lilo777
Apr 4, 04:32 PM
this move was expected. I do not understand why some iPhone owners expect to be treated any differently than owners of other phones. Because they "want" to upgrade their phone every year? What if Apple starts releasing new model every 6 months? Will you demand ATT to pay for this?
res1233
Apr 4, 10:55 PM
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
I like you.
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
I like you.
stevers
Apr 6, 12:11 PM
obviously you have never shopped for Enterprise storage for a SAN
back when 2TB drives were $300 or so we bought some 500GB drives from EMC for $800 each plus or minus some $$$.
Agreed. I just spent 55k on 9.6TB of raw fibre channel storage for our 3PAR. That's 16 600GB drives if you were wondering.
back when 2TB drives were $300 or so we bought some 500GB drives from EMC for $800 each plus or minus some $$$.
Agreed. I just spent 55k on 9.6TB of raw fibre channel storage for our 3PAR. That's 16 600GB drives if you were wondering.
MattInOz
Mar 24, 08:14 PM
I think the real reason he's leaving is that he is frustrated that Apple doesn't care about computers anymore
He's going back into Science, away from commercial products all together. A land where computers are tools, and the knowledge he brings from working on the OS will be used to make better computer models of complex ideas.
Maybe, just maybe, he was asked to join a really cool amazing research team.
If this has been a two year transition then it's probably not due to any unhappiness with Apple or direction. If it was the transition would have been weeks not years.
He's going back into Science, away from commercial products all together. A land where computers are tools, and the knowledge he brings from working on the OS will be used to make better computer models of complex ideas.
Maybe, just maybe, he was asked to join a really cool amazing research team.
If this has been a two year transition then it's probably not due to any unhappiness with Apple or direction. If it was the transition would have been weeks not years.
more...
andy42
Apr 5, 02:22 PM
Wiesmann baby!!!
http://www.iaablog.com/static/iaablog/images/wiesmann-mf5.jpg
http://www.iaablog.com/static/iaablog/images/wiesmann-mf5.jpg
Love
Feb 5, 12:25 AM
http://www.knoxware.org/imagehost/uploads/347030f5ca.png
Nice and simple.
Nice and simple.
more...
starflyer
Apr 4, 03:46 PM
On a side note, I wonder whether Apple violates competition rules. When I remember correctly, the iPad had a considerable market share on the tablet market. One could argue that Apple abuses its market position to impose their own (unfair) conditions on publishers.
No, they don't.
No, they don't.
.jpg "eautiful quotes on hope.")
SupremeTeam
Sep 4, 11:58 PM
Simple yet clean.
more...
Max on Macs
Oct 5, 05:18 PM
Why do you need to disable something you don't want to use? Can't you just not use it?
Are you afraid you might accidentally change your mind someday and need to prevent yourself from doing this in the future?
Also, many BBS's that I use offer me the chance to change the text-reply field size in my personal preferences. The window can be any size and the page looks just fine. Pretty much ANY text entry field has to be built into a page in such a way that changing the size just pushes things below it lower, just in case a browser draws it larger than planned. I can't think of any sites that don't work that way. This box I'm using on Macrumors right now follows that rule. If I were to drag it large nothing would "break." The stuff below it would just move down.
Can you give any examples of a page that fails this test? I can't think of any offhand.
I think he's talking about making it so people who use the web pages he designs can't resize the textareas (supposedly ruining his designs). IMHO this is a non-issue since when the user first sees the page they will se it as it should be, if they want to make a textarea bigger so they can type in it comfortably then it's their own choice.
Are you afraid you might accidentally change your mind someday and need to prevent yourself from doing this in the future?
Also, many BBS's that I use offer me the chance to change the text-reply field size in my personal preferences. The window can be any size and the page looks just fine. Pretty much ANY text entry field has to be built into a page in such a way that changing the size just pushes things below it lower, just in case a browser draws it larger than planned. I can't think of any sites that don't work that way. This box I'm using on Macrumors right now follows that rule. If I were to drag it large nothing would "break." The stuff below it would just move down.
