Amazon, Apple, and the beauty of low margins - <AUTHOR> http://www.eugenewei.com/blog/2012/11/28/amazon-and-margins <comment><USER2> BMW could launch a bargain basement 0 series, or Wal-mart could start selling quality products.

Fundamentally there isn't much point for either because it's not the right customer base. This is what branding is about, if Apple acquires a whole bunch of customers that don't care about quality and then complain that their devices don't have half-baked features it doesn't do the brand any good. These customers will destroy the brand.

I don't want to have to walk into an Apple store and wonder which is the low margin device that will fall apart / fail to perform, if I wanted to ask those questions I'd go to Best Buy.

The low margin Apple market is craigslist, if you want a 3 year old Apple device that's where you can get it.

The most confusing thing about AMZN and APPL are their respective PEs. They are priced as if each are going to adopt the other's business model.

<comment><USER3> AAPL's P/E ratio is ~10x. For comparision, GOOG's is ~23x. AMZN's P/E is ~3,257x.

At $13.1B AAPL made 4.5x what GOOG ($2.89B) did last quarter, And, in that one quarter, earned profits that are ~7x what AMZN has made during its _entire_ existence.

So, yes. It's not entirely clear how "Wall Street" is assessing these tech companies against respective share prices.

<comment><USER4> I think it might be fairer to look at AMZN's price to revenue ratio and compare that with other big companies which have margins AMZN might reasonably have when they start trying to make profits. That would maybe give a reasonable understanding of expected upside. Looking at their profits when they aren't trying to make a profit is a little silly.

GOOG on the other hand I think is a fair enough comparison. Actually GOOG has pretty much failed at all their attempts to make money off anything but ads, which I consider kind of worrying.

PS FYI you posted this twice and the other one is marked dead. I recommend deleting it.

<comment><USER5> For example, Amazon has about half the market cap of walmart, but has 10% of the revenue. If you think Amazon can expand 5x, then focus on making similar margins as walmart, that would justify the current price.

<comment><USER6> While I think Amazon could potentially grow their revenues 5x, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to own something that has to grow 500% to be fairly valued. To me that shows just how absurd their current valuation is. If I have a company grow 5x I'd like to think I'll make some money. In this scenario though, it just becomes fairly valued at that point.

Frankly, I'd love to own some Amazon stock. I think it's an amazing company with lots of potential. I just can't justify paying the current valuation. I'll probably regret it someday, but for now I'll stick with Apple and their 7 pe. Even if they lose all growth its worth much more than this. It's priced as if they are going out of business right now. I'd pay this much for either their iPhone or iPad business, not to mention having both, Mac, iPod, and anything new they come up with. They sold > 75 million devices last quarter. Doesn't exactly seem like a dying business to me.

<comment><USER5> If you "know" a company is going to grow 5x, other people are going to know that too. And if I know a company's stock price will soon be 5x what it is today, I'll happily pay 2x for it; 2.5x return is still amazing. Hell, I'd pay 4x today's price, because a 20% return is nothing to sneeze at. Other people will too. Pretty soon today's price becomes tomorrow's (estimated) price, with various discounts applied for risk and whatnot.

<comment><USER6> True, but based on our logic and math, it has to grow 5x to break even. Apparently everyone "knows" it's going to grow 6x soon. It just seems to me there aren't any discounts being applied for risk.

While I have no doubt amazon can grow 5x, I do have some doubt as to timeframe. If it did it this year I'd be happy to own it at these prices. I think it's probably at least 5-10 years from that. 0-20% return over that timeframe isn't very good.

<comment><USER4> I think your take is reasonable.

That makes amazon overpriced by, what, 25%? Which is not particularly shocking. Lots of stocks are a bit overpriced. AMZN is popular. Don't buy it. Shrug.

When you compare a 3000 P/E to a 20 P/E, you might come away thinking amazon is overpriced by a factor of 100, which would be shocking. But I don't think there's any reasonable case that it's overpriced by a factor of more than 2.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Low margins, per se, isn't a strategy. Amazon is pursuing a cost advantage [1], and it's choosing to keep its prices very low, hence the low margins. With a cost advantage and low prices, Amazon gives away a lot of value to customers (instead of capturing a lot of value for itself in the form of profits). Its primary objective is to gain market share (i.e., both new customers and a greater portion of existing customers' everyday shopping). With an increase in market share, Amazon can further reduce its costs through economies of scale (i.e., spreading its fixed costs, such as infrastructure and R&D, over a greater number of customers served and products sold).

