Pure economic Gobbeldy gook !
You can't ascribe a $ value to something that doesn't have a price, then wrap it up nice and neatly and call it social surplus.
The fact that a dev turns around and sells it for $5 means its value is FIVE dollars not whatever number you pull out of your hat. If the dev could charge $10 do you think he/she would ? Of course they would. Then your social surplus would be what, 0 or would you try and up it because of lost Opportunity Cost just so that you can have a social surplus ?
What about if the dev sold it for $20 - does that mean that your social surplus is a negative number ? Is it now costing an economy to have something sell for what people are willing to pay for ?
My point being that it has to be able to be measured accurately - otherwise it's meaningless.
Just because consumers don't walk around with a sign that states their willingness-to-pay for a certain product doesn't mean that this concept doesn't exist. You also can't observe electrons directly - but we infer their existence from a long line of experiments.
For economists, the evidence is a transaction - it wouldn't happen unless the consumer's willingness-to-pay (WTP) wouldn't be greater than the price.
About your $20 example: consumers with WTP equal to $10 would not pay such a product but consumers with a WTP greater than $20 would. Hence, fewer consumers would buy the product but the surplus would always be positive unless you coerce the consumers with $10 WTP to buy the product.
The fact that there are firms out there who run Apache server and other OSS products means that their WTP is greater than 0. Now you might think that's the New York Time's WTP to run a website (they use Apache) is just 1 US cent or less and hence the surplus generated is almost zero - but I wager that the NYT would run a proprietary website such as Windows Server instead if there were no Apache. Hence, their WTP is at least whatever the license cost of Windows server would be - let's say $1000 (too low, but let's just stick to it for the sake of argument).
So this means that Apache enables surplus of at least $1000 for the NYT company.
Would it matter if Apache would not exist? Presumably not for the NYT - they would buy a webserver from (say) Microsoft and the same social surplus would be generated - except that it would be divided between the NYT and Microsoft instead of all going to the NYT.
However, what about small provincial papers or a school? It's entirely possible that they their WTP is less than $1000. Let's say it's $500. They couldn't run a website. In those cases, the existence of Apache creates a surplus of $500 which otherwise would be lost.
I don't think I am making any ground-breaking economics here - the marginal cost of replicating software is close to 0 and therefore it's unsurprising that it's efficient to sell it at price 0 (e.g. free).
It is possible that free software can diminish incentives to produce better proprietary alternatives - so a price of 0 might not be efficient if you take software creation into account.
I'm not sure how anybody can read the nonsense that DED posts. Like many other instance I get two or three paragraphs into the article and realize you can not fix stupidity.
Yes, but I bet you were not sitting by the pool, with bottle of beer in your hand (not sure if can would suffice). That puts everything in completely new perspective.
@ BigMushroom - there's likely a Treasury official calculating the lost tax opportunity of social surplus
"Gee, if only they'd charge for it, we'd have them !"
In the case of the school /newspaper - if the software suddenly cost them $500 and there were no other free alternatives, then it becomes a cost, it's not lost. It becomes a legitimate business expense and is therefore tax deductible. Not wanting to nit pick or derail the thread
For database servers, MySQL (Open source. Not exclusively Linux, but I understand that MSSQL controls the Windows server market, leaving... Linux. Kind of like how Apache will run quite happily on Windows) controls 54% of the market.
Hmm... this is all hard to confirm. Various data is available over the net, depending on method used for sampling.
And here (http://slashdot.org/topic/datacenter/the-enterprise-datacenter-os-war-is-over/) it is also stated that Windows holds 75% of x86 servers market, Linux having around 25% and Unix less than 1%. It is also said that non-x86 server hardware shipments are down to just a few % of all servers hardware shipped.
Anecdotal as it is, my personal experience is giving even more to Windows servers. We are (maybe?) specific for having all our major customers on Hyper-V by now, and typical scenario consists of number of Servers 2008 R2 and a few 2012 in Core mode, running (often more than one) virtual DCs, Apps, AV, Data, DMZ, Backup, Lync, SQL, SharePoint, RDS, Test... all Widows. Our biggest customer has around 80 servers (including HQ and branch hosts and VMs), the second one (more centralised) around 50 Windows servers... and zero anything else. Small as they are, these numbers are the only I can confirm, and to my knowledge, are relatively representative for this part of the world at least (NZ, Australia)... at least most our competitors and their customers run comparable setups.
