Bruce Perens: Invasion of the Ethical Licenses (2019) - <AUTHOR> https://perens.com/2019/10/12/invasion-of-the-ethical-licenses/ <comment><USER2> _The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG)_ (and their _" Social Contract" with the Free Software Community_ for that matter) [1] are very short documents, and I recommend anyone reading them. Created in 1997, and only slightly changed once in 2004, they are a staple of free and open source software.

[1] [https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines](https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines)

<comment><USER3> IIRC the OSI criteria were even modeled after the DFSG. OSI was basically a project to decide which license is open source outside of a Debian context.

<comment><AUTHOR> Perens wrote both, so yeah, though OSI was just to make free software more corporate-friendly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I doubt anyone using these kinds of licenses really thinks they are going to "work" from the point of view of significantly limiting that behaviour.

They do, however, act as a way to advertise the issues—this article being an example of how using a license like that causes people to publicise and maybe think about your issues.

The final suggestion in the article is working to enact better laws: starting and maintaining the conversation is the first step to doing that.

<comment><USER5> > I doubt anyone using these kinds of licenses really thinks they are going to > "work" from the point of view of significantly limiting that behaviour.

Which is the exact problem with it. I don't particularly like the term but it is essentially a virtue signal i.e. I am telling you to care about this because I am a _good_ person.

It is a form of slacktivism ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism)).

> They do, however, act as a way to advertise the issues—this article being an > example of how using a license like that causes people to publicise and > maybe think about your issues.

In my experience I find that it actually accomplishes the opposite. For many people there is enough politics in everyday life whether this is internal company politics, their local community or the maelstrom of national and international politics. People become burned out by it and then tend to resent it.

<comment><USER6> While you may or may not care about politics, if you are a member of certain groups politics cares about you. That is the unfortunate reality of the world we live in.

However, I agree with Perens that licenses are the wrong vehicle for change.

<comment><USER5> Yes that maybe true. However if you bludgeon people constantly with activism (which is clearly the case here) people will end up despising it.

<comment><USER7> And the other unfortunate problem is that leads to people despising the activist as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> These typical naive tv-plot contracts: You write outrageous terms into a contract form and it becomes a binding under the law is both parties agree.

It seems that some people are so naive that they really think this is how the contract law works.

</comment><comment><USER9> On a related note, Perens resigned from the OSI last week over concerns about the Cryptographic Autonomy License: [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/03/osi_cofounder_resig...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/03/osi_cofounder_resigns/)

<comment><USER10> Discussed here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21958105](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21958105)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I agree with Bruce, these licenses may be the results of good intentions but they are probably unenforceable, and if I may add: they are silly.

</comment><comment><USER12> Back in the '90s we got a dev kit for a microcontroller (Toshiba if I recall) that had language in the license that specifically forbade using the thing in terrorist acts.

So I don't think this is new.

<comment><USER13> Most closed source licenses have restrictions, like " _don 't use this in a nuclear plant, or to control an airplane, ..._". They have also restriction for countries and/or organizations _the_ government doesn't like. It's fine because they are closed source. They can add any restriction they like, for example " _don 't use this on Monday_", except when the restriction affect a protected class or the equivalent concept in other countries, like race or religion, or when the restriction can cause a tweetstorm.

The problem is that these ethical licenses try to pass as open source licenses. For example the title in the page of the Hippocratic license is " _An Ethical License for Open Source Projects_ ". With these licenses the project is not "free software" or "open source software", it's just "source code available software".

<comment><USER14> The licenses clearly do not pass the free software definition or the open source definition, but I don't think that is what the author is arguing. Their point is that the license is not legal and enforceable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Plus I've heard that these make this difficult to use by "legitimate" entities too since they're non-standard and hence require more legal scrutiny.

<comment><USER16> Yes, the canonical example is the good old "I give permission for IBM to use JSLint for evil": [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866)

<comment><USER17> Which has since gone away but can be found here:

[http://web.archive.org/web/20110418031915/http://dev.hasenj....](http://web.archive.org/web/20110418031915/http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm- and-its-minions)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> FLOSS is a very good cause and it attracts people with an open heart who do care about good causes. However, the goal of FLOSS is not to be a guardian of how people should live, nor should it be a judge or a police to prevent or sanction the evil in this world. There are different and better venues for this!

If I see a project adopt such a license then for me it's a sign of immaturity and not being able to manage the power that being a maintainer brings. I'd definitely try to avoid such software as it doesn't fulfil the four freedoms and thus isn't FLOSS.

</comment><comment><USER18> These things are resume filler for people looking for jobs in the non-profit sector.

</comment><comment><USER19> > The idea behind this was that Freedom meant Freedom for everyone, not just > Freedom for people we approved of.

It's not freedom for everyone. It cannot be used by those who do not accept the license. If they do accept it, it limits their rights to use, modify and redistribute the software within limits spelled out in the license.

"You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License"

Most people here refuse to understand that "freedom" can't be given by a license. It can stay the same, or become restricted (when a license imposes a duty or obligation on the licensee).

The ethical licenses are a nonsense. Even the name is awful (how is it ethical to attempt to restrict another person's freedom?) Thankfully no project that I know or care about uses one of those.

<comment><USER20> > how is it ethical to attempt to restrict another person's freedom?

By preventing greater harm to others that would result if you didn't. Seriously, that wasn't obvious?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> With all due respect to the author, I don't follow the logic of many of the claims in the article.

> However, consider enforcing the Vaccine License: imagine explaining to a > judge that someone consented to be injected with vaccine by using a piece of > software, and that they become copyright infringers by failing to get their > shots.

Lets imagine a too small child illegally entering a amusement park ride that has a minimum height requirement, and an accident happens. The park owner do not need to explain to a judge how the child agreed to inject growth hormones by entering the ride. The requirement does not specify the way of how an individual may achieve compliance, only the measurable state which compliance may be determined.

The Vaccine License is no more complicated than licenses that specific that you can't ship software to countries which the US has an export ban in regard to encryption. The export ban specific a target demographic which the software can not be sold and/or use it. The Vaccine License specific a target demographic which may not copy it, and/or use it.

The second argument brought up is that you can't sue a citizen of sovereign countries for behavior that their governments do. Again we can look at US export bans. you don't need to enforce the condition by suing people in those countries. It is generally enough that international companies has to follow the condition.

The third argument is that since none of these licenses routinely require any royalties, the likely damages by infringers would be zero. That is not how damages get calculated. Existing royalties can be used as a guideline, but the common argument is to claim damages based on "industry standard". If a infringer publish unreleased work (say a copyrighted movie before release) it also has no existing royalties, but that hasn't stopped judges from issuing rather high damages. Context matter in court cases.

The forth argument being that the term was illegal, improper or unenforceable. As someone who has been standing on that side of the fence in regard to EULAs and privacy policies I sincerely wish it was so.

That basically leaves the last argument that enforcing licenses are too costly. I fully agree. Its like shoplifting which has less than 1% clearing rate. A lot of shop owners where I live have stopped even reporting thefts because they find the time doing the phone call is most costly than its worth. This is one place where personal principles has to weight more than financial sense. If someone steal your stuff, be that in a shop or a copyright, then you file a police report. It will likely not result in anything but it is better than nothing.

</comment><comment><USER21> The GPL is also an ethical license, and a lot of us buy into it. A lot of us might buy into some future, different license, and the resources for enforcement will come from the people who support it.

It's only the OSI license that's some kind of libertarian commons thing. The GPL comes with obligations, and people are free to avoid the GPL for that reason, or simply violate it and deal with any consequences of that. All of these arguments apply as much to the GPL as to hypothetical "don't eat meat" or "don't steal jokes" licenses.

<comment><USER22> > " _The GPL comes with obligations_ "

The GPL does not impose any obligations unless the user attempts to redistribute the work that is GPLed, which most users don't. The text even freely acknowledges that the user is not even required to accept the terms of the GPL (" _5\. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. ..._ ")

<comment><USER23> And the Vaccine License does not impose any limitations unless users attempt to use the software without having vaccinations. I think the details of what limitations the licenses impose is splitting hairs; the point is they impose limitations.

<comment><USER24> It really is not. The only reason the GPL has any conditions at all is to preserve the original terms of the license past the first distribution. The conditions don't trigger on use of the software, they trigger upon copying. That is what is meant by "copyleft". Compare this to the vaccine license that apparently demands users purchase medical treatments (???) from an unrelated third party before they can even use the software at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The only possible purpose of these licenses is to act as Super Codes of Conduct, CoCs which can "kick out" people who aren't in the project by making it too difficult for them to keep using the software when one of the contributors could pull the trigger on legal action. The action doesn't have to be successful to be expensive to fight, after all; it's the old troll tactic of making the danegeld less expensive than the battle would be.

Poof. Now anyone you don't like can't even use the software, let alone fork it and go their own direction with it. Ballmer could hardly have done it better.

<comment><USER26> They can just ignore the license if they want/need the software that much. Seriously doubt random users are gonna get sued for violating terms.

<comment><USER25> > They can just ignore the license if they want/need the software that much. > Seriously doubt random users are gonna get sued for violating terms.

By all means tap-dance in the minefield. You'll probably be fine.

Arbitrary enforcement is the cornerstone of a good, solid chilling effect.

Finally, as a point of policy, I'd rather people not get the idea that OSS licenses are ignorable. That's even more Ballmer-esque in its implications.</comment></comment></comment>


Confirmed: All Wikileaks Cables to be Released in next 24 hours - <AUTHOR> http://www.wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist-negligently.html

<comment><USER2> The real shame is that there are probably people going to be killed because of the irresponsible ego tripping of a couple of journalists, deluded 'transparency advocates' and other mentally unstable individuals.