Amazon's cost advantage and low prices explains why most other online retailers have been unable to gain significant market share and why Amazon is posing an increasing threat to companies like Wal-mart, Target, and Costco.

-

[1] I'd argue that Amazon is actually pursuing a dual advantage, both a cost and value advantage (at least for customers that favor convenience over impulse buying). The value advantage stems from the ability to shop at home, its product reviews, its excellent customer service, extensive selection, etc.

<comment><USER8> No Amazon does not have a cost advantage over Costco. It is operational cost is FAR higher than Costco: 18% vs 10%. It is easy to see why. Costco thrives on high volume/low count of SKU and customers pay for delivery themselves. Costco's gross margin is 12% vs 23% for Amazon. Amazon's cost advantage over WalMart is only marginal. About 1 pt lower on the SG&A and 2.5 pts lower on gross margin. But Walmart is a lot more profitable. The advantage of Amazon vs WalMart is really in the long tail. It can keep more SKUs than even the largest WalMart Supercenter could hope for and still turn its inventory over much faster. And for items you can wait for you get them delivered to the door. My own family's shopping behavior is consistent with the data: we buy from Costco if it carries them, esp recurrent consumables; my wife occasionally goes to Target if she needs something soon; for things that we can take time to shop and do some research on I buy from Amazon, sometimes for price but mostly for convenience of not having to go to the store.

<comment><USER7> Great points on SKU counts and the long-tail. However, can you tell me the source of your financial data?

I had a quick look at Google Finance (Financials, Annual Data) and I see the following for 2012: Amazon's total operating expenses as a percentage of revenue was 98.2%. Costco's was 97.2%. Wal-mart's was 94.1%. Based on this data, you might argue that Amazon has a cost disadvantage relative to both Costco and Wal-mart. But before reaching any conclusions you would need to back out Amazon Web Services and the Kindle (from Amazon) [1].

As a quick and dirty analysis, we can back out the $2.909b Amazon invested in R&D in 2012. Note, neither Costco nor Wal-mart have a line item for R&D. In this case, Amazon's operating expenses as a percentage of revenue is 92%, or about 5% less than Costco's and 2% less than Wal-mart's. [2]

-

[1] You might also want to back out Sam's Club from Wal-mart.

[2] Given Amazon has revenues that are just 11% of Wal-mart's, you could argue that Amazon's cost advantage will likely increase as it further scales revenue and operations.

<comment><USER8> I had these in a spreadsheet a couple of years ago when I was studying retailers. I think I got the data from Yahoo Finance like this: [http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AMZN+Income+Statement&an...](http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AMZN+Income+Statement&annual) which breaks out Cost of Revenue and SG&A. I was quoting AMZN for 2010, which had been pretty stable -- in 2011 it looks like that it kicked up spending quite a bit.

You made very good points w.r.t. Sam's Club for Walmart or Kindle for Amazon. One needs to adjust the data in order to be precise. The effect though is probably second order and shouldn't change the picture that much. At least it seems consistent with my own anecdotal experience.

It is also that possible Amazon's expense is exaggerated by accelerated depreciation. In the expansion phase if your facility is not fully utilized you get dinged again on appreciation. WalMart owns a lot of real estate and has capitalized lease as well I think so some of the operational cost may show up as interest expenses. To get a true picture one needs to account for all those as well.

The beauty of Amazon's model is that it uses little to no capital (all operations can be funded by negative working capital and other liabilities incidental to operations), so it can expand unconstrained by capital needs, as long as it can find new customers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Interesting thoughts, but I'm confused: how exactly is Apple going wrong here? Despite their sky-high margins, they're finding enough customers to rake in record-breaking earnings. New products are often hard to find in stock: even iMac demand still outstrips supply. Samsung actually ran commercials mocking supposedly stereotypical Apple customer loyalty.

How is Apple hurting exactly? What are the symptoms of their failure to go after the low end market? From here, it looks like their big ailment is not making money as much faster than everyone else as some people would like.

