I really like Tim, but this shows little understanding of Russia to be honest.
Obviously the tablet will fail. Nobody in the government is interested in this: they all prefer their iPads and other western luxuries. This tablet is being developed for symbolic reasons, period.
Anyway, the issue I have with the article is that it is not balanced. Since moving to Moscow, I've been pretty annoyed with how inaccurate and biased western media often is... repeating the same oversimplifications of rather complex events and processes. The problem with this is that you turn a country that's conflicted, has difficulties stemming from its history, has significant problems in its bureaucracy, and you turn it into something 'evil' while it's actually not a black and white thing.
It's bullshit and it's dangerous, because few stand to gain from a black and white world - and those that do stand to gain usually do not have the best intentions. Therefore I'm quite often finding myself disappointed to see even previously trusted media and NGOs also feeding this black/white picture.
I'm not trying to say I agree with everything the Russian government does, far from it, and that's fine. But systematic generalizations are so uncalled for - especially when it comes to countries which people already have a hard time understanding...
Making a caricature of Russia, fine. The country is funny enough without having to portray it as something evil.
(by the way, turning things into something 'evil' dehumanizes them... Which is why every time your bring up anything WW2-related in a discussion, it's immediately dismissed... as if it couldn't happen again. As if suddenly half of Europe went crazy for a few years and such a thing could never happen again. It's nonsense. There's no such thing as pure evil: all these things are human problems. If we cannot discuss it in a human context, then it will be increasingly difficult to find humane ways to solve differences between countries and their peoples.
Look at Israel & Iran now for instance. Both are reducing each other to something evil. They dehumanize each other, demonize each other, and obstructing humane solutions.)
[/off-topic rant]
Sorry Tim, you don't deserve all this, but after a bunch of western bias influenced pieces here on TD, I couldn't really hold it in. Again, I'm not disagreeing, I just get annoyed by the oversimplifications.
Not sure, I think it might be loss aversion. I think it's loss aversion which also drives people to ignore the realities of price elasticity (or lack thereof).
For instance; people know that they will make more money if they sell a product at $1, because more people will buy it. Yet they sell it for $10, because after someone buy for $1, that's that and you've lost their $10 potential (of course not, but if you're not innovative about your business model, sure).
It's stupid, but a lot of people would rather make less money, than lose the 'potential' of 9 more dollars per sale, per person... even though that potential will never fulfill itself, loss aversion prevents people from acting rational and applying some creativity to their business model.
All these 'coincidences' remind me of the recent Demonoid shutdown.
You stole the meaning of the word stealing and replaced it with something else. Stop stealing.
What process preceded you purchasing it?
Ehm, sorry to say, but Pussy Riot did actually violate a law.
Why must you be so rude? Does my desire to understand what he's trying to say anger you? Why does it?
I don't really get what you're trying to say.
You're saying that because he makes money through music, he's not qualified to talk about how to make money through music?
That comes down to:
People shouldn't be allowed to identify a particular person and hyperlink to an associated webpage which is about this person.
That will definitely, 100% not break the internet. Good idea.
Facial recognition only suggests to tag people who are actually in your friends list. Not people you don't know.
Exactly. The system recognizes your face and asks your friend if they want to tag you. It doesn't tag without human input.
* that was in reply to the middle part, not the last line.
Just don't let yourself be tagged by others (you can turn it off or only allow pre-approved tags), or make it clear to your friends that you do not appreciate them uploading pictures of you.
I doubt people are going to waste their money (on a consistent basis) by first/last wording comments like that.
This was a great comment until the last sentence.
No chance of the copyright holder having given permission?
Always felt that a $3 price point (or just below) makes a lot of sense for ebooks... Turns out I was right.
I think an important aspect is that $2.99 as a price makes sense for something which is intangible (whereas anything upwards of $6 becomes abstract). Therefore, the price point significantly and drastically lowers the stress / energy consumption of the potential buyer's purchase decision.
I think the right price point for digital music (especially when sold as albums) is below $1 per track, but the environment in which people buy it makes a huge difference here (vs ebooks).
Films... probably $2.50 for a 720p digital copy. Maybe $1.99 for a 48hr window to stream it.
The goal is not to have the most money per transfer; the goal is to get the biggest returns overall... If you can reach 5x more people by dropping your price by 50%, that's a big difference (and I don't believe I'm speaking in hyperboles now).
If you want to make more money PER SALE - remember that the sale itself is not the end of your relationship with the consumer... Let it be the beginning.
Congrats!