Comprehensive Look At Direct X10, LongHorn, And Palladium!
- Thread starter Kschreck
- Start date
- Status
Maskirovka
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,628
- Reaction score
- 0
exactly...we're talking about intellectual property here, not material goods. you're trying to apply the rules for materials to intellectual property that can be copied. that's why you're wrong about the economics of the situation.
poseyjmac
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 4,766
- Reaction score
- 0
actually im relying on that hypothetical situation to disprove your claim.
just because video game sales are increasing doesn't mean they wouldn't be increasing more without piracy. because of this, my comments do make sense.
there is no incentive to lower prices now, thats correct. with longhorn, companies could safely predict more sales, and make more copies, having increased revenue, then theres more incentive NOT to raise prices, and possibly lower them. if you want to prove me wrong here in one instance, then find a company in the realm of software who exceeded their revenue goal, and because of it, hiked up their prices. ill gladly admit im wrong if you find one. and no i wont take your word for it, i need web linkage
Maskirovka
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,628
- Reaction score
- 0
let me help you understand why you think it's impossible for a rebuttal. it's a common cognitive error that is widely recognized throughout the field of psychology. it's called schema theory.
http://www.cs.tcd.ie/courses/mscitedu/mite/lectures/term1/101/l2/rich.shtml
see...you have encountered new information, but it is too unfamiliar for you, so you choose to ignore it and the possibility that you are wrong is unacceptable to you.
socrates always said that the most important thing is to know that you know nothing.
i argue with the possibility that i can be wrong. i accept new information and change myself accordingly. you argue with arrogance, "knowing" that you're right. it's a common cognitive problem...you shouldn't be ashamed of it or angry. you just need to accept the fact that you don't know everything. i do :\
http://www.cs.tcd.ie/courses/mscitedu/mite/lectures/term1/101/l2/rich.shtml
see...you have encountered new information, but it is too unfamiliar for you, so you choose to ignore it and the possibility that you are wrong is unacceptable to you.
socrates always said that the most important thing is to know that you know nothing.
i argue with the possibility that i can be wrong. i accept new information and change myself accordingly. you argue with arrogance, "knowing" that you're right. it's a common cognitive problem...you shouldn't be ashamed of it or angry. you just need to accept the fact that you don't know everything. i do :\
Maskirovka
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,628
- Reaction score
- 0
i don't understand what finding "a company in the realm of software who exceeded their revenue goal, and because of it, hiked up their prices." would prove.
i'm saying prices have stayed the same for a long time and will continue to stay the same. you're arguing in circles here. of course more sales = incentive to keep prices the same.
yet you continue to assert that prices could lower when companies have absolutely no incentive to do that when sales are increasing. please god...take an economics class.
if supply is meeting demand (which is very easy with video games) then prices will stay the same while sales increase...that's how it works...if you increase prices you're driving off possible customers. if you lower prices you're cutting your profits for no reason. the only option left? keep prices the same.
ok...move on now.
poseyjmac
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 4,766
- Reaction score
- 0
you forget what you've posted a while back?
you guys were arguing that if companies get more business, they will hike up their prices because they wouldn't be able to supply. and that would be a reason why longhorn would be bad. lol its crazy i know, you guys have said a lot of crazy things in this thread
Maskirovka
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,628
- Reaction score
- 0
i'm not dodging the point...you can't prove that it DID affect the same price trend.
so let's move on...until there are some numbers to prove things one way or the other, there's no point in continuing to go in circles about it...you disagree, but you clearly don't understand supply and demand.
the demand curve for video games is very steep, therefore there would be little gain for raising prices.
but it's ok...i'll accept that you disagree on this point...move on to the next "chunk"
Maskirovka
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,628
- Reaction score
- 0
i never said that...supplying more video games is incredibly easy...you just turn the CD presses on and make some more boxes.
poseyjmac
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 4,766
- Reaction score
- 0
no sorry, you are very wrong, i do understand supply and demand.. you will get no respect if you insert your little insult quips in your posts. it just proves that..yes..you guessed it, that you are childish. ill give you some time to cool down, and ill address the next chunk later.