Also, what was Assange thinking? 'Oh I'll just give these people the material, we can trust them?' And the notion that journalists, many of whom are as technologically illiterate as they come, would store these files on a computer not connected to any network is so naive it's not even funny anymore.

<comment><USER3> > The real shame is that there are probably people going to be killed because > of the irresponsible ego tripping of a couple of journalists, deluded > 'transparency advocates' and other mentally unstable individuals.

That's what people were saying about the Afghanistan and Iraq log leaks.

<comment><USER4> Right but people are still dying in those countries, though not due to journalists.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Seems to lay the blame very squarely with The Guardian.

You can read the Guardian's rebuttal here:

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/01/unredacted-us- em...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/01/unredacted-us-embassy- cables-online)

Guardian's quote:

"Our book about WikiLeaks was published last February. It contained a password, but no details of the location of the files, and we were told it was a temporary password which would expire and be deleted in a matter of hours.

"It was a meaningless piece of information to anyone except the person(s) who created the database.

"No concerns were expressed when the book was published and if anyone at WikiLeaks had thought this compromised security they have had seven months to remove the files. That they didn't do so clearly shows the problem was not caused by the Guardian's book."

<comment><USER6> > "No concerns were expressed when the book was published and if anyone at > WikiLeaks had thought this compromised security they have had seven months > to remove the files. That they didn't do so clearly shows the problem was > not caused by the Guardian's book."

That's a pretty bullshit excuse. Wasn't the insurance file on PirateBay? How exactly should they have removed that once it was out there?

<comment><USER5> From what I've read, I've been given the idea that the files transferred to The Guardian were encrypted for them only - that the password they had worked against that file alone.

Presumably (hopefully?) the insurance file uses a different password. I was also under the (perhaps wrong) impression that no-one actually knows what's in the insurance file.

<comment><USER6> I can't imagine the insurance file being little more than the full uncensored cable archive. What else could it be? If Wikileaks had a gigabyte of compromising information on the US government or some other powerful entity, surely they would release it? Isn't that their stated mission?

<comment><USER7> From what I gather it sounds like they're trying to redact important info from cables prior to release so they don't get their asses burned any more than they have. They've got a collection of cables they haven't yet processed and are now being leaked.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is ridiculous. I don't know how any whistleblower could trust Wikileaks after what has happened during the last few weeks.

There clearly is a need for a competent whistleblower website. Wikileaks has shown itself to be incapable of filling that role. Egos shouldn't be more important than leaks.

<comment><AUTHOR> 1) The blame lays squarely with the guardian who think that PGP offers some sort of 'temporary' changeable password.

2) From the whistle-blowers perspective all documents have been released. Sure if Wikileaks hung onto them it would have a greater impact.

<comment><USER9> The Guardian isn't saying PGP passwords are temporary. They're saying they had assumed the PGP-encrypted file they were provided was single-use, intended only for them and removed after they copied it.

That's a reasonable assumption. Why wasn't it single-use? Aren't people's lives presumably at stake here? How many lives do you need to risk before it becomes worth it to re-encrypt a data set? Why, after disclosing the encryption key to a journalist, did Assange retain the (now tainted) file?

<comment><USER10> Even if those at the Guardian believed the password only applied to their copy, publishing the password amounts to the Guardian making their copy a target to be copied/stolen. Why should the Guardian think they have better protection against copying their copy than the U.S. gov did in not allowing the cables to be copied in the first place?

<comment><USER9> This is a good reason for not simply giving The Guardian a giant encrypted dump of all the data. Either way, The Guardian's lack of opsec doesn't set the bar for Wikileaks.

Wasn't the whole idea behind Wikileaks supposed to be that it was run by people with the greatest possible opsec/tradecraft crediblity? How does it make sense for that group to literally delegate all their security to a news publishing organization?

And having done that, by their own admission, how does pointing the finger at The Guardian's lack of opsec capability exonerate Wikileaks?

<comment><USER10> It doesn't exonerate WL. It simply shows the Gaurdian to be foolish and/or complicit in WL's agenda to distribute the data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Cryptome has the password and a link to the leaked file at the top of their page.

<comment><USER12> True, but their link to the file gives a Not Found. I wonder what's going on there..

<comment><USER13> A quick whois _[1]_ against the original link by used by Cryptome suggests possible origin of leak is Phillip Bailey _[2]_. If /xyz/ existed within the contingency torrent which was released to the pirate bay (someone else confirm please :) then that suggests that he was just hosting a HTTP mirror of the torrent; if it doesn't exist then who knows how deep the rabbit hole goes?

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NFOMuKV...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NFOMuKVYJWwJ:184.108.40.206/wiki/file/xyz/+http://188.8.131.52/wiki/file/xyz/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com)

       x.gpg	09-Jun-2010 00:32	390M
       y-docs.gpg	09-Jun-2010 00:55	8.0M
       y.gpg	09-Jun-2010 00:55	 84M
       z.gpg	09-Jun-2010 00:56	352M

[1] <http://whois.domaintools.com/184.108.40.206>

[2] <http://cryptolife.org/index.php/Main_Page>

<comment><USER14> A number of people have speculated that cables.csv == insurance.aes256 or whatever its called, due to the similarity in filesizes. Doesn't the insurance file predate the embassy cables affair though?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Boingboing have a grab of the section of the book where the guardian leaked the password: [http://boingboing.net/2011/08/31/wikileaks-guardian- journali...](http://boingboing.net/2011/08/31/wikileaks-guardian-journalist- negligently-published-password-to-unredacted-cables.html)

Amusingly it's been available in the google books preview all this time.

</comment><comment><USER15> Can someone explain why/how the cables allegedly kicked off Arab Spring? I get how they pertain to Egypt's former information minister specifically, but wasn't the greater amount of unrest in the region preexisting?

<comment><USER16> The first Arab revolution was in Tunisia. Shortly before that there was a Wikileaks release about the corruption of the Tunisian dictator and his family. The success of the Tunisian revolution inspired the other Arab countries to revolt.

<comment><USER17> I believe this argument to be totally overblown. The release of the cables did nothing IMHO to inform the Tunisian people about the corruption of the Ben Ali and his family. I visit Tunisia regularly and have family there. The corruption was widely known throughout the country and spoken about behind closed doors. Ben Ali himself was tolerated but his wife and her family were despised.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are absolutely correct. Wikileaks published a cable that said (paraphrasing) that the US was unsatisfied with Ben Ali and wouldn't mind if he went. This only helped the Tunisians understand their own government, and what was possible politically.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's unfortunate that they're unredacted, but doesn't it seem like it would be against Wikileaks' purpose to cherry pick information to release? I mean I thought they were supposed to be about "information freedom", not pushing their own agenda.

<comment><USER19> They have to check the leaks to make sure that they aren't putting any ones life in danger (when they haven't done this in the past their enemies have used it against them in the ongoing PR battle). That takes time.

It also means that they do cherry pick because they have to prioritize what leaks they will check and release first.

They've got 250,000 cables. A small team is going to take a long time to check 250,000 cables.

No doubt they do keyword searches of the cables to find the juicy ones and release those first, but, what you gonna do... release the boring, mundane stuff first? No one would pay attention to you.

<comment><USER18> I think the boring, mundane stuff could potentially be the _most_ interesting stuff. Run statistical analysis for unusual words and phrases and find the secret diplomatic codes. :)

<comment><USER19> The boring, mundane stuff should absolutely be released... invaluable stuff for the historical record.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Wikileaks has put whether it should release the cables to a vote on Twitter. Currently 'Yes' is out numbering 'No' 100 to 1.

<comment><USER20> People really can be naive sometimes. Yes, the content of those cables should be public knowledge. But the names of informants should not be released- I dread to think how many people could die as a result of this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Surely the largest part of the "blame" has to lie with the US authorities for putting such sensitive cables somewhere where so many people (Bradley Manning being only one of them) could access them?

<comment><USER22> That was done in response to the fallout from 9/11, where it was demonstrated that there was very little inter-agency cooperation, especially in sharing information about terrorism/terrorists.

It was a calculated decision to greatly increase information sharing between government agencies (including the military) to allow for better cooperation.

<comment><USER23> Well... it seems they did not calculate accurately the permission controls to prevent people like Manning making and distributing a copy of all those files.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> All serious implications aside for a moment, isn't this refreshingly ironic? Wikileaks having to deal with important information about THEM being leaked for a change.

<comment><USER3> Refreshing? No, it is the brain-dead cached response, one that has been invoked countless times for _everything_ to do with Wikileaks internals.

The donation list became public? 'Oh ho ho, how ironic!' One of the supporters splits and writes a book about it? 'isn't this refreshingly ironic?' The cable database goes public? 'how very ironic!' And so on.

I'm about as sick of it as I am of articles about a random bit of Wikipedia vandalism.

<comment><USER24> Even worse then! Why should an organization trying to leak as much about anyone they can and matters be above their own standards and mantras? If "True information does good." well then who knows what this and the other leaks were good for.

I do not see wikileaks as any more trustworthy or "better" or "more ethical" than the authorities they are acting against - yes, AGAINST, read Assange's book, he has an agenda and it might not be as altruistic and do-good as most people like to believe.

<comment><USER25> _"I do not see wikileaks as any more trustworthy or "better" or "more ethical" than the authorities they are acting against"_

Um.. let's see... last I checked, Wikileaks hadn't tortured any prisoners, invaded any countries, or murdered countless civilians. So, yeah, I'd count them as just a tad more ethical than the scumbags they're releasing dirt on.

<comment><USER24> Every country gets the government they deserve (and vote).

