Everyone would be willing to buy a Laptop for $5 but pricing one at $500 doesn’t mean demand isn’t matched or the business model is flawed. It costs more than $5 to make a laptop. This is an extreme case but often I see the argument that it’s ok to pirate because it’s too expensive is a flawed argument. Lots of people want things that are cheaper but it isn’t always possible. That being said some companies abuse this and over charge a lot, but nonetheless the argument that free is because it’s too over priced is a flawed argument. Otherwise I could use the same logic and steal a laptop and say it’s he business fault for selling it at $500 instead of $55
Yes but what he’s saying is that if you take that money from high executive pay then you can offer both. You have three variables rather then just two, most businesses ignore the executive pay. That’s where the example breaks down. Now if you want to keep executive pay high then yes a lot of people select price over service and you are correct. But those aren’t the only two variables then it’s a lot more variable. Pardon the pun.
It's about the price of generating the electricity in terms of the damage it does to the environment (rather than dollar amount) compared to the value the cryptocurrencies generate. Most people look just at electricity costs and not electricity costs AND environmental costs.
We’re cobstantly dealing with environmental issues and global warming yet burn incredible amounts of energy and carbon compared to the value this gives us. It would probably be more environmentally friendly to not use crypto currencies then to stop using all the electricity you do each day...
I’m amazed that your comment isn’t higher. That was my first thought as well. They may be great design wise but if they don’t covert at all it means very little. Many tv commercials than win awards are terrible at converting for example.
From a higher level maybe don’t start a software company. Just because I have an idea say on how to make a better oven I should not open one until I at least have some industry experience and knowledge first. In other words if your whole business model depends on a specific set of skills then you should at least have some knowledge or expert on your team as a starting point. If you start a plumbing business you don’t just open it up with zero plumbers on staff and no experience in plumbing. But for some reason this is fairly common in software...
The answers I read here are classic over engineering. Sometimes the simplest answer is the best answer, and you don't need to build a complex system. That is to say the same methods that are used to defend against a gun, either another gun to disarm the assailant (be it a person or drone) body armour. Killing the GPS, etc. are all good methods too, don't get me wrong, it's just that they may be more Factory.getFactory().getFactory().getInstance()... type of solutions. Initially just the same methods should work.
They have the choice to build their own OS. The reason they don’t is clear, it’s too expensive. Google instead of charging money requires certain licensing conditions. If they truly want full control they could build it themselves but obviously they’re prefer google’s licensing model.
My guess is that it will help cloud providers. In most cases they don’t guarantee x operations per second but rather the type of cpu you get. If that type now gets 30% less performance you’re most likely going to have to pay 30% more. Again the guarantee is not on operations per second but either exact processor, class of processor, or processor units.
The article mentions government grants, does anyone know of a small software shop that has been able to get one? We looked into it at one point and its next to impossible. Our advisor told us we had to modify the product in weird ways to maybe get a grant some years later. In other words getting a grant was nice for the media outlets to report but in reality impossible for a small startup...