Expedia: Bad for the Traveler, Bad for the Hotel - <AUTHOR> http://playazone.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/expedia-bad-for-the-traveler-bad-for-the-hotel/ <comment><USER4> Not using hotels.com is harder than you think. There are front entities pretending to be the hotel and are actually booking thru hotels.com.

Background...

We booked a hotel in Key West FL. Fair deal. Show up, no reservation. Turns out they gave us the wrong hotel info. It was super late and we couldn't resolve the mess with hotels' customer service over the phone so we just crashed where we arrived. Took months to get the charges for the other booking reversed.

People at hotel where we arrived said it happens all the time.

For our next trip, resolved to not use hotels.com ever again, I found hotel via the web. Called the number. Turns out both the website and phone number were SEO optimized front companies that book thru hotels.com. Which we did not discover until we arrived and there was a problem with the booking. We paid $40 extra per night for the privilege of being lied to.

Rant...

Personally, as a consumer, I'm very grumpy that I'm constantly being lied to. I work hard for my money. I try to be diligent about how I spend it. And I'm sick of being robbed by legal means. It seems to be getting worse (ISPs, banks, phone companies, mortgages, etc). I'm now more reluctant to spend money. Because now my transaction costs are getting too high. Too much friction.

If my wary consumer experience is widespread, it has to be dampening the economy.

Free market! Woot!

<comment><USER5> Same story here. Called a number I thought was the hotel. They replied with "Hotel name, what can I do for you". I made the reservation, based on wrong information in just about every department, the wrongest being that the hotel has room (but also wrong about cancellation policy and other stuff, as I later found out).

Got to hotel, only to be told that hotels.com screwed up and confirmed 30 reservations when in fact the hotel in fact had 2 available rooms for the day.

Went to a friend's house, as no other hotel around was available. Called hotels.com; waited an hour on the phone, no answer. Disputed charge with credit card company (took less than 10 minutes), and emailed them that I've disputed, and if they want it to NOT go through they are welcome to contact me.

They emailed me within 24 hours with some credit, saying it will take them 72 hours to resolve. After 120 hours, I email them; they say it's going to "take them more time". After 4 more days, I email them - still no response.

The next morning, credit card company gave me my money back. Haven't heard from hotels.com since, but I have a paper trail saying they will check and contact me, and then silence. And so does the credit card company.

Never booking through hotels.com again, even if it means I have to work much more to figure out a direct phone number.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6>
        > For the most availability, best prices and service,
        > always book directly with a hotel.

(Full disclosure: I work for Booking.com an online hotel booking website and Expedia's competitor)

I think it's a gross misrepresentation to say that the customer is always best off booking directly with the hotel. You get something you wouldn't get when booking directly through the hotel.

When you use an OTA you have collective bargaining power; If the hotel screws you around in any way it's now the OTA's problem. They'll call up the hotel on your behalf (in their native language, which you may or may not speak) and either sort it out with them or make sure you have somewhere else to stay because you're now _their_ customer.

Of course the service you get differs a lot by OTA. But from the customer's perspective there's usually a net gain by booking through one.

<comment><USER7>
        > If the hotel screws you around in any way it's now the OTA's problem

We're just in the process of trying to sort out a dispute with a hotel we booked via booking.com. It doesn't feel like it's booking.com's problem, but rather ours. We were essentially forced to pay for full 7 nights even though we stayed only one, after it wasn't possible to stay any longer with a non- functioning toilet. Not to mention false information published on booking.com.

        > or make sure you have somewhere else to stay because you're now their customer

That's interesting. In our case booking.com has never offered any such help. We went by ourselves to try to find alternative accommodation. Not that it makes a huge difference, but it is our honeymoon so I'm sure yo'd agree there are many better ways to spend it...

So far you guys are trying to help, but I can't say that the problem is resolved or that it feels like you're treating it as your problem. To quote a part of the latest email from booking.com on this:

 _> ... the hotels themselves are responsible for all the information provided to you. Booking.com acts as an intermediary between the guest and the hotel and is therefore responsible for delivering the reservation correctly to the hotel. Once the hotel has confirmed the reservation it then becomes their responsibility to accommodate the guests._

<comment><USER6> I work in IT which is pretty removed from customer service, but if you send me some details at the E-Mail listed in my profile I could see if I could find someone to poke about this if needed. I'll be back at work on Thursday.

<comment><USER8> This will only be addressed because this case has publicity. Have you considered that you may have been drinking some kool-aid?

<comment><USER9> On Christmas the gentleman offered to pass along customer information for a warm intro to a customer service representative. Maybe it helps, maybe it doesn't. It's not his job to troll forums and solve customer problems but yet he still offered.

Have you considered you may be a rude and cynical person?

<comment><USER8> I know I'm rude and cynical. My point was that he believes his company truly cares in a very big way about these things, when it doesn't. If this particular item gets resolved, it would only be because of the publicity.

If he truly believes his company genuinely values customer service, it would be more interesting for him to stick around and explain _why_ the problem doesn't get solved as the complainer tries to work his way through it with no outside assistance.

Getting someone to solve a problem from the inside is useful only to the single person with a problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > For the most availability, best prices and service, always book directly > with a hotel.

It has never been the case with me. Expedia, or any other travel site, always had better deals. In fact, I once called the hotel in question to ask why there is a big price discrepancy between their site listing and makemytrip. I was concerned makemytrip is selling me rooms that doesn't exist and the hotel won't honor my reservation. The hotel staff told me the hotel sells rooms to makemytrip well in advance, and whatever the price that is listed on makemytrip will be honored(doesn't really matter; you pay directly to makemytrip).

Also, I am a bit paranoid. I would hate it if some hotel overbooked and told me "lol sorry" when I arrive. I know travel sites aren't really on my side, but at least I will have someone to appeal to.

I didn't have any bad experience with Expedia but then, I had very limited interactions with them(I didn't even modify or cancel my bookings).

I would advice against agoda and booking.com as they forward your credit card info to the hotel as _security._ In what world does forwarding a customer's credit card info to a random hotel makes sense? Imagine the surprise when you are at the hotel counter and the staff shows you a printout of your credit card info(nothing obscured; everything in plain text).

> If you would like to know more about our hotel just visit our website at > www.lunabluehotel.com.

I tried, and the link is down. Most of the hotels don't even have websites, let alone online reservations. There is a reason customers go to expedia in the first place.

EDIT: Random travel tip. If you are in a foreign or an unknown location, a hotel which provides airport transfer generally ends up cheaper than a hotel which doesn't + cab fares. You would be surprised how wrong your assumptions about transport might be. "You have a flight to catch at 8, it's 5, you are in the lobby and there isn't a cab in sight and looks unlikely there will be one for another 2 hours" isn't a pleasant situation to be in.

<comment><USER6> (Disclaimer again: I work for Booking.com in IT)

        > I would advice against agoda and booking.com as they
        > forward your credit card info to the hotel as security.

They don't forward your credit card as security. They forward it for the hotel to charge you for the entirety of your booking.

Companies like Expedia follow the merchant model, they buy up hotels rooms in bulk in advance and then re-sell them directly to customers. When you buy from a merchant your credit card isn't shared with the hotel as there's no need to do so.

Other companies like Booking.com and Agoda follow the agency model. They find customers for the hotels, forward their payment details along to the hotel, the hotel charges the customer, and then pays the agency a percentage of the booking as an agency fee[1].

Both models have their pros and cons. The merchant model works brilliantly in the US where large chains are the norm. It works less well in Europe where the vast number of hotels are small properties.

        > Imagine the surprise when you are at the hotel counter
        > and the staff shows you a printout of your credit card
        > info(nothing obscured; everything in plain text).

It's fair enough that this makes you uncomfortable. But the hotel with that printout has a contract with the credit card company like any other merchant and is responsible for treating it responsibly.

I think you'd also be very surprised at the number of other merchants you might deal with where this is the case. Having a printout with a credit card number is not at all unusual in a lot of businesses.

<comment><USER11> Not unusual doesn't make it acceptable. It is still a PCI DSS violation.

<comment><USER6> Sending them over is not. It's allowed under the PCI standards to send credit card numbers unencrypted via the fax system. I believe it's then up to the receiver of the fax to physically secure it. But I'm not overly familiar with these standards.

<comment><USER10> > I believe it's then up to the receiver of the fax to physically secure it.

Yes, I get it. Once you fax it to the hotel, it's not your problem. But how does it make things any better for me? You are still PCI compliant, but the customer now has his info passed to a random hotel clerk.

<comment><USER6> I think you might be making the implicit assumption that this is somehow shady or out of the ordinary when it comes to credit cards.

