Text 4955, 435 rader
Skriven 2005-06-13 18:58:38 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 4954 av Mike '/m' (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Everyone should take a pay cut
==========================================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_040C_01C57049.E8703B40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Nope. More spin from you but no answer not that this isn't exactly =
what people would expect from you. So mike, did you take the 1000x = paycut to
match the decrease in hardware costs? You really don't need = to answer. I'm
sure you did not. It would not be surprising if you = actually expect (if not
are) to be paid more than you were in the past.
Rich
"Mike '/m'" <mike@barkto.com> wrote in message =
news:90esa1l4qmpa6hcrkka5ph8q53qlp8u9le@4ax.com...
So you are admitting that Microsoft is as clueless about developing
software now as they were 10 years ago.=20
Well, that doesn't surprise me because the empirical evidence supports
your admittance.
/m
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:28:23 -0700, "Rich" <@> wrote:
> Of course you do. You wouldn't admit it anyway?
>
> So Mike, in the years during which manufacturing costs have =
decreased so that a 40 GB disk drive or 4GB or RAM today is less = expensive
(and smaller and faster) than a 40 MB disk drive or 4MB of RAM = was in the
past have you taken a 1000x pay cut to match? If not then = maybe you should
limit your spinning.
>
>Rich
>
> "Mike '/m'" <mike@barkto.com> wrote in message =
news:25csa15ia541n4ri2kk2a0ti6124f4rd1n@4ax.com...
>
> I remain unconvinced that I am the one who is spinning in this
> discussion.
>
> How's your rotator cuffs doing there, Rich?
>
> /m
>
>
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:01:29 -0700, "Rich" <@> wrote:
>
> > Typical selective editing. Are you behind on your spin quote. =
The portion of the article you elided to jump ahead is
> >
> > There are noteworthy exceptions to this trend of falling prices. =
One of them is ink, at least the heavily branded sort. A year ago, it = cost
$65 to buy the two cartridges needed for my H-P 960c ink-jet = printer, and
that's precisely what they cost today. Ink prices are such = that
Hewlett-Packard now sells an entry-level printer -- the 3740 -- = that, at
$34.99, costs the same amount as some ink cartridges. Can a = disposable
printer be far behind?
> >
> > The comparison you are insinuating is apples to oranges. =
Hardware decreases in cost because technology allows producing the same = or
similar products at lower manufacturing cost. Software doesn't have = the same
cost structure and gets little to none of this benefit. The = costs for
software increase. This is why DVD players are far cheaper = than a few years
ago but DVDs are not. Televisions are cheaper but = cable, satelite, and other
premium TV is not. If anything software = development costs have increased
with inflation plus you get more in = today's products then old ones (both
computer software and movies). The = movie folks just raised prices as anyone
that goes to the theater has = seen.
> >
> > Do you pay the software developers, testers, UE folks, and =
others involved in software development less than you did a year ago? = How
much of a pay cut have you offered to take to reduce = non-manufacturing costs
for your employer? There may be lots of factors = in pricing but unless your
manufacturing costs are decreasing like they = are for Dell I don't expect your
employer is lowering its prices to half = of what they were last year because
Dell can do so with its products.
> >
> >Rich
> >
> >
> > "Mike '/m'" <mike@barkto.com> wrote in message =
news:739sa1d75ffa17ngusrhvpp9637q3cigtc@4ax.com...
> >
> > =
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB111861285110257383-7l7a53nARtxd=
FA5SfRng_iu4dTc_20060612,00.html?mod=3Dblogs
> >
> > =3D=3D=3D
> > How low can they go? Over the past few weeks, personal computers =
reached
> > a significant milestone: The price for an entry-level but fully =
loaded
> > system fell below $300.
> >
> > Dell -- which wasn't even the first PC maker to take the step -- =
last
> > week was offering for $299 a Windows computer that had most of =
what a
> > beginning user would want. That list includes a 17-inch monitor, =
a 2.4
> > gigahertz Celeron processor, 256 megabytes of RAM and a =
40-gigabyte hard
> > drive.
> >
> > A nearly identical system a year ago cost $499, and while it had =
only
> > half as much RAM, it did provide speakers. The newer, cheaper =
model
> > doesn't have any, but you can add a pair for $20.
> >
> > Besides reflecting a remarkable price decline of 40% in 12 =
months, the
> > fact that computers can now be had for less than $300 means they =
have
> > officially entered into the territory of "consumer electronics," =
at
> > least under one set of industry rules.
> >
> > Ten or so years ago, when PCs cost five or even 10 times what =
they do
> > now, it was common for analysts to say that they would never =
become a
> > staple in homes until they were priced the way consumer =
electronics
> > were, usually defined as costing less than $300. In the days =
when PCs
> > were $2,000 and even more, that target seemed to be something of =
a
> > fantasy.
> >
> > Now, PCs cost less than some telephones -- and less than a lot =
of TV
> > sets -- and can be found in roughly three-quarters of U.S. =
homes. But
> > while they are priced like consumer electronics, the machines =
still
> > aren't even remotely as easy to use, and the trend lines there =
aren't
> > particularly encouraging. In fact, with price no longer as =
significant
> > an issue, the continuing complexity of computers may become the =
biggest
> > contributor to any "digital divide" between digital haves and =
have-nots,
> > especially involving access to the Internet.
