Re: I predict more of this with the cloud
"once the first one blinks"
I was with you until this. But blinking implies they never intended to hike prices. You didn't really believe that, did you?
42421 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"But subscription pricing is the opposite of lock in."
Not really. Lock in is about making it difficult to move because of things like data format compatibility and the cost (and difficulty) of migrating (just ask TSB). Subscription vs one-off sales is about how you collect the proceeds.
MS painted themselves into a corner on the data formats issue by getting themselves ISO Standardised; regular changes to formats kept customers locked in to an upgrade path so they could be milked by having to buy the latest version of what they'd bought before. Now customers who've bought anything that opens the standard formats can just keep using it or even worse (from the MS PoV) they can use LibreOffice for free.
Cloud, however, is a great lock-in mechanism against migration. If you can get a customer locked in to your cloud stuff you have them by the balls ("their hearts and minds will follow") and they just have to keep paying month after month, year after year.
"fintech businesses get to skip the tedious business of migrating existing business from a legacy platform."
Or the tedious business of supporting actual customers - those awkward people who want to save or borrow money, not the purchasing managers the sales people schmooze with.
"but its still comms..."
But with a mobile phone. And with GPS. Just like "with a computer".
It's said that the UK Patent Office would accept patents for perpetual motion machines provided they were accompanied by a working example. What a pity that isn't a universal proviso.
"Unlike businesses, there is no concept of saving money in the bank to build up a war chest"
OTOH, if you're running a lab and are actually hands-on, unlike the management of Chris G's sister's lab, you use the end-of year surplus to buy routine consumables that aren't going to have a limited shelf-life; microscope slides and cover-slips were examples in may case. Some of the money you might otherwise have spent on those next year then becomes your contingency fund.
"Continuing to pay in would have been considered tax avoidance by the IR."
Mea culpa That should have been tax evasion which is illegal.
Odd that commentards are prepared to condemn corporations for tax avoidance which is legal and yet condemn BT for not evading tax.
BTW what's the point of giving 10 minutes for edits when the post doesn't appear for a lot longer than that?
"what possible advantage there is to the market, or even BT, in having a legal seperation, but not actually making OR fully independant of BT?"
At a guess it might have something to do with the problem of trying to launch a new business with its pro rata share of the BT pension scheme deficit.
"BT stopped paying into it in the 90's creating a 12-14bn deficit."
No. This has been explained here many times before.
The IR (as then was) stopped BT paying into the pension scheme. This was because the projections at that time were that there was sufficient money to meet obligations. Continuing to pay in would have been considered tax avoidance by the IR.
Then two things happened.
1. Gordon Brown stopped tax relief on dividends paid on shares held in pension funds. That meant that the funds wouldn't experience the growth on which the projections were based.
2. The great house price bubble, steadfastly ignored by the BoE when setting interest rates (on the orders of the said Gordon Brown), led to the crash of 2007. Since then interest rates fell to near negligible and have stayed there. Pension projections depend on annuity rates. Annuity rates depend on interest rates. The annuity rates on which the '90s projections were based have been hopelessly wrong for more than a decade and don't seem likely to improve any time soon.
The IR's calculations in the 90s didn't take these changes into account. Nobody there had read the small print at the bottom on any financial product to the effect that past performance is no indication of what will happen. In consequence there's been a big hole in the pension scheme ever since entirely as a result of the payment holiday forced onto BT not allowing for HMG's capacity for screwing up the UK finances for a couple of decades between then and now and on into the foreseeable future.
Not that I expect an explanation here will prevent the marginally informed bleating about it all being BT's fault.
" included a battery in the box on the customer's wall to power a conventional telephone in the advent of a power cut."
A battery you're likely to find is dead when you need it.
"The problem is so few people (even those without mobiles) use conventional phones that can be powered by the copper telephone network"
I assume you mean almost everybody has a DECT phone. That doesn't preclude having a POTS phone plugged in as well.
"is far more efficient that thousands of little ones dotted all over the countryside where terrain gets in the way most of the time anyway."
Far more efficient in what way? If you want to cover a large area with homogeneous programming, you're right. If you want to address smaller areas independently then it's not so good.
To take a terrestrial example, when TV broadcasting started Holme Moss (band I) covered both sides of the Pennines and was picked up and relayed to the Isle of Man; in fact I think the Manx transmitter was in turn picked up at Divis and relayed to NI. When ITV came along their band III transmitters were Emley Moor & Winter Hill, east & west of the Pennines respectively so that they could have different franchises. When UHF came along the Beeb's transmitters were colocated with ITV which allowed the Beeb to have some regional broadcasting, Holme Moss band I was closed; these days it's FM on band II. Try to do the same thing with satellite and you end up using a lot of bandwidth to provide different channels instead of the regional separation that a terrestrial network provides naturally.
Why should "$any_government" tax some outifit for which we ALL pay - and in turn, not share the proceeds with those who wind up footing the bill?
The money goes into the general funds. In theory it would offset taxation which is how you'd get your cut. In practice it would require a pretty big fine to be above the "noise level".
In a case like this there'd be something to be said for ear-marking it to finance other OSs. Not necessarily Android forks as such but OSes such as Sailfish or non-Google app repositories.
"why should the EU get all the money in this case? Or the US, or some other country in other cases?"
Because the US doesn't care about monopoly abuse in the same way as the EU so it doesn't prosecute. If it did they'd have to pay fines in the US as well as in the EU. If China or Oz or whatever enacted the same legislation and acted on it they'd be fined there as well.
"Level One takes these allegations very seriously and is diligently working to conduct a full investigation of the nature, extent and ramifications of this alleged data exposure,”
But no mention of working, even casually, to fix it? After all it's only an allegation.
Is this sort of response just PR or does it also reflect the thinking of the management that got them into this position?
"This constant appeal to the Good Friday agreement by remainers is very interesting."
It's because it's an international agreement which places obligations on the UK govt. It's something the Leavers ignored. Or maybe they reckoned if they were going to repudiate one agreement they might as well repudiate another. BOGOFF.
Things come to a head when HMG tries to get an equivalency ruling from the EU for data exchange post-Brexit. They're going to have to take steps to show that they've cleaned things up and they don't have much time to do it. More critically, they don't have much time to realise they have to do it. Even if they did the EU would be well advised to demand inspection rights by their own staff. That'd go down well with the Brexiteers. Not that any of those noise-makers would have anything to lose by the UK not having a Privacy Figleaf of its own; any of them with business interests likely to be affected will have moved them out of the UK by then.
"They’ve already fecklessly dropped mobile, which is a kinda natural counterpart to fatter clouds."
Which is pretty well what SatNad said when he got the job.
I think there seems to be a sense of entitlement there now. They seem to have assumed that all they had to do was buy into the phone business and expect everyone to come running because of who they were. It doesn't work like that. They needed to put a good few years hard work into it to slowly build market share against a couple of incumbents. It didn't happen immediately so they dropped it.
"So you / I can control it from the comfort of $wherever you like$ without having to physically go and fetch it."
But do you need to control it from wherever you like? If you drop crumbs on the floor within range of the cleaner you don't need to be able to control it from somewhere else. The control never needs to go outside your WiFi zone. Your use case is valid, it's the implementation that fails.
"Forward everything to another a/c"
Why? Just use that domain as your email domain. All the aliases come into a single mailbox (you can check the alias name in the To: field if you need to see who spammed) and set up, tear down or set to bounce as you please.