When you hand your credit card over to any clerk anywhere you're giving them access to your name and credit card number. If you hadn't booked through an OTA your credit card number would have likely been manually written down anyway on a piece of paper by the clerk at the desk.

All of this is PCI compliant, in order to process payments at all the hotel has a contract with the credit card company (or a local bank by proxy) which stipulates that they have to adhere to the relevant PCI standards.

Could this be more secure? Of course it could. But credit cards were never meant to be secure. They explicitly take convenience and the ability to do offline payments (writing down your credit card number for later) over security. If anything goes wrong they'll use some of the money they get from transaction fees to refund fraudulent payments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I worked in the online booking industry for a couple of years, coincidentally I also live in Playa del Carmen now.

What most likely happened was this: Expedia and other big players buy wholesale room inventory from large hotel chains. Expedia might come up and say that they want to buy 30% of the rooms of a hotel for a certain period at a steeply discounted price.

This might be something that the hotel itself can't fill, so the happily sell to Expedia et al. To Expedia, selling these rooms might be something like 80% profit, against 25% for a small hotel such as the Luna Blue.

Expedia then promotes the hell out of the hotel through their website: they make it appear on top of search results, they "pimp" they profile of the hotel, and such. They are not allowed to undercut the price, because other retailers might ask for the same price.

Then, the office managers of Expedia Cancún are most likely on some sort of incentive to sell most of these wholesale rooms (travel is dominated by such economic incentives). The hack is is pretty clear: "closing" smaller hotels causes users to book another hotel, and it will most likely be one of these pimped out hotel profiles that provide much more profit than other hotels.

I'm guessing this is a regional issue, just some dim witted office managers at Cancún that are trying to game the system in order to get a big incentive.

<comment><USER8> This sounds very plausible, and this type of thing should be closely watched by corporate and punished harshly when it does occur. The older I get, the more I think government should get involved in business, because it seems increasingly common that corporations will not police themselves - "oh, we had no idea this was happening!"

Personally, I am getting tired of hearing lie after lie from corporations. I have always been right wing or libertarian, but I am starting to adopt the political opinion that I would like to see the government step in and start punishing these companies so hard that they will very seriously regret that they didn't self-police.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I am a typical travel customer. I often go to conferences and book hotels in unfamiliar cities. I am very sympathetic to this story. And yet -- at the end --

>either use the internet to do the research or go to a reputable travel agent.

Let's look at these alternatives. Use the internet to do the research? Expedia makes it very easy, that's the point. Are its competitors better? Maybe. How am I supposed to be able to tell? Is Hipmunk also evil? Orbitz? Some other random website I find which compares hotels? If I use these websites to do my research and then book directly, I'm avoid some of the problems -- but probably not all?

Go to a reputable travel agent? No, sorry. That's a pain in the ass.

I'm disappointed in this article. It makes a very convincing case that we should avoid huge internet travel monopolies, but yet doesn't compellingly suggest what I should do instead.

<comment><USER14> I think a lot of the evils in the world continue because of your sort of attitude. Merry Christmas!

<comment><USER15> It's very easy to say "X is bad, you shouldn't do X." It's a lot more difficult (and a lot more _valuable_ ) to be able to say "You should do Y instead of X, and here is a convincing argument why."

<comment><USER16> Pointing out that a problem exists is still valuable.

<comment><USER15> Yes and no. It can be counterproductive if it causes people to abandon what's actually the best solution, just because it's less than perfect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I know people in the hospitality business, and all third party travel websites (and travel agents) are bad for the traveler and hotel, for a few simple reasons.

1) Middlemen always need their cut. In this case, you pay the website, and then the website pays the hotel less.

2) By bypassing the middleman (call the hotel directly, and speak to that specific location's on site employees), you SHOULD be able to get a better deal. Simply compare prices, and if you find it cheaper on a website, ask the hotel to give you 5% off. Any competent manager will do this because it costs much more than 5% to get your reservation from a travel agent. Obviously, they will have to verify that third party price, but in the case of Expedia, they can just search it.

3) Additionally, it's good to book directly with the hotel for the following reasons too (or at least call them directly after booking online to confirm):

-In the fine print of travel websites' T&C, it will say you are guaranteed A room, not THE room you want. This means if only smoking rooms are available, the third party site will still sell it to you as a non smoking room. Also, there are many incompatibilities in the GDS/Central reservation system software, so there is a chance there can be an error in your reservation.

-Third party reservations don't go to the hotel with the guest's contact information. This means if the hotel wants to contact you about some issue, they cannot reach you, and the websites won't give out the guest's information. This was a big problem during Sandy a few months ago.

All in all, third party websites are a relic of the times when hotels did not have the technical expertise to implement internet reservation systems. Nowadays, you can just look up the hotel's reviews on TripAdvisor, call the hotel directly, and make sure you get the room you want by speaking with someone directly at the property, with actual knowledge of the place. The ONLY benefit these third party websites can provide, seems to be with the bundling of hotels/flights/rental cars, but I still wouldn't use them. Going straight to the vendor has been the more pleasant experience for me.

Edit: I should have noted that my knowledge comes from US and British hotels, mostly franchises like IHG/Hilton/Choice/Wyndham.

<comment><USER18> Full disclosure, I work for an OTA and CRS (central reservation service) specializing in boutique hotels.

1\. Often the hotels themselves charge the customer, and pay the OTA commission on a monthly basis.

2\. Many contracts between hotels and availability services mandate that the hotel provide the lowest rate to the OTA, and that if they use several that the rates are in parity with each other. If you find a lower rate by going to the hotel directly, there's a chance that they are breaching contract.

3\. The OTA can only be as accurate as the hotelier providing it with information. If the customer is not satisfied, we get a partial refund or credits for future bookings. For our more remote hotels, sometimes they have to throw up a satellite transmitter once a week and update the information they are telling the world about themselves. If they are on a good CRS, it will fan-out that information to many online sites.

The OTA I'm at does provide the hotel with the customer's information, and requires that all communications between the hotel and customer are CC'd to them. This is because when the customer calls our customer service with a problem, we want to know what the back-and-forth between them and the hotel was so we can address the issue more objectively.

Third party websites yield value to people who feel like being backed by the OTA's brand to ensure that they receive the experience they paid for. They offer comfort insurance, and will go through the hassle of fixing problems with the hotel for you. For hotels, the agency may also forward their information to google and bid on ad placement. The one I'm at also guarantees certain perks to people who book through us, and offer a membership program for travelers to receive champagne on arrival, breakfast, transportation, etc... It sounds like you've really been burned by the lower end OTA's. Sorry for the blatant spam, but maybe you'd be interested in TabletHotels.com

<comment><USER17> Thank you for providing the perspective from an OTA's side. I shouldn't have said all OTAs are bad. It seems as though your organization operates quite differently than the bigger OTAs, and from the list of services you provide, I think your market may be quite different than the one I'm referring to (i.e. higher end, less commoditized).

However, for run of the mill franchise hotels, the quality control is already being provided for by franchises (i.e. Marriot, Hilton, Choice, Wyndham, IHG, Accor, etc). In my experience, third party reservations at these places is only a hindrance because the OTAs don't guarantee room types, so people show up expecting a certain type of room, but the OTA takes whatever is available from the hotel, even if it's not what the guest wants, and then the hotel has to deal with the fallout when the guest arrives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19>
        First of all they have a well-deserved reputation for bad customer service.
        Google the words "Expedia bad customer service" and see what comes up.

Yes.

Anecdotal I know, but I've used Expedia twice, and will never use them again.

It took _a year_ and an offer to take the case to court before they issued a refund, and the second time they just screwed all the bookings up with no apology or comment upon complaint.

<comment><USER20> To add something contrary to this, i had the opposite experience. I had to cancel a flight/hotel booking at short notice because I couldn't go. They said normally they charge for that but this time would let me do it free. Replies were fast and prompt at awkward times of day etc.

<comment><USER21> I have experienced pretty good customer experience with Expedia as well. However we're not talking about the end customers here but rather the suppliers (of services).

I wouldn't want to use a company (no matter how good they are) who have been known for crushing smaller players to maximize their bottom line.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> When the cost to enforce a contract is higher than the value of the contract, then there is no justice. Small businesses are left with what is effectively vigilante justice, writing blog posts and appealing to the public directly.

Frankly I'm biased against large organizations in general, and so I'm tempted to take this post at face value, and get angry with Expedia. And perhaps that's the right thing to do (although, as someone else pointed out, some e-mail quotes, screenshots, or other corroborating evidence would make for a more convincing story). But I can't help but think that we're all missing the big picture: that the high price of justice creates an enormous advantage for large companies. That justice is priced out of most people's ability.