But what makes you think Assange and his gang would make better decisions given they were in the exact same situation? Power corrupts and wikileaks certainly demonstrated on several occasions just how incredibly powerful they are or can be.

I am from Europe so this might be a bit different "over there" but what I was trying to say was: I do not trust WikiLeaks and Assange or question them more or less than I trust and question my government and I certainly do not see Assange's understanding of and longing for anarchy (see his book) as an appropriate replacement of our current governments. Do you?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Worse - <AUTHOR> http://www.marco.org/2014/03/15/worse <comment><USER2> As an aside: for me, Amazon Instant Video is _much_ better than Netflix Streaming. I pay for both (Amazon unintentionally, because I bought Prime for the shipping), watch both on a PS3, and spend 2x the amount of time in Amazon as I do in Netflix.

Apart from the free catalogs, which are comparable between the two services, Amazon also has an enormous paid streaming catalog. Like most nerds, the value of an hour of my time is such that even thinking about the price of paid streaming content is a waste of time, so Amazon's paid streaming catalog is a great win for me; 9 times out of 10, whatever I want to watch, I can get through Amazon.

Amazon also does a better job of maintaining my library of past purchases and my wishlist than either of Netflix or iTunes.

I didn't buy Prime to get the videos, but the videos aren't s small feature. Amazon executes streaming content as well as anyone else, and if you haven't checked them out (because you use Netflix, for instance) you should.

Also: I don't think streaming media is at all out of place in Amazon's core offering. They started with books. Then digital media, just like Borders did. Then "everything else", which is what people seem to think of Amazon as now --- the Walmart of the Web. But: then Kindle (consolidating their reach into content), then streaming media, then publishing.

It doesn't seem at all weird to me that the Internet's largest retailer of paid content would have a streaming media service; online content delivery would otherwise obsolete one of their original offerings.

<comment><USER3> Does anyone know why I can't use Amazon Video on my apple tv? Don't tell me I can use airplay, either. I don't like watching stuttering garbage that sounds like crap. Why isn't there a native app yet?!

<comment><USER4> Or why can I not use Amazon Video on any Android device other than their off- brand Kindle tablets? I'm already a paying customer, but they won't let me use their service.

<comment><USER5> Or on Chromecast. I know - competitive blah blah blah - but it sucks as for us as customers. Amazon has no problem _selling_ Chromecasts themselves, but they won't add support for them in their own apps?

<comment><USER6> You can stream an Amazon video tab on Chromecast if you disable Silverlight and choose to use the Flash player.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What's with this stupid title where you have to read the thing to have any clue what it is about?

Imagine if the front page were full with these kind of titles. We might as well change the titles to random numbers.

The last post by this guy that I remember, and the second to last one to do well on the frontpage (perhaps explaining the current behavior), was titled "Off". Can you get any more vague?

In that post all he said about anything being off was "The presenting executives seemed a bit off, too."

My prediction is that before long he'll have a post at the top of Hacker News titled "And" where he ends it with "And that's what I think."

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "What's with this stupid title where you have to read the thing to have any clue what it is about?"

I think you've answered your own question. A lot of people will think it's a stupid title but be curious enough to click through.

<comment><USER8> Or perhaps he chose a title appropriate for traditional blog/RSS reader format where readers are presented with the first paragraphs of the article, and the title is little more than decoration.

The article author can hardly be blamed for the HN policy of using article titles even when they aren't descriptive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is the key to the entire article:

"There's nowhere to go. Amazon has either destroyed or bought every competitor that has ever come close to its retail business."

Without this, nothing else matters. If there are alternatives, then you keep using Amazon and Prime only if they're worth it. If Amazon ruins them, go somewhere else.

Personally, I think it's _completely_ wrong. I buy on Amazon because it's extremely convenient and because I can be pretty sure that they're going to offer a good price, likely the cheapest price available.

However, any time I make a purchase that's more than $30 or so, I shop around. There is _no_ shortage of other places to buy anything I've looked for. They usually have higher prices or worse service than Amazon and so I skip them. Occasionally they're better, and then I buy from them.

There's no lock-in, there's no monopoly, there's _nothing_ that makes people stick with Amazon besides better prices, better service, and inertia.

If you don't like it, go somewhere else. It pains me to say this because that phrase is _so_ overused, but it applies to Amazon well.

<comment><USER4> Amazon bought all the competing sites I used to use:

Zappos has fantastic customer service, great selection of shoes, and good prices. They've been owned by Amazon since 2009.

AbeBooks is a fantastic used (or new) book marketplace. Amazon bought them in 2008.

Audible is the largest retailer of audiobooks. Amazon bought them in 2008. Try buying an audiobook anywhere else.

Amie Street provided independent music downloads will a revolutionary demand- based pricing system. Amazon bought them in 2010 to shut them down.

Woot was a pretty nifty daily deal site. They were bought by Amazon in 2010, and have really lost their original focus since.

If I want to buy just about anything online, I'm stuck buying it from Amazon. If it happens to be something that Walmart or Target stocks, I could order it from them instead. They charge $5+ for shipping even the smallest items though.

<comment><USER10> Unless Amie Street has a patent on demand-based pricing (which would now be in Amazon's hands), shutting down just means the market is open to a fresh, nimble competitor.

Now, said competitor may just end up being bought by Amazon again, true. But until then, they will be a viable "other" choice.

The same goes for every other service bought and modified by Amazon. You're complaining about them, so there's at least a demand of 1 for a replacement service :)

<comment><USER11> Wouldn't that be the point of amazon buying competitor to deter future competitors by acquiring patents and then suing anyone to shut them down, with legal justifications for doing so? (owning a patent for example)...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I feel like I must be the odd one here. My wife and I watch free Amazon Prime videos (i.e. bundled with the Prime service, I know nothing is actually free!) all the time. The selection is decent enough for us and they have lots of free television series that keep us busy. Between that and shipping that usually gets things here the next day, Amazon Prime is worth every penny to us.

<comment><USER13> > free Amazon Prime videos

I know that's how Amazon phrases it but this is the fallacy the OP is arguing against.

<comment><USER12> Bad wording, I was differentiating between the Amazon videos that are bundled with Prime vs the videos that you still have to pay for even with Prime. We very rarely pay an additional amount to watch a video on Amazon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> B-Con > They want to lock everyone into everything. Just like everyone else. And > we're all worse off for it.

I really like Schneier's commentary on how large companies are migrating toward a feudal system[1]. His perspective is from security, but the central point is universal.

[1]: [http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/feudal- security/](http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/feudal-security/)

</comment><comment><USER14> I think Amazon needs to get into the delivery business soon.

Planet Money (an NPR show) created a t-shirt for fans and broke down the cost of each shirt. The biggest line item was shipping the finished shirts to customers.

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/12/13/250747279/episode-...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/12/13/250747279/episode-503-adding- up-the-cost-of-the-planet-money-t-shirt)

Out of the total cost of $12.42, it cost $2.26 to ship. It cost $1.04 to accept payments. Compare these costs with the actual cost of the product: $0.60 for the cotton, $0.40 to spin the cotton into yarn, $1.00 for sewing.

It seems unlikely that Amazon as it exists today will ever rival Walmart in volume and price since they avoid these last-mile delivery costs.

Amazon should take on FedEx and UPS and try to disrupt the industry one key city at a time. They've already started delivering groceries in Seattle, so perhaps that's the first step to Amazon Delivery Service.

<comment><USER9> Those last-mile costs exist regardless. It's just that with Wal-Mart, the customer pays the costs in occasional lump sums to the local gas station and garage and very occasionally to the car dealership, rather than paying Wal- Mart.

This is, of course, very much to Wal-Mart's advantage. Americans really hate to think about the cost of their cars and really love to drive them, so the perception will generally avoid factoring in the costs of driving to and from the store into the final prices.

However, make a big enough difference and people will notice. If Amazon can offer a price that's lower than Wal-Mart's _and_ deliver it for much less than it costs to drive to the store, people will notice.

I don't see why they couldn't, eventually. Warehouse logistics are much easier when you don't have to deal with customers wandering around. Transport is subject to economies of scale like anything else, and it should be possible to make it much cheaper to use one truck to deliver to 100 houses than it costs to have 100 people individually drive back and forth.

In short, I think I'm agreeing with you that delivery is where Amazon should concentrate if they want to compete in this area.

<comment><USER15> But I don't want things delivered to my doorstep, and I doubt I am the only one.

I am rarely home during the day (I work) and I don't like having expensive items sitting on my porch in the weather where anyone can swipe it.

I'd rather stop by a 24-hour (drive through) facility where I can swipe my credit card and get my package when I am ready. It's more convenient for me and it saves last-mile shipping costs.

<comment><USER16> Amazon Locker is almost that service (it's not drive-through). Most of the locations seem to be inside 7-11 stores, but it's just what you describe - walk in, type in or scan your code, pick up your package.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The entire larger point of the post seems to be being missed, which isn't specifically about Amazon Prime at all. The point is that the big players in the online services space are competing in a "my way or the highway" fashion that ends up making everything a little worse.

You may not agree with Arment's take on Amazon Instant Video -- personally, I'm a Prime customer but haven't been interested in Amazon's video service because it seemed to mostly overlap with Netflix and because until fairly recently getting it on my TV was more of a pain than I was willing to put up with, because I have an Apple TV and Amazon and Apple wouldn't cross the street to piss on each other if they were on fire. But Google Maps is no longer used for iOS's native map program in large part because Google wanted access to iOS customers Apple didn't want to give, and because of that iOS native maps are worse (and Google lost tens of millions of map users). Google is making all their services a little worse by trying to tie everything up with Google+. Amazon's refusal to support EPUB makes my Kindle a little worse. And so on and so on.

