If I remember correctly, Joel mentioned in one of the podcasts that he likes to just tell stories in his blog posts now and let audiences draw their own conclusions. When he tried to make arguments before he was often misinterpreted (e.g. his stance on exceptions) and now he feels he has to pre-respond to the multitude of ways people might respond to his argument, and that doesn't make for fun reading. As he's gotten older and more experienced he also said the world has become less black-and-white so he doesn't like to make absolute statements as much anymore.
I don't think the quality of the posts have gone down all that much, just the quantity. I imagine he's just run out of things to talk about that he hasn't already covered.
Many (most? the vast majority?) of people who go to the movie theater will see a movie even if the movie they intended to see is sold out. Plus, they are not price-conscious. So, it makes sense to keep all the movies at a high price so that the customers end up paying high prices for movies they didn't go to the theater to see. "A rising tide lifts all boats." If they went to the theater to see a particular movie, and it was sold out, they will pay for some other movie this weekend and then try again next weekend (and the next next weekend if necessary) until eventually they see the movie they originally intended to see. LoTR is sold out three weeks in a row = many customers bought three or four movie tickets, instead of just one.
If they were price conscious, they would rent it for a dollar from RedBox when it comes out on DVD. Or, they would go to the discount movie theater to see it for $4. Or, they would download it for free off the internet.
On iTunes, there is no such thing as "sold out." And, everybody is price-conscious because everybody under 30 knows you can just get the songs for free off the internet if you are willing to put up with the hassle. Apple has recognized that people value that hassle at approximately $0.99. If people were willing to pay $2.49 for a song, it wouldn't mean that the song was better than a $0.99 song. It means that they would probably pay $2.49 for every song, since they value the convenience at about $2.49.
Not really my bag, but I admit to liking Brandy because sometimes I just like old pop, what can I say? I am generally a fan of progressive rock, industrial and grunge more than anything, though. Oh and good ol' rock (60s and 70s of course).
That being said: Brandy, you're a fine girl, what a gooood wife you would be, but my life, my lover, my lady is the SEA doo doodoo dodododooodooo!
Hint: Find the jazz arrangement of it with the lead trumpet performance by Maynard Ferguson
Not my scene. It's too much easy listening. Certainly, it's a tight performance by a great bunch of musicians...but, really, I hope he has better tracks.
And, I don't share your opinion of the tune being great. The intro is nice, as an intro, but past that the song is saccharine, repetitive, and predictable. We agree on the lyrics, of course.
Can you put "(old)" or something in the title if the article isn't new? I almost always like these articles, but then feel silly when I realized that it's 2-3 years old and that I've read it before.
There's nothing wrong with old - as a matter of fact I would argue that if a 2-3 years old tech related article is stille interesting it is truly worth your time.
Hwo many of the recent articles on Google chrome will be reread in 3 years time?
I refer to this effect as "The Filter of Time" (or just "the filter" in conversation). It applies to music most obviously, but it can be applied to any work with an artistic component, I think. Oldies stations play a higher ratio of good to bad music than modern pop or rock stations, because the filter has been at work on their playlist.
It's probably worth thinking about the filter when doing anything online, since there are so many places one can get sucked in without actually gaining anything, learning anything, or improving the world in any way. Your example of articles about Chrome is an excellent choice...do we learn anything from the second through the fiftieth article about Chrome? Probably not. So, skip it. If you're writing another "me too", skip it. If you're reading something and can't imagine it applying immediately to your life or being useful for the rest of your life, maybe you should skip it.
Of course, since I'm just agreeing with you in a somewhat verbose manner, maybe I should have skipped it.
Nonsense. How often would someone need to buy expensive, crappy music before they realized that the price is not an accurate signal of whether they will like it? Particularly in the case of music in which it is not difficult to hear it before buying it.
Every version of a particular song offered for sale is identical, so it is easy for people to figure out that price is not a significant differentiator. Most products aren't like that. It is relatively hard to know the quality of an Accounting package before you buy it and use it extensively, for example. In that sort of context, price does often send a signal about what market niche you are aiming for.
I don't know if the internet changes everything about this, but in the old days of retail, the discounted stuff is always grouped together, all the $4.99 albums in a bin, the $6.99 albums have "Great Value!" stickers, and so forth.
You also get a flyer in your Saturday paper bragging about the low prices on these ten albums at Best Buy or whatever. Same thing, they are signaling that they all have equal value.
So in retail price is signal in conjunction with a bunch of other stuff. But again, that may be irrelevant in the age of iTunes and Amazon.
The thing is, I don't think people always work like you're describing. Some people might actually look to the price of the song, if only unconsciously, to help decide whether they should like it. Especially if the song is popular, and price indicates popularity. Then it's not just a matter of liking a song, but of fitting in and being hip.
And if by buying overpriced music, the person feels like they're "fitting in" and are "hip" then what's the problem? They're not being ripped off. They're getting $2.50 (or whatever) of smugness / well-being / hipness.
There is another reason movie theaters don't use the basic strategy of raising prices: they can just increase the number of rooms for a movie. This pretty much takes care of any demand pressure (unless everyone in the country decides to see the same movie in the same day).
With old music, in CD format, someone could say that there is a physical media that needed to be sold, so prices could fluctuate. With digital music, however there is a theoretically infinite number of copies that can be sold, so there is not reasonable explanation for raising prices.
In other words: the price of selling the latest J.Lo album is exactly the same price of selling any other crap you can think of.
If something is expensive, you ask yourself "what justifies this price", with the expectation of greater quality, features, stability, support or whatever.
If something is free, you also ask "what justifies this price", but this time you expect things to be missing, flawed, incomplete, contains viruses, etc. You're instantly looking for whats wrong, not whats great.
Wine. At a restaraunt. Sure, it's a textbook example - but that's because it's so common. People don't want to buy the cheapest wine - so they get something from the middle of the list.
Price can send a signal about the STATUS of the object - and this can be more powerful than any signals about the quality!
I don't think the analogue with movies was a good one. The time investment of several hours involved in going to see a movie is more than the actual money cost for most people. There are many movies that wouldn't be worth seeing if they paid you. Music has this as less of a factor because the time investment is so much less. Usually when you are going to buy a song you have already heard it.
Joel's argument makes sense in theory, but in practice it doesn't add up at all. You can preview music, get a feel for what it's like, regardless of the price. On a movie, you're relying on other people's opinions, but from 30 seconds of preview you can usually establish if you like it or not (and if it's a band you always buy the music from - you don't care anyway).
I used to love the bargain bins section at my used cd store, it was always filled with cheap gems. Granted I spent a fair share of time listening to some crap, but it was worth it to find an old song that was quality.
Also, I'll never touch the bargain bin either because there really are no cd stores around anymore, except Best Buy.
I love hitting the bargain bins at video game stores. There are many many games which don't merit spending $40-$60, but have some redeeming quality at $1-$5. I've found some of my favorite games that way, and the junkers are easy to trade back in for credit. The great ones generally were just obscure and deserved better market attention than they actually got.