Shuzer
Newbie
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 8,703
- Reaction score
- 0
posey, get off your high horse. Stop hiding behind your "insults make me ignore you" stance, it's childish and annoying. This is a debate/discussion, he didn't really insult you, he just stated what appears to be the truth. You're being rather arrogant, go back and read your posts.
You want us to prove that piracy didn't effect the cost of video games, we did. You say "they may have wanted to drop the cost, but piracy prevented that!" Guess what? That's like saying "Prove to me JFK wouldn't have been murdered if someone had stopped the assassination!" Following someone giving you solid reasoning, you could say something along the lines of "No, someone else could have attempted to do it afterwards. You can't prove he still wouldn't have been assassinated."
Hypothetical answers prove nothing. You can win almost any argument with reasoning such as that.
Maskirovka
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,628
- Reaction score
- 0
could you actually prove that you understand supply and demand instead of just stating that you do?
and i don't really appreciate being told to "cool down" and that i'm "childish" for the 3rd time. i'm not "hot" or angry or anything like that. i'm just having a nice conversation with you about piracy. honestly, i don't think anything bad about you because of your views. i'm just trying to convince you that your views are wrong. it's ok with me if you think you're right. i won't get mad if i don't convince you.
i didn't insult you, i just stated the fact that you don't seem to understand a certain business principle.
i don't understand how my statement of a fact can be considered a "quip" or childish in any way.
prices go down when companies believe sales will go down or when sales actually go down.
=========================================
say i'm selling lemonade...it cost me $10 for all the lemonade making supplies. i have an infinite supply of lemons and cups are very cheap.
people have been buying my lemonade for 5 cents a cup for a long time. suddenly, someone figures out a way to copy my infinite supply of lemons. copying these lemons is a bit hard, so not that many people do it in comparison to the people who buy it normally.
people continue to buy my lemonade for 5 cents a cup despite the fact that some people have figured out how to get it for free. my sales of lemonade are increasing continously and i'm outselling lots of other beverages.
then, the biggest, most popular cup company figures out a new kind of cup. this kind of cup only holds legitimately made lemonade...not the copied kind. i could lower my price because i'm making so much money...but my sales keep on increasing and people are still continuing to buy my lemonade at record pace.
what's my incentive to start charging 3 cents per cup? because i'm nice? my sales are increasing still...why do i need to offer people a better deal on my lemonade when they're perfectly willing to pay 5 cents?
Dr. Freeman
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
- Messages
- 6,785
- Reaction score
- 2
i tried to explain it a few pages back ur way Cyber, but apparently i did a very poor job of that.. yes.. my writing skills generally suck
because u feel sorry for the poor suckers that have been paying 5 cents per cup? hehe j/k
i like ur lemonade example.. hmm.. u won't be charging me 5 cents a cup, will u?
poseyjmac
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 4,766
- Reaction score
- 0
i said that the prices could either drop or stay the same. and you are making it sound ridiculous by using such a large theortical drop. lowering a piece of software from $50 to $30 is not very realistic, and because of this your example isn't very versatile because people dont spend money in half cents.
question though, do you think you are doing any good in this world by discussing this? do you want your end result to be me saying that piracy doesn't effect the economy and that i can then feel good about ripping people off?
OCybrManO
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 4,780
- Reaction score
- 0
Don't keep saying what if this and what if that. Try to think in terms of what might actually happen.
Even considering all of the freak occurances, game prices are hardly likely to fall below $50 (other than games like Serious Sam and Freedom Fighters).
Inflation alone (not considering any of the other aspects of economics) should kick in after a while and make games (and the consoles, too) cost more. Why do I say this?
The only reason console makers sell their systems for so cheap (Mircrosoft was said to have lost at least $100 on every XBox in terms of hardware costs) is to compete for market share with which to make money on games. That explains the actually lowering console prices (an XBox costs less than a Super Nintendo did when I bought one).
Now, about the games themselves... which is where the money has to be made since the systems cost more to make than they sell for.