HN readers seem to engage in a lot of debate over whether Google and Amazon are "better" than Apple when it comes to ecosystem lock-in. But _all_ of those services only work with approved devices using approved players with approved content. What you're arguing about is the size of the cage you're in.

</comment><comment><USER18> Marco is using a complete straw man here He takes a optional add on service (Amazon Prime) which a company offers value to its "its most dedicated customers". Then he compares it to other companies require of you to use their service.

You are in no way required to have Amazon Prime to use Amazon. If it doesn't make sense to you, then cancel it. Amazon is still happy to have you as a customer without it.

It feels like people are complaining they bought a car, asked for the sunroof option, and now are loudly complaining that cars shouldn't have sunroofs.

<comment><USER19> They bought a car, chose the sunroof option, got the sunroof plus a bluetooth module they don't use. Every time they use the sunroof, they have to click through a popup advertising the bluetooth. The cost of the bluetooth may or may not have been included in the sunroof price, it's not clear.

<comment><USER20> Ironically, some cars I've been looking into lately only offer the sunroof bundled with some touchscreen navigation system I don't really want.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Disagree completely with the fearmongering.

"Its shipping deals always felt unsustainable, so in the absence of other changes, I'd feel that the extra $20 per year was justified."

So what exactly is the problem being decried? Amazon increases the cost of a "free shipping" plan that was previously seemed unsustainable.

Oh, and Amazon bundles free videos with Prime as it wants to get into the media delivery business ruled by Netflix and make it cheaper. It already doss this with books but now wants to enter the game to challenge Google's Play and Apple's iTunes Store. This is MORE competition in the mobile OS + media delivery space. Let Amazon enter it. It already has one of the most sophisticated infrastructures in the world, with AWS - which by the way is its biggest revenue center.

If you want to be concerned about anything, be concerned about the effect these economies of scale will have on the American worker. With self driving cars from google and packing robots from Amazon and giant data centers from Apple, who will need record stores, bookstores, newspapers, cab drivers, oh wait..

<comment><USER22> > bundles free videos with Prime

They're not free, they're part of the $99 fee. I don't watch TV and I don't want to be charged extra so they can give me "free" TV I didn't ask for.

<comment><USER23> You're assuming that Amazon would be able to profitably offer a meaningfully cheaper "shipping-only" Prime service. I doubt it. Shipping is expensive, and the kind of people who would be inclined to subscribe to that service are likely to be the ones who make heavy use of the free shipping.

If $99 isn't worth the shipping options you get from Prime, and you aren't interested in the video service, there's always the option of not using Prime and paying for shipping as you use it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I love to think of all of these things as opportunities. Giants are staggering around, losing focus and getting in to petty fights. Isn't that the perfect time for new things? How exciting.

</comment><comment><USER25> Meh. Of course this is "worse", it isn't something from the Gods Who Are Named Apple.

> Amazon announced this week that it's increasing the price of Amazon Prime > from $80 to $100 per year, its first price change since its introduction in > 2005.

> This has not been a popular decision, to put it lightly, but most Prime > customers — which I've been since 2005 — aren't really going anywhere. > There's nowhere to go. Amazon has either destroyed or bought every > competitor that has ever come close to its retail business.

This sounds redundant. There is complaining about lack of competition, yet you still keep using the service (and are part of destroying that competition by using Amazon).

The addon program has added items which would have never been on the site previously, so that is a win, I'm sure other items which just can't be shipped by themselves cost effectively have been removed, but times change. Streaming videos are also an addition that are a win for those who use it. Also your bill is going up from $6.66 a month (the cost of one beer) to $8.33 (the cost of 1.5 beers) a month for streaming video and 2 day shipping on tons of items, I don't see a ton to complain about. I'm surprise the price hasn't been jacked up years ago just due to increasing shipping costs across the board.

<comment><USER26> > The addon program has added items which would have never been on the site > previously, so that is a win

This isn't correct. I have items in my purchase history that were not Add-On items and now are. Maybe _some_ new items are here because of add-on, but it's also true that existing items used to be purchasable by themselves and now are only available as add-ons.

<comment><USER25> Those items would have been deleted from the site without the addon program and not available anymore at all because it is probably no longer viable to ship them standalone, so the addon program is a is a net win.

<comment><USER9> How do you know that?

<comment><USER25> From every add-on items description:

"This item is available because of the Add-on program The Add-on program allows Amazon to offer thousands of low-priced items that would be cost- prohibitive to ship on their own."

These tiny items wouldn't be stocked at all if they didn't offer them via add- on, somewhere in their literature they've said these items are only stocked because of this program.

<comment><USER9> Because they couldn't possibly be lying?

<comment><USER25> Sigh. I guess that is conspiracy theory default now days for things you are unable to prove.

<comment><USER9> It is not a "conspiracy theory" to think that companies might be putting a positive spin on (i.e. lying about) changes made to increase their bottom line. That's what companies _do_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I didn't see any mention of inflation. $79 in 2005 when prime was launched is equivalent to $96 today.

<comment><USER28> People don't feel inflation the way that the CPI states it. The CPI's "basket of goods" is full of things that nobody cares about (like CD-ROMs, VCRs), and it is supposed to apply to the whole country, despite how diverse expenditure types can be (For example, I spend < $200/mo on transportation, but $2500/mo on rent, whereas when I lived in Cleveland it was nearly the opposite).

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This article is not about Amazon Prime particularly, its about this quote:

 _They want to lock everyone into everything. Just like everyone else. And we're all worse off for it._

Thats the core of the problem. Current monetisation models are based on lock in and annoying ads, and no decent alternative models seem to be on the horizon.

<comment><USER30> If he really wanted to call out lockin, he'd be shouting about Apple's lockin from the highest parapet, as they are much worse than just about everyone else out there (Microsoft included!). But of course this is Marco, so I was surprised when he called out Apple at all.

I'm an Amazon Prime customer who has experienced no lockin, so I'm not sure what Marco is going on about.

<comment><USER31> _I 'm an Amazon Prime customer who has experienced no lockin, so I'm not sure what Marco is going on about._

As someone not using Amazon prime, this is one of the _great_ thing about services and leasing stuff vs owning it. I know some of you swear to owning everything, but in this new brave world of platform lock-in, owning things becomes a prison in a much more literal way than the Buddhists ever imagined.

Had I bought stuff from the Apple iStore, I would be stuck with DRMed media I wouldn't be able to consume on any other devices than those made by Apple. If I've first invested in this system, leaving it means my media will lose may stop being playable, turning worthless, and existing devices may not work correctly with other music download-services, etc.

This vertical integration becomes a set of vertical pilars surrounding you on all sides. Leaving one thing means leaving it _all_ behind. It has a very high cost. Very few people will do that unless they are presented with something truly incredible as a reward. And things like that comes along very rarely.

If I on the contrary used Spotify to consume music I would have nothing to lose if I stopped subscribing to their service. Leaving for a better service is completely free of cost and would only present me benefits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Prime has hiked in price here in the UK too, with the bundled video.

But.

It's still worth it here IMO. In fact, Prime here in the UK is about a million lightyears ahead of the US because of the size of the country :)

Free next day shipping is really brilliant for a heavy Amazon buyer like me.

I was actually a Lovefilm user from before the Amazon buyout. I fondly remember the day they were primarily a physical rental service - the warehouse was not far from me and the postal service fantastic. Their catalogue was huge.

Their online service has always been mediocre; about the same as Netflix, Sky and BT.

But the combination of on-demand video and free next day is still worth it to me.

After some research, IMO the combination of Sky (satellite TV with on-demand offering) and Amazon Prime (free next day delivery + on-demand video) is the best combination of price & coverage. I can get 99.9% of the things I want for reasonable price.

Looking at the US service, it doesn't even compare :(

<comment><USER33> Yes, the delivery situation is much better here, so much so that I can get free 2-day shipping to a shop a few minutes walk away (which is better in some ways as it doesn't require you to be in) since they have introduced collect+, making prime almost completely unnecessary for those near a collect+ location.

<comment><USER34> Same in Germany, price went up from 25 to 45 euros, but is definitely still worth it. Their video catalogue is not all that bad either, though lacking original language (non-dubbed) films. But then again, Netflix is not available in Germany so far.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I've been a prime customer for 7 ish years. I'm ok with the new price. Im extremely happy with the service, appreciate a lot of the new features (instant video, lending library), and overall Im not off put by tweaks like add ons that make the service more economically efficient and thus viable.

I get way more than $100 worth of simplicity from being a member of prime.

My only complaint: create an instant video app for android already.

<comment><USER36> My complaint is: Why do I have to install Silverlight on my Mac to use amazon video while you can stream to your iPad without silverlight?

<comment><USER37> Are you talking about Netflix? Amazon's video player uses Flash.

<comment><USER38> No, Amazon uses silverlight by default. Under their options for web player, they even say "Experience less buffering and enjoy HD titles with Microsoft Silverlight." and the option is "Silverlight (Recommended)"

<comment><USER37> Ah, I wasn't even aware since I don't have Silverlight installed, and Amazon automatically fellback to Flash. I installed Silverlight to compare, but it crashes in Chrome and I get "Content Permissions Error (6023)" in Firefox.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I feel in general there are some things getting muddled together that probably shouldn't.

First, you have free services that are using various forms of the walled garden model to generate revenue. That's hardly surprising, new, and really anything worth complaining about. If you don't like it, go use that highly successful paid service that doesn't have the ad revenue. Oh wait...

Then there is the thread about bundling all of Amazon's services through Prime. Prime is clearly a play to leverage all of Amazon's services in to one big compelling service. Since Amazon still provides their services at competitive rates _without_ Prime, I'm not sure how anyone can gripe about this.