I used to hear about how 'litigious' American society has become. And yet, is that really true? Personal injury is no doubt quite popular. What what about simple fraud and breech of contract? What about conspiracy to commit fraud?

Unless the justice system is priced for people to actually use it, then it's useless. So the question arises: what cheaper options does the OP have for pursuing this case?

</comment><comment><USER23> I see Expedia as no different from traditional middle-men (travel agents). If I search a flight+hotel deal on Expedia, I can _always_ get the exact same price by booking directly with the airline and hotel, and without the potential hassles described in the article.

Perhaps it's naive, but I feel safer booking direct, because then if I have any problems, I'm dealing with a first-party and it's harder to be given the three-way runaround.

<comment><USER24> One thing I learned on a trip this summer is that Delta will charge an extra fee to change tickets if they were booked through expedia.

I don't know if other airlines do this too but if I'm flying Delta it is a motivator to book directly. Which I'm sure is the point.

<comment><USER25> Interesting to know. I personally avoid Delta, United, American, and a few others if at all possible. My main airlines are:

Virgin America

Southwest

Alaska Airlines

In that order with JetBlue mixed in somewhere in there. Helps to have a narrow set if you are racking up air miles and I've had HORRID experiences with the others. I only take them if I have to now

<comment><USER26> The best strategy with flying I've found is to pick one Legacy carrier/alliance if you're a frequent traveler (because they treat their folks with status quite well, at the expense of everyone else). If you don't fly >25k miles/year, do what you do.

<comment><USER27> I'm a Gold member on United, and Silver on Delta. United treats me fairly well [when they have an issue they pass me on to US Airways]. I've had massive issues with Delta.

Honestly, I'm not thrilled about Southwest. They'll get you there... but eh.

<comment><USER28> I have flown pretty much all the legacy carriers, including the ones that merged out of existence.

Delta is by far the worst I've dealt with. No other carrier even comes close on that score.

I'm currently with US Airways (Platinum) for various reasons; they've treated me pretty well, their hubs are decent enough, routes are convenient, and they fly real planes rather than cramped CRJ lawn darts in and out of my home airport (Kansas City). And it's comforting to know, at the moment, that if they do screw up horribly I have other options within the alliance, though the looming prospect of the AA merger is going to lead to some serious thinking about whether I should just do it pre-emptively.

Among the low-cost carriers I don't mind Southwest so much. They're kind of the Chipotle of airlines; you know what you're going to get, you know it's not the greatest but also not the worst, and they have some quirky branding and service aspects that inspire loyalty among their regular customers. If I were going to fly an LCC, though, I'd probably pick Frontier just because they give a bit more bang for the buck on the routes I'm most likely to fly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I see few posts where people are in doubt. This behavior is unfortunatly their business model. Mark "non participating" hotels as full and listen against their will and trick users to more expensive/hotels they get more commissions from. Not long ago they even lost in court around this in Norway [http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dagbladet.no%2F2011%2F11%2F03%2Ftema%2Freise%2Freisesokemotor%2Fdom%2F18876877%2F)

</comment><comment><USER30> Here's my reason for avoiding Expedia.

A few years ago I booked a trip to the UK to visit some friends. The morning I was supposed to leave, I get an email from one of my friends saying that I should check if my flight is still on, because there is "something going on with a volcano in Iceland". Turns out it's the start of that major eruption and all air traffic in Northern Europe is grounded with no foreseeable reopening.

I first called the airline, Virgin Atlantic. They were very friendly, apologetic, and as helpful as possible. They said they could reschedule me, but given all the unknowns they weren't making any new bookings for at least 2 weeks. Now this was a two week vacation I was taking, with lots of other things scheduled, so I couldn't really just up and shift the whole thing two weeks on a whim. They would have gladly given a refund, but since I booked through Expedia, I had to talk to them. That's when things started going downhill.

First of all, even on what I'm sure was a crazy customer service day, the people at Virgin answered the phone in minutes and were quite friendly. The Expedia call took almost an hour to be answered. Every agent I spoke too was borderline rude and confrontational, and had the worst broken English of any oversees call center I've dealt with. From the start they only wanted to argue, that because it was the day of the flight, I could neither cancel or reschedule. Finally, after about 90 minutes of arguing and being transferred, I got to a high enough manager who actually seemed to listen to what I said and not just be reading a script, and got my refund authorized. And I thought it was over.

Months go by and the credit never appears back to my card. I call Expedia a couple times, each time they say it is being processed by the CC company, but it can take up to 90 days. I check with the CC, they have no record of the credit. Finally after 90 days, I get a hold of Expedia and they say it is fine if I just have the CC company cancel the transaction on their end (as a dispute), as there must have been a "glitch" somewhere. And that flipped the trouble switch.

Apparently there is an automated system in Expedia, if you dispute their charge with you CC company, they automatically flip it to a collections agency. A few months after I did, I got a very threatening letter and phone call saying I owed the charge plus penalties and interest. If I did not pay, they would flag my credit rating and possibly take further legal action. I contacted Expedia again to ask WTF is going on, and their response was that they are not allowed to communicate with the collections agency once the matter has been given to them. They were confident that if i just explained why I didn't owe the money, the collections guys would drop it. But they couldn't provide me with any documentation to give them.

After another month of letters and phone calls with the collections agents, and quite a bit of stress on my end, I stopped hearing from them so I guess it was resolved.

Keep in mind, all told this is about 8 months down the road from when I was originally supposed to travel. In fact I rebooked the entire trip for about a month after the original, and had already gone and come back. But definitely not with Expedia.

<comment><USER31> Totally an aside, but if you're in the US and there's a collections agency after you for a bogus debt, it's easy to make them go away: Send them a formal dispute letter under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and advise them not to contact you further. If they do anyway, you can sue them for punitive damages.

<comment><USER17> For reference, Section 805(c):

<http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.shtm>

<comment><USER31> Better yet:

Sample dispute letter: [http://nedap.org/resources/documents/DisputeLetterwithElectr...](http://nedap.org/resources/documents/DisputeLetterwithElectronicForm.pdf)

Sample "cease contact" letter: [http://nedap.org/resources/documents/CeaseLetterwithElectron...](http://nedap.org/resources/documents/CeaseLetterwithElectronicForm.pdf)

It's actually a pretty nice, common sense law. Note that if you intend to dispute the charge, you should move quickly: there's a 30 day limit from first notice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Thanks to all the folks offering support here and sharing their own stories of frustration with Expedia. We also wanted to note we are aware that our site is down. Our host server is having real troubles today and tell us things won't be fixed for 24 hours. If you need to contact us before then please email us at firstname.lastname@example.com or via our Facebook page. <https://www.facebook.com/lunabluehotel>. Again thanks for the voices of support. Tony & Cheri Owners, Luna Blue Hotel

</comment><comment><USER33> Why should anyone be surprised? Do you really think abuse of power is absent because a business is on the _Internet_? How many times have publishers had their Buy buttons removed from their books at Amazon? How many stories are there of small devs getting ripped off by Apple and Microsoft? What about late payments to devs from the Google Play Store? I will never use Expedia now. Better that I should be inconvenienced than be jerked around by smug companies out to crush small businesses.

EDIT: Typo fixed.

</comment><comment><USER34> Travel hack: as the article points out, Expedia take 25% cut of the booking rate, which is usually the same a the hotel's direct rate.

Because the hotel will make more profit from you, you have a higher chance of getting a room upgrade at the property, better amenities or even just better service if you book direct rather than via Expedia.

<comment><USER35> Here is the funny fact, whenever I check the hotels' own websites, prices are almost always higher than Expedia's listing. Does anyone know why?

<comment><USER17> It's due to competition, and price discrimination. In highly competitive areas, other hotels will offer their rooms at a discount to Expedia/Travelocity/etc, to catch the market that visits these websites (due to the websites' marketing and reputation as being the place to go for online bookings). If a hotel doesn't offer their rooms on the third party websites, then they effectively lose those sales. I know some of the agreements will make it so that they can't advertise rooms at the rates given to travel agents, so that may be why you see it cheaper. Priceline has a different system, where each hotel provides three price levels, and if a person bids at or above a price level, then Priceline gets the difference between the price level and what the person bid.

At hotels that don't have problems selling rooms, they have no reason to offer rooms to travel agents, so you won't see any price discrepancies there. In fact, you probably won't even see the room offered on third party websites.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> A classic "small business is mad" blog post. It even contains the a quote about how much money they spent on their business, "We put all of our money, time and heart into making it work," as though that's a criterion Expedia uses when deciding how to respond to customer service inquiries.