Game prices used to be high because cartridges were expensive and time consuming to make. So a large chunk of the price of each game went to the actual production of the cartridges.
When the Playstation started using CDs you could see the difference in the cost effectiveness of CDs and cartridges. Inflation was kicking in and cartridge games had to start costing more to keep making a good profit. So, you would see N64 games going to $60 (or even more in a few cases). Since the CD was much cheaper and quicker to manufacture CD-based games could remain at $50 with more profit even when taking inflation into account.
OK, so that explains why games haven't made a noticeable increase in price in recent years... but where does the profit go? Well with multimillion dollar ad campaigns, executives, workers at executives' office, workers at production facilities, utilities (electricity, water, etc) utilized by the facilities, the developers, the workers at the developers' office..... I think you get the point. The money gets spread around quite a bit (though, not evenly, of course).
When CDs reach the end of their cost-effectiveness at $50 you will start to see an increase in the price of video games. "Why don't they make another format like they did when the cartridges were no longer cost-effective?" Well, with CDs using only a minor fraction of the cost of video games, almost the entire $50 goes back to the companies to pay the aforementioned costs. When that $50 is no longer enough to maintain the many costs needed to make, advertise, mass produce, and distribute the game either the publishers will be forced to increase in price or the manufacturers will have to find a material with negative cost to put the games on.
Games, like nearly every product, will eventually be effected by inflation. There is no stopping it.
EDIT: One more thing... it's sleepy nap nap time.
Even considering all of the freak occurances, game prices are hardly likely to fall below $50 (other than games like Serious Sam and Freedom Fighters).
Inflation alone (not considering any of the other aspects of economics) should kick in after a while and make games (and the consoles, too) cost more. Why do I say this?
The only reason console makers sell their systems for so cheap (Mircrosoft was said to have lost at least $100 on every XBox in terms of hardware costs) is to compete for market share with which to make money on games. That explains the actually lowering console prices (an XBox costs less than a Super Nintendo did when I bought one).
Now, about the games themselves... which is where the money has to be made since the systems cost more to make than they sell for.
Game prices used to be high because cartridges were expensive and time consuming to make. So a large chunk of the price of each game went to the actual production of the cartridges.
When the Playstation started using CDs you could see the difference in the cost effectiveness of CDs and cartridges. Inflation was kicking in and cartridge games had to start costing more to keep making a good profit. So, you would see N64 games going to $60 (or even more in a few cases). Since the CD was much cheaper and quicker to manufacture CD-based games could remain at $50 with more profit even when taking inflation into account.
OK, so that explains why games haven't made a noticeable increase in price in recent years... but where does the profit go? Well with multimillion dollar ad campaigns, executives, workers at executives' office, workers at production facilities, utilities (electricity, water, etc) utilized by the facilities, the developers, the workers at the developers' office..... I think you get the point. The money gets spread around quite a bit (though, not evenly, of course).
When CDs reach the end of their cost-effectiveness at $50 you will start to see an increase in the price of video games. "Why don't they make another format like they did when the cartridges were no longer cost-effective?" Well, with CDs using only a minor fraction of the cost of video games, almost the entire $50 goes back to the companies to pay the aforementioned costs. When that $50 is no longer enough to maintain the many costs needed to make, advertise, mass produce, and distribute the game either the publishers will be forced to increase in price or the manufacturers will have to find a material with negative cost to put the games on.
Games, like nearly every product, will eventually be effected by inflation. There is no stopping it.
EDIT: One more thing... it's sleepy nap nap time.
Revisedsoul
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2003
- Messages
- 1,441
- Reaction score
- 0
*smells more anti-trust lawsuits to come*
sorry if its been stated before, dont really feel like readin though 42 pages of posts
sorry if its been stated before, dont really feel like readin though 42 pages of posts
Element Alpha
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2003
- Messages
- 741
- Reaction score
- 0
If you can't imagine a world without copyrightlaws, you should ask yourself how much propaganda got to your head. Especialy if trying to imagine a finite/infinite universe feels easier.