@ BigMushroom - there's likely a Treasury official calculating the lost tax opportunity of social surplus
"Gee, if only they'd charge for it, we'd have them !"
In the case of the school /newspaper - if the software suddenly cost them $500 and there were no other free alternatives, then it becomes a cost, it's not lost. It becomes a legitimate business expense and is therefore tax deductible.
Not wanting to nit pick or derail the thread
Or they just don't do it. Particularly in the case of non-profit organisations.
IE: There is no online version of the school newspaper because the budget didn't stretch to $500.
For instance, I run a search engine for a reasonably old online forum. No revenue comes from it.
If I'd been told I had to actually pay to run it, I'd just laugh and not do it.
2. I went back and read the question before even posting. And you're just a complete fool.
I ask again: how is that a valid question.
Did you bother reading my post?
1 - My most humble and sincere apologies.
2 - You have still not answered the question posed to you: Do you know actually know anything about software? You either know a great deal, or very little. Your posts seem to point both ways. For example, your original back and forth with other posters in this thread was related to your comments about Google "stealing" open source. For most people, the very definition of open source is something which is freely shared. Freely shared, but usually some sort of requirements for attribution if the open source is incorporated into something else. Therefore, theft of open source (like Microsoft did a few years back) would be the incorporation of open source into something proprietary without attribution (or some other act which breaks the terms/license of the open source). Do you know, for fact, that this is what Google has done with some open source?
If your basis of the back and forth about "stealing" open source was that it is somehow easier because it's freely/readily available, then your logic is flawed. It's actually quite hard to steal open source and get away with it. Just ask Microsoft.
2 - You have still not answered the question posed to you: Do you know actually know anything about software? You either know a great deal, or very little. Your posts seem to point both ways. For example, your original back and forth with other posters in this thread was related to your comments about Google "stealing" open source. For most people, the very definition of open source is something which is freely shared. Freely shared, but usually some sort of requirements for attribution if the open source is incorporated into something else. Therefore, theft of open source (like Microsoft did a few years back) would be the incorporation of open source into something proprietary without attribution (or some other act which breaks the terms/license of the open source). Do you know, for fact, that this is what Google has done with some open source?
If your basis of the back and forth about "stealing" open source was that it is somehow easier because it's freely/readily available, then your logic is flawed. It's actually quite hard to steal open source and get away with it. Just ask Microsoft.
I just simply ask a question. Would someone rely on a company named Google for one's IT needs? hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhaha. Google is NOT an IT company, they are an internet services company as in Internet Search, YouTube videos as their main source of revenue. They know nothing about structuring a rock solid OS platform working with OEM customers and Enterprise customers. Even Microsoft has had problems in the past, but their main source of revenue is ad revenue from their Search Site and YouTube videos posted mostly by kids that probably aren't old enough to begin with to have an account to show some stupid video because they are in hopes of becoming the next Justin Bieber. It's NOT a company to rely on personal or professional based IT needs.
Or they just don't do it. Particularly in the case of non-profit organisations.
IE: There is no online version of the school newspaper because the budget didn't stretch to $500.
For instance, I run a search engine for a reasonably old online forum. No revenue comes from it.
If I'd been told I had to actually pay to run it, I'd just laugh and not do it.
Or that, exactly.
I think the Open Source community has contributed immensely and should be applauded for moving the world forward. But as for putting some kind of number/value on their contribution ... nah. Not the contributors intention.
Many of your posts seem to have the underlying premise that if other people modify your product as they wish, they would ruin your design plans and prevent you from supporting the people who use your unmodified product. Is that an accurate inference? That would suggest for example that the iOS jailbreak community is interfering with apple's vision for the next iOS, or that people who install custom car stereos are preventing BMW from providing "great support" to its customers.
BMW integrates its car radios into the vehicle in a way that is impractical to replace with a "standard" car radio. They do this for a good reason. Partly to profit, but partly because they can offer a better overall experience in tying the radio into the media player and navigation system, and provide voice response to control everything.
Wanting to stay in the 1990s, where there was a standard hole to put anyone's car radio in, just leaves you in the past. Most people don't want that anymore. Why carry a pull out car radio or even a faceplate when you can just have your music on your iPod or iPhone and you unplug it and take it with you?
Android/Windows people are stuck in the midset that computers have to be the way they were in the 90s. Apple introduced a far more natural interface for mobile devices. Even the people who are copying the concept don't really understand it. Microsoft, and to an even greater extent Google, have copied the premise of the iPhone without getting rid of the trappings of 1990s computing. Removable physical storage, file system access, manual app management. All unnecessary if you build superior solutions around them.