I'm also surprised that the links broke and Expedia's "IT department" said they'll "never" be fixed. That doesn't really make any sense. I can't help but think that the images are hosted by the hotel itself and that _they_ broke the images. I don't know. The story sounds plausible but unlikely to me and has all the classic "crazy person" literary features. (Some sources to back this up would be good: emails, screenshots, etc.)

<comment><USER37> While frequently with these articles you have to wonder about the validity of all parts of the story, I can say I've had A similar experience from a consumer perspective. I was trying to book hotels for my wedding and couldn't find a hotel that I knew was in the town my in-laws lived in.

I looked up the hotel on the corporate website and it showed it as completely booked, and this particular had didn't show up in any searches for rooms because of that.

I ended up calling them and found out they had left the chain and were becoming independent and had plenty of rooms. So I can't confirm this small business' story, I Can confirm that similar things happen.

<comment><USER38> I'm not familiar with how hotels inform 3rd party websites about room reservations. Could it just be that smaller independent hotels simply don't have the technical chops to correctly set up or manage such notifications?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I work for an OTA and this is likely not Expedia per se, but the local office trying to up the value of their sales. Small hotels are always going to have more problems than a big chain, as they don't have any real time data connection to provide availability and room information. Either they send in their information and hope someone enters it correctly, or they are provided with access to a portal they can manage their own data in. If the local property manager is only interested in getting credit for high value sales and the small property owner doesn't have access to the portal, then likely the manager can screw them over so that people wind up at the more valuable properties. OTA's prefer data connections because that way the data is more up to date. It also means any errors are the fault of the chain (unless the hotel system itself has bugs).

By making Expedia aware of how their local managers are operating they might actually get this fixed. No OTA wants this kind of bad publicity. Just the US alone my employer (and its parent company) have nearly 300,000 hotels available. Keeping the data current is a massive pain at that scale since at the other end are individual people.

Also note that for most OTA's there are only a couple providers of hotel photos and one dominant one, and we all hate them as they suck terribly. Unless you are a speciality provider like Oyster or Hotel Tonight and can take the few photos you need, or are Tripadvisor and can get customers to take them, you are at the mercy of the photo provider.

So a quality bitching can get you better service (as a hotel provider) from an OTA. Even better is make a deal with someone who provides small hotels with data management (which does cost money) so that your room availability is all electronic.

The hotel business is all about filling rooms. The average hotel hopes for 70% rooms filled tonight. OTA's do provide a lot of hotel bookings so you can't do without them. But if the local OTA hotel property manager sucks there are 4 major players you can deal with (plus all the speciality ones). Yes you have to give them a commission (20%+ usually) but if you work with them correctly they can fill your rooms.

<comment><USER40> What's the name of the dominant hotel photo provider? Any particular reason why they suck so terribly? Just curious to see if it might be an easy problem for a new player to solve.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Outrageous if true, though I'm inclined to blame Expedia's incompetence rather than intentional misdirection...

A bit of a shame because I've found Expedia to be pretty decent for booking flights (though that's mostly by way of comparison with other sites; most flight booking sites are jaw-droppingly horrible...).

<comment><USER42> Try Hipmunk.com.... best flight search I've seen. It the refers you to the airline's page to complete the booking. No sketchy third-party to buy from.

It's visualization of flights schedules is awesome!

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> It would be great if this blog post were picked up by a legit news organization, researched and fact checked, cross referenced with other stories (like the French one) and published more widely as an expose.

This is bad for consumers and bad for hotels. I like small local hotels. I want them to succeed. I want an easier way to connect with them. They are hard to find on hotels.com, etc. and I always assumed it was because the owners didn't maintain the listing, but it seems it's because expedia doesn't care.

<comment><USER44> Here you go. [http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/28/3809328/one-small- hotels-...](http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/28/3809328/one-small-hotels-long- nightmare-with-expedia)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Been using Expedia for 14 years, though not exclusively. Contrary to the post, they often post discounts unavailable elsewhere, particularly for combos. For example recently, the regular rate at Wynn Las Vegas was around $200 a night in December but with an Expedia flight it worked out to $140 a night. This is the discount they usually give their mid level Red Card members, if I recall correctly (upper get RFB).

I've also used Expedia to book a stay in Cancun a few years ago; they had a number of mom and pop hotels listed with rich details, but Ultimately I got a great combo rate at the Ritz Carlton (like $240 - it was about a week before the season really began); this rate was not available on the Ritz website.

I have had some bad experiences with Expedia when requesting refunds or changes, though this has improved over the past 2 years with more software features and slightly better call center agents (ymmv).

Ultimately I'll book direct with the hotel or airline if I have a specific reason to (schedule, FF points, upgrades, etc), but for easy price comparison and research I tend to rely on Kayak and Expedia almost exclusively.

This posting has not changed my mind that they offer a good service - <USER2> seem to have issues with their Latin American offices.

</comment><comment><USER46> This is a known problem and I see no reason not to believe every word Tony & Cheri writes.

Check out this (poorly tranlated) article from Norway:

[http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Freise.aftenposten.no%2Freise%2FHotelscom- tilbyr-hotell-som-de-ikke-har-35865.html%23.UNnECaWwfZs)

</comment><comment><USER47> This is fucking disgusting, and these scumbags (together with tripadvisor) have polluted Google's search results.

No matter what hotel you're googling for, your search results will be chock- full of these bastards.

<comment><USER48> Don't lump them together. Tripadvisor has lots of high quality hotel reviews. I can forgive a lot of annoying ads for that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> > Secondly they do not offer discounted rates as many claim.

In Denmark at least, I have found that they typically _do_ offer discounted rates that the hotel's own website doesn't offer, especially for smaller hotels during periods of lower demand. If you're booking off-season at the last minute, I've found discounts on hotels.com of 40-60% relative to what the online-booking system of the hotel's own website was showing. One example where I've stayed a few times (<http://www.hotel-maritime.dk/>) was offering €50/night via hotels.com in late January 2012, at a time when their own website was listing €80/night. It's frequent enough that I advise my friends visiting Copenhagen to always check a hotel's rate on hotels.com before booking through the hotel's website, in case there's a substantial difference.

<comment><USER50> The price advertised at a hotel is called the "Rack Rate". Never pay that. Phone the hotel and get a real price from them. It's a weird system, but you'll get the same price as an OTA is offering. Often less, if you ask and quote the OTA price.

<comment><USER49> I guess I could do that, but I generally prefer to book on the internet. Phones tend to result in dealing with international phone calls, being on hold, reading credit-card numbers over the phone, and that kind of hassle. Plus, the discovery/comparison-shopping experience is considerably worse. Some hotels offer the same discounted rates through their own websites, and I do book with them directly if they do. If they don't, but somewhere else on the internet _does_ offer the discounted rates, then I prefer that option to calling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> >>> "a long, detailed list describing our rooms"

Hint: a red flag right there. You're selling what's perceived as standardized commodity. If a long and detailed list made the job of corporate copy-and- paster hard, imagine potential customer confusion.

</comment><comment><USER52> I don't use Expedia as I've found their service to be horrible, and their technology in the early days had all kinds of issues with losing session and the like, so I abandoned them 10+ years ago.

I do use Orbitz. I'm not sure if they are guilty of the same sins, but I've generally found their service to be adequate. I book directly with airlines when it makes sense and doesn't take too much effort - but most hotel booking sites are horrible and prices are usually higher.

It would be great if an open platform like AirBNB emerged for hotels - <USER3> AirBNB itself.

</comment><comment><USER53> > It wasn't cheap, as Expedia takes 25 % of every booking made through their > sites–a fact that hotels are forbidden by Expedia to disclose to guests.

This is forbidden to be disclosed because business contract details are covered under an NDA they signed with Expedia. 25% is their negotiated commission but it will vary by partner and hence they don't want that being disclosed to be used as leverage in negotiations with other hotels.

> For the most availability, best prices and service, always book directly > with a hotel.

This may be the case with the Luna Blue, but is definitely not what we at Room 77 see in the marketplace. We're connecting with the GDS and pretty much every major OTA in the US (Expedia, Orbitz, Booking.com, Priceline, etc.) and what we're seeing is increasing price fragmentation in the marketplace. This is why we fundamentally believe that metasearch is a better model for the consumer since prices and availability do vary.

> Secondly they do not offer discounted rates as many claim.

