http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27474773/
Interesting trend. Because people need to actually do that thing called "budgeting" now, they've switched from credit cards to debit, which at least forces you to have money in the account if you want to buy stuff.
Of course, the banks aren't getting as much profit from this deal, since they don't get as much interest on debit cards. However, they've made it so that debit cards act more like credit cards. Insufficient funds are no longer denied, for example. They just charge you more money.
Of course, if you're a responsible card user, you'd actually make a budget, stick to it, and not live on the "buy now, pay later" mentality. Then again, in lieu of society itself collectively developing some responsibility, I suppose monetary punishment will suffice.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Electronic Arts, Digital Rights Management, and Spore
Somewhat old news, but its message is still relevant.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/12/spore-drm-piracy-tech-security-cx_ag_mji_0912spore.html
Basically - Electronic Arts is a game company behind the highly-anticipated video game Spore, in which the player takes control of a microbe and helps it evolve, eventually forming an interstellar civilization that can interact with other players' created civilizations online. It was amazingly well-received, save for one fact - in a bid to prevent piracy of the game, EA put a particularly nasty copy prevention method on it. One that prevented installation on more than three computers. Any more, and your game is disabled. You'll have to talk to an EA support staff to get it reactivated.
But isn't this overreacting? After all, you shouldn't have problems with it if you bought the game legally, right? And who really needs to install a game on three computers?
Thing is, software is stupid. It is written by humans, and will always contain bugs. And in the case of copy protection software, they often don't get along well with other parts of the computer. They also don't always recognize when a certain change is a reinstall, or when it's just you upgrading your system or changing the settings. Suppose you were to get a virus that forces you to reinstall Windows. Guess what - you have to reinstall Spore as well. Strike one.
The Internet has indeed made it easier to pirate media, and it is understandable that companies would try to make it harder to pirate their products. After all, less people pirating, is more people buying, is profit. However, it doesn't work for two reasons.
1. It is impossible to create an "unhackable" piece of software. In fact, every single manufacturer releases software knowing that there are bugs in the system - it just isn't a big deal because the Internet also makes it easy for them to simply release a patch and say, "hey guys, sorry about that bug - download this patch and it'll fix everything. We still cool, right?" In Spore's case, a hacked version of the game with the copy protection removed was released on file sharing networks two months before the actual game was released.
2. It doesn't prevent piracy. A customer base can be divided into two groups - those who would pay for the product normally, and those who would pirate. The second is arguably a lost cause. Just as certain spoiled rich celebrities shoplift despite having enough cash on them to buy the store, there are pirates who do it simply because they can. However, the rest of the populace is content with paying money for the product - unless they feel wronged by the company, in which they respond with fury and righteous anger. The kind that prompts them to not only download the game illegally, but also give it low reviews on Amazon. You can still see the effects of that particular campaign on Spore's listing.
The moral of this story? Learn what are acceptable losses. After all, why alienate paying customers in a futile attempt to milk money from those who would not pay anyways?
http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/12/spore-drm-piracy-tech-security-cx_ag_mji_0912spore.html
Basically - Electronic Arts is a game company behind the highly-anticipated video game Spore, in which the player takes control of a microbe and helps it evolve, eventually forming an interstellar civilization that can interact with other players' created civilizations online. It was amazingly well-received, save for one fact - in a bid to prevent piracy of the game, EA put a particularly nasty copy prevention method on it. One that prevented installation on more than three computers. Any more, and your game is disabled. You'll have to talk to an EA support staff to get it reactivated.
But isn't this overreacting? After all, you shouldn't have problems with it if you bought the game legally, right? And who really needs to install a game on three computers?
Thing is, software is stupid. It is written by humans, and will always contain bugs. And in the case of copy protection software, they often don't get along well with other parts of the computer. They also don't always recognize when a certain change is a reinstall, or when it's just you upgrading your system or changing the settings. Suppose you were to get a virus that forces you to reinstall Windows. Guess what - you have to reinstall Spore as well. Strike one.
The Internet has indeed made it easier to pirate media, and it is understandable that companies would try to make it harder to pirate their products. After all, less people pirating, is more people buying, is profit. However, it doesn't work for two reasons.
1. It is impossible to create an "unhackable" piece of software. In fact, every single manufacturer releases software knowing that there are bugs in the system - it just isn't a big deal because the Internet also makes it easy for them to simply release a patch and say, "hey guys, sorry about that bug - download this patch and it'll fix everything. We still cool, right?" In Spore's case, a hacked version of the game with the copy protection removed was released on file sharing networks two months before the actual game was released.
2. It doesn't prevent piracy. A customer base can be divided into two groups - those who would pay for the product normally, and those who would pirate. The second is arguably a lost cause. Just as certain spoiled rich celebrities shoplift despite having enough cash on them to buy the store, there are pirates who do it simply because they can. However, the rest of the populace is content with paying money for the product - unless they feel wronged by the company, in which they respond with fury and righteous anger. The kind that prompts them to not only download the game illegally, but also give it low reviews on Amazon. You can still see the effects of that particular campaign on Spore's listing.
The moral of this story? Learn what are acceptable losses. After all, why alienate paying customers in a futile attempt to milk money from those who would not pay anyways?
Introduction and Mission Statement
Howdy. I am a business student at UT's McCombs School of Business, and this is my blog. It is for a BA324 (Business Communications class) assignment.
They say that every task, proposal, organization should have a "mission statement." Something that defines, in an uplifting and somewhat vague manner, what it's all about. To this end, I should analyze my audience, figure out they want, figure out what I'm good at, and start posting entries.
Anyways, I figure that at this stage of my education at the McCombs School of Business, I really haven't learned enough to be considered an expert on any one subject. I am, however, quite good at many different subjects. As such, this blog will consist primarily of my views on anything business-related that catches my interest, usually news stories, but may include other things such as class readings or previous experiences. Basically, I will be posting items of interest, analyzing them, and providing my own unique, one-of-a-kind, and wonderfully snarky commentary. The entries themselves will cover a wide variety of topics, so there should be something for everyone.
Hopefully, you will find them interesting and informative.
Oh yeah, the mission statement:
"To provide the customer with interesting and informative commentary on issues in modern business affairs."
There. I think that's sufficiently uplifting and vague, yes?
Addendum: why is the background the way it is? I, for one, have always found light text on dark background to be far easier on the eyes. Your computer screen is not a sheet of paper. No matter how much it might try to simulate paper, it will always be a giant flat lightbulb.
They say that every task, proposal, organization should have a "mission statement." Something that defines, in an uplifting and somewhat vague manner, what it's all about. To this end, I should analyze my audience, figure out they want, figure out what I'm good at, and start posting entries.
Anyways, I figure that at this stage of my education at the McCombs School of Business, I really haven't learned enough to be considered an expert on any one subject. I am, however, quite good at many different subjects. As such, this blog will consist primarily of my views on anything business-related that catches my interest, usually news stories, but may include other things such as class readings or previous experiences. Basically, I will be posting items of interest, analyzing them, and providing my own unique, one-of-a-kind, and wonderfully snarky commentary. The entries themselves will cover a wide variety of topics, so there should be something for everyone.
Hopefully, you will find them interesting and informative.
Oh yeah, the mission statement:
"To provide the customer with interesting and informative commentary on issues in modern business affairs."
There. I think that's sufficiently uplifting and vague, yes?
Addendum: why is the background the way it is? I, for one, have always found light text on dark background to be far easier on the eyes. Your computer screen is not a sheet of paper. No matter how much it might try to simulate paper, it will always be a giant flat lightbulb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)