The reason why there's so much piracy is because the businessmodel fails completly with todays technology. Just face it. And if you disagree, don't complain about piracy, since your copyright model should stop it, right??? --->Not.
IMO, another the thing that could help all this is another paymethod than visa on the internet. I'm sorry, but I'm just not gonna send my credentials on the net. A prepaid card, much like phonecompanies use, would help a lot. And it should be universal. Everything on internet should use this one payment system.
The problem I have with longhorn and co is that they go exactly in the opposite direction of wat is good for everyone(including devs).
"Dictating pc-conduct in the name of art" they call it. What a prank.
The reason why there's so much piracy is because the businessmodel fails completly with todays technology. Just face it. And if you disagree, don't complain about piracy, since your copyright model should stop it, right??? --->Not.
IMO, another the thing that could help all this is another paymethod than visa on the internet. I'm sorry, but I'm just not gonna send my credentials on the net. A prepaid card, much like phonecompanies use, would help a lot. And it should be universal. Everything on internet should use this one payment system.
The problem I have with longhorn and co is that they go exactly in the opposite direction of wat is good for everyone(including devs).
"Dictating pc-conduct in the name of art" they call it. What a prank.
bastard_loud
Newbie
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2003
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 0
lol, i've said it before and i'll say it again.
What a dork.
Maskirovka
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,628
- Reaction score
- 0
and i'm saying that computer game prices will NOT drop...period.
not drop or stay the same...they will stay the same or go up (inflation).
you seem to be the type of person who loves to ignore the real point and prove someone wrong by tearing apart the portion of their argument that had the least significance. i.e. the amount of the price drop in my lemonade example.
who cares if my lemonade price drop was 1 cent or 1/2 cent or 4 cents. it was a price drop.
now answer the question. what is the incentive for dropping the price at all...ever...for any reason?
if sales are increasing, prices will NOT drop. a business would have NO reason to decrease their profits when people are willing to continue buying at current prices.
so HALF of your statement is correct...prices might stay the same and they probably will...but they will not drop, got it?
i have no intention of continuing to drive home that point...everyone else seems perfectly capable of understanding that basic business concept...regardless of piracy that basic principle is true.
clearly you are not listening to what i say or you're still disagreeing for whatever reason. and you don't seem willing to give any actual proof for your reasoning.
i asked if you could please prove that you understand supply and demand instead of just saying "no sorry, you are very wrong, i do understand supply and demand.. " you have not proven it.
like i said before...you just continue to rip apart the most insignificant part of someone's post and you feel that somehow proves you right.
if you still disagree, please move on to the next point.
==============================
and no, i don't care one way or another if i'm "changing the world" or some crap like that. i just enjoy discussing these types of issues...they are very interesting to me.
and you're still arguing against every one of our points just because "piracy is bad".
you refuse to acknowledge that we're right about what would happen with the pricing because you think we're pro-piracy. wrong. i'm not pro-piracy. you're making assumptions.
i think piracy should be stopped, but i don't think continously trying to make it impossible by implementing anti-consumer, nazi-like systems is the way to stop it.
people will always find a way around anti-piracy systems just like you find ways around arguing people's real points. it's pointless. you have to make it so it's not worth it for MOST people to continue pirating.
there will always be piracy no matter what. therefore, the best business model will be the one that has the least number of people saying to themselves, "that game isn't worth the price...i'll pirate it"
even if games cost only $20, there would still be people who would just pirate them instead of paying the small fee. but a LOT of people would just go buy the thing and give some money to the people that made the game.
so like i said...the trick is to find the price at which you have the least possible number of people who pirate games, and the highest profit. this involves figuring out the value of your game compared to other games (not all games are worth $50...i hope you can agree on that) and adjusting accordingly.
lots of people would be willing to pay $100 for halflife2. but a ton of people would be willing to pirate it because that's double the price of normal games....so that's a bad idea. even more people would be willing to buy halflife2 for $50 (of course) and less people would pirate than at $100.
but if you lower the price to $40, what happens? do you decrease the pirating that much by lowering the price? are you really increasing profits? are profits even staying the same while selling more copies? there's a point at which you're losing money by decreasing the price further.
so it's all about maximizing profits...you know people are going to pirate your game...but at what price is your game"worth it" to the most people?