<comment><USER10> The only market in which Apple enjoys a healthy phone market share now is the U.S. and I strongly suspect that is largely a product of the carrier subsidy model. If people had to pay the full price of a phone upfront I'm sure a lot of iPhone buyers would opt for cheaper alternatives. Any company that's growing should post "record-breaking" earnings every quarter.

Luckily for Apple the U.S. market is also by far the most lucrative, at least for now.

<comment><USER11> Australia is a market where Apple holds a healthy phone market share and has both subsidised and unsubsidised iPhones available. Anecdotally, people who can afford get it outright and those that can't take the 2 year carrier contract.

<comment><USER10> Even there Android has overtaken iOS from next to nothing in just two years: [http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/android- overta...](http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/android-overtakes- apple-in-australia-20121212-2b8q2.html)

Remove the subsidies and I think you'd see an even greater tilt to Android.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So what does Amazon do when it has finished using loss-leader pricing to drive its competitors out of business in every retail market where it wants to play? Clearly market share at any cost is the name of the game for Amazon. It is a well-oiled, market-share-taking machine. But when it has swallowed up so much of the retail market that it becomes a monopoly? Then what?

<comment><USER13> 1) Win a monopoly market share.

2) Profit.

As far as business plans go, it's pretty obvious and pretty solid. It'll be implemented as a dual monopoly-monopsomy setup: consumers go to it to buy most goods, get screwed. Suppliers sell to it, get screwed.

There's a reason Wall Street likes AMZN.

<comment><USER14> Amazon's goal is to be a bigger version of Visa, taking a tiny slice of a ridiculous large pie.

Anyone thinking that they are going to wind up as the Standard Oil of retail is going to be hugely disappointed. First they have plenty of quality competition that isn't going to just keel over and die. Second their tax advantages are gone long term. Third, as the internet erases frictions, Amazon is just another middleman begging to be cut out of the picture if he takes too big of a cut. Fourth Amazon has to deal with real antitrust in Europe and protectionism in Asia. Fifth even US antitrust wakes up and does something from time to time.

<comment><USER15> >Amazon is just another middleman begging to be cut out of the picture

Can you really cut storefronts out of the picture? Even if you replace that with google+paypal, does paypal become the middleman?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "A lot of folks, especially Apple supporters, like to characterize Amazon as irrational, even crazy, for its willingness to live with low margins. It must be frustrating to compete with a company like that."

This assumes that Apple is actually competing with amazon. Does BMW compete with say Ford.... maybe but really they are after different markets. Apple has said numerous times they are not interested in going after the low end market.

<comment><USER17> BMW competes directly with Ford in Europe. Prior to the sale of PAG (Aston Martin, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover) BMW also competed with Ford-owned brands in the United States.

I'm also certain more people cross shop Fords and Bimmers than one might initially assume.

<comment><USER18> Ford might be competition for BMW in Europe, but they certainly aren't in the US. The only Ford I could believe a BMW customer even considering is the Mustang. The base model 3-series coupe is significantly more expensive than all but the top three Mustangs available (GT Premium convertible, Shelby GT 500, GT 500 convertible). If one is in the market for a $40k coupe, they're not going to compare the BMW to the Ford, they'll compare the BMW to the Mercedes, Infinity, and Audi.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I enjoyed this article. I was a little confused though by the final conclusion. Amazon shouldn't do a nice, high end tablet as that's not its competitive strength while also being Apple's strength. So don't play on their turf - I get that. But then Apple should do a lower margin mass market iPad for example? The author appears to argue that Apple has done this with iPod's - I guess it would be great if he fleshed that out further because the general consensus is Apple doesn't care for/get the lower margin/high volume play. If they did they might have maintained an early PC lead.

<comment><USER20> They prefer high margin high volume :-)

How did they take over mp3 players? They made a high cost product everyone wet their lips with, and year later made cheaper versions everyone who was enviously waiting for could afford. They make an excellent play on consumer psychology.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> _> Attacking the market with a low margin strategy has other benefits, though, ones often overlooked or undervalued. For one thing, it strongly deters others from entering your market...

Not having to sweat a constant onslaught of new competitors is really underrated. You can allocate your best employees to explore new lines of business, you can count on a consistent flow of cash from your more mature product or service lines..._

Isn't this contradictory? Having a low margin business by definition should mean that you have a smaller cash flow available to fund your R&D?