So car stereos do have a lot in common with the mobile device market.
BMW integrates its car radios into the vehicle in a way that is impractical to replace with a "standard" car radio. They do this for a good reason. Partly to profit, but partly because they can offer a better overall experience in tying the radio into the media player and navigation system, and provide voice response to control everything.
Wanting to stay in the 1990s, where there was a standard hole to put anyone's car radio in, just leaves you in the past. Most people don't want that anymore. Why carry a pull out car radio or even a faceplate when you can just have your music on your iPod or iPhone and you unplug it and take it with you?
Android/Windows people are stuck in the midset that computers have to be the way they were in the 90s. Apple introduced a far more natural interface for mobile devices. Even the people who are copying the concept don't really understand it. Microsoft, and to an even greater extent Google, have copied the premise of the iPhone without getting rid of the trappings of 1990s computing. Removable physical storage, file system access, manual app management. All unnecessary if you build superior solutions around them.
So car stereos do have a lot in common with the mobile device market.
What happens when the implementation is full of crap, as with recent BMWs? You're stuck. My recent experience at the dealer is a great example - my 2012 BMW needed a firmware update. Unfortunately, the dealer's Gracenote rev was a different version from mine, so when the dealer upgraded my car's firmware, they could not backup and restore all the songs I had ripped to the car's hard drive. They were completely erased (my dealer warned me in advance). With an open system, there would be aftermarket tools, or I could have written something myself, to make and restore an archive of my car's music.
BMW integrates its car radios into the vehicle in a way that is impractical to replace with a "standard" car radio. They do this for a good reason. Partly to profit, but partly because they can offer a better overall experience in tying the radio into the media player and navigation system, and provide voice response to control everything.
Wanting to stay in the 1990s, where there was a standard hole to put anyone's car radio in, just leaves you in the past. Most people don't want that anymore. Why carry a pull out car radio or even a faceplate when you can just have your music on your iPod or iPhone and you unplug it and take it with you?
Android/Windows people are stuck in the midset that computers have to be the way they were in the 90s. Apple introduced a far more natural interface for mobile devices. Even the people who are copying the concept don't really understand it. Microsoft, and to an even greater extent Google, have copied the premise of the iPhone without getting rid of the trappings of 1990s computing. Removable physical storage, file system access, manual app management. All unnecessary if you build superior solutions around them.
So car stereos do have a lot in common with the mobile device market.
Right, I'm sure before iOS 7 you thought quick toggles were a 1990's "trap" but since Apple introduced it, now I'm sure it's a superior solution
What happens when the implementation is full of crap, as with recent BMWs? You're stuck. My recent experience at the dealer is a great example - my 2012 BMW needed a firmware update. Unfortunately, the dealer's Gracenote rev was a different version from mine, so when the dealer upgraded my car's firmware, they could not backup and restore all the songs I had ripped to the car's hard drive. They were completely erased (my dealer warned me in advance). With an open system, there would be aftermarket tools, or I could have written something myself, to make and restore an archive of my car's music.
Or what if BMW's implementation wasn't terribly executed? If we can make up scenarios, lets make them up.
There are plenty of "open systems" that promise to allow you to do something, but have bugs and flaws that similarly cause problems, including data loss you weren't planning and couldn't back up in advance. You seem to be arguing that BMW's system had problems, and its issues and all other issues could be solved if only nobody owned anything. That sounds like logical fallacy.
Or are you simply saying that "open" in an interoperable, accessible sense allows you more options? If so, why can't BMW offer you an open API for dealing with your stuff? Perhaps a USB drive you can plug in and transfer your files to. That's how mine works.
Or what if BMW's implementation wasn't terribly executed? If we can make up scenarios, lets make them up.
There are plenty of "open systems" that promise to allow you to do something, but have bugs and flaws that similarly cause problems, including data loss you weren't planning and couldn't back up in advance. You seem to be arguing that BMW's system had problems, and its issues and all other issues could be solved if only nobody owned anything. That sounds like logical fallacy.
Or are you simply saying that "open" in an interoperable, accessible sense allows you more options? If so, why can't BMW offer you an open API for dealing with your stuff? Perhaps a USB drive you can plug in and transfer your files to. That's how mine works.