THEREFORE...if your sales are increasing regardless of price (and the game industry's sales are increasing steadily even WITH piracy) you have no incentive to decrease the price and a lot of incentive to keep it the same since people feel satisfied that it's a fair price.
Maskirovka
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,628
- Reaction score
- 0
no matter what his response is, i'm done with this thread...waste of time.
poseyjmac
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 4,766
- Reaction score
- 0
you are guilty of only replying to parts of my posts as well, so i wouldn't be talking.
again, the online cdkey system is very nazi-like, your computer constantly has to check in with an outside server to see if you are legitimate, yet no one complains?
heres the problem with your way of thinking, you think piracy should be stopped, but you aren't willing to take measures to stop it. open your eyes and look around. people are shit, they are evil and selfish and will take what they want to take for their own selfish desire. they deserve to have a system like this imposed, because there IS no other way. humans have proved this over time. it comes down to, you do the crime, you do the time. in this case its an elaborate security system integerated with hardware that will make it hard as **** to pirate software when you are using longhorn.
developers aren't going to be screwed forever, they will get their day. and when that happens im going to laugh at all the pirates, because they will finally have to earn what they get or be stuck on an older platform with an old version of directx which wont take advantage of their new hardware and new games. keep telling yourself there is just going to be an easy software fix you can download off irc to apply to longhorn. keep telling yourself that.
poseyjmac
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 4,766
- Reaction score
- 0
how is devs making more money the opposite of what they want. its comments like this that tell me that you have never worked for a software company, or an esteemed company at all that makes something of value.
but it makes sense. how can you value copyrights if you live life making nothing of value, but instead leeching from others?
JonTheCanuck
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2003
- Messages
- 1,022
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm with u Mask, this thread has been a complete waste of time. Its like trying to teach the theory of relativity to a 5 year old. No matter what we come up with posey cant seem to understand it, so i'm finished with this thread. Heres a riddle, if Posey is deep in the woods talking about his view on economics and nobody else is around to here him, is he still wrong? And with that, i leave u.
Maskirovka
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,628
- Reaction score
- 0
ok so i'm done with long posts, but i'll respond to this :\
you're assuming that sales of software will increase if pirating stops. what about people who wouldn't have bought the software anyway? sales will not increase from these people. what about college students who pirate things because they have no money? they won't go out and suddenly buy software.
do you honestly think that people who steal have the means to buy the things they steal? are pirates all rich people who just steal because they're evil? LOL
and you say that i'm not willing to do anything to stop pirates...laff. i'm willing to do whatever it takes without microsoft having intel and AMD implement hardware THEY designed to operate with THEIR OS only...it's just wrong and it's getting closer and closer to a monopoly.
this sentence assumes that we're all worthless people who contribute nothing to society and produce nothing of value...it's an insult.
you're assuming that sales of software will increase if pirating stops. what about people who wouldn't have bought the software anyway? sales will not increase from these people. what about college students who pirate things because they have no money? they won't go out and suddenly buy software.
do you honestly think that people who steal have the means to buy the things they steal? are pirates all rich people who just steal because they're evil? LOL
and you say that i'm not willing to do anything to stop pirates...laff. i'm willing to do whatever it takes without microsoft having intel and AMD implement hardware THEY designed to operate with THEIR OS only...it's just wrong and it's getting closer and closer to a monopoly.
this sentence assumes that we're all worthless people who contribute nothing to society and produce nothing of value...it's an insult.