Also, somewhat unrelated, but I think one needs to draw a distinction between a low margin consumer staple style business (like cosmetics, food, or Amazon) and a low margin discretionary style business (luxury goods or consumer tech).

<comment><USER17> "Isn't this contradictory? Having a low margin business by definition should mean that you have a smaller cash flow available to fund your R&D?"

Not always. It depends on how consumers react to the price of your products. A drop in profit per unit (by lowering one's price) might yield a large enough increase in units sold such that the total profit is higher. This is especially important for retailers who can't price discriminate easily.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> "Your margin is my opportunity" -Jeff Bezos

</comment><comment><USER23> Yeah I'm sure Apple is just SOOO frustrated at Amazons low margins. It's not like Apple is generating record profits or anything now is it?

</comment><comment><USER3> It would make sense for Apple to lower its prices to capture and lock in a bigger market share, but only if they were able to meet the resulting demand.

But, if they are constrained by supply chain and manufacturing capacity, then maintaining the highest prices the market will bear makes the most sense.

<comment><USER19> The author's arguing that's a good short term view and a poor long term one (unless they are constraining the _entire_ SC which does happen for very short periods of time in high tech around chips or screens etc) Those high prices (really margins/profits) will attract competitors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Andy Jassy's keynote from this year's AWS conference (amazon's web service business) talks about running AWS as a high-volume, low margin business and why that's so different from high-margin businesses. The whole keynote is interesting, but here is the part that's pertinent to this discussion: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FJ5DBLSFe4&t=30m35s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FJ5DBLSFe4&t=30m35s)

</comment><comment><USER25> This sums up the major differences between companies like Apple and Amazon in really good way.

I for myself thought about this a couple of days back. It was more like brain training in Supply Chain Management (the execution of the mentioned low and high margin strategies if you want). Now, Low vs. High margins looks more than just obvious.

What I came up with, and please feel free to give feed-back, as one big difference between Amazon and Apple is the product range. Amazon has orders of magnitude more products and commodities than Apple. What makes it eassier (not easy, mind you, just easier) for Apple to manage their supply chain. You can see this in their release schedule, everthing is planned according to that. Hard to do with thousands of product lines. In this area, Apple is really doing great in the planning part of supply chain management, from my outside perspective they are a benchmark here for everybody else. Plus, one could argue their supply chain strategy matches perfectl their business strategy.

Amazon on the other excels at the logistics part of supply chain management. As mentioned in the article, they have to in order to get their low margins and high customer satisfaction. Currently, I'd say Amazon is doing to logistics what Toyota did up to the lets say 80s and Wal-Mart did up to the early 2000s (no coincidence that Amazon hired Wal-Mart people back then).

What both companies have in comon is really good view of Point-of-Sales data. Big difference here to most other companies around.

How does all that match with high and low margins? In the place of Apple excellence in supply chain planning is used in combination with a narrow product range to allow for high margins and high inventory turn rates (again, a narrow product range is helping a lot here). Supplier management is critical point here, too.

In the place of Amazon logistic excellence is used to run an very efficient ditribution network. This efficiency allows them things like next-day delivery and their low margins. Think Toyota Production System and Lean and all the businesses that tried to copy that since the late ninties.

So, as long as both companies can keep their respective levels of operational performance up I don't think they are in trouble.

Back on the OP, the low margin-attack was what the whole Android industry did on Apple, Samsung in particular. But Samsung is different story all together.

</comment><comment><USER26> Amazon has a defensible moat for physical products. Apple has Samsung.

</comment><comment><USER27> Didn't Amazon post a loss last quarter?

<comment><USER28> Didn't they make a lot of money and then spend it on new fulfillment centers? Nothing wrong with investing capital into your business. If you just accumulate cash and sit on it, your company won't grow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> It should be titled " Amazon, Apple and the beauty of high volumes"

</comment><comment><USER30> _Amazon could have had a margin of zero and still made money._

What?

<comment><USER31> the article says because they get the customer's money right away, but don't pay the supplier for months, they have a big pile of cash. I suppose they could make money with that money before they have to pay their bills.