Finally, there is the issue of Prime's price going up. I _don 't_ think it has anything to do with bundling other services, and everything to do with the program a) being successful (and you see this in competitors adopting similar services) and b) suffering from increased costs everywhere else. Guess what? No matter how much software, and the reverse inflation that comes with it, eats the world, the rest of the world still suffers from the usual challenges of increasing costs. In 2005, when Prime was launched, the price of first class mail has increased 32.4%, which is actually more than the 25% increase in Prime. Maybe there is no sinister agenda....

</comment><comment><USER40> I really couldn't disagree with this post any more. While I think he raises several points that are applicable to him, none apply to me.

I have also been a prime subscriber since 2005 and it has paid for itself many times over in shipping costs alone. I have had bunk beds, computers, televisions all shipped second day for free. Rarely have I had issues, I would continue to pay for the service even if it was twice what it is now.

And I do use the streaming service quite regularly. I have not had cable for quite some time so I use streaming services for close to 50% of my at home entertainment. Of that, I think the amazon library is one of the better available.

At any rate, I have been and will hopefully continue to be a happy prime subscriber for at least another year.

</comment><comment><USER41> And this year's Academy Award for Best First World Problems Post goes to................

Seriously, all of these companies compete for their customers. They're going to try and optimize their offerings to keep their customers. Sometimes they'll do a good job - like iMessage meaning no texting costs and locking people into the platform. Sometimes they'll do a sucky job, like Google + accounts. Half the time they'll be doing both simultaneously (iMessage and Maps) Those that irritate their customers over the long run will.......surprise surprise.....drive them to the better competitor platform.

Both ways uphill in a snowstorm.

</comment><comment><USER42> Amazon could raise the price of Prime by 2x and I would still keep it. I buy so much shit through Amazon. I kinda wish I could spread my dollars out among more online retailers, but Amazon and Newegg are the only ones (based on lots of experience) who I can trust on the shipping front. If they say the package is going to be there on day XYZ, there is a 99.999% chance (in my experience) of it appearing on day XYZ. Of course this only applies when bought from them directly (or if 'fulfilled by Amazon', I try to avoid the 3rd party sellers who don't fulfill through Amazon as much as any other store I can't trust to get shipping right).

Every other retailer I've dealt with online will do stupid shit like allow me to pay for 2 day shipping and then send the package out 3 days after I order it.

Nail completely consistent and predictable shipping and I might buy stuff from you, otherwise you're at best 4th in line behind Amazon, Newegg and every brick and mortar store within 20 miles.

<comment><USER43> > there is a 99.999% chance (in my experience)

You have bought 100000 items, and only 1 didn't arrive on time? Really?

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> You know, when if I had problems like that, I would show my discontent with the only meaningful way: I'd stop using the service. Like I do it with Google (aside from Youtube, where I can't comment any more), Facebook and many other things a lot of people keep complaining about but never do the one thing that matters. STOP USING THE DAMN THING.

<comment><USER45> Sure, but now you have lost the primary benefit of the service. Some principles are definitely worth that total walkout.

But modern companies are masters at figuring just how much they can annoy their customers without pushing too many of them to leave. The point of the article is that, for us customers, things get "worse".

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> What I find frustrating is that when I go to the Amazon Video on my PS3 there doesn't seem to be a way to say "Just show me the free videos". It insists on mixing the free and paid ones.

Which is rubbish when I'm just looking to see what's available to watch.

<comment><USER47> If you pick the "Prime Instant Videos" section at the top, it is exactly this, right?

I don't think there is a way to "search" only for Prime videos. But if you are only wanting to browse, I am 90% sure that is covered. (Currently letting the kids watch stuff, so can't verify the section name.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Fair points aside I want to know why people still harp on Google+ at this point.

> Google, the geek world's undeserved, unquestioned darling for well over a > decade, has made all of its core products worse by forcefully shoving > Google+ into them.

This sentiment is so frustrating to me. Yes, Google introduced an identity service so they no longer needed to tie everything to one of your Gmail accounts. This means you can now link your Gmail accounts together, this development is fantastic.

Along with it comes bundled a really good social network application. Which, hello everyone, don't use it if you don't want it. Allowing everyone with Google accounts to talk to each other in a social medium and aggregate content relevant to their interests. Youtube integration was arguably a detriment to Google+ because it caused an influx of terrible content from late Google+ adopters.

Youtube is a social product, Google+ was a newer much more powerful social product. Google had two social products so it merged them together. Inarguably (at least I don't see how you could argue) improving Youtube.

What is an example of Google+ making anything worse?

When will tech bloggers embrace Google's introduction of their identity service, they badly needed one and Google+ is amazing by any standard.

<comment><USER49> I think the idea is, G+ is cluttering up the api for everything else. When in fact it gets used not at all, by almost everybody. So that's definitely worse, for almost everybody, doing almost anything with Google products.

So, that's worse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> >There's nowhere to go. Amazon has either destroyed or bought every competitor that has ever come close to its retail business.

There's nowhere to go because people like you gave their money to Amazon. Congratulations! Shall I cry you a river now?

</comment><comment><USER51> "Showing this once is bad enough, but I see it regularly. Amazon is now annoying their best customers with desperate, obnoxious, tricky interstitial ads. (Of course, the checkbox is checked by default.)"

Email Bezos. He takes this sort of thing very seriously, assuming you can present a rational argument. He won't reply directly, but he will see it. Jeff@

</comment><comment><USER52> Hmm all I get is an empty page. Yet another case of not being able to handle HN traffic?

<comment><USER53> That is an interesting coincidence, because around the time of your post, I was having a similar problem on a couple of other sites (techmeme and recode). The pages loaded OK, but were completely blank.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> If I click on one more movie title in AmazonPrime Instant Video that is simply not offered in any form at all (streaming, rental, purchase, nada), I am going to cry.

<comment><USER55> I'm sorry, I accidentally downvoted you when I was trying to upvote someone else.

To make up for it, I've given an abundance of upvotes on some of your other comments elsewhere.

My apologies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I have tried amazon instant video. People keep saying they love netflix, but netflix has a huge problem - they keep losing content all the time. So I used Amazon instant video to watch a show that i started watching on netflix and which disappeared from netflix soon thereafter.

Amazon instant video is ok once you start watching, but their software is pretty bad and much much worse than netflix. Both amazon and netflix have to spread their software on many devices (such as computers, tablets, tv's and dozens of settop streaming devices) but it seems to me on every single device i have tried the amazon software is really annoying.

I think a big part of the problem is that they are trying to sell both free instant video and their paid service.

</comment><comment><USER57> I don't know where this guy lives, but prime has only been getting better. I've never seen a next day fee greater than 3.99. Same day delivery was added not too long ago and it costs 3.99. what unbalanced bs link bait.

<comment><USER58> Here, I found one for you with about 45 seconds of effort: [http://snappy- app.com/s/show.php?pass=a550109d1fb9b47c65d29a...](http://snappy- app.com/s/show.php?pass=a550109d1fb9b47c65d29adb7d3b6049)

In my experience, many items are well over $3.99. "Local express delivery" and/or one-day shipping has always been $7.99 or higher in NYC. Prime's 'extra' features for even faster shipping are abysmal compared to what it used to be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> "This has not been a popular decision, to put it lightly"

From all the forum comments/responses I've seen, Prime customers seem just fine with it. Maybe we read different news websites?

<comment><USER60> I thought the same thing. I haven't really heard any complaints. Most comments are more along the line of "Amazon increased Prime rates by $20. I hope they don't figure out how much more I would actually pay"

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> I buy enough stuff from amazon that I would spend way more than $100 a year on shipping anyway. Getting the free videos and kindle lending is just a nice little bonus.

It's too bad Marco hasn't watched any videos on Amazon. They have some pretty good original shows. Betas is a funny caricature of the startup life we all live. It's cheesy, but relatively accurate and at times pretty funny. Alpha House is fantastic. It's like a comedy version of House of Cards.

<comment><USER62> > Betas is a funny caricature of the startup life we all live.

It is? I tried watching the first episode and I couldn't even make it through the whole thing. That shows was the most cringe-worthy thing I've seen in a very long time.

<comment><USER61> I actually thought the same thing as I watched it. Once I realized that the cringe was intentional and that it was poking fun at how ridiculous some "startup people" are, I actually started to like it.

It's not my favorite TV show by any means, but I definitely enjoyed it.

<comment><USER62> Sure, it was intentional, but that doesn't make it any more watchable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> For me, I believe Netflix content is far superior to Amazon's. That doesn't prove anything.

I think the main point which Marco is trying to make it is the inflexibility I as a consumer should have over choosing what I want and pricing the products accordingly. In some ways, it is similar to the wireless carriers post paid plans (until T-Mobile and AT&T recently changed this) where you paid the same monthly bill whether you get your phone or use a contract one. Consumers do not have option to opt out and pay for the entire bundle - thus also getting a far inferior product (Amazon Instant Videos) with a far superior one (2 day shipping).

After this Prime price change and the fact that California purchases are taxed, I will not be renewing my Prime account. I have noticed that for most of my electronic/tech product shopping, I don't use Amazon anyways as I always have found things cheaper on competing sites (Adorama, Newegg, eBay or Apple). For the rest, I am fine with 4 day shipping instead of 2 day and, as Marco mentioned, for increasing number of Amazon products are now classified as Add- on products which is not cool as well..

</comment><comment><USER64> Adjusted for inflation, isn't

$80 in 2005 = $100 in 2014

Pretty sure it's darn near if not right on the money.

<comment><USER65> $79 in 2005 is apparently $94.62 in 2014.