Can you give any examples of a page that fails this test? I can't think of any offhand.
I think he's talking about making it so people who use the web pages he designs can't resize the textareas (supposedly ruining his designs). IMHO this is a non-issue since when the user first sees the page they will se it as it should be, if they want to make a textarea bigger so they can type in it comfortably then it's their own choice.
mac jones
Mar 11, 07:12 AM
Anyone happen to see a line on Michigan or North?
more...
ThunderSkunk
Apr 4, 10:43 AM
I love how in our industry, when we raise a price, we have to justify it to the customer start to finish, across every presence imaginable, media, events, etc... cost of materials, availability during wartime, tighter environmental standards, labor cost increase, having not made an adjustment to the price in nearly a decade despite inflation and other factors... before we'll be able to make a 5% increase to the price and not lose all our customers.
It must be nice to be a telecom company and just toss out huge arbitrary pricing changes without any justification.
It must be nice to be a telecom company and just toss out huge arbitrary pricing changes without any justification.
thep33t
Apr 6, 02:00 PM
One thing to note is that this is 12PB of RAW storage. Raid it, add in hot-spares, take into account formatting, and you got yourself 8ish max usable.
decent amount, but not mind-blowing.
decent amount, but not mind-blowing.
more...
CreateColl
Apr 26, 03:24 AM
Same think with me : no more contact with www.pluginlab.com
Sad news !
Sad news !
LethalWolfe
Nov 11, 09:49 PM
Is there a reason why so many use Avid over FCP?
There are a number of reasons ranging from they have no compelling reason to switch away from the tool they are most comfortable with to their workflow requires things that Avid does better than FCP to they've already invested a lot of money in an Avid workflow. Off the top of my head I'd give Avid the nod for things like better multi-user environment, better shared storage solution, better media management, better multi-camera editing, better format support (AMA), better handling of mixed media timelines, and, for lack of a better term, a more refined product in terms of solely editing.
Does that mean Avid is perfect? No, far from it. Does that mean FCP is horrible in the categories I mentioned, no not necessarily (although FCP is really lacking in multi-user environments). A big reason FCP became so popular though is because it could do the majority of what Avid could do for much, much less (like $60,000 or more less back in the day). Obviously the price difference is much less now (I think Media Composer software goes for $2000 or $2500) but for many of FCP's core users that's still a huge difference.
Lethal
There are a number of reasons ranging from they have no compelling reason to switch away from the tool they are most comfortable with to their workflow requires things that Avid does better than FCP to they've already invested a lot of money in an Avid workflow. Off the top of my head I'd give Avid the nod for things like better multi-user environment, better shared storage solution, better media management, better multi-camera editing, better format support (AMA), better handling of mixed media timelines, and, for lack of a better term, a more refined product in terms of solely editing.
Does that mean Avid is perfect? No, far from it. Does that mean FCP is horrible in the categories I mentioned, no not necessarily (although FCP is really lacking in multi-user environments). A big reason FCP became so popular though is because it could do the majority of what Avid could do for much, much less (like $60,000 or more less back in the day). Obviously the price difference is much less now (I think Media Composer software goes for $2000 or $2500) but for many of FCP's core users that's still a huge difference.
Lethal
more...
Tomorrow
Mar 2, 12:35 PM
According to data on your first chart I'd say that corporate income tax revenues need to increase dramatically. Corporate income taxes only represent 9%(191 billion) of revenue yet individual income tax represents 41% (899 billion).
All businesses, corporations included, are taxed more or less at the same rates as individuals.
The reason that businesses don't pay as much in taxes (in terms of absolute dollars, not in terms of tax rate) is because it is advantageous to businesses to pay out most, if not all, of their income to employees (in the form of bonuses) or shareholders (in the form of dividends) in order to pass that tax burden along to the individuals. The government gets their cut either way.
It's not as easy for publicly traded corporations to do this, since it affects stock prices, but they can make it easy by paying out dividends to shareholders or preferred stock to employees. It still doesn't affect the government's revenue stream, since the individuals are taxed for that income just the same.