<comment><USER32> This is such a well known problem that the UK had to implement laws.

If you can get people to pay you quickly (in advance is best, on delivery is ok, 30 days after delivery is standard) _and_ you can delay paying your suppliers (90 days after delivery is best, 60 days is ok, 30 days is standard) you can improve cash flow and there are a bunch of benefits to it.

I don't think it's legal in the UK anymore. It's very easy for a big company to squeeze little companies into accepting really lousy terms.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> what's that crazy data-block-json? SEO stuff?

<comment><USER34> Looks like it comes from squarespace?

[http://static.squarespace.com/universal/scripts-v6/012420132...](http://static.squarespace.com/universal/scripts-v6/01242013221044728/yui- seed.js) is the thing that references it. Lines like

      a.all(".sqs-block.map-block[data-block-json]").each(function(e) {
        d.Squarespace.Rendering.renderMap(e.one(".sqs-block-content"), d.JSON.parse(e.getAttribute("data-block-json")))
      });

inside the "var Squarespace = {load: function()" namespace.

<comment><USER33> interesting. thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I don't understand Amazon investors. They own a piece of of a $100+ billion company that makes virtually no profit (relatively speaking) for a decade plus. To make money they'd have to increase prices drastically but that's Amazon's selling point (along with customer service,) their competition isn't going away any time soon.

<comment><USER36> > their competition isn't going away any time soon.

That's where the investors disagree with you. Amazon is trying to do to big box stores what big box stores did to mom and pop stores. I buy everything from $2 batteries to $5000 electronics on Amazon. Only reason I go to local stores is groceries or emergency goods (meds, last-minute-gifts). Nobody knows what will happen to Office Depot or Kohls in 20 years but unless Amazon royally screws something up, I am certain they will remain significant for decades to come.

<comment><USER35> So you think Amazon will drive everyone serious enough out of business and then be able to raise prices? Personally, I doubt it. They will not surrender that easily

I love Amazon by the way, and do a lot of my shopping there. But, IMO, its hard for investors at these levels to see a decent return.

<comment><USER37> This is a misconception. Amazon aren't making any profits because they are pumping all of their margins into new facilities and other infrastructure investments. If they stopped expanding and just squeezed profit out of their existing business, then they would be very profitable.

After Walmart destroyed the mom and pop store they didn't incrase prices, and Amazon probably won't either. Particularly since Amazon are an online retailer, and it is very easy for customers to shop around.

<comment><USER35> _Amazon aren't making any profits because they are pumping all of their margins into new facilities and other infrastructure investments. If they stopped expanding and just squeezed profit out of their existing business, then they would be very profitable._

Not sure if they can ever stop, maybe slow down but they will still need to buy companies. And, Amazon needs to make $5+ Billion in profit with this valuation, something missing

 _After Walmart destroyed the mom and pop store they didn't incrase prices_

Well they "forced" companies to lower the prices Walmart paid <http://www.fastcompany.com/47593/wal-mart-you-dont-know> so the net is more or less the same.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Replace GRUB2 with systemd-boot on Ubuntu 18.04 (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://blobfolio.com/2018/06/replace-grub2-with-systemd-boot-on-ubuntu-18-04/ <comment><USER2> FWIW: systemd-boot is just a generic EFI bootloader, originally it was called gummiboot before being merged into the systemd project. Like many things in systemd, it has no direct relation to the init daemon. It does not have an enormous featureset like GRUB, but it is fast and gets out of the way. It has been my preferred bootloader since before it was part of systemd.

As for why one would prefer this over just using EFI itself to manage boot entries, well, that comes down to sensibility, but traditionally Ubuntu has provided a UI at boot for selecting OSes so it would be weird to get rid of it now. I also currently use NixOS where you can select generations via the boot menu, which would be cumbersome at best if you try to implement it with EFI directly.

<comment><USER3> > As for why one would prefer this over just using EFI itself to manage boot > entries

If you dual boot then you can't effectively use the EFI. Doing so would involve spamming a Fx key to go into the bios and then going through all the menu options to choose a manual boot override.

Instead I have the EFI configured to use systemd-boot as the default, and systemd-boot presents a menu with the OS options, with Linux as the default choice. This still involves spamming the down arrow to select Windows before the auto-boot-default-choice timeout (configurable) finished, but is a lot easier than using the EFI.