[http://data.bls.gov/cgi- bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=79&year1=2005&y...](http://data.bls.gov/cgi- bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=79&year1=2005&year2=2014)

<comment><USER66> The CPI is an average based on a somewhat arbitrary bundle of goods which individually vary in price. People are used to the price of internet services declining over time (e.g. Google drive pricing), but Amazon prime incorporates things like shipping and movie royalties, which probably follow inflation similar to the CPI. Delivery companies surely increase in efficiency by adopting new technology, but they are also highly dependent on the cost of equipment, fuel, and labor. In the first few paragraphs, Marco only mentions the nominal cost, not the fact that the real price has been declining for eight years. Amazon probably went with $100 because its about right, which might be high or low for their bottom line, because consumers respond well to round numbers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Anyone who has a .edu email address can get Amazon student, which is free for 6 months and then 50% off forever.

[http://www.amazon.com/gp/student/signup/info?ie=UTF8&refcust...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/student/signup/info?ie=UTF8&refcust=KX7MQVN6RADGKJHSKCQFDZEZZY&ref_type=generic)

</comment><comment><USER68> You should try _not_ being a Prime subscriber. You get the interstitials appearing on every bloody purchase.

</comment><comment><USER69> Many times on amazon i have found the same products from their marketplace vendors that cost the same with shipping as the prime product with "free shipping". With the exception of books which nobody can compete with on price, and large expensive to ship items, prime isnt a veey good deal.

</comment><comment><USER70> I think the key assumption here that is wrong is that Amazon is this amazing retail outlet that you just need to use.

I disagree, as someone who has been a huge customer.

Why? Amazon prices suck, and have gotten increasingly less competitive over the years. The huge 3rd party vendor market on Amazon makes it very difficult to identify product that you want to. It on many cases as well.

The whole premise of Amazon Prime was to push the uncertainty of shipping time out of online shopping out of the purchase equation. That experience is both being watered down and made more expensive. If they don't deliver on the premise/promise, there are literally thousands of competitors for just about any product.

IMO, Amazon needs to stop patting themselves on the back and focus on the customer experience.

</comment><comment><USER71> I don't shop at enough Amazon to make prime shipping economically beneficial to me. In most cases free ground shipping is alright, and occasionally paying for 2 day shipping works out to be cheaper than $100 per year.

I bought prime subscription anyway; not for shipping but for Amazon Instant Video. I won't be renewing it because Amazon Instant Video has been disappointing so far. There isn't enough content on Amazon Prime. Worse part, their Xbox app plays video in 360p resolution.

I had similar experience with Netflix as well. Even after paying for several on-demand Video services, I have to use Torrents. Torrents offer the most convenience, it has the largest content library, best video quality and no stupid DRM & restrictions.

</comment><comment><USER72> I see arguments about whether or not Amazon Instant Video is worth the money, but I think that's beside the point, isn't it? The important part of the discussion here is that Amazon Instant Video is not of interest to a large number of existing Amazon Prime subscribers, and they are likely paying the price for those who use it.

It's a bit of a frustrating trend to see companies bundling new technologies like this, often at the expense of their loyal customers. I am an Amazon Prime subscriber, and will continue to be one, but I would love it if Amazon Instant video were a separate subscription that I could choose to pay for on its own merits.

</comment><comment><USER49> I approach it differently. I pay no attention to the plans, the memberships, the cards and the programs. I buy the best deal I can get on the spot.

It costs some more, but honestly I'm not talking about buying a car or a house so its 'petty cash' purchases we're talking about.

And I get my dignity back. No more struggling to satisfy some program requirements; no getting 2nd-rate tickets because of the 'miles' I think I need. I just buy what I want, and I pay for it.

SO no not a 'member' of anything. This is a 1st-world solution I know. But if you can afford it, well I recommend it.

</comment><comment><USER73> Amazon's upselling and cross-selling methods are good examples of dark patterns: design working to harm its users. [http://darkpatterns.org/](http://darkpatterns.org/)

</comment><comment><USER74> _" But I suspect the changes to overnight rates and Add-On Items would have been enough to keep Prime's shipping costs sustainable, and these haven't been the only changes."_

That's seems extremely speculative.

</comment><comment><USER75> It is definitely worth noting that Amazon has a shareholder problem. Yes, they have devoured everything large and small but profit margins are razor thin. One of the most brilliant things that Jeff Bezos did was telling his early investors not to see a return for several years, but the market does and will demand returns. Given that Costco makes most of its profit on membership fees it will be interesting to see if the Prime increase is sufficient to both sustain or improve service levels and increase profitability.

</comment><comment><USER76> Personally, I find that eBay (at least in the UK) has proven itself to have the best shipping, selection, service and price. Especially with it's new "Fast and free" promotion

</comment><comment><USER77> "They want to lock everyone into everything. Just like everyone else. And we're all worse off for it."

dat. every company mankind has produced. every ruler, too. Meh.

</comment><comment><USER78> While we are talking about Amazon Prime - there still seems to be a round about way to get Prime at the old yearly rate of $79 - even if you are a currently active Prime member. See this for details - [http://www.reddit.com/r/deals/comments/20ckxa/you_can_lock_i...](http://www.reddit.com/r/deals/comments/20ckxa/you_can_lock_in_the_79_now_even_if_your_renewal/)

</comment><comment><USER79> There are some areas where Amazon definitely outshines Netflix, particularly children's programming, which honestly is 80% of the streaming video my family does - Amazon has all the Nickelodeon shows, which Netflix doesn't, which is a key edge for them. We recently went back to cable after cord-cutting 5 years ago, and prime video allowed me to drop Netflix and Hulu without much disruption to our viewing.

</comment><comment><USER80> I mostly agree with the OP here, but I will say this: Prime Instant Video was the main reason I actually finally signed up for Prime. The shipping part is nice, but I don't actually order _that_ much physical "stuff" from Amazon.

With the price increase, I'm not sure if I'll stay a Prime member or not though. I do use Prime Video, but I'm not sure I use it enough to justify this price.

</comment><comment><USER81> I'm surely a rare exception. I don't buy stuff from Amazon (I might if they would tell me what carrier they were going to use before shipping. Where I live I have a different address for USPS than I do for other carriers.) But I did subscribe to Prime for the video. I'm not sure I will stick with them with the price increase, since I don't use them half as much as I use netflix.

</comment><comment><USER82> Hope they don't do it here in Canada. With no Amazon Video service here, there already isn't much reason to buy Prime.

</comment><comment><USER83> This might have an interesting product positioning aspect:

Amazon is calling the product "prime", but it is actually a way to save money. Hence, this is no premium product and there is no actual perception as a premium product by customers.

Raising prices for an actual premium product wouldn't be an issue, but it seems actual product aspects and not naming counts.

</comment><comment><USER47> I can't say that I feel at all betrayed or ill treated in the Amazon increase. Maybe I would be more annoyed if my change did not go into affect Jan of next year, but as it is, I feel I've gotten more than a fair deal out of this.

Of course, I actually use the heck out of the video service... As noted in the top thread, it really is quite nice.

</comment><comment><USER84> As a Canadian Amazon customer, I'm used to this second class treatment.

With a fraction of the inventory, no "addon items", no access to Prime Instant Video or Kindle Lending Library, there's absolutely no reason for Amazon.ca customers to subscribe to Prime, even at $79.

<comment><USER85> It's worse, but I wouldn't say there's "no reason". I make almost all of my purchases on amazon; their selection has improved greatly in the past year.

Adding Prime has removed much of the friction from the process. I don't have to group items together to get free shipping. Yet I also find I'm not making impulse purchases, so it works out well.

Mental space is precious, so removing the planning from amazon purchasing has helped, even if I spend a bit more money.

<comment><USER82> Yeah, I've spent a couple of late nights scrambling trying to think of one item I want to buy from Amazon to pad an order out to the desired price.

Freeing myself from that bit of mental gymnastics might be worth it.

<comment><USER84> Interesting. I guess my usage of Amazon deviates from the norm then. I don't think I've ever struggled to put more than $25 in my cart, and I've never elected for a more expensive shipping option.

Aside: On Amazon.ca, the cheapest (free) shipping method has always outperformed the promise for express shipping. If they say 5-8 days, it's there in 2-3. My record was ordering a product on a Saturday afternoon, selecting free shipping, and getting it Monday morning. I was dumbfounded that was even possible.

<comment><USER85> I often buy a single book, usually $11. I might buy a $14 book two days later, but I don't want to keep track, or buy more than I want to for free shipping

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> Just getting a blank page. Google cache here: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.marco.org%2F2014%2F03%2F15%2Fworse)

</comment><comment><USER87> > because Amazon bundled in a video service nobody wants since 2011

I like Amazon video quite a bit actually.

</comment><comment><USER88> Worse for whom? This is actually wonderful for amazon shareholders as it demonstrates that amazon finally started to think about generating some serious cash surplus.

All that said I have no amazon stock and I am a prime user, so I feel your pain.

<comment><USER89> No, it doesn't. It will likely generate more free cash flow, though, allowing Amazon to invest in more things more quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> Ego, greed, absence (or loss) of vision... This is how products are "improved" over time.

For the most part, it's a natural result of a process driven by the demands of growth and managed by psychopaths.

</comment><comment><USER91> Canceled my Prime membership just now. I don't want any videos, I consider them a waste of time, so they are upping prices to make me pay for offering me a waste of time easier. Greeeeeat.

</comment><comment><USER92> I wonder what the cost of Google Shopping Express will be. I found myself choosing GSE over Amazon several time because on smaller items is cheaper and you can't beat same day delivery.

</comment><comment><USER93> I don't think Marco knows what lock-in means. Not to mention, his concluding sentence is a string of absolutes that almost makes me think he's writing a satire of some sort.