You mean OPEN LOOP architecture. That's what they end up being. I honestly think BMTroubleYou doesn't know what they are doing when it comes to this end of the business, most car mfg don't. I never really thought cars were that sophisticated when it came to integrating computer technology for their audio/video/smartphone/tablet. They are car mfg, not computer/audio/video companies. It's not their core competency. When BMTroubleYou first came out with their iDrive technology, I remember a car magazine was not that impressed with it. I think they need more help in this area to be completely honest. Plus they charge a bloody fortune for audio/video/car equipment and it's not that good considering the amount of money they charge. They are trying to get better.
What gets my goat is the 4wd market with these car companies - hell, you're off road out the back of nowhere and your vehicle breaks down. You can't diagnose it - you are screwed ! There are places here in NZ and all over the globe that are going to cost you a freakn fortune just to get your computer driven pos to a garage - let alone an authorised service centre. They FAIL in this regard, totally.
Fwiw - I'm still locked in 1992 and prior for this type of vehicle. At least I can identify all the engine parts and have been able to get going even if somewhat crippled,
Really, really need an aftermarket diagnostic tool for the newer vehicles.
I just simply ask a question. Would someone rely on a company named Google for one's IT needs? hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhaha. Google is NOT an IT company, they are an internet services company as in Internet Search, YouTube videos as their main source of revenue. They know nothing about structuring a rock solid OS platform working with OEM customers and Enterprise customers. Even Microsoft has had problems in the past, but their main source of revenue is ad revenue from their Search Site and YouTube videos posted mostly by kids that probably aren't old enough to begin with to have an account to show some stupid video because they are in hopes of becoming the next Justin Bieber. It's NOT a company to rely on personal or professional based IT needs.
Yes, absolutely and they do by the thousands.
Google has an absolutely monstrous Enterprise department, their Google Search Appliance rack mount solution for instance is installed on more then half of the fortune 500 companies and 1,000's of large firms around the world. Company's who have hundreds if not thousands of servers in their data center need solutions to index and search all of their data, Google is amongst the best if not the de facto Intranet search engine for these companies. Saying Google knows nothing about the needs of Enterprise is like saying Apple knows nothing about designing computers. Your hatred for Google doesn't make them any less important to the Enterprise customer.
Before you jump up to complain about security concerns, these are internal search solutions. Most of them have no access to the internet so they can't send indexed data to Google, their designed for intranet use. The US government uses Google's Search Appliances. What's easier, writing a SQL search or using a controlled Google search.
What gets my goat is the 4wd market with these car companies - hell, you're off road out the back of nowhere and your vehicle breaks down. You can't diagnose it - you are screwed !
There are places here in NZ and all over the globe that are going to cost you a freakn fortune just to get your computer driven pos to a garage - let alone an authorised service centre. They FAIL in this regard, totally.
Fwiw - I'm still locked in 1992 and prior for this type of vehicle. At least I can identify all the engine parts and have been able to get going even if somewhat crippled,
Really, really need an aftermarket diagnostic tool for the newer vehicles.
OT rant finished.
They have diagnostic tools that people can buy and hook up to their car's computer. There are cheap ones and there are more professional ones the dealership uses. Have you ever searched for auto diag systems? You might want to investigate that. I did it for a friend's Chevy Suburban and I think one of the better ones was around $300. Talk to the service centers? If you get to know the guy's there. Maybe a store that sells lots of third party stuff for the 4x4 people? I'm sure you can find something that will help you diagnose your car.
What gets my goat is the 4wd market with these car companies - hell, you're off road out the back of nowhere and your vehicle breaks down. You can't diagnose it - you are screwed !
There are places here in NZ and all over the globe that are going to cost you a freakn fortune just to get your computer driven pos to a garage - let alone an authorised service centre. They FAIL in this regard, totally.
Fwiw - I'm still locked in 1992 and prior for this type of vehicle. At least I can identify all the engine parts and have been able to get going even if somewhat crippled,
Really, really need an aftermarket diagnostic tool for the newer vehicles.
OT rant finished.
Go to Amazon and type in Auto diagnostic tools. You might want to call the companies that make them and find out which one is the best for your vehicle before you buy one.
What gets my goat is the 4wd market with these car companies - hell, you're off road out the back of nowhere and your vehicle breaks down. You can't diagnose it - you are screwed !
There are places here in NZ and all over the globe that are going to cost you a freakn fortune just to get your computer driven pos to a garage - let alone an authorised service centre. They FAIL in this regard, totally.
Fwiw - I'm still locked in 1992 and prior for this type of vehicle. At least I can identify all the engine parts and have been able to get going even if somewhat crippled,
Really, really need an aftermarket diagnostic tool for the newer vehicles.
