Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:No, that's flatly incorrect. Change is no more expensive, by necessity, than existing is.

If you honestly think that maintaining capital you already have is just as difficult as obtaining brand new capital, I think I'll just ignore your opinions on business matters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Which is why there hasn't been a new product release to consumers in the last 30 years...

For a lot of big businesses... there haven't been. They've just repackaged the same old stuff over and over again, or bought out and repackaged a smaller company's ideas. There's no substantial difference between one year model of car and the next. Hell, anyone but the most blatant car aficionado often can't even tell the difference between two cars of the same size of different brands as most car styles and functions are essentially the same with very minor variations in the same company and even to some extent across companies.

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:Which is why there hasn't been a new product release to consumers in the last 30 years...

For a lot of big businesses... there haven't been.

I just... I don't even...

Where do you come up with these things? I'll just leave this here. Let me know if you need another example.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but an Iphone is simply a cellphone with a touchscreen. It's been marketed to be the 2nd-5th comings of Christ, but they're all simply cellphones. Touchscreens have been around for at least two decades, and while miniaturizing one effectively was nice, it wasn't revolutionary by any extent. While it was something different, it was along the lines of adding mp3 player capabilities to cellphones; New, but not amazingly earth-shattering.

Apple hasn't been innovative for awhile. Steve Jobs' real talent is in packaging. He takes technology and puts it together in new ways and that's what he's really good at. I mean, come on. He's got people buying a new iPod every year.

Still hate him though

And to get back on topic: People who think oil companies are trying to stop alternate fuels need to really look at the numbers. The oil industry is one of the top investors in R&D and construction of alternative fuel sources. They know they can't live off the black juicy money machine that is crude forever.

Melissia wrote:If you honestly think that maintaining capital you already have is just as difficult as obtaining brand new capital, I think I'll just ignore your opinions on business matters.

Considering your woeful use of the term "capital" that's most likely for the best.

darkPrince010 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but an Iphone is simply a cellphone with a touchscreen. It's been marketed to be the 2nd-5th comings of Christ, but they're all simply cellphones. Touchscreens have been around for at least two decades, and while miniaturizing one effectively was nice, it wasn't revolutionary by any extent. While it was something different, it was along the lines of adding mp3 player capabilities to cellphones; New, but not amazingly earth-shattering.

Hate to burst your bubble, but the idea of a handheld cell phone is relatively new. We're talking about new products being introduced. Not unlike touchscreens and MP3 players, which are two more examples of new products that have been introduced in or around the last 30 years. Everything that is made in the technology industry is based off of the work of those who came before. You can't really sit there and say that there is no evidence of innovation between the iphone, or droid, or whatever, and the cell phones of the 80s, 90s, or even 5 years ago.

Did you read the post that I was replying to?

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:Which is why there hasn't been a new product release to consumers in the last 30 years...

For a lot of big businesses... there haven't been.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:If you honestly think that maintaining capital you already have is just as difficult as obtaining brand new capital, I think I'll just ignore your opinions on business matters.

Considering your woeful use of the term "capital" that's most likely for the best.

I think you're a capital fellow.

Monster Rain wrote:
I think you're a capital fellow.

Stop falling in love with me...I have a commitment...to my love bot!

Am I missing something by not seeing the difference between buying the innovation of others and marketing, and developing it internally? It seems to me that either way new ideas are turned into consumer products.

Polonius wrote:Am I missing something by not seeing the difference between buying the innovation of others and marketing, and developing it internally? It seems to me that either way new ideas are turned into consumer products.

I don't think so. If you're the one with the patent and your name on the box, you get the credit for the innovation from reasonable people.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
I think you're a capital fellow.

Stop falling in love with me...I have a commitment...to my love bot!

Dr. Krieger?

Seriously, Krieger. You are my Oprah.

Ahtman wrote:

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
I think you're a capital fellow.

Stop falling in love with me...I have a commitment...to my love bot!

Dr. Krieger?

Mr. Universe.

Monster Rain wrote:
Hate to burst your bubble, but the idea of a handheld cell phone is relatively new. We're talking about new products being introduced. Not unlike touchscreens and MP3 players, which are two more examples of new products that have been introduced in or around the last 30 years. Everything that is made in the technology industry is based off of the work of those who came before. You can't really sit there and say that there is no evidence of innovation between the iphone, or droid, or whatever, and the cell phones of the 80s, 90s, or even 5 years ago.

Calling Dick Tracy: the idea of a miniaturized phone with a touch screen has been around a lot longer then the technology has existed to make it practical. Conceptually, it (phone plus screen) was actually originally predicted in the 1890's, however, it's taken miniaturization technology a long time to catch up.

dogma wrote:
I don't see any indication of support in that article. Nice try though.

REALLY? So, the CIA helping Gaddafi eliminate militants had absolutely nothing to do with the US state departments attempts at the time to get preferential treatment for the US oil industry from Libya? Particularly considering the extremes they went to for some of them, such as kidnapping them out of South East Asia.

dogma wrote:
Of course they did, oil nationalization tends to drive up global oil prices, and we don't like that. However, oil companies do like it. You're consistently confusing the interests of corporations involved in the oil trade, with US interests.