Maskirovka
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,628
- Reaction score
- 0
look, it all comes down to my option A/B thing again.
there are two types of people in the world...people who think everyone is evil and they deserve to be punished, and people who basically believe that people are good and circumstances cause them to do evil things.
people who think people are evil love option B as their method of solving problems
people who think people are basically good like option A as their method
people who are smart know it's somewhere in between.
giving all the control to companies and micrsoft is a terrible idea because they will f*ck the consumers. giving all the control to the consumer is also a terrible idea because they will f*ck the companies.
you keep accusing everyone of being filthy pirates or something...we're really just "anti-microsoft control of our computers" and also at the same time most of us are anti-piracy as well.
i just don't think that microsoft's way of solving the piracy problem is a good way of doing it...it's just too control-oriented...it just pisses people off (hence this thread) which makes them hate microsoft even more and want to pirate microsoft products even more...
hate breeds hate :\
there are two types of people in the world...people who think everyone is evil and they deserve to be punished, and people who basically believe that people are good and circumstances cause them to do evil things.
people who think people are evil love option B as their method of solving problems
people who think people are basically good like option A as their method
people who are smart know it's somewhere in between.
giving all the control to companies and micrsoft is a terrible idea because they will f*ck the consumers. giving all the control to the consumer is also a terrible idea because they will f*ck the companies.
you keep accusing everyone of being filthy pirates or something...we're really just "anti-microsoft control of our computers" and also at the same time most of us are anti-piracy as well.
i just don't think that microsoft's way of solving the piracy problem is a good way of doing it...it's just too control-oriented...it just pisses people off (hence this thread) which makes them hate microsoft even more and want to pirate microsoft products even more...
hate breeds hate :\
Maskirovka
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,628
- Reaction score
- 0
i never said i had one...just that one needs to be found because the other two extremes never work in the long run.
maybe have some kind of system where you can download the full version of a game and use it for a time period...say a 3-5 hours. then after that time you can decide whether or not to purchase it...same thing with music.
people want to avoid getting screwed. the whole iTunes thing is a great idea...if only it were some government run thing where every song ever was available and all the money went to the artist themselves...people are sick of the middle man and all the credit-card type BS that goes with things like iTunes.
and you talk so much about giving developers their due for the content they create...well companies like EA just own all the developers and don't actually do anything but stamp EA on the boxes they make and provide advertising...the developers don't get all that much money.
that's why valve's system of steam is a decent idea at heart...paying the developer directly...except valve tries to take lots of control as well and ends up making people mad in the process.
of course, this kind of thing is possible with a palladium-type system, but microsoft wants to be able to delete content from your computer and stuff like that? please...suggesting that this kind of idea is good just ends up making people mad.
poseyjmac
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 4,766
- Reaction score
- 0
ok so you dont have one. and rightly so, because one DOESNT EXIST. i used to think like you, that there could be a balance. but i realized where i live. PLANET EARTH. there is no other way for companies to get what they deserve besides a system like this. it sucks for us, but its the only alternative.
and ive been saying developers/companies/whatever. mainly ive been saying companies. EA is a company and doesn't deserve to get ripped off by pirates. EA gets a lot of money because they are a huge publisher, its not as easy to get together a large publishing company, then to get a dev team together. the bottom line is, you really dont know the inner workings of who gets what in these companies, so you have no right to decide who gets what, and decide that you wont contribute money because of a theory you have that somehow the developers are getting screwed.
MS deleting content from your computer? tell me what WOULD they delete from your computer? if its not illegal, why would they delete it? im tired of hearing your conspiracy theories about what MS could do, yes they could do a lot of things, but show me proof of this.
Maskirovka
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,628
- Reaction score
- 0
no, i do have an idea about what to do...apparently you just read the first line of my post and hit the quote button.
and just giving up and saying that a compromise doesn't exist is exactly the reason why you're a republican.
and as far as conspiracy theories and asking people to prove this and that, you're the champ...you asked people to prove that aliens don't run microsoft, etc etc.
the point is, you can't prove that microsoft won't do anything bad...you're the one who said people are inherently evil...and since corporations are run by these evil people, what prevents them from doing evil things?
you still think i'm pro-piracy and pro-screw companies. i'm not...i'm just not in favor of giving companies amazing powers to delete whatever they want off anyone's computer that's running their OS.