OT rant finished.
Check out Innova. Just a suggestion, but find out from others if that's a good brand. It seems like it might be. Call them directly.
The 3140 and 3160 appear to be the most comprehensive. Those are about $200+ on Amazon, normally in the $500 range. but again, that's US $.
Comments
Just because consumers don't walk around with a sign that states their willingness-to-pay for a certain product doesn't mean that this concept doesn't exist. You also can't observe electrons directly - but we infer their existence from a long line of experiments.
For economists, the evidence is a transaction - it wouldn't happen unless the consumer's willingness-to-pay (WTP) wouldn't be greater than the price.
About your $20 example: consumers with WTP equal to $10 would not pay such a product but consumers with a WTP greater than $20 would. Hence, fewer consumers would buy the product but the surplus would always be positive unless you coerce the consumers with $10 WTP to buy the product.
The fact that there are firms out there who run Apache server and other OSS products means that their WTP is greater than 0. Now you might think that's the New York Time's WTP to run a website (they use Apache) is just 1 US cent or less and hence the surplus generated is almost zero - but I wager that the NYT would run a proprietary website such as Windows Server instead if there were no Apache. Hence, their WTP is at least whatever the license cost of Windows server would be - let's say $1000 (too low, but let's just stick to it for the sake of argument).
So this means that Apache enables surplus of at least $1000 for the NYT company.
Would it matter if Apache would not exist? Presumably not for the NYT - they would buy a webserver from (say) Microsoft and the same social surplus would be generated - except that it would be divided between the NYT and Microsoft instead of all going to the NYT.
However, what about small provincial papers or a school? It's entirely possible that they their WTP is less than $1000. Let's say it's $500. They couldn't run a website. In those cases, the existence of Apache creates a surplus of $500 which otherwise would be lost.
I don't think I am making any ground-breaking economics here - the marginal cost of replicating software is close to 0 and therefore it's unsurprising that it's efficient to sell it at price 0 (e.g. free).
It is possible that free software can diminish incentives to produce better proprietary alternatives - so a price of 0 might not be efficient if you take software creation into account.
Yes, but I bet you were not sitting by the pool, with bottle of beer in your hand (not sure if can would suffice). That puts everything in completely new perspective.
"Gee, if only they'd charge for it, we'd have them !"
In the case of the school /newspaper - if the software suddenly cost them $500 and there were no other free alternatives, then it becomes a cost, it's not lost. It becomes a legitimate business expense and is therefore tax deductible.
Not wanting to nit pick or derail the thread
Hmm... this is all hard to confirm. Various data is available over the net, depending on method used for sampling.
For example, according to Forbes article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2013/01/09/an-overview-why-microsofts-worth-42/), Microsoft has 95% market share in the productivity software market, 75% share in the operating system market and approximately 75% share in the server software market.
And here (http://slashdot.org/topic/datacenter/the-enterprise-datacenter-os-war-is-over/) it is also stated that Windows holds 75% of x86 servers market, Linux having around 25% and Unix less than 1%. It is also said that non-x86 server hardware shipments are down to just a few % of all servers hardware shipped.
Anecdotal as it is, my personal experience is giving even more to Windows servers. We are (maybe?) specific for having all our major customers on Hyper-V by now, and typical scenario consists of number of Servers 2008 R2 and a few 2012 in Core mode, running (often more than one) virtual DCs, Apps, AV, Data, DMZ, Backup, Lync, SQL, SharePoint, RDS, Test... all Widows. Our biggest customer has around 80 servers (including HQ and branch hosts and VMs), the second one (more centralised) around 50 Windows servers... and zero anything else. Small as they are, these numbers are the only I can confirm, and to my knowledge, are relatively representative for this part of the world at least (NZ, Australia)... at least most our competitors and their customers run comparable setups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM
@ BigMushroom - there's likely a Treasury official calculating the lost tax opportunity of social surplus
"Gee, if only they'd charge for it, we'd have them !"
In the case of the school /newspaper - if the software suddenly cost them $500 and there were no other free alternatives, then it becomes a cost, it's not lost. It becomes a legitimate business expense and is therefore tax deductible.
Not wanting to nit pick or derail the thread
Or they just don't do it. Particularly in the case of non-profit organisations.
IE: There is no online version of the school newspaper because the budget didn't stretch to $500.
For instance, I run a search engine for a reasonably old online forum. No revenue comes from it.