Everything drives up oil prices. The sun is shining and it's raised crude oil to 175 dollars a barrel. And, no, oil companies don't like it, particularly after having sunk billions into drilling and infrastructure, AND now have a new player that now owns oil fields that used to be their private playground.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
Hate to burst your bubble, but the idea of a handheld cell phone is relatively new. We're talking about new products being introduced. Not unlike touchscreens and MP3 players, which are two more examples of new products that have been introduced in or around the last 30 years. Everything that is made in the technology industry is based off of the work of those who came before. You can't really sit there and say that there is no evidence of innovation between the iphone, or droid, or whatever, and the cell phones of the 80s, 90s, or even 5 years ago.

Calling Dick Tracy: the idea of a miniaturized phone with a touch screen has been around a lot longer then the technology has existed to make it practical. Conceptually, it (phone plus screen) was actually originally predicted in the 1890's, however, it's taken miniaturization technology a long time to catch up.

I suppose I misspoke. Still, the cell phone as a mass-produced consumer product is a recent development.

BaronIveagh wrote:
REALLY? So, the CIA helping Gaddafi eliminate militants had absolutely nothing to do with the US state departments attempts at the time to get preferential treatment for the US oil industry from Libya?

Nope.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Particularly considering the extremes they went to for some of them, such as kidnapping them out of South East Asia.

Yeah, information is expensive.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Everything drives up oil prices.

Wrong. I ate a cheeseburger today and oil prices didn't change.

Try something other than hyperbole.

BaronIveagh wrote:
The sun is shining and it's raised crude oil to 175 dollars a barrel. And, no, oil companies don't like it, particularly after having sunk billions into drilling and infrastructure, AND now have a new player that now owns oil fields that used to be their private playground.

So...much....populism...

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:If you honestly think that maintaining capital you already have is just as difficult as obtaining brand new capital, I think I'll just ignore your opinions on business matters.

Considering your woeful use of the term "capital" that's most likely for the best.

Capital; the wealth, whether in money or property, owned or employed in business by an individual, firm, corporation, etc.

No, I'm using it properly.

It's the Jewish Illuminati Conservative Fascists!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Calling Dick Tracy: the idea of a miniaturized phone with a touch screen has been around a lot longer then the technology has existed to make it practical. Conceptually, it (phone plus screen) was actually originally predicted in the 1890's, however, it's taken miniaturization technology a long time to catch up.

Well, so what? Lightsabers and teleportation are ideas now, does that mean that when they eventually come around they won't be considered new innovations?

Melissia wrote:
Capital; the wealth, whether in money or property, owned or employed in business by an individual, firm, corporation, etc.

No, I'm using it properly.

No, you aren't.

rubiksnoob wrote:It's the Jewish Illuminati Conservative Fascists!

Buncha communists, that group.

Ahtman wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:It's the Jewish Illuminati Conservative Fascists!

Buncha communists, that group.

I heard they were working with the NAZI's as well

rubiksnoob wrote:
Well, so what? Lightsabers and teleportation are ideas now, does that mean that when they eventually come around they won't be considered new innovations?

Yes, but they won't be new concepts, which was what was implied. And the guy that builds a light saber better be prepared to shell out to George Lucas' decedent at the rate that copyright is growing longer and longer...

dogma wrote:
Yeah, information is expensive.

Hiring kidnappers and booking a flight from Thailand to Libya, even more so.

dogma wrote:
Wrong. I ate a cheeseburger today and oil prices didn't change.

Try something other than hyperbole.

You kill the cow, make the cheese, and bake the bun yourself? Otherwise, yes, probably, though by an incredibly tiny increment. If everyone in the US sat down and ate a McBurger at the same time, fuel costs would rise. For pretty much the same reasons they rise on weekends like this one, since large numbers of people are out burning fuel.

Try something called supply and demand.

BaronIveagh wrote:
You kill the cow, make the cheese, and bake the bun yourself?

Baking affects crude prices now?

BaronIveagh wrote:
Otherwise, yes, probably, though by an incredibly tiny increment. If everyone in the US sat down and ate a McBurger at the same time, fuel costs would rise. For pretty much the same reasons they rise on weekends like this one, since large numbers of people are out burning fuel.

Try something called supply and demand.

If we're going into that level of detail, then simply being alive drives up oil prices.

dogma wrote:
Baking affects crude prices now?

Yeah it does. The farmer burns fuel to planet and harvest, the mill burns fuel to grind it into flour, trains burn fuel moving it from point a to point B, the packaging plant uses up electricity (which may be oil generated) and I'm willing to bet your oven isn't fire heated either. So, yeah, baking can increase crude prices.

dogma wrote:
If we're going into that level of detail, then simply being alive drives up oil prices.

Notice that petrol no longer costs a nickle at the service station, and it's rise has way outstripped inflation. Oh, and, rather then a team of well paid station attendants, there's a single snarky goth chick who gives the impression that she's not paid enough to sit there and take your money.