As someone else mentioned, even if a rate is not discounted against the rate the hotel has directly, it may be a promotion against the regular rate and you have to factor in the loyalty programs that exist on many OTA sites (Hotels.com book 10 get 1 free, Agoda 4% rewards, etc.). The most probable reason that an OTA has a lower rate is that the room availability has changed. For example, a hotel has two types of rooms (A & B) may have presold a percentage to Expedia and if the hotel has sold their own allocation of room type A and only has room type B left, the lowest price the hotel has for ANY room is the price of room type B. Expedia may then show a lower price for a hotel because they still have room type A available to sell to travelers since they own that percentage of inventory that was presold to them.

The core value proposition of booking through an online agency wasn't really addressed by Tony and Cheri which is that people by and large don't want to shop a single hotel's price and availability. When I want to go to Playa del Carmen, I want to see ALL options I have in an area and compare hotels and rates and the easiest way to do that is through an OTA or a metasearch engine.

Booking directly through a hotel has it's own advantages which include: 1) payment is usually not required until you arrive at the hotel, 2) you earn the hotel's loyalty points if they have a program, and 3) the hotel will prioritize your booking for upgrades, etc. since they didn't have to pay a large commission.

From my perspective working at a metasearch company, we want to provide maximum choice and availability of options/inventory so we show both direct hotel inventory and OTA inventory and let consumers decide which one they want to choose.

</comment><comment><USER54> Dear small business hotel

Yes, Expedia sucks, but here's what you should do

YOU make your website and booking system available on the web. Make people able to google your hotel and get there. (Edit: this seems to be already in place)

If I search your hotel on Expedia and it shows no dates available, I begin to suspect Expedia, or your integration of systems with them.

And if they really say your hotel is going out of business, get a lawyer. Edit: get a lawyer NOW

</comment><comment><USER55> I stopped booking with Expedia when there was a problem with an incorrect flight time. Delta said they couldn't do anything and I'd have to resolve with Expedia. Expedia said they couldn't do anything, and I'd have to resolve with Delta. I had a clearly nonsensical flight plan (I was scheduled to be at the destination for 1 hour), and no way to resolve it. I gave up on both businesses.

</comment><comment><USER56> It sounds like they aren't very savvy business people, but when I'm looking to stay somewhere that does not matter. A 16 room boutique hotel is never going to get a ton of attention from a large travel agency, there's no profit in it. They'd be better off marketing directly to their target demographic and trying for word of mouth / repeat business.

I have had great luck with Hotwire (an Expedia subsidiary) and have discovered many neat hotels with it. I live in Florida and frequently book hotel room on the various beaches for easy short vacations, the only motivator is location and price (if nothing is available, I don't go). I have booked directly at some of the places I found, but if it weren't for their being on Hotwire I never would have found them.

Also, the cost savings with Hotwire is frequently massive (50% off is not uncommon)--I haven't been able to book directly for cheaper (the trick is Hotwire doesn't tell you the exact hotel before you book, so if you want to ensure the same property you need to direct book and pay more).

<comment><USER57> I also have had good experiences with Hotwire. One helpful note: if you do a little looking around on the internet, it's usually pretty easy to figure out which hotel they're offering based on location and amenities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> To be honest, i'll still book where it's cheapest. Usually i use a lot of those sites, including tripadvisor, etc. to check for accomodations and in the end i'll book where it's cheapest. I'll check on google maps for hotels, check online pricing, but in the end.. when the hotel itself is more expensive (plus expedia and co offer me a good meta search not only one hotel!).. why should i pay more for "less"?!

Never had problems with expedia&co myself but i rarely need to cancel/change reservations.

It's not my fault that the whole hotel business doesn't seem to be capable enough to do this on their own.

</comment><comment><USER59> Friendly PSA from someone who has dealt with lying businessmen and customer service reps: record all your conversations. Be careful to notify them that you are recording the conversation if you live in a two-party consent state.

In fact, letting them know you are recording them is a great way to get them to take you seriously. I've gotten a phone call from a VP of a company, wishing to "settle our differences" to my satisfaction once word got to him that I had recorded a conversation with a beligerent rep.

</comment><comment><USER21> I wonder if we can repay them and play the same game they are playing. Maybe if many of us reblog/post and link to that amazing detailed blog post with the anchor text being "advertise with expedia" - maybe when new hotels who will want to advertise with Expedia (and google about it) will be able to read about that horrible experience.

</comment><comment><USER60> Since this was posted on 5 December and has a fair amount of attention now, I'm surprised that Expedia hasn't officially responded yet. Maybe because so much of the attention has come in the past couple of days. I sent them a Tweet asking what was going on, and I notice someone posted this on their Facebook Page.

<comment><USER61> One does not simply post something on a business's Facebook page. Either the page has to share it or the viewer has to make two clicks to see it.

<comment><USER60> Well, it's there[1] and a bunch of people seem to have seen it. Expedia has replied to posts made by others after this one but they seem to be ignoring this.

[1] <https://www.facebook.com/naptown/posts/295460857241207>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Well, that's exactly why we created <http://live.Roomixer.com> A Guest Exchange marketplace where Guest Rejections can be bought and sold. If hotels would cooperate with other hotels there would be less work for Expedia!

</comment><comment><USER27> You don't want to book airline tickets with Expedia. If they are cheaper, they are only slightly cheaper, and you'll have to deal with Expedia when things go wrong. The airline gives a minor discount due to pushing over customer service to Expedia.

</comment><comment><USER63> Expedia is (allegedly) lying about one of their "partner" hotels in a way that drives customers away from the hotel. Isn't this the kind of thing that a lawyer would call "tortious interference with business relationships"?

</comment><comment><USER64> If Expedia is misrepresenting the status of the smaller hotels and cutting them out then I think that is a type of fraud or collusion with the bigger hotels. It is at the least, a policy that is antagonistic to competition.

</comment><comment><USER65> Given the owner's complaint, I find it odd that when I clicked the Room & Amenities link at the bottom of lunabluehotel.com, the link was dead, or at least, timing out repeatedly.

</comment><comment><USER66> Well that explains some of the weirdness I've seen for hotels that Expedia said were booked out where it didn't seem likely (dead season).

</comment><comment><USER67> I've never booked with Expedia because they have never offered a better price than I can get from the travel agent in my neighbourhood.

</comment><comment><USER68> What are good alternatives to expedia that provide good customer service and are also friendly to small businesses?

</comment><comment><USER69> I will NEVER book from Expedia, the end!!!

</comment><comment><USER70> Since their rep double booked the room I had already booked online (which I told him) and I released expedia points weren't worth shit, I've been using hotels.com. Free night every 10. That's pretty sweet. (Note, I have no affiliation w/ hotels.com or whatever, it's just what works for me).

Wish I hadn't wasted all those nights getting expedia points worth what $10 bux maybe after 20+ nights?

Fuck that.

</comment><comment><USER71> I disagree with this post. Never had any issues with expedia. Always use them for air/hotel bookings and they are awesome. They do a really good job filtering out the junk "non-chain" hotels and making clear to the buyer that what they are getting it high quality.

<comment><USER72> You disagree from the point of an end customer. If you have no hotel preference and are mis-directed away from certain partners to those that pay better commission then to you it has been a good experience. Just because they have got you good bookings, does not mean they haven't lied and screwed people over in the process.</comment></comment>


Apple's Great GPL Purge (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/ <comment><USER2> > _There are two big changes in GPL v3. The first is that it explicitly > prohibits patent lawsuits against people for actually using the GPL-licensed > software you ship. The second is that it carefully prevents TiVoization, > locking down hardware so that people can't actually run the software they > want._

> _So, which of those things are they planning for OS X, eh?_

Seems pretty obvious in retrospect (and probably would have been obvious at the time, too) - they don't care about locking down Macs, but they do care about locking down iPhones and iPads. The remaining GPL software, which has stayed steady for a couple of releases, are all things you don't need on iOS: emacs, screen, etc.

<comment><USER3> > _The remaining GPL software, which has stayed steady for a couple of > releases, are all things you don 't need on iOS: emacs, screen, etc._

And those are getting removed too.

(can't immediately find the Apple Technote about that, and don't have Catalina installed to verify if that's already happened)

<comment><USER4> Emacs is definitely gone, I was shocked to find. I must say, having Emacs (even aging Emacs) in the default distribution of OSX was helpful from time to time, needing to edit a configuration file on a colleague's Mac.

<comment><USER5> Good use-case for vim

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> yjftsjthsd-h For once, I don't see what the big deal is. If anything, I think it surprising that Apple didn't fully excise GPL stuff long ago; as this blogger notes, it's not like they couldn't pull BSD components in.

> They already annoyed and inconvenienced a lot of people with the Samba and > GCC removal.