The nice thing about systemd-boot is that is is simple, lightweight, fast, and easy to configure. The first time I installed it in Arch it took about 5 minutes to get it working with entries for linux, linux-lts, and linux-zen kernels, with Windows being autodetected at boot time.

However, if you are booted into an OS, then using the EFI to configure boot is much easier. On Linux you can do `sudo efibootmgr --bootnext 0001` to boot EFI entry 0001 only on the next boot (list entries with just `efibootmgr`; in my case 0001 was Windows). And on Windows there's a "WinToLinux" program on GitHub which will graphically let you set a oneshot EFI boot override to reboot into Windows instead of systemd-boot.

<comment><USER4> most modern firmwares ("go into the bios", ugh) provide a key to directly enter the boot option selection screen. this is one of the core functions of the firmware, and although I have pretty low expectations of AMI/Insyde/Phoenix, I'm pretty sure they can at least get that part right.

<comment><USER5> Yes but at least on my new high end Lenovo, it's not ergonomic. You don't see a menu or a prompt, you just need to hit the magic key during a short window.

Then you need a password, because I don't want to allow booting usb thumbdrives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm surprised that most people even bother with bootloaders like grub... On all the machines I've used recently, the UEFI boot manager works fine, and you can just use a kernel with an EFI stub and initramfs built in. It's obviously a bit much for most users, but you'd think Linux distros could just package it all up.

<comment><USER7> grub provides a nice interface for adjusting kernel parameters before booting, which is essential for some installs on twitchy hardware. I don't know of a way to do this in the UEFI boot manager.

<comment><USER8> I've found it even easier to manage kernel parameters and boot entries in systemd-boot. You can just create another boot entry by making a copy of a text file, and changing the `title` line of the file. Grub is much more complex to manage. systemd-boot entries are very simple text files, so editing kernel parameters is far easier than grub.

<comment><USER9> > systemd-boot entries are very simple text files,

So are GRUB 2 configuration files but for some reason a "framework" was built around it to generate the final configuration file from parts.

<comment><USER10> I would add "without properly documenting how to use the framework".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Been using systemd-boot on Arch Linux for a couple of years now, works flawlessly, minimal tinkering needed. It's just set and forget. Surprised GRUB is still being shipped in noob-friendly distros like Ubuntu, you'd think they'd try to make it as simple as possible

</comment><comment><USER12> I for one use rEFInd for all my multiboot needs on UEFI and modern Intel systems. [https://www.rodsbooks.com/refind/](https://www.rodsbooks.com/refind/)

Highly recommended.

</comment><comment><USER9> I use Syslinux (Extlinux) even with UEFI BIOS. I don't care about UEFI, dual boot or secure boot. I just want to get from BIOS to Linux as easily is possible. For disks with up to 3 partitions with single operating system there's no need to invoke EFI/GPT. You just have to enable Comaptibility Support Modules in BIOS to enable boot from MBR.

</comment><comment><USER13> > The boot manager optionally reads a random seed from the ESP partition, > combines it with a 'system token' stored in a persistent EFI variable and > derives a random seed to use by the OS as entropy pool initializaton, > providing a full entropy pool during early boot.

Wow that's very nice! I may give systemd-boot another go due to this!

</comment><comment><USER14> system76's pop_os 18.04 (based on ubuntu18.04) uses systemd-boot.

It works flawlessly except when ubuntu automatically updates from the ppa and then reinstalls grub and then you try to manually debug / fix it and get caught in a boot loop and have to reinstall the os... yeah...

</comment><comment><USER15> I miss LILO.

<comment><USER16> Yes, in the same way I miss creating an `XF86Config` or `xorg.conf` by hand.

The same way that a good case of food poisoning brings back memories of past travel abroad.

<comment><USER17> I was consolidating a lot of backup media over the winter break a few months back and I actually saw some "XF86Config.good" files that I saved from the early 1990s...

It's actually quite amazing how far we've come.

<comment><USER18> And the fact that your Ethernet driver isn't in the kernel, so you had to copy it over from Windows by downloading it onto floppy disk.

But this is just nostalgia, not about missing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Grub and grub2 take a complex topic - booting - and make it ridiculously insanely complex.