> >
> > Declining PC prices have become the poster child for the =
free-lunch
> > economics of the modern technology industry, where manufacturing
> > efficiencies, especially in semiconductors, allow companies to
> > continually sell more for less. This is most noticeable in =
hardware, but
> > it is occurring as well in technology-related services -- at =
least when
> > there is something resembling effective competition....
> >
> > There are noteworthy exceptions to this trend of falling =
prices....
> >
> > Microsoft, for one, seems to be in no particular hurry to cut =
the price
> > of Windows. Ten years ago, an upgrade version of Windows 95, =
then fresh
> > from the labs in Redmond, Wash., was being sold in most stores =
for
> > $89.95. If you shop online for Windows XP Home, the =
third-generation
> > successor to Windows 95, you'll find it in the same ballpark.
> >
> > Ditto with Microsoft Office, which includes Word, Excel and the =
like.
> > The high-end version of Office 97, which was introduced eight =
years ago,
> > went for $499; the most recent Office had the same price when it =
came
> > out in 2003....
> > =3D=3D=3D
> >
> >
> > While having a monopoly is legal, its effect upon prices is =
usually
> > beneficial only for the holder of the monopoly.
> >
> > /m
------=_NextPart_000_040C_01C57049.E8703B40
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2627" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Nope. More spin from =
you but no=20
answer not that this isn't exactly what people would expect from = you.
So=20
mike, did you take the 1000x paycut to match the decrease in hardware=20
costs? You really don't need to answer. I'm sure you did =
not. =20
It would not be surprising if you actually expect (if not are) to be = paid
more=20
than you were in the past.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Mike '/m'" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:mike@barkto.com">mike@barkto.com</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:90esa1l4qmpa6hcrkka5ph8q53qlp8u9le@4ax.com">news:90esa1l4qmp=
a6hcrkka5ph8q53qlp8u9le@4ax.com</A>...</DIV><BR>So=20
you are admitting that Microsoft is as clueless about =
developing<BR>software=20
now as they were 10 years ago. <BR><BR>Well, that doesn't surprise me =
because=20
the empirical evidence supports<BR>your=20
admittance.<BR><BR> /m<BR><BR><BR>On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:28:23 =
-0700,=20
"Rich" <@> wrote:<BR><BR>> Of course you =
do. You=20
wouldn't admit it anyway?<BR>><BR>> So Mike, in the =
years=20
during which manufacturing costs have decreased so that a 40 GB disk =
drive or=20
4GB or RAM today is less expensive (and smaller and faster) than a 40 =
MB disk=20
drive or 4MB of RAM was in the past have you taken a 1000x pay cut to=20
match? If not then maybe you should limit your=20
spinning.<BR>><BR>>Rich<BR>><BR>> "Mike '/m'" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:mike@barkto.com">mike@barkto.com</A>> wrote in =
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:25csa15ia541n4ri2kk2a0ti6124f4rd1n@4ax.com">news:25csa15ia54=
1n4ri2kk2a0ti6124f4rd1n@4ax.com</A>...<BR>><BR>> =20
I remain unconvinced that I am the one who is spinning in =
this<BR>> =20
discussion.<BR>><BR>> How's your rotator cuffs doing =
there,=20
Rich?<BR>><BR>> =
/m<BR>><BR>><BR>> On=20
Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:01:29 -0700, "Rich" <@> =
wrote:<BR>><BR>> =20
> Typical selective editing. Are you behind on =
your spin=20
quote. The portion of the article you elided to jump ahead=20
is<BR>> ><BR>> > There are noteworthy =
exceptions=20
to this trend of falling prices. One of them is ink, at least the =
heavily=20
branded sort. A year ago, it cost $65 to buy the two cartridges needed =
for my=20
H-P 960c ink-jet printer, and that's precisely what they cost today. =
Ink=20
prices are such that Hewlett-Packard now sells an entry-level printer =
-- the=20
3740 -- that, at $34.99, costs the same amount as some ink cartridges. =
Can a=20
disposable printer be far behind?<BR>> ><BR>> =20
> The comparison you are insinuating is apples to=20
oranges. Hardware decreases in cost because technology allows =
producing=20
the same or similar products at lower manufacturing cost. =
Software=20
doesn't have the same cost structure and gets little to none of this=20
benefit. The costs for software increase. This is why DVD =
players=20
are far cheaper than a few years ago but DVDs are not. =
Televisions are=20
cheaper but cable, satelite, and other premium TV is not. If =
anything=20
software development costs have increased with inflation plus you get =
more in=20
today's products then old ones (both computer software and =
movies). The=20
movie folks just raised prices as anyone that goes to the theater has=20
seen.<BR>> ><BR>> > Do you pay the =