If I'd been told I had to actually pay to run it, I'd just laugh and not do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
1. I actually have memory problems.
2. I went back and read the question before even posting. And you're just a complete fool.
I ask again: how is that a valid question.
Did you bother reading my post?
1 - My most humble and sincere apologies.
2 - You have still not answered the question posed to you: Do you know actually know anything about software? You either know a great deal, or very little. Your posts seem to point both ways. For example, your original back and forth with other posters in this thread was related to your comments about Google "stealing" open source. For most people, the very definition of open source is something which is freely shared. Freely shared, but usually some sort of requirements for attribution if the open source is incorporated into something else. Therefore, theft of open source (like Microsoft did a few years back) would be the incorporation of open source into something proprietary without attribution (or some other act which breaks the terms/license of the open source). Do you know, for fact, that this is what Google has done with some open source?
If your basis of the back and forth about "stealing" open source was that it is somehow easier because it's freely/readily available, then your logic is flawed. It's actually quite hard to steal open source and get away with it. Just ask Microsoft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by runbuh
1 - My most humble and sincere apologies.
2 - You have still not answered the question posed to you: Do you know actually know anything about software? You either know a great deal, or very little. Your posts seem to point both ways. For example, your original back and forth with other posters in this thread was related to your comments about Google "stealing" open source. For most people, the very definition of open source is something which is freely shared. Freely shared, but usually some sort of requirements for attribution if the open source is incorporated into something else. Therefore, theft of open source (like Microsoft did a few years back) would be the incorporation of open source into something proprietary without attribution (or some other act which breaks the terms/license of the open source). Do you know, for fact, that this is what Google has done with some open source?
If your basis of the back and forth about "stealing" open source was that it is somehow easier because it's freely/readily available, then your logic is flawed. It's actually quite hard to steal open source and get away with it. Just ask Microsoft.
I just simply ask a question. Would someone rely on a company named Google for one's IT needs? hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhaha. Google is NOT an IT company, they are an internet services company as in Internet Search, YouTube videos as their main source of revenue. They know nothing about structuring a rock solid OS platform working with OEM customers and Enterprise customers. Even Microsoft has had problems in the past, but their main source of revenue is ad revenue from their Search Site and YouTube videos posted mostly by kids that probably aren't old enough to begin with to have an account to show some stupid video because they are in hopes of becoming the next Justin Bieber. It's NOT a company to rely on personal or professional based IT needs.
Or that, exactly.
I think the Open Source community has contributed immensely and should be applauded for moving the world forward. But as for putting some kind of number/value on their contribution ... nah. Not the contributors intention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf
Many of your posts seem to have the underlying premise that if other people modify your product as they wish, they would ruin your design plans and prevent you from supporting the people who use your unmodified product. Is that an accurate inference? That would suggest for example that the iOS jailbreak community is interfering with apple's vision for the next iOS, or that people who install custom car stereos are preventing BMW from providing "great support" to its customers.
BMW integrates its car radios into the vehicle in a way that is impractical to replace with a "standard" car radio. They do this for a good reason. Partly to profit, but partly because they can offer a better overall experience in tying the radio into the media player and navigation system, and provide voice response to control everything.
Wanting to stay in the 1990s, where there was a standard hole to put anyone's car radio in, just leaves you in the past. Most people don't want that anymore. Why carry a pull out car radio or even a faceplate when you can just have your music on your iPod or iPhone and you unplug it and take it with you?
Android/Windows people are stuck in the midset that computers have to be the way they were in the 90s. Apple introduced a far more natural interface for mobile devices. Even the people who are copying the concept don't really understand it. Microsoft, and to an even greater extent Google, have copied the premise of the iPhone without getting rid of the trappings of 1990s computing. Removable physical storage, file system access, manual app management. All unnecessary if you build superior solutions around them.
So car stereos do have a lot in common with the mobile device market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
BMW integrates its car radios into the vehicle in a way that is impractical to replace with a "standard" car radio. They do this for a good reason. Partly to profit, but partly because they can offer a better overall experience in tying the radio into the media player and navigation system, and provide voice response to control everything.
Wanting to stay in the 1990s, where there was a standard hole to put anyone's car radio in, just leaves you in the past. Most people don't want that anymore. Why carry a pull out car radio or even a faceplate when you can just have your music on your iPod or iPhone and you unplug it and take it with you?