this type of pro-"the people" thinking is the same reason there's a 2nd amendment...so people can retain the right to overthrow the government. i want to retain the right to choose what i do with my computer...i don't want one company to become standard over everyone else unless it's run by everyday users and not some corporation's board of executives.
well banning guns would be one step down the slippery slope towards a dictatorship...just like giving microsoft the ability to delete things from your computer is one step down that slippery slope towards monopoly.
and just giving up and saying that a compromise doesn't exist is exactly the reason why you're a republican.
and as far as conspiracy theories and asking people to prove this and that, you're the champ...you asked people to prove that aliens don't run microsoft, etc etc.
the point is, you can't prove that microsoft won't do anything bad...you're the one who said people are inherently evil...and since corporations are run by these evil people, what prevents them from doing evil things?
you still think i'm pro-piracy and pro-screw companies. i'm not...i'm just not in favor of giving companies amazing powers to delete whatever they want off anyone's computer that's running their OS.
this type of pro-"the people" thinking is the same reason there's a 2nd amendment...so people can retain the right to overthrow the government. i want to retain the right to choose what i do with my computer...i don't want one company to become standard over everyone else unless it's run by everyday users and not some corporation's board of executives.
well banning guns would be one step down the slippery slope towards a dictatorship...just like giving microsoft the ability to delete things from your computer is one step down that slippery slope towards monopoly.
poseyjmac
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 4,766
- Reaction score
- 0
why do people do selfish things?
answer - because they benefit
why do people pirate games?
answer - because they benefit
why would microsoft delete legitimate data off someone computer?
answer - ?
---
you said tha since i said humans are evil, i should accept that people that work in companies are evil and inherently selfish so they will delete peoples stuff for no reason(?). but my reasoning above states that theres no justification for doing evil on microsoft's part.
answer - because they benefit
why do people pirate games?
answer - because they benefit
why would microsoft delete legitimate data off someone computer?
answer - ?
---
you said tha since i said humans are evil, i should accept that people that work in companies are evil and inherently selfish so they will delete peoples stuff for no reason(?). but my reasoning above states that theres no justification for doing evil on microsoft's part.
Shuzer
Newbie
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 8,703
- Reaction score
- 0
answer - because they might not benefit from it.
It's far-fetched, but let's say down the road Microsoft decides that it's not cool for people to use any other browser than IE. The solution for them? Don't let their users use it.
I doubt that would ever happen, but it's just an example.
MultiVaC
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2003
- Messages
- 2,855
- Reaction score
- 4
Because they would benefit. They would own you. They could delete BitTorrent from our computer because it can be used for piracy. But BitTorrent is completely legal, I used it to get the Source HDR video when we overloaded every download server for it. Maybe deleting is the wrong word, but they would make it incompatible with Palladium. They would have the ability to delete things though.
poseyjmac
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 4,766
- Reaction score
- 0
ok so microsoft COULD do a lot of things. but do you have any basis for any of your claims? any articles about longhorn that suggest the deleting of files? if you find proof, im more likely to side against longhorn. but the problem in this thread is, you have provided no proof of wrong things that microsoft plans to do with longhorn and palladium.
Dr. Freeman
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
- Messages
- 6,785
- Reaction score
- 2
i wasn't going to respond to any of Posey's posts anymore.. but its funny how hes so to throw the following line out without providing any basis that isn't from "his world" and would actually work in this life called reality..
well u don't have any basis for any of ur claims either.. prices have stayed steady ever since the Nintendo cartridge days like pple have already pointed out.. with the fact that there has been piracy over the years.. so what basis do u have for ur claim that prices would go down if piracy were to be eliminated? and please, keep ur simple economics lectures to urself.. enough pple have pointed out how ur simple economics theory is full of holes..
im done.. really
well u don't have any basis for any of ur claims either.. prices have stayed steady ever since the Nintendo cartridge days like pple have already pointed out.. with the fact that there has been piracy over the years.. so what basis do u have for ur claim that prices would go down if piracy were to be eliminated? and please, keep ur simple economics lectures to urself.. enough pple have pointed out how ur simple economics theory is full of holes..
im done.. really
- Status