I'm curious at both of these, albeit for different reasons. I'm pretty sure there are BSD-licensed smb stacks, so this doesn't strike me as a licensing issue so much as a "wanting to remove a component that they have no interest in" issue. And why was removing GCC inconvenient? Clang is a perfectly serviceable C compiler.

<comment><USER6> Three facts: 1: clang was significantly worse when Apple removed GCC support, 2: clang is still significantly worse than GCC, and 3: it's because of Google's investment, not Apple's, that we can think of clang as a "in the same stadium" competitor to GCC that makes Apple's removal of GCC surprising.

Any pair of these wouldn't be surprising. Apple is investing in an unproven technology, ok fine. But the congruence of these three facts is surprising. Apple is investing in a worse technology and also relies entirely on Google to improve that technology for them. Blows my mind.

<comment><USER7> > _clang is still significantly worse than GCC_

On what basis is that a "fact" without further context? I'd say that very much depends on what you consider or measure.

<comment><USER8> The compile times are much longer and the generated code is usually slower _except_ for autovectorized code.

I've spent a lot of time testing both clang and gcc, and right now the only part of clang I use regularly is the static analyzer in my continuous integration.

For C++ in particular, the compile times are 2-3 times as long. It's unbelievable how slow it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I can't imagine why they would want software with viral licenses out of their codebase.

<comment><USER10> Pick your poison. Where the GPL is viral, proprietary licences are fatal.

<comment><USER11> Specifically in what way are proprietary licenses deadly?

Lock-in can certainly be problematic but with more open interchange formats that's becoming less of an issue.

Saying proprietary licenses are deadly without explanation seems more like zealotry than reasoned consideration.

Thankfully we have alternatives to the GPL like MIT and Apache for people who want to share source but not force that choice on others.

<comment><USER2> The GPL has no power that owners of proprietary code don't already have. The GPL is a software license under copyright law which grants certain permissions subject to certain conditions. If you don't fulfill those conditions, standard copyright law takes effect.

The GPL does not on its own have the power to "infect" the rest of your codebase. You can absolutely decide you want to distribute GPL'd software compiled in with proprietary software for which you don't want to release the source. The owner of the GPL software still does not, at this point, have any right to _your_ source. All they can do is say, since you have not obeyed the conditions, you don't have a valid license for _my_ software, and I am now ready to sue you for infringement.

You can resolve this situation by relicensing the proprietary components under the GPL and distributing source, if you'd like. GPLv3 has an explicit provision that says, if you do this within 30 days of being notified of the problem, the license retroactively does apply to you and it wasn't infringement. Many major GPLv2 rightsholders have voluntarily adopted the same condition for their GPLv2 code: [https://gplcc.github.io/gplcc/](https://gplcc.github.io/gplcc/)

You can also resolve the situation by settling with them out of court, going to court and paying damages, going to court and arguing it was fair use / de minimis / whatever, trying to buy them out, etc. If you're willing to do any of those, then you don't have to release your source. (If you go to court and lose, you will probably be ordered to not _further_ distribute the GPL'd code in violation of the license.)

 _None of this is specific to the GPL._ If you use proprietary code without a license at all, the rightsholders can still sue you. You can still negotiate with them. You can still fight it out in court. The rightsholder can even choose to say, "Hey, you know what? If you release the entire source code to your product publicly, we'll drop this case." They have the ability to negotiate that with you because that's the same ability GPL rightsholders have.

GPL is considered "viral" because, for most people, releasing the rest of your source code is preferable to losing in court for regular copyright infringement. With proprietary software, if it's found out that you've misused someone's code, they probably will _not_ offer you that viral option - they'll go straight for the monetary damages. If you don't consider that fatal, then you shouldn't fear that situation with the GPL, either.

<comment><USER12> The GPL is considered viral because linking GPL code into my application imposes legal requirements and restrictions on all the other code in my application. Most licenses don't do this. If I bought a proprietary software license that said "you must not use this code in a program that implements DRM", I would call that viral as well.

<comment><USER13> > Most licenses don't do this

Most free software licenses? Sure. Most Proprietary software licenses? I don't know about that. For example from IE 5:

> 6\. EXPORT RESTRICTIONS. You agree that you will not export or re-export the > SOFTWARE PRODUCT, any part thereof, or any process or service that is the > direct product of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (the foregoing collectively referred > to as the "Restricted Components"), to any country, person or entity subject > to U.S. export restrictions. You specifically agree not to export or re- > export any of the Restricted Components (i) to any country to which the U.S. > has embargoed or restricted the export of goods or services, which currently > include, but are not necessarily limited to Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North > Korea, Sudan, and Syria, or to any national of any such country, wherever > located, who intends to transmit or transport the products back to such > country; (ii) to any entity who you know or have reason to know will utilize > the Restricted Components in the design, development or production of > nuclear, chemical or biological weapons; or (iii) to any entity who you know > or have reason to know has been prohibited from participating in U.S. export > transactions by any federal agency of the U.S. government. You warrant and > represent that neither the BXA nor any other U.S. federal agency has > suspended, revoked or denied your export privileges.

I have seen similar clauses in a lot of other software in the past (such as itunes, Adobe programs, and Norton I think).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> GPL has long caused a problem for people who want to tightly integrate software - LLVM and Clang with Xcode for example - and reap the benefits. When GPL software has to be used taped to the end of a stick like GCC, it's a constraint for their vision. Maybe someone who knows this better than I do will refute this point, but I don't think that the code analysis tools and developer assistance in Xcode would be possible with GCC.

<comment><USER15> Beyond licensing, there are software design/architectural issues at play, ala:

 _Clang is designed as an API from its inception, allowing it to be reused by source analysis tools, refactoring, IDEs (etc) as well as for code generation. GCC is built as a monolithic static compiler, which makes it extremely difficult to use as an API and integrate into other tools. Further, its historic design and current policy makes it difficult to decouple the front- end from the rest of the compiler._

via [https://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html](https://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html), with more points for/against each option at that page.

<comment><USER16> You can see a bit of the gcc monolith and the llvm approach battle it out within the policy of what gets added to Emacs - [https://lwn.net/Articles/632773/](https://lwn.net/Articles/632773/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Releasing all my code as AGPL is one small way in which I oppose the corporatization of the internet.

</comment><comment><USER18> _> Ship tmux with the control key rebound to ^A and probably nobody will care too much that you've removed screen_

In case he hadn't noticed, OS X has Emacs keybindings by default and perverting tmux into vi-friendly Emacs-hostile screen defaults won't fly...

</comment><comment><USER19> Note that in Catalina, the default shell changed from a very outdated GPLv2 version of Bash to Zsh.

<comment><USER20> The old bash still ships with Catalina.

<comment><USER21> I'd expect that change at some point in the near future.

<comment><USER22> Based on the banner you get when you use bash, yeah. They're pushing zsh really hard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> No emacs on iOS is thus a sad song that may be sung til the end of time.

</comment><comment><USER24> I've never understood why Apple feared the GPLv3 so much. Other companies have shipped GPLv3 code for years and haven't suffered for it. What exactly does Apple think would go wrong if it started shipping a modern bash with macOS? Shipping a bundled GPLv3 program doesn't require that the whole system be free software.

</comment><comment><USER25> The damning change for me was seeing CUPS (which they bought outright, mind you) go from GPL to Apache 2.

<comment><USER26> Apple develops the software; it can license the software however it likes.

<comment><USER25> They didn't for quite a long time. They've been anti-GNU for a long time. And they've pretty much supplied or funded all the tools needed to replace the GNU userland.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The current GPL3 is idealistic. It is politically motivated. We live in a capitalist world. That is the fact. No comment on the value of either. The fact is the companies are motivated by money. That is the way it works. GPL3 is scary from that point of view.

</comment><comment><USER28> Perhaps Richard Stallman spending years bragging that he beat Steve Jobs that one time was a long-term mistake.</comment>


Why did Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 include a UN-banned booby trap? - <AUTHOR> https://www.polygon.com/videos/2020/9/6/21420064/tony-hawk-pro-skater-2-pungee-pit-investigation <comment><USER2> I could have sworn I first read about punji sticks as a kid in the late 1970s when reading a book my grandparents had about WWII.

My memory was that it was an account by a soldier fighting in the Pacific Theater - I think in the Philippines, as resistance against the Japanese. I further seem to recall that it was the US soldiers who made the pit, but I'm less sure about that. And I think it was a Reader's Digest book.