Android/Windows people are stuck in the midset that computers have to be the way they were in the 90s. Apple introduced a far more natural interface for mobile devices. Even the people who are copying the concept don't really understand it. Microsoft, and to an even greater extent Google, have copied the premise of the iPhone without getting rid of the trappings of 1990s computing. Removable physical storage, file system access, manual app management. All unnecessary if you build superior solutions around them.
So car stereos do have a lot in common with the mobile device market.
What happens when the implementation is full of crap, as with recent BMWs? You're stuck. My recent experience at the dealer is a great example - my 2012 BMW needed a firmware update. Unfortunately, the dealer's Gracenote rev was a different version from mine, so when the dealer upgraded my car's firmware, they could not backup and restore all the songs I had ripped to the car's hard drive. They were completely erased (my dealer warned me in advance). With an open system, there would be aftermarket tools, or I could have written something myself, to make and restore an archive of my car's music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
BMW integrates its car radios into the vehicle in a way that is impractical to replace with a "standard" car radio. They do this for a good reason. Partly to profit, but partly because they can offer a better overall experience in tying the radio into the media player and navigation system, and provide voice response to control everything.
Wanting to stay in the 1990s, where there was a standard hole to put anyone's car radio in, just leaves you in the past. Most people don't want that anymore. Why carry a pull out car radio or even a faceplate when you can just have your music on your iPod or iPhone and you unplug it and take it with you?
Android/Windows people are stuck in the midset that computers have to be the way they were in the 90s. Apple introduced a far more natural interface for mobile devices. Even the people who are copying the concept don't really understand it. Microsoft, and to an even greater extent Google, have copied the premise of the iPhone without getting rid of the trappings of 1990s computing. Removable physical storage, file system access, manual app management. All unnecessary if you build superior solutions around them.
So car stereos do have a lot in common with the mobile device market.
Right, I'm sure before iOS 7 you thought quick toggles were a 1990's "trap" but since Apple introduced it, now I'm sure it's a superior solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by runbuh
What happens when the implementation is full of crap, as with recent BMWs? You're stuck. My recent experience at the dealer is a great example - my 2012 BMW needed a firmware update. Unfortunately, the dealer's Gracenote rev was a different version from mine, so when the dealer upgraded my car's firmware, they could not backup and restore all the songs I had ripped to the car's hard drive. They were completely erased (my dealer warned me in advance). With an open system, there would be aftermarket tools, or I could have written something myself, to make and restore an archive of my car's music.
Or what if BMW's implementation wasn't terribly executed? If we can make up scenarios, lets make them up.
There are plenty of "open systems" that promise to allow you to do something, but have bugs and flaws that similarly cause problems, including data loss you weren't planning and couldn't back up in advance. You seem to be arguing that BMW's system had problems, and its issues and all other issues could be solved if only nobody owned anything. That sounds like logical fallacy.
Or are you simply saying that "open" in an interoperable, accessible sense allows you more options? If so, why can't BMW offer you an open API for dealing with your stuff? Perhaps a USB drive you can plug in and transfer your files to. That's how mine works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez
Right, I'm sure before iOS 7 you thought quick toggles were a 1990's "trap" but since Apple introduced it, now I'm sure it's a superior solution
Please explain how this makes any sense if you'd like a response to it.
That quick toggles are an Android thing ? Or not ...
My jailbroken iPhone 2 back on iOS 3.12 had quick toggles - so many people forget the iOS jailbreak community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
Or what if BMW's implementation wasn't terribly executed? If we can make up scenarios, lets make them up.
There are plenty of "open systems" that promise to allow you to do something, but have bugs and flaws that similarly cause problems, including data loss you weren't planning and couldn't back up in advance. You seem to be arguing that BMW's system had problems, and its issues and all other issues could be solved if only nobody owned anything. That sounds like logical fallacy.
Or are you simply saying that "open" in an interoperable, accessible sense allows you more options? If so, why can't BMW offer you an open API for dealing with your stuff? Perhaps a USB drive you can plug in and transfer your files to. That's how mine works.
You mean OPEN LOOP architecture. That's what they end up being. I honestly think BMTroubleYou doesn't know what they are doing when it comes to this end of the business, most car mfg don't. I never really thought cars were that sophisticated when it came to integrating computer technology for their audio/video/smartphone/tablet. They are car mfg, not computer/audio/video companies. It's not their core competency. When BMTroubleYou first came out with their iDrive technology, I remember a car magazine was not that impressed with it. I think they need more help in this area to be completely honest. Plus they charge a bloody fortune for audio/video/car equipment and it's not that good considering the amount of money they charge. They are trying to get better.
