Kodak to stop making digital cameras

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
I don't recall any advertisements for any of the brands the Duck
mentioned that were endorsed by any celebrity. You seem to be
confusing a "celebrity endorsement" with a "celebrity spokesman".

No, the two are not identical but irrelevant to the point of the discussion.

An endorsement is when someone says "I have used this product" and
then goes on about the value or benefit of the product. The endorser
puts his/her personal stamp of approval on the product. You will see
celebrity endorsements in ads for diets or diet products where a
celebrity says she (usually a "she") has used the product and found it
to be good.

They are careful these days to say "works for me", thereby leaving the fact
it may not work for everyone, or indeed ANYONE else, an unstated, but valid
defence.
Of course there is often no proof it even works for them. (and do you really
want to join Jenny Craig to look like Kirsty Alley :-)


A celebrity spokesman is just a celebrity who appears in the ad in
order to get your attention. The assumption is that you will be more
likely to watch the ad if you recognize and admire the person than you
would be if some unknown model was featured.

Right, assumption. The unknown being how many will it work for Vs the cost
paid to the celebrity, and how effective advertising without said celebrity
would be instead. These are simply judgements made by people paid to make
them, and as we know, simply paying someone does not always mean they are
right!
The people paid to decide who to pay are not always right either :-)

Trevor.

On 2012-02-15 18:02:19 -0800, "Trevor" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2012021423034291745-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
I certainly wouldn't buy any products of those companies because those
individuals "endorse" them, but I would, and have bought items from some
of those companies because I recognized the quality I am prepared to pay
for in some products.
So I own a Canon G11, a Nikon D300s, TAG Heuer, Omega, & Rolex watches,
not because of any advertising, but because they met my criteria for a
purchase in both function and quality.


So you agree that the huge money spent on celebrity endorsements is wasted
on many people. Although your example of TAG, Omega and Rolex proves the
benefit of properly marketing jewelery to people with money I guess.

Trevor.

Yup! It pretty much baffles me why anybody would be influenced to buy
anything because of some celebrity, but obviously there must be some
measured benefit. Personally I would rather let the product shine in
the ad.

My Rolex is my father's 46 year old Datejust which was a gift to him
from my mother. The local jewelry store she used from time to time was
a Rolex dealer so her choice was influenced by a salesman not
advertising. She might just as easily have bought him a Patek Philippe,
or Cartier.
The TAG and the Omega I bought some five years apart. The TAG Chrono
being the older watch, however my daily wearer is the Omega Seamaster
GMT, which has been in use for five years and worn hard without issue.
I like mechanical watches, and I was prepared to pay for the quality
found in both of those. I have a total of $4,200 invested in those two
watches.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
Where?

Canada, I'm guessing. His spelling isn't that of someone from the UK
or Oz, and he seems to not be an American.

Well your'e wrong, it is Australia, but how does that make a difference to
the discussion? After all we slavishly copy all the mistakes the USA has
made in privatising everything, deregulating everything else, encouraging
corporate greed (and taxpayer bailouts when they really stuff up),
increasing corporate welfare at the expense of private welfare, and
increasingly shifting the tax burden from the rich to the poor. :-(

Trevor.

On 2012-02-15 19:53:17 -0800, tony cooper said:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:09:08 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:54:38 +1100, "Trevor" wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...

I don't know where you are. Can you give me an example of the kind of
natural monopoly you have in mind?

Electricity supply, water supply, gas supply etc.

Where?

Canada, I'm guessing. His spelling isn't that of someone from the UK
or Oz, and he seems to not be an American.

Check the time zones. With +1100 I would place him in the heart of Oz,
my best guess being Sydney.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"nospam" wrote in message
...
yes it is easy to compare, and if you do, you will see similar prices
for similar products. however, there's more to a computer than just raw
specs (this is something the bashers never understand).

And you still fail to specify, so I guess that includes you!


What value YOU place on case style or OS is another matter though.

you don't get to pick and choose which specs you want to compare. you
must compare all of them. battery life, weight, display quality and the
operating system matter, and they *are* differentiating features. a lot
of laptops cut corners by using crappy displays, small batteries, etc.

Of course they do, and THEY *can* be compared. The price usually reflects
that fact.



(plenty of *free* Unix versions for the PC of course, and Apple's OS is
just
another unix version!)

if you really think that mac os x is 'just another unix version,' then
you are far more confused than i thought.

If you really think it isn't, then you are more misguided than I thought.


Right, tell us the difference between PC hard drives, CPU's, optical
drives,
RAM, batteries etc and what Apple uses?

no difference, which is exactly why products with similar specs have
similar prices. funny how that works.

IF it were true, then I'd agree. What actually happens is that some
companies use the same components, sell for less, and accept less profit.
THAT is how it works!


ARE laptops Apple's dominant product? I would bet more of their profit
comes
from iPads, iPhones, iPods etc. and their accessories.

roughly 75% of macs sold are laptops. i'd call that dominant.