But looking now, I can't find mention of it, other than this second-hand account at [https://www.quora.com/What-was-hand-to-hand-combat-like- in-t...](https://www.quora.com/What-was-hand-to-hand-combat-like-in-the- Pacific-Theater-of-World-War-Two/answer/Kevin-Edward-Kline) .

> My grandfather was a combat medic in the Pacific Theater ... He said his > greatest worries about the Japanese wasn't H2H, but was instead booby traps > (punji sticks and trip-wires, in particular), ambushes, and deception. They > were great at using every natural and terrain-based advantage, turning the > long battles like Okinawa into a literal meat grinder.

Note that I can't find mention of those pits, including in text like "Okinawa - The Last Battle" at [https://archive.org/stream/OkinawaTheLastBattle/OkinawaTheLa...](https://archive.org/stream/OkinawaTheLastBattle/OkinawaTheLastBattle_djvu.txt) which do mention booby traps.

Now, their use in WWII might have gone under a different name, so, ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ ?</comment>


OpenZFS - <AUTHOR> http://dtrace.org/blogs/ahl/2013/09/17/openzfs/

<comment><USER2> is it licensed under a GPL compatible license now? If not, what's the big news?

</comment><comment><USER3> Good news. There will be no replacement for ZFS for decade or more. Btrfs is nice project but it will be behind features and will be the "untested one" for long time.</comment>


Tag Heuer unveils smartwatch venture with Intel, Google - <AUTHOR> https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/tag-heuer-unveils-smartwatch-venture-intel-google-133915177--finance.html <comment><USER2> Hodinkee has quite a bit more information on this: [http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/Jean-Claude-Biver-Talks- About-S...](http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/Jean-Claude-Biver-Talks-About- SmartWatch)

Most importantly, the Hodinkee piece mentions pricing - somewhere in the region of $1000, i.e. more expensive than the typical wearable but more affordable than a regular Tag Heuer.

</comment><comment><USER3> This post is rather pointless "declined to give any details about pricing, functionality or design".

<comment><USER4> I can help with one: it's going to be expensive ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I suppose it is a natural extension that technology eventually becomes a fashion statement but for some reason the whole idea of they 4 and 5 figure sums for a 'designer' widget really rubs me the wrong way. What's next the $7,500 Ives St Laurent calculator?

<comment><USER6> It's very easy to criticize other people for having a different priority, such as aesthetics over price/value, from yourself. After all, particular interests often sound ridiculous if you don't share them. This is in everything from having a favorite precious metal to a favorite web development framework.

However, if you're set on making such a criticism here, the least you can do is spell Yves Saint Laurent's name correctly.

<comment><USER7> I suppose it does seem rather easy to criticize people who make that priority unnecessarily expensive watches, though. I can appreciate the craftsmanship that goes into them and will agree it makes for a better watch, but nonetheless one far past the cut-off for diminishing returns.

Honestly, I feel like much of the attention paid to premium smartwatches is rooted in insecurity. Many a blog post about one is a fashion item as much as the watch is; it's meant to communicate that the author can appreciate fine things and is definitely not one of those pragmatic-boring "well actually" types that might write something like the first paragraph. Food for thought, if you found yourself thinking as much while reading it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Tag Heuer Chief Executive Jean-Claude Biver declined to give any details about pricing, functionality or design."

"unveils"

<comment><USER9> To the title's credit, it does say that the venture was unveiled, not the watch itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It feels like there's an impending crunch in the luxury dumb watch industry. When there is productivity to be had by buying a smart watch, how can expensive dumb watches compete?

<comment><USER11> Expensive watches are not about productivity or any technical functionality. They are a signal of wealth to others. A $30 Casio keeps better time than a handmade mechanical watch at 1,000 times the price.

<comment><USER12> They're no different than earrings or bracelets for women (generally).

I keep time accurately with my GPS time synchronized cell phone. The watch is for show, literally. Some of them are amazing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This article didn't give much. I'll pass this along. I bought my first nice watch from a overpriced jewelry store in San Francisco. It was a glowing dial Tag F1. I didn't realize at the time, but it was considered a unisex size. I didn't care, I had small wrists. I bought it for $139.00. Jump ahead years later, and the company realized they could add $1000-2000 to that price and still sell watches? Yes, the watches are bigger with a bit more bling, but they still use ETA quartz movements. ETA movements are great, but not worth what Tag is selling them for; I guess you could say that for most luxury watch brands.

That said, all I want on my wrist is something that can tell me the time(analog) time, and maybe the date. I am already a nervous wreck--I couldn't imagine anything yelling/blinking on my wrist. If anyone get's into horology, you might see the value of a mechanical watch? A watch that will last a lifetime. Some of you will even be able to service the watch yourself.(A basic watch--nothing chronograph--books(DeCarle/Fried), tools, a lot of study through Internet videos, practice on cheap watches, etc.). If you do buy a mechanical watch, I can pass this along. You don't need to service it yearly. Service it when the time is off, or it stops. Change the gaskets every two years(if you go in the water). I guarantee most of you can change the back gasket and crown gasket without much study.

(Tag does use some ETA 2824-2 movements. I thought they were all quartz.)

</comment><comment><USER14> I just have one question to the entire smartwatch industry: why in holy hell do none of you make an IPX8 rated watch?

All I want is a watch that can survive on my wrist >48 hours without recharging (even if that means an e-ink color screen), various sensors for heart rate and such, and can survive people's daily lives.

Hell, even if it was a damned Pebble that pulled it off, I'd buy one.

<comment><USER15> Apple Watch is at least rated to IPX7.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Will be interesting to see if Microsoft or Blackberry set up their own partnerships with Swiss watchmakers. Arguably their target audiences are far more interesting to the higher end watchmakers than Android or even Apple.

Smart move by Tag Heuer to get in first and position themselves as as the only serious Apple Watch equivalent on the Android side.

<comment><USER17> How can it be called "serious" when there's nothing to look at?

 _We 'll bring you more information about this TAG Heuer, Google, Intel collaboration in October, when the triumvirate releases more details about the product._

Yawn. A lot can happen in 6 months. Get back to us then. All you're telling us at this point is that nobody has even put a pencil to paper yet.

I'm not trying to fanboi this thread but this is the kind of bullshit Microsoft used to pull off when they sensed a threat to any of their markets.

<comment><USER16> There is nothing serious now, so what's a few months ?

Nobody is going to buy a $1000 watch from LG, Samsung, ASUS, Google etc given that the brands are associated with either being: cheap or geeky (and not in a good way). Tag Heuer is a highly respected, fashionable brand that people aren't going to be embarrassed about wearing on their wrist. A lot can happen in 6 months sure but if it's an exclusive relationship then it's the only product that is likely to matter.

I am talking specifically about the middle price point which is the most important to everyone.

<comment><USER17> _There is nothing serious now, so what 's a few months ?_

I wonder if this is what the conversations were like at TAG Heuer back in September after the Apple announcement.

So, the question is: _what changed_ in the last 6 months that TAG Heuer felt compelled to announce a competing product? It's an innocent question.

Because coming out and saying "yeah, we're starting to work on, um, _something_ " seems really unlike something a highly respected fashionable European brand would normally do. Unless I'm wrong about TAG Heuer.

And you have to announce an alliance with Google/Intel? What message does that convey? Hey, we're great at making awesome highly respected fashionable watches but we don't know fuckall about computer hardware and software?

<comment><USER16> Actually it's quite smart. Look at their price point: $1000 (much cheaper than their other models). Which means this product is a "gateway drug" for young Android guys to get a taste of what a Tag Heuer looks and feels like on their wrist. Once they learn more about what they are wearing the theory is they will be sucked into the watch community and buy a more expensive model.

This watch is Tag Heuer's Mac Mini.

<comment><USER18> $1,000 is too expensive for someone who wants to pretend to be rich (Burberry scarf) and too cheap for someone who would wear conspicuous consumption watch

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Arnie sells watches, Apple sells watches, now Tag Heuer.. EVERYONE IS SELLING watches!!! Jeez talk about a bunch of sheeple! Maybe I should start selling watches.

</comment><comment><USER20> Now movie The Internship is starting to make more sense. I was always wondering why would Google accept watch salesmen as interns.</comment>


How many 10K hours do you have left? - <AUTHOR> http://nowincolour.com/2013/04/how-many-10k-hours-do-you-have-left/

<comment><USER2> Sadly, the problem is that the older you does not get the same out of 10k hours of deliberate practice than the younger you.

Let's take chess: 10k hours of deliberate practice in your teen years will make you a master level player (and possibly near GM caliber if you think Polgar experiment was not a fluke).

There are no known instances of someone starting to play chess after age of 30 and getting near GM. Conversely, I've known people who retired in their 40s and dedicated themselves to chess and could not achieve more than a 50-100 point gain.