What gets my goat is the 4wd market with these car companies - hell, you're off road out the back of nowhere and your vehicle breaks down. You can't diagnose it - you are screwed !
There are places here in NZ and all over the globe that are going to cost you a freakn fortune just to get your computer driven pos to a garage - let alone an authorised service centre. They FAIL in this regard, totally.
Fwiw - I'm still locked in 1992 and prior for this type of vehicle. At least I can identify all the engine parts and have been able to get going even if somewhat crippled,
Really, really need an aftermarket diagnostic tool for the newer vehicles.
OT rant finished.
Yes, absolutely and they do by the thousands.
Google has an absolutely monstrous Enterprise department, their Google Search Appliance rack mount solution for instance is installed on more then half of the fortune 500 companies and 1,000's of large firms around the world. Company's who have hundreds if not thousands of servers in their data center need solutions to index and search all of their data, Google is amongst the best if not the de facto Intranet search engine for these companies. Saying Google knows nothing about the needs of Enterprise is like saying Apple knows nothing about designing computers. Your hatred for Google doesn't make them any less important to the Enterprise customer.
http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2013/06/21/google-enterprise-chief-talks-about-taking-care-of-business/
http://www.valuewalk.com/2013/06/google-inc-goog-beats-apple-inc-aapl/
http://www.dnaindia.com/money/1846984/interview-google-says-enterprise-biz-new-products-are-driving-growth-in-india
http://www.informationweek.com/internet/google/google-connects-search-appliances-for-bi/217701149?subSection=All+Stories
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9133839/Google_releases_new_version_of_its_Search_Appliance
Before you jump up to complain about security concerns, these are internal search solutions. Most of them have no access to the internet so they can't send indexed data to Google, their designed for intranet use. The US government uses Google's Search Appliances. What's easier, writing a SQL search or using a controlled Google search.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM
OT rant - thanks for intro drblank !
What gets my goat is the 4wd market with these car companies - hell, you're off road out the back of nowhere and your vehicle breaks down. You can't diagnose it - you are screwed !
There are places here in NZ and all over the globe that are going to cost you a freakn fortune just to get your computer driven pos to a garage - let alone an authorised service centre. They FAIL in this regard, totally.
Fwiw - I'm still locked in 1992 and prior for this type of vehicle. At least I can identify all the engine parts and have been able to get going even if somewhat crippled,
Really, really need an aftermarket diagnostic tool for the newer vehicles.
OT rant finished.
They have diagnostic tools that people can buy and hook up to their car's computer. There are cheap ones and there are more professional ones the dealership uses. Have you ever searched for auto diag systems? You might want to investigate that. I did it for a friend's Chevy Suburban and I think one of the better ones was around $300. Talk to the service centers? If you get to know the guy's there. Maybe a store that sells lots of third party stuff for the 4x4 people? I'm sure you can find something that will help you diagnose your car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM
OT rant - thanks for intro drblank !
What gets my goat is the 4wd market with these car companies - hell, you're off road out the back of nowhere and your vehicle breaks down. You can't diagnose it - you are screwed !
There are places here in NZ and all over the globe that are going to cost you a freakn fortune just to get your computer driven pos to a garage - let alone an authorised service centre. They FAIL in this regard, totally.
Fwiw - I'm still locked in 1992 and prior for this type of vehicle. At least I can identify all the engine parts and have been able to get going even if somewhat crippled,
Really, really need an aftermarket diagnostic tool for the newer vehicles.
OT rant finished.
Go to Amazon and type in Auto diagnostic tools. You might want to call the companies that make them and find out which one is the best for your vehicle before you buy one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM
OT rant - thanks for intro drblank !
What gets my goat is the 4wd market with these car companies - hell, you're off road out the back of nowhere and your vehicle breaks down. You can't diagnose it - you are screwed !
There are places here in NZ and all over the globe that are going to cost you a freakn fortune just to get your computer driven pos to a garage - let alone an authorised service centre. They FAIL in this regard, totally.
Fwiw - I'm still locked in 1992 and prior for this type of vehicle. At least I can identify all the engine parts and have been able to get going even if somewhat crippled,
Really, really need an aftermarket diagnostic tool for the newer vehicles.
OT rant finished.
Check out Innova. Just a suggestion, but find out from others if that's a good brand. It seems like it might be. Call them directly.
The 3140 and 3160 appear to be the most comprehensive. Those are about $200+ on Amazon, normally in the $500 range. but again, that's US $.