All businesses, corporations included, are taxed more or less at the same rates as individuals.
The reason that businesses don't pay as much in taxes (in terms of absolute dollars, not in terms of tax rate) is because it is advantageous to businesses to pay out most, if not all, of their income to employees (in the form of bonuses) or shareholders (in the form of dividends) in order to pass that tax burden along to the individuals. The government gets their cut either way.
It's not as easy for publicly traded corporations to do this, since it affects stock prices, but they can make it easy by paying out dividends to shareholders or preferred stock to employees. It still doesn't affect the government's revenue stream, since the individuals are taxed for that income just the same.
iMrNiceGuy0023
Apr 25, 01:48 PM
I know, or knew, a few people holding off on the white iPhone 4. But people may hold off until the iPhone 5
the white iPhone 4 has to at least be faster or have a better camera or something. It cant just be the same phone from a year ago
the white iPhone 4 has to at least be faster or have a better camera or something. It cant just be the same phone from a year ago
more...
mikemodena
Apr 16, 06:32 PM
Sorry if this has already been covered but I did search and didn't come up with anything..
I just bought a 360 and I'd like to set it up to stream my movies/media/etc. but on the xbox it says I need a media center PC.. is there a way to do it with my PowerMac?
I just bought a 360 and I'd like to set it up to stream my movies/media/etc. but on the xbox it says I need a media center PC.. is there a way to do it with my PowerMac?
mscriv
Apr 7, 02:52 PM
I am all against this nostalgia gaming. U have so many great games available on the ipad or iphone that utilise their potencial, why would u wanr to play games that have 12 pixels running around? I think it has more to do with people remembering the "good old times" when they havent had all that depression, fear and insecurity going on.
GET OFF MY LAWN!!! you young whipper snapper! ;)
GET OFF MY LAWN!!! you young whipper snapper! ;)
gkarris
Apr 4, 02:03 PM
I'm with T-Mobile now. I'm tired of waiting for TMo to get the iPhone so with the merger possibility, I looked into getting an iPhone with ATT. Since the iPhone will probably be upgraded this year, I thought I would get a $20 refurb 3GS with the new contract and upgrade early (probably at full phone price) when the new model comes out. I used the online ATT chat with a rep to make sure this was possible. She swore up and down that the iPhone is the only phone you can't upgrade early so there would be absolutely no way for me to get the new iPhone when it comes out, even if I paid full price for it. Then I see this post that specifically addresses early upgrading and no-commitment pricing. WTF?? Is she just a clueless rep or was she lying to me?
Clueless...
AT&T had a program with the 4's to upgrade early...
Clueless...
AT&T had a program with the 4's to upgrade early...
a.jfred
Feb 9, 11:53 AM
What I want to know is what do they consider a "qualified voice plan"?
SgtDecimal
Aug 1, 05:48 AM
Click for full size
http://i28.tinypic.com/mkvn1k.jpg
My friends are always are amazed how clean my desktop is. There obviously used to windows.
http://i28.tinypic.com/mkvn1k.jpg
My friends are always are amazed how clean my desktop is. There obviously used to windows.
Wiggleforce
Sep 1, 10:54 AM
;)
http://uppix.net/2/8/3/8d80e216336ae2398952d10b5dc14tt.jpg (http://uppix.net/2/8/3/8d80e216336ae2398952d10b5dc14.html)
Awsome interface you don't want so share? Orginal wallpaper, dock and icon links, please?
http://uppix.net/2/8/3/8d80e216336ae2398952d10b5dc14tt.jpg (http://uppix.net/2/8/3/8d80e216336ae2398952d10b5dc14.html)
Awsome interface you don't want so share? Orginal wallpaper, dock and icon links, please?
Vogue Harper
Dec 11, 03:35 AM
Attended the launch of the McLaren MP4-12C this week here in Qatar. Wallpaper is one of my photos of the car...
ucfgrad93
Aug 3, 03:39 PM
On my MBP.
No comments:
Post a Comment