</comment><comment><USER94> Hah, I think I wrote exactly the same post a couple days ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7392846](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7392846)

</comment><comment><USER39> Pretty sure NewEgg and crew have competitive options to Amazon...

</comment><comment><USER95> Just take a look at China with multiples of these. Many companies are using their influence to attack smaller companies and there is virtually no antitrust laws.

</comment><comment><USER96> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKU6fKhYpYw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKU6fKhYpYw)

</comment><comment><USER97> whilst it's true that Apple maps is not as good as Google maps yet, especially outside the US, it strikes me as the odd one out here.

Apple wanted to make maps better but couldn't do so with Google as the supplier without making unacceptable privacy compromises.

The current state is temporarily worse, but only because their supplier was uncooperative.

<comment><USER9> There's more than two maps suppliers out there. While it's true that Apple probably couldn't realistically proceed with Google, nothing forced Apple to partner with the cheapest and worst one out there (TomTom) when making the switch.

Apple Maps could have been much better if Apple had cared to make it so. They didn't, and that's on them, not anyone else.

<comment><USER97> Who exactly are you suggesting they should have partnered with, and what do you know about what those other partners would have demanded in return?

Seriously, if it's so easy for you to righteously deride them, you presumably have some credible suggestions about how they could make it better if only they wanted to.

<comment><USER9> OpenStreetMap, Nokia, Microsoft, MapQuest, off the top of my head.

Frankly, the claim that Apple Maps was the best possible mapping product Apple could have made requires far more support than the claim that Apple could have done better.

<comment><USER97> Which of those are you claiming are better than Apple's maps? Only Microsoft and Nokia seem like they might be contenders, and given that at the time they were just as competitive towards Apple as Google, what makes you think they offered a more credible deal?

The claim that Apple could have done better absolutely requires qualification otherwise it's just more empty bashing. Without qualification it is a claim that can be made against anyone about anything. Knowing that someone _could_ have done better requires understanding the options available to them.

<comment><USER9> Apple trusts Microsoft enough to run a bunch of their infrastructure on Azure. I don't see why their maps couldn't be trusted too.

OSM is also good. Better than what Apple got, anyway.

Of course, my experience was that a blank sheet of paper would be better than Apple Maps when it was introduced. While a blank sheet of paper contains no information, it also won't steer you _wrong_ , and that means it comes out ahead.

What kind of qualification are you looking for?

<comment><USER97> Azure is a standard service offering and is a commodity that competes with AWS which Apple also uses.

Given your general intelligence, it's actually hard for me to believe that you can't see that Microsoft would have leverage when negotiating to be the replacement for Google maps, and the terms might have been unacceptable.

It's also quite reasonable that having been dependent on one hostile supplier for maps, Apple would need want to control it's own destiny with the replacement otherwise it would just be repeating the same mistake that they made with Google.

Your comments about the blank sheet of paper make it unclear that you are offering a serious opinion here.

I was looking for some actual insight or information about how Apple could have made maps better, but it doesn't seem like you have any to support your claim.

It sounds like it just boils down to 'I wish they'd used OSM'.

<comment><USER9> That's a really smooth move there, calling me stupid under the guise of calling me smart. I like it! I'll have to remember that.

My experience with Apple Maps was that it steered me wrong more than it steered me right. That made it literally worse than nothing. If you think that implies that I don't have a serious opinion, well, I can't affect what you think.

I honestly don't see why you need anything beyond "they should have gone with anyone, _anyone_ besides TomTom, who has the worst maps in the industry". It would have required some sort of compromise on their part? Well _duh_. Obviously they went with TomTom because TomTom's position at the bottom of the heap gave Apple lots of power. Apple clearly prioritized power in the relationship over quality of the resulting product. That's their right. But that doesn't make the resulting product better.

<comment><USER97> I'm not calling you stupid. I'm accusing you of not using your intelligence at a point when to do so would invalidate part of your argument

I agree with you that Apple prioritized power over the near-term quality of the resulting product. That was the point I made in the first place.

In order to be able to make maps better at their own pace, they _must_ have control over it otherwise they would just be held hostage again. The alternative is not _compromise_ ; it's defeat.

This is why simply presenting a list of other vendors doesn't change the equation. Control is a hard technical requirement.

<comment><USER9> Then I honestly haven't the slightest idea what point you're trying to make.

You seem to be basically saying, Apple Maps sucks but it's OK because Apple decided that was the best way to proceed.

Which is obvious (why would they have proceeded in a way that they didn't think was the best?) and thus completely uninteresting.

<comment><USER97> No. I am not saying anything like that trivial straw man which is intentionally uninteresting because you wrote it that way.

I'm saying that a short term reduction in performance was necessary in order for Apple to obtain the control they need to make maps better in future rather than being hamstrung by this key service being owned by a competitor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> Waste of my time. Little insight. Hyperbole.

</comment><comment><USER99> Marco's wrong. Weird, I know. But we use our Prime streaming all the time. It's a nice little extra.

</comment><comment><USER100> [http://www.redecentralize.org/](http://www.redecentralize.org/)

</comment><comment><USER101> Most civilized countries it is illegal to force one product with another. "married sale"

</comment><comment><USER102> so don't pay for it you moron

</comment><comment><USER103> That's why the most common financial board game is called "Monopoly"

</comment><comment><USER104> It's the end of the world I tell ya'll. Try using the inter web thingy.

</comment><comment><USER105> Amazon Prime instant video has Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, who could ask for more?

</comment><comment><USER106> Apparently I can only stream "The Americans" from Amazon. So there. (Would love to be told differently; and I don't steal media.)

</comment><comment><USER107> wow 258+ comments on so much minutiae. we are lame.

</comment><comment><USER108> Why don't you start better companies? Show them wrong. Don't just sit at your laptop, complain about how bad all these popular, massively used services are. If you don't like it, leave and make it better.

<comment><USER109> Marco is not just another blogger who just complains. He's started Tumblr and Instapaper.

I don't agree with his opinion in his case, but he always has interesting insight.

<comment><USER110> Well, he was the first employee of Tumblr and definitely instrumental in its success and implementation (the PHP framework used is mostly his own creation).</comment></comment></comment>


Why I Fail at Being a Great Entrepreneur - <AUTHOR> http://www.timchae.com/2010/10/why-i-fail-at-being-a-great-entrepreneur/

<comment><USER2> Because your site hijacked my arrow keys, making it difficult to peruse your article how I want?

<comment><AUTHOR> i wasn't aware of this. it works fine on any computer i use but it seems like ur not the only one with the problem. i'll look into it.

<comment><USER2> Cool, thanks, it's extremely annoying!

<comment><AUTHOR> is it fixed now? i just changed up the theme.

<comment><USER2> Yes, it works now.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Yellen cites 'potential dangers' in U.S. stock valuations - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/06/us-usa-fed-yellen-idUSKBN0NR1JI20150506 <comment><USER2> Back when the Fed started its first QE program, I thought it was a pretty risky bet. I felt that all QEs have gone far beyond providing emergency liquidity, and instead conceded that asset prices were/are unsustainably high. But one thing that would bail out an overpriced market for assets was to have a domestic economic revolution that rivaled WW2 rebuilding or the tech revolution. So, their reaction was to actually continue to prop up asset prices. Forget the Taylor Rule and whatever. The Fed wanted to give asset prices a floor. By attempting to give asset prices a floor, it was simply buying us time to have a solid economic revival that goes beyond juicing GDP with credit and entitlements.

That was over five years ago. We chose to invest this capital in three routes. One is domestic oil production. It may be a little early to tell, but it looks like all that money will have been wasted. So, net effect on the economy may end up being that we wasted time, money and natural resources in building useless machines in the middle of nowhere that added an unfathomable amount of carbon to our atmosphere. The other is Silicon Valley tech and biotech. So far, that has not been a bust, but I'm not sure it's playing out quite as well as we need it to. SV has a strange dynamic where the efficiencies and labor displacements that it has been bringing about may actually be harming our economy. Biotech sounds cool, but it may just be a new rent seeking industry that sucks off the teat of inefficiencies of socialized medicine.

Needless to say, I don't think any of these industries are anywhere near the level of revolution they need to be to actually justify asset price levels. They can be good, but I doubt that good.

So, regarding 'potential dangers' in asset price overvaluations. Umm, no shit?

<comment><USER3> "One is domestic oil production. It may be a little early to tell, but it looks like all that money will have been wasted. So, net effect on the economy may end up being that we wasted time, money and natural resources in building useless machines in the middle of nowhere that added an unfathomable amount of carbon to our atmosphere."

How is the money wasted given the large production and downward price pressure on energy? This shift in price of gas at the pump has done quite a lot for the working poor in terms of cash on hand.

Also, "middle of nowhere" as a description is a bit insulting and I don't think most people in a city would like to have oil wells next door. Some things happen away from the coasts.

<comment><USER4> We are mixing up a few things here.

1) Has the oil boom benefited anybody? Yes it has.

2) Has the oil boom benefited morally/politically sympathetic groups, such as the American poor? Yes it has.

3) Will the oil boom benefit humanity as a whole, over the medium to long term? The jury is still out on this one, and the answer may in fact be no.

It is perfectly possible to do things that are beneficial in the short run but ruinous in the long run.

<comment><USER5> Excellent points. Your comment does a great job of parsing the topics at hand while correctly identifying the core problems.

Numbers 1 and 2 are pretty easy to see, because they've already happened. Number 3 is where you will face stiff resistance from capitalists because of their insistence bought via fake science that climate change isn't real or the consequences of fossil fuel use are ambiguous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Chart one, DJIA, 1982 to 2014: [http://i.imgur.com/29GT453.png](http://i.imgur.com/29GT453.png)

Note that it's even higher now on the end of that chart, so push it to 18,000 and you've got the comparison.