software developers, testers, UE folks, and others involved in =
software=20
development less than you did a year ago? How much of a pay cut =
have you=20
offered to take to reduce non-manufacturing costs for your =
employer? =20
There may be lots of factors in pricing but unless your manufacturing =
costs=20
are decreasing like they are for Dell I don't expect your employer is =
lowering=20
its prices to half of what they were last year because Dell can do so =
with its=20
products.<BR>> ><BR>> >Rich<BR>> =20
><BR>> ><BR>> > "Mike '/m'" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:mike@barkto.com">mike@barkto.com</A>> wrote in =
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:739sa1d75ffa17ngusrhvpp9637q3cigtc@4ax.com">news:739sa1d75ff=
a17ngusrhvpp9637q3cigtc@4ax.com</A>...<BR>> =20
><BR>> > <A=20
=
href=3D"http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB111861285110257383-7l7a=
53nARtxdFA5SfRng_iu4dTc_20060612,00.html?mod=3Dblogs">http://online.wsj.c=
om/public/article/0,,SB111861285110257383-7l7a53nARtxdFA5SfRng_iu4dTc_200=
60612,00.html?mod=3Dblogs</A><BR>> =20
><BR>> > =3D=3D=3D<BR>> > How =
low can they=20
go? Over the past few weeks, personal computers reached<BR>> =20
> a significant milestone: The price for an entry-level but =
fully=20
loaded<BR>> > system fell below $300.<BR>> =20
><BR>> > Dell -- which wasn't even the first PC =
maker to=20
take the step -- last<BR>> > week was offering for =
$299 a=20
Windows computer that had most of what a<BR>> > =
beginning=20
user would want. That list includes a 17-inch monitor, a =
2.4<BR>> =20
> gigahertz Celeron processor, 256 megabytes of RAM and a =
40-gigabyte=20
hard<BR>> > drive.<BR>> ><BR>> =20
> A nearly identical system a year ago cost $499, and while =
it had=20
only<BR>> > half as much RAM, it did provide =
speakers. The=20
newer, cheaper model<BR>> > doesn't have any, but =
you can=20
add a pair for $20.<BR>> ><BR>> > =
Besides=20
reflecting a remarkable price decline of 40% in 12 months, =
the<BR>> =20
> fact that computers can now be had for less than $300 means =
they=20
have<BR>> > officially entered into the territory of =
"consumer electronics," at<BR>> > least under one =
set of=20
industry rules.<BR>> ><BR>> > Ten or so =
years=20
ago, when PCs cost five or even 10 times what they do<BR>> =
> =20
now, it was common for analysts to say that they would never become=20
a<BR>> > staple in homes until they were priced the =
way=20
consumer electronics<BR>> > were, usually defined as =
costing=20
less than $300. In the days when PCs<BR>> > were =
$2,000 and=20
even more, that target seemed to be something of a<BR>> =
> =20
fantasy.<BR>> ><BR>> > Now, PCs cost =
less than=20
some telephones -- and less than a lot of TV<BR>> > =
sets --=20
and can be found in roughly three-quarters of U.S. homes. =
But<BR>> =20
> while they are priced like consumer electronics, the =
machines=20
still<BR>> > aren't even remotely as easy to use, =
and the=20
trend lines there aren't<BR>> > particularly =
encouraging. In=20
fact, with price no longer as significant<BR>> > an =
issue,=20
the continuing complexity of computers may become the =
biggest<BR>> =20
> contributor to any "digital divide" between digital haves =
and=20
have-nots,<BR>> > especially involving access to the =
Internet.<BR>> ><BR>> > Declining PC =
prices have=20
become the poster child for the free-lunch<BR>> > =
economics=20
of the modern technology industry, where manufacturing<BR>> =20
> efficiencies, especially in semiconductors, allow companies =
to<BR>> > continually sell more for less. This is =
most=20
noticeable in hardware, but<BR>> > it is occurring =
as well=20
in technology-related services -- at least when<BR>> =
> there=20
is something resembling effective competition....<BR>> =20
><BR>> > There are noteworthy exceptions to this =
trend of=20
falling prices....<BR>> ><BR>> > =
Microsoft, for=20
one, seems to be in no particular hurry to cut the price<BR>> =
> of Windows. Ten years ago, an upgrade version of Windows =
95, then=20
fresh<BR>> > from the labs in Redmond, Wash., was =
being sold=20
in most stores for<BR>> > $89.95. If you shop online =
for=20
Windows XP Home, the third-generation<BR>> > =
successor to=20
Windows 95, you'll find it in the same ballpark.<BR>> =20
><BR>> > Ditto with Microsoft Office, which =
includes=20
Word, Excel and the like.<BR>> > The high-end =
version of=20
Office 97, which was introduced eight years ago,<BR>> =
> went=20
for $499; the most recent Office had the same price when it =
came<BR>> =20
> out in 2003....<BR>> > =
=3D=3D=3D<BR>> =20
><BR>> ><BR>> > While having a =
monopoly is=20
legal, its effect upon prices is usually<BR>> > =
beneficial=20
only for the holder of the monopoly.<BR>> ><BR>> =20
> /m<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_040C_01C57049.E8703B40--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|