They should both die in a hot fire.

</comment><comment><USER20> Waiting for systemd-kernel

<comment><USER21> I'm waiting for systemd-browser and systemd-Adblock myself. And oh, systemd- mpd too since music playing can and should be done by my init process.

<comment><USER22> I agree with the sentiment of your comment

But to be fair, most of these systemd-[something] (sub)projects are part of "systemd", but not the systemd init system, which are different, apparently.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Do we really need even more stuff delegated to systemd? What's wrong with grub?

<comment><USER24> Systemd-boot (aka gummiboot) ist completely separate from the systemd init system. It can boot any EFI-compatible OS, even Windows.

<comment><USER25> In that case, why was it merged in at all?

<comment><USER26> Ease of maintenance by the same group of people who already work in that repo? Reuse of shared, low-level components residing in the systemd repository?

It's similar to why drivers are preferably merged upstream into the linux kernel source tree. Doing so ensures they continue to work as the kernel evolves, it also makes them more likely to get maintained in the long-term in general.

<comment><USER27> Which components are shared between userland and the UEFI environment?

<comment><USER28> Whatever magic is powering the ability to just run ``systemctl kexec`` and have it automatically reboot into the same kernel you selected at boot without going through UEFI again.

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h kexec works fine if you invoke it directly and tell it what kernel+initrd to use, regardless of bootloader; if anything, I'd consider it a failing that systemd can't manage to control a kexec without controlling the bootloader as well</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What job categories will be next to go?  - <AUTHOR>

Jaron Lanier has commented on this in a recent interview, but I would like to ask people here for their opinion on what is next. As JL says we've seen translation, sectors of the music industry and journalism eaten up by the internet, what's next?<p>Teaching seems to be in everyone's crosshairs, IBM think customer service can be automated with Watson... what is your opinion? <comment><USER2> As a teacher (14+ years) and a tech guy (20+ years)I have researched for a long time the idea that teachers could go away. But students always seem to need the 'human' touch. It's irrational and against all logic, but I feel there will always be a teacher. Sometimes that teacher may reach a million students (udacity et al) or just one pupil (Yoda/mentor). I am now trying to find the best way to augment teachers...

<comment><USER3> Agreed, we will always need teachers in some form. Also governments have so much invested in teachers that it will be a long process before the category is eroded.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> When self driving cars become ubiquitous over the next decade, we will see the end of taxi, bus, truck, and limo drivers, parking lot attendants, and valets.

<comment><USER5> "Self-flying planes" have become ubiquitous for a long time and we are still seeing pilots in every plane!

<comment><USER4> Autopilot is still limited, and pilots still have to takeoff and land manually, and intervene in the event of turbulence, etc. As AI improves, we'll see a completely automated flight eventually.

 _One afternoon last fall at Fort Benning, Ga., two model-size planes took off, climbed to 800 and 1,000 feet, and began criss-crossing the military base in search of an orange, green and blue tarp.

The automated, unpiloted planes worked on their own, with no human guidance, no hand on any control._

[http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-09-19/national/35273...](http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-09-19/national/35273383_1_drones- human-target-military-base)

<comment><USER6> _"pilots still have to takeoff and land manually"_

Do they? I remember a landing 15 years ago or so where the pilot announced "there's fog, so we had to land on automatic" (that was fog as in 'looking down onto a cloud deck, while taxiing')

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The entertainment industry (music, games and movies) still does 2/3rds of it's business from physical media so I'd say it will be okay in the shortterm future.

</comment><comment><USER7> VCs? Angels?

<comment><USER3> How come?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Retail sales people</comment>


Video: Valve's system for creating AI-driven dynamic dialog  - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/198377/Video_Valves_system_for_creating_AIdriven_dynamic_dialog.php

<comment><USER2> I loved this. This is something I could see myself developing (the concept, not the exact implementation or purpose).

I've a big fan of applying simple concepts judiciously and identifying the emergent behavior you can use for your benefit (in this case make a DB, design a way to query it, and determine the simplest selection criteria that works well enough).

The more advanced optimizations are interesting though. I don't usually work at the level where I have to (or can?) think about memory and instruction cache performance, but the partitioning and selecting loading of tools is what immediately came to mind as he was describing the system.</comment>