you real, historical examples of how regulation has made things worse, I think it would be helpful if you could provide *real* (not hypothetical) examples of how an ISP's management of their network really is (not *could*, mind you, but *is*) making things worse for customers.
Stoic Joker:
Now do you think I can go into a phone store and fine a (unicorn) plain god damn phone? No. Best I can do is a clamshell with GPS - as if anybody can find (or even see) anything on a 1 inch map. It's a stupid pointless gimmick - that will probably get you killed if you ever actually try to use it.
-Stoic Joker (August 13, 2010, 01:02 PM)
--- End quote ---
You've just proven my point.-CWuestefeld (August 13, 2010, 01:47 PM)
--- End quote ---
That's a hell of a leap.
The reason your phone has a GPS in it, is not that the manufacturer thinks it's a nifty gimmick that they can foist on you. It's because of government regulation. The FCC's regulation for E911 service require that cell phone providers be able to locate a phone geographically.
--- End quote ---
Read the bold part a few times...
You're being forced to buy a GPS because some government regulators decided that your personal values are not important, and that their own ideas should determine how you spend your money.
--- End quote ---
Cell providers being "forced" to include GPS location of phone = a GPS Beacon Only - fine - I don't really care. That doesn't affect my usage of the device.
Cell providers being "forced" to include GPS location of phone - Does not mandate that the phone have a bunch of usless buttons that control 7 different flavors of GPS MAPING Software that I have no use for and have to trip over constantly. That Is a Bunch of Useless Gimmicky Crap! The FCC never mentioned that as being a requirement ... Now did they?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version