Microsoft has come up with a novel new development model that saves them tons of money. Actually, not only does it save them money, they actually earn money with it.
Microsoft has successfully convinced consumers to pay to beta test their products. In traditional software development the developer normally hires people to test their software to find bugs and other inconsistencies that might affect the performance of the software. Many software companies have been 'allowing' individuals to test their software for free over the last few years. Microsoft has gone one step further.
Microsoft has begun releasing beta software for individuals to test as well, but now they are charging for the 'privilege'. The trick is that they don't tell you that the software is only beta level. Microsoft puts it on the store shelves as a finished commercial product, when in reality it is early to mid beta level software. If Linux or Mac tried that, only hard core fans would ever use the OSs, but Microsoft has managed to slowly break down consumers expectations to a point where the consumers not only willingly use half finished software, but the consumers actually pay for the experience.
The U.S. needs an Underwriters Limited for software. Obviously Microsoft's quality control is unable to accurately discern the actual quality of the software. The solution is to have an independent organization analyze and test the software, like UL tests hardware. Of course, Microsoft would really hate this, since competition from Linux and Mac would squash them in the quality department and Microsoft would never have any of their products listed by the organization.
Lord Rybec
13 February 2009
Economy Fix
I have become quite tired with all the stupid arguments over what will or will not fix the economy. In my personal opinion, our economy is so flawed that continuing to run it like we have been is impossible. Even government stimulus is only delaying the inevitable.
Stimulus is like an addiction; the only way to sustain the economy with stimulus is to continue to give it. Once it is being given, it will integrate itself into the economy so totally that removing it will result in a worse crash than not giving it in the first place. The problem is the way businesses are handling assets.
In the past the economy has worked fine without large amounts of consumer debt. If it can't do it now, there is a problem. The solution is not to throw money at the problem. That will only result in dependence. I have a better, albeit harder, solution.
The government is throwing enormous amounts of money at this problem. Part of it is in the current stimulus package and part of it is in public assistance programs (welfare). The government also has plenty of other programs that are costing large amounts of tax money.
Here is my solution:
Take all of that money; temporarily suspend some programs, reduce spending to minimal amounts on others, then divide all of that money among the populace. Send the checks out with pamphlets that tell people that the money should be used to stock up on food and other resources, for coming hard times. Then sit back and watch the economy crash. From the ashes a new, more resilient economy will arise.
Yes, there may be several years where it is very difficult to find food or other resources, but that's what the money was for. The pamphlets should have instructed people on what kinds of resources were available that would last that long. If people chose not to heed the warning, the fault, and consequences are their own.
Many large businesses will fail, but consider this: how long have you been complaining about those big businesses robbing us blind? Yes, it is true, many of them are. I think we will be better off without them! As far as I am concerned, while times may be hard during the recovery at least we would have the opportunity and means to secure resources to hold us over this way. The current policy will only help the businesses, while the rest of us starve.
Lord Rybec
Stimulus is like an addiction; the only way to sustain the economy with stimulus is to continue to give it. Once it is being given, it will integrate itself into the economy so totally that removing it will result in a worse crash than not giving it in the first place. The problem is the way businesses are handling assets.
In the past the economy has worked fine without large amounts of consumer debt. If it can't do it now, there is a problem. The solution is not to throw money at the problem. That will only result in dependence. I have a better, albeit harder, solution.
The government is throwing enormous amounts of money at this problem. Part of it is in the current stimulus package and part of it is in public assistance programs (welfare). The government also has plenty of other programs that are costing large amounts of tax money.
Here is my solution:
Take all of that money; temporarily suspend some programs, reduce spending to minimal amounts on others, then divide all of that money among the populace. Send the checks out with pamphlets that tell people that the money should be used to stock up on food and other resources, for coming hard times. Then sit back and watch the economy crash. From the ashes a new, more resilient economy will arise.
Yes, there may be several years where it is very difficult to find food or other resources, but that's what the money was for. The pamphlets should have instructed people on what kinds of resources were available that would last that long. If people chose not to heed the warning, the fault, and consequences are their own.
Many large businesses will fail, but consider this: how long have you been complaining about those big businesses robbing us blind? Yes, it is true, many of them are. I think we will be better off without them! As far as I am concerned, while times may be hard during the recovery at least we would have the opportunity and means to secure resources to hold us over this way. The current policy will only help the businesses, while the rest of us starve.
Lord Rybec
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)