BaronIveagh wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:
Well, so what? Lightsabers and teleportation are ideas now, does that mean that when they eventually come around they won't be considered new innovations?

Yes, but they won't be new concepts, which was what was implied. And the guy that builds a light saber better be prepared to shell out to George Lucas' decedent at the rate that copyright is growing longer and longer...

I fail to see why that matters in the slightest. Just because an idea has been around for a while doesn't mean when it actually comes around it isn't an innovation. The idea of human flight has been around since Icarus; That doesn't mean airplanes aren't an innovation.

BaronIveagh wrote:Notice that petrol no longer costs a nickle at the service station, and it's rise has way outstripped inflation. Oh, and, rather then a team of well paid station attendants, there's a single snarky goth chick who gives the impression that she's not paid enough to sit there and take your money.

So essentially the whole nostalgia over how things used to be cheaper is entirely based on the raising of gas prices? It is solely responsible for all price changes over time?

rubiksnoob wrote:
I fail to see why that matters in the slightest. Just because an idea has been around for a while doesn't mean when it actually comes around it isn't an innovation. The idea of human flight has been around since Icarus; That doesn't mean airplanes aren't an innovation.

It's been around a lot longer then Icarus. And, actually the Wright flyer itself was not really all that innovative either (it was largely based off of existing gliders) The actual innovation was designing an engine that was both light weight and powerful enough to sustain it (thus the real innovator could be argued to have been Charlie Taylor, who designed the Wright's engine for them) This was done by combining Aluminum (a relatively new material at the time, as the bauxite extraction process was only then reducing it's price. Previously it had similar value to Gold) for a lightweight engine block and bicycle technology to increase power. This gave the Wrights the needed horsepower to keep their glider design aloft.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
So essentially the whole nostalgia over how things used to be cheaper is entirely based on the raising of gas prices? It is solely responsible for all price changes over time?

The point was that gas prices rise higher, faster, then inflation explains. (Inflation being what causes things to become more expensive over time, mostly)

What did the Wright brothers ever do to you that you have to take all the joy out of their achievement? Besides, the design of their glider was part of the innovation. Just because gliders had existed before doesn't mean any glider would work and they tested multiple designs. Charley Taylor built an engine in collaboration with the Wright brothers using their data and input. They didn't just tell him to build something and walk away, they were involved in the process. Certainly he should get more mention but pretending he would have done anything without them pushing it is a ridiculous; they gave the initial plans, data, and work order. It isn't often referred to as the Wright/Taylor Engine just to give some flair to it. The whole project required being innovative.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Yeah it does. The farmer burns fuel to planet and harvest, the mill burns fuel to grind it into flour, trains burn fuel moving it from point a to point B, the packaging plant uses up electricity (which may be oil generated) and I'm willing to bet your oven isn't fire heated either. So, yeah, baking can increase crude prices.

Shockingly, oil isn't the only source of energy on the planet. I know, this is revelation for those who like to say "oil" whenever questions of politics or economics are asked, but the world is more complicated than that.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Notice that petrol no longer costs a nickle at the service station, and it's rise has way outstripped inflation. Oh, and, rather then a team of well paid station attendants, there's a single snarky goth chick who gives the impression that she's not paid enough to sit there and take your money.

There is so much wrong with this that I barely know where to begin.

First, service stations are not generally owned by oil companies, so they're irrelevant.

Second, cars are no longer a luxury, so service stations aren't operated as luxury services. Notice that airlines have seen similar changes.

Third, no, gas prices have not outstripped inflation. Historically the opposite is true.

BaronIveagh wrote:Yes, but they won't be new concepts, which was what was implied.

In the context of this conversation, I thought what was clearly implied was that we were talking about the introduction of consumer products.

dogma wrote:
Shockingly, oil isn't the only source of energy on the planet. I know, this is revelation for those who like to say "oil" whenever questions of politics or economics are asked, but the world is more complicated than that.

Yes, but all the named things burn or potentially burn oil or distillates of oil, so that hardly disproves my point.

dogma wrote:
There is so much wrong with this that I barely know where to begin.

First, service stations are not generally owned by oil companies, so they're irrelevant.

Every last one in my area not owned by the government is the property of Shell, British Petrolium, Sunoco, or Exxon. Maybe it's different where you live.

dogma wrote:
Second, cars are no longer a luxury, so service stations aren't operated as luxury services. Notice that airlines have seen similar changes.

Cars haven't been a luxury since about 1945. The demise of the full service station has been primarily in the last 20 years. As far as the airlines go... I'm glad I don't get strip searched and body cavity checked every time i get in my car, so I can't say that it's 'similar'.

dogma wrote:
Third, no, gas prices have not outstripped inflation. Historically the opposite is true.

In 1990: a gallon of gas cost $1.15 It now nearly costs $5 a gallon. However, the value of the dollar has been only reduced by half via inflation relative to real goods in the same time period. Compare this to a gallon of Milk, which has only increased on average 85%. While Milk has followed the curve, and almost doubled in that twenty year span, gasoline has increased by nearly a factor of five.