I would love to be proven wrong, but I suspect the story is the same with piano, violin and programming.

Your 10k hours at age 40 will not get you near anywhere the same return than 10k hours at age 10-16.

I would love to see some references to people achieving mastery in some field past the age of 40 starting from scratch.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity> is supposed to show that it is possible to get good at a later age, but I am very skeptical.

<comment><USER3> I'll agree with the idea that it's harder for the older you to master something than it is for the younger you, but I don't think it has to do with physiological reasons. I think it has to do with things like time, commitments, obligations, and fears.

When you're young, you have more time, less commitments and obligations (family, job, etc.), and generally less fears (if I screw this up, it's fine because I'm 17). As you grow older, these things get added on and it becomes difficult to motivate yourself to actually spend the 10k hours.

If you're talking about something like skateboarding, I think you're right that younger people will learn it better and faster than old people, because it's inherently physical. If you're talking about a mental task, I think it's a matter of whether or not you will sit down and do the work.

<comment><USER4> I agree that less time and more obligations does make learning new things more difficult later in life. But there's also evidence that fluid intelligence [1] peaks in young adulthood and declines with older age.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intellig...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence) : "This decline may be related to local atrophy of the brain in the right cerebellum. Other researchers have suggested that a lack of practice, along with age-related changes in the brain may contribute to the decline."

<comment><USER5> And there is also evidence that you can increase you fluid intelligence[1] [1]<http://www.pnas.org/content/105/19/6791.full>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I thought the "10k" rule had been discredited.

[http://allaboutwork.org/2012/11/21/malcolm- gladwells-10000-h...](http://allaboutwork.org/2012/11/21/malcolm- gladwells-10000-hour-rule-doesnt-add-up/)

<comment><USER7> Really, finding a few examples of 7000k hour violin players discredits the 10k hour rules? It's an estimate, not a mission to mars.

Are you also offended by astronomers getting the mass of a star, or geologists measuring the amount of oil in a well wrong? They would be delighted to get the order of magnitude right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Looks like we hugged this site to death: I now get a "500 Internal Server Error". Here's the google cache link: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cac...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fnowincolour.com%2F2013%2F04%2Fhow- many-10k-hours-do-you-have- left%2F&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fnowincolour.com%2F2013%2F04%2Fhow- many-10k-hours-do-you-have-left%2F)

</comment><comment><USER9> This is a cool brain hack in that it uses math to convince you that you're not too old to become a master at something.

One issue I have with the 10,000 hour rule in general is this: there are approximately 2,088 hours in a work-year not counting overtime. To achieve mastery in your profession would then take less than 5 years. Most professions don't consider someone an expert 5 years into their careers. So does that mean a) you're not really improving that much in those 5 years b) there are more conditions to the 10,000 hour rule c) the 10,000 hour rule is flawed or d) the evaluation of one's expertise is flawed?

Another issue I have with the 10,000 hour rule is the idea of competence and sufficient experience. At what level of experience (in this case, hours) are you competent enough to achieve your goal? If programming, at what level can you create something that solves a given problem. If business, at what level can you successfully run a startup, etc.

So if the target changes to "enough experience to achieve a specific goal" then I'd argue one has much more time available to him/her than what this math suggests.

<comment><USER10> The 10k hour rule isn't about experience, but about deliberate practice. Two very different things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why do you guys buy into this 10k hours bullshit?

The 10k hours claim is utter nonsense on the most basic level. How exactly is "one skill" defined? There is no such thing as "one skill." Every skill, field, whatever is a highly complex amalgam of countless sub-skills. How do you determine the extent of the "one skill" that you're devoting to?

Let's say you want to master 18th century history, defined as achieving a skill/knowledge level of X in that field. Does this take 10k hours? Why not 20k? Why not 5k? How can anyone assume that just because 18th century history has been defined as a particular "skill" that reaching some skill level X will take 10k hours?

If you instead choose to master early 18th century history from 1700-1730 so that you know the years 1700-1730 just as well as the 1700-1800 specialist, does it now take you only 3K hours instead of 10K?

Does any of this math make any sense at all?

Since the concept of "one skill" is utterly absurd nonsense that is completely undefinable, and the concept of "mastery" is equally undefinable and meaningless, this whole 10k meme is nothing but marketing bullshit of the kind that Gladwell mass produces in his shitty vapid books.

Gladwell is a hack of the highest order. He has never said anything meaningful. This 10k hour meme is just another marketing turd he shit out to mystify and flatter the dumb middle classes who read poppy trash like Gladwell so they can call themselves literate.

Fucking disgrace that people take this seriously

</comment><comment><USER12> A graph since no calculator was provided. Zoom out a bit to get the right scale.

<http://bit.ly/11wIBQo>

</comment><comment><USER13> Couple flaws I see here: first, I'm not convinced that 10k hours is a reasonable estimate given how vastly different any given discipline is from another. Some disciplines allow for fast iteration and thus more practice in a shorter amount of time, for one thing.

Second and more important, we need to remember that _none_ of us learn in a vacuum. How much faster did you pick up programming because you already understood the concept of grammar, and had taken a logic or debate class in high school? Even in wildly different fields of study, there are dots we connect, analogies that we construct, and skills that we posses and bring to the table. It is reasonable to assume that we gain some efficiency in learning new skills, by virtue of the masteries we already possess.

</comment><comment><USER14> How could anyone actually sustain such a rate of learning? Two hours every weekday, plus an additional sixteen hours every weekend for 48 weeks every year?

Life creeps up, and seeps into the cracks so tenuously occupied by free time. Mastering but a single skill is impressive.

<comment><USER15> 2 hours a day is not something completely unachievable. Hell, I spent that time everyday watching some movie or just relaxing.

<comment><USER16> Yes but if you work full time and you have a family this 2 hours per day become rare. It's also important to notice that your body require to have some relaxing time which is also needed to be in consideration. Yes you may remove all "wasted time" of your day, but at the end, your brain will need rest. Spending your whole life optimizing this time will just get you more chance to get a burnout. 18 hours per week on free time is huge and hard to get once you have children, friends, and social activities.

<comment><USER17> That's exactly right. As you get older, you begin to derive joy from things other than mastering new skills. I understand the OP's original post was more about time in the abstract, but the point you make is in fact the reality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Somewhat relevant, "Teach Yourself Programming in 10 years" by Peter Norvig:

<http://norvig.com/21-days.html>

</comment><comment><USER15> 5 more achievements to unlock before game over

<comment><USER19> Clearly, we need to hack the underlying codebase to allows more time for achievements.

On a serious thought, if old people live longer, we have longer access to their knowledge and expertise. When old people die, we lost some their expertise forever. So if we cure cancer and other diseases, that would be money well spent.

<comment><AUTHOR> On a serious thought, here's how to NOT lose elders' expertise forever: <http://www.theamazings.com/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> With the amount of hours i work now i can master 3 new things by the time i'm 30. That's incredibly exciting.</comment>


Ask HN: Has anyone filed a GDPR complaint against HN? - <AUTHOR> Curious if anyone has complained, as I noticed they track IP addresses and the privacy policy hasn't been updated to cover the GDPR. <comment><USER2> Dude...

srsly?

Okay, hypothetically speaking, how'd you feel if the Chinese/US/insert-random- body here suddenly decided that mentioning EU text was against their own laws and would therefore be fined/punished/whatever?

Seriously though, where is the line? I truly don't know the answer, I don't think anyone really does, but what you're arguing for is definitely not it.

How's about this... ready?

Don't use this site. Vote with your attention and internet e-feet.

Let's try and keep the internet open and free from weird shenanigans, okay?</comment>


Does anybody know anything about ibs-safeworlds ? - <AUTHOR>

I ran into this:
http://www.ibs-safeworlds.com/<p>It looks kind of fishy to me.
Has anybody ever used it ? Or heard about it ? <comment><USER2> "These virtual objects are easy to secure because they are all structured the same way, according to the same standard. Security applied this way is also very strong, because, even though a hacker may somehow penetrate one bubble, this does not mean that he will be able to penetrate other secure bubbles within the system."

We provide uniform compartments which are somehow not all subject to the same vulnerabilities!

"Safe Worlds already has semantic search. It will take a couple of years however before sufficient data is available in semantic form, for Safe Worlds semantic search to be competitive with Web-based search engines like Google and Yahoo."

It'll be amazing! And we have a totally legitimate reason not to have anything set up that can demonstrate it!

This is pure snake oil, and it deserves a better fisking than I have time for right now.</comment>