That chart, at a bare minimum, whether you think we're dealing with "irrational exuberance" or not, should tell you that we're in an exceptional period in the stock market.

Chart two, federal funds rate, 1954 through 2009: [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Fed...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Federal_Funds_Rate_1954_thru_2009_effective.svg/640px- Federal_Funds_Rate_1954_thru_2009_effective.svg.png)

That funds rate is still that low. Whether you think it's too low or not, it's pretty obvious that this is an exceptional period for access to low-interest money.

I'm watching the real estate market spike up much faster than wages (again), and billions get poured into tech companies who's business model really just isn't there and/or heavily depends on advertising (advertising rates collapsed after 2000, by a lot). I was worried about the valuations a year ago, and now they're even higher. And of course, it's pushing a lot of private valuations up too. The more money publicly traded corporations have, the better your chances of selling a private company at a high value, or going public without good fundamentals.

I think there's just too much money sloshing around right now. Excess money doesn't go into CPI anymore, it more often creates valuation fevers. I don't think the overnight rates should have been this low for so long. And I'm pretty worried about what's going to happen when they finally start raising them, but not as worried as what happens if they continue to leave them as-is.

<comment><USER7> Chart one, DJIA, adjusted for inflation:

[http://home.earthlink.net/~intelligentbear/dj-lt- infl.gif](http://home.earthlink.net/~intelligentbear/dj-lt-infl.gif)

When you take inflation into account, it doesn't look nearly so interesting.

<comment><USER8> Much better. Also logarithmic, which was another failing of the above graph. With a line of best fit!

Yes, if the market is overinflated, it's because growth itself has failed to happen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "What is needed is a culture that induces bankers to do the right thing even if nobody is watching," Lagarde said in her prepared remarks.

Do bankers now get paid for doing the right thing? Because if they don't, it's not going to happen.

<comment><USER10> It would be a good intermediate step to define 'the right thing'.

And then to pay them for doing the right thing.

<comment><USER11> Or perhaps put a framework into place that prevents them from doing anything other than the right thing?

<comment><USER12> But what _is_ the right thing?

Fannie and Freddie shoved mortgages through the pipeline to both increase their profits and fulfill their stated goal of increasing American home ownership. The latter is what most considered to be "the right thing" including their regulators.

But then the law of unintended consequences reared its ugly head, housing prices started to fall and we all realized how tied together that securitization pipeline had become. Investors bought credit swaps on their mortgage bonds to protect their downside and move the assets off their balance sheets in order to buy more mortgage bonds—also allowing retail banks to create more mortgages, further increasing home ownership. The companies who sold those swaps (AIG) assumed that housing prices would never fall and default rates would never rise.

They were wrong.

As soon as that black swan event happened and Bear, Lehman et al had to start marking losses on those MBS products, the market pounced. Then AIG had to start paying those swaps but couldn't (hence the nationalization).

While there were definitely bad actors (those handing out liar loans and so forth), at any individual stage in that massive, trillion-dollar pipeline, most actors were behaving in a way that rationally made sense. Banks sought to hedge their downside by buying CDSs against their MBS products. Insurers trusted the ratings agencies. The ratings agencies were too weak to do anything despite internal misgivings about those MBS products (and of course the incentive structure there is all sorts of stupid). The investment banks definitely twisted arms at the ratings agencies to get investment-grade ratings on what were truly junk bonds and that was bad on their part and arguably fraud, so yes, someone should probably be liable for that.

But what could've been done differently at the macro level to ensure that every actor in that pipeline acted in the interest of the "greater good" when we can't even define what that is? Yes, we could have tighter controls on mortgage underwriting standards but will that prevent the next crash? How do we hold someone liable for not avoiding a crash? We can't even tell when a crash is coming, are we honestly going to blame someone for not being able to do the impossible?

<comment><USER11> I've bookmarked this to come back and respond. My father was a mortgage underwriter who attempted to blow the whistle at a major lender (to no avail). I'm very familiar with the various complications faced in properly regulating the MBS marketplace.

<comment><USER12> Plenty of people tried to blow the whistle. The SEC and Fed were warned but were unable to comprehend the overarching microeconomic problems brewing within each firm.

And that doesn't change the overarching problem of defining the _right_ thing at every level. Was AIG acting unethically by failing to properly assess the risk of their CDSs? Or were they just incompetent?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The irony here is that Yellen is the chair of the Federal Reserve.

It's analogous to Malboro's CEO warning smokers about lung cancer.

<comment><USER14> Yes, I'm surprised that didn't make bigger headlines.

"Hoocoodanode that our easy monetary policy would have inflated stock prices?!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> If an arsonist burned down every forest in North America, then had the stones to give interviews in which he complained about air pollution, we'd properly call him a dangerous nut and lock him up for life.

Apparently if you're an economist and you do the same thing, you are instead given the world's most powerful job.

</comment><comment><USER16> Time to rebalance into bonds?

<comment><USER17> Some people (e.g. Bill Gross) think there's a bond bubble too. As bond prices and interest rates are inversely correlated, and it's hard for rates to go anywhere but up at the moment, imho they're probably right. I don't think anyone has a good handle on what asset classes are particularly safe (or, equivalently, will yield reasonable returns over the near-intermediate term) at the moment. My best guess is that P/E ratios are still fairly sane-ish, so my investments are in stocks atm. YMMV, I am not an investment adviser, etc.

<comment><USER18> A bubble? No. A bubble is more than just "asset prices are higher than they should be".

Take stocks or real estate. The price goes up. People see the price going up. They buy, because they want to buy something where the price is going up so that they will make money. That buying increases demand without increasing supply, so the price goes up some more. _That 's_ a bubble - where the price goes up because people are buying because the price is going up (and so they think it's going to keep going up). It's a positive feedback loop.

But bonds... nobody's buying bonds because they think the price is going to go up. They're buying bonds because they think bonds are safe. But, in fact, bonds aren't very safe. The next direction interest rates will move is up; when they do, bond prices will fall. The longer term the bonds, the more the price will fall.

Note well: I am not an economist. I am not an investment advisor. This is my understanding of how things work, but it is not financial advice.</comment></comment></comment>


Release-Critical Bugs Delay Release of Debian Lenny - <AUTHOR> http://ostatic.com/173717-blog/release-critical-bugs-delay-release-of-debian-lenny <comment><USER2> 200 release critical bugs isn't as dire as you might think.

I spent an hour with rc-alert reading through the release critical bugs in packages I have installed. They are almost all resolved but not accepted to the testing release or in some phase of being resolved and could not benefit from my help. I finally found one that had not been addressed and after three hours of study and an email exchange with the upstream author confirmed it was just some old text left in the man page when the API changed. It was demoted to be not release critical. Extrapolating wildly: a couple thousand man hours should finish Lenny.

I think in general, asking the users to use rc-alert is a waste of the user's time until they can filter out the bugs that are already being fixed.</comment>


Synch-ing utility between OmniGraffle and Django models. - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/diN0bot/Auto-Models

<comment><USER2> I've previously used Postgresql Autodoc (<http://www.rbt.ca/autodoc/>) to generate table / relation diagrams and render them using GraphViz.

Unfortunately, there's a lack of similar things that I've found for other databases.

SQuirreLSQL is a 'database explorer' that has the ability to generate diagrams for all sorts of dbms, but the export facility is pretty useless, and isn't easily scriptable to run headless, for example from a Makefile to keep docs & code in sync.

I'm interested in seeing where you go with this, and will keep an eye on the repo.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I just wrote this python utility for keeping OmniGraffle diagrams and Django models in synch.

Anyone else like to keep object model diagrams of their database tables? Or of architecture or dataflow?

I'm currently scratching my own itch, but I'm looking for feedback and feature requests to see where this might lead.</comment>


10 Blogs Indian Entrepreneurs Must Regularly Visit - <AUTHOR> http://www.paraschopra.com/blog/entrepreneurship/10-blogs-indian-entrepreneurs-must-regularly-visit.htm <comment><AUTHOR> I missed some blogs. So, now after updating the total number of must visit blogs for Indian entrepreneurs stand at 13.

<comment><USER2> can u add the blogs or job sites that are specifically for jobs at startups. thx

<comment><AUTHOR> <http://india.startuplogic.com/> has a section that lists startup jobs from many different blogs and job sites.</comment></comment></comment>


Biohacking at SHDH45-Google - <AUTHOR> http://petridishtalk.com/2011/07/10/shdh_google_blast/

<comment><USER2> I don't understand. Google showed you how to use BLAST?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes exactly, they held my hand through the whole copy/paste process.

<comment><USER2> If you use Homebrew, you can install blast (brew install blast). However, it takes forever to compile :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Any specific advantages? I'll try to check it out.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Seattle OKs $1 fine for adding too much food to garbage bins - <AUTHOR> http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024604656_citycompost1xml.html <comment><USER2> ""The point isn't to raise revenue," he said. "We care more about reminding people to separate their materials.""

If that's the goal, why the extra work with processing fines?</comment>


Music is advertising - <AUTHOR> http://igtheism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/thought-1-why-we-should-pay-for-radio.html

<comment><USER2> And he doesn't mention payola.</comment>


Why iPhone "Angry Birds" game publisher ignores calls from Google and Microsoft - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/developer-behind-top-iphone-game-angry-birds-explains-why-hes-skipping-android-2010-6

<comment><AUTHOR> Btw I should add that the developer (Rovio) is working on an Android version of the Angry Birds. If you've got 4 million downloads for a paid iPhone app in 3-4 months, it makes sense to develop versions for Android etc.

The article quotes Chillingo who are the "publishers" of the iPhone app</comment>