And 100% of Mac laptops sold are Mac laptops, so what?
(the statement was APPLE PRODUCTS, not Macs.)


this is
not unique to apple either. pc laptops outsell desktops, and have for
well over half a decade. .

IF you only count the major suppliers like Dell etc, since almost all
desktops here are assembled from parts by the shops, and last I checked
items like motherboards were still selling as much or more than laptops.
Just proves the old adage, you can always find statistics to back up your
argument if you are selective enough. However I will agree that the
laptop/notepad market is increasing more rapidly than the desktop market,
and should continue to do so as size and prices fall. So what?


Just what is it other than CPU, RAM, hard drive, optical drive, battery
etc.
you think is worth so much more money?

macs aren't 'so much more money.' as i said before, similar specs mean
similar prices.

As long as you think so, then you are happy. Good for you.

it's a very simple concept. also, pc makers are having
a tough time competing with the macbook air, so much so that they are
asking intel for cheaper parts (link posted before).

Perhaps Apple are getting a better deal and they want the same.


Sort of like Apple did with PARC?

nothing whatsoever. apple paid xerox parc.

Only afterwards!


Still cheaper, and no need for expensive expansion ports either.

wrong. the original galaxy tab was 7" and cost *more* than an ipad. the
current 10" galaxy tab starts at $499, the *same* price as the ipad:
http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab/GT-P7510MAYXAB


Well cheaper here now it's available, but then that's part of my problem,
APPLE has always been a rip off merchant in many countries. We pay far more
here for their products despite the fact our dollar is now worth MORE than
yours!


there is also no need for 'expensive expansion ports' on an ipad.
seriously, where the hell do people come up with this ****?

however, it's funny you should mention expansion ports. you're so
blinded by your hatred of all things apple that you fail to even notice
that the galaxy tab has a separate sd/usb dongle, just like the ipad.
it even looks the same as apple's, other than the colour:

http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab-accessories/EPL-1PLRBEGSTA


OK, not a good example then, many others have SD/USB ports included. Seems
to defeat the idea the Apple iPad is small if you need big adapters hanging
off the side IMO.

competition is good. stealing is not.

That's how Apple got it's start!

absolutely wrong.

Many disagree with you, naturally Apple doesn't! :-)


wrong. the least expensive iphone is free. it's a bit difficult to be
'far cheaper' than free,

OK please send me one, (I'll pay postage) they are expensive here.

no.

As I thought. :-)


and as i said before, the bulk of the cost of
a cellphone is the 2 year contract, not the phone itself.

So NOT free then! The phones are readily available WITHOUT any contract,
so
the cost is well known.

iphones are also available without contract. what's your point? if you
choose an unsubsidized phone, it will cost more up front, regardless of
who makes it.

MY point? :-) The phone is NOT free! (Apple always get paid, as do every
other phone manufacturer)
The cost is simply included in the contract you choose, or DON'T choose if
you buy outright. The PHONE cost can still be compared regardless of plan.
Too hard for you to grasp?


(Are you being deliberately obtuse here, or are you really that stupid?)

it's not me who is being stupid.

Quite obviously you wouldn't know if you were! :-)

Trevor.

In article , Trevor
wrote:

yes it is easy to compare, and if you do, you will see similar prices
for similar products. however, there's more to a computer than just raw
specs (this is something the bashers never understand).

And you still fail to specify, so I guess that includes you!

failed to specify what?

What value YOU place on case style or OS is another matter though.

you don't get to pick and choose which specs you want to compare. you
must compare all of them. battery life, weight, display quality and the
operating system matter, and they *are* differentiating features. a lot
of laptops cut corners by using crappy displays, small batteries, etc.

Of course they do, and THEY *can* be compared. The price usually reflects
that fact.

you've just contradicted yourself. so you agree that similar specs
means similar prices.

(plenty of *free* Unix versions for the PC of course, and Apple's OS is
just another unix version!)

if you really think that mac os x is 'just another unix version,' then
you are far more confused than i thought.

If you really think it isn't, then you are more misguided than I thought.

nothing misguided about it. mac os x is quite a bit more than 'just
another unix version.' allow me to amend my initial comment: if you
think mac os x is just another unix, you're *stupid*.

Right, tell us the difference between PC hard drives, CPU's, optical
drives,
RAM, batteries etc and what Apple uses?

no difference, which is exactly why products with similar specs have
similar prices. funny how that works.

IF it were true, then I'd agree. What actually happens is that some
companies use the same components, sell for less, and accept less profit.
THAT is how it works!

not significantly less, they don't, or they cut corners to cut the
price, which means different specs. you are agreeing with what i'm
saying.

ARE laptops Apple's dominant product? I would bet more of their profit
comes from iPads, iPhones, iPods etc. and their accessories.

roughly 75% of macs sold are laptops. i'd call that dominant.

And 100% of Mac laptops sold are Mac laptops, so what?
(the statement was APPLE PRODUCTS, not Macs.)

you were talking about computers, not all apple products.

this is
not unique to apple either. pc laptops outsell desktops, and have for
well over half a decade. .

IF you only count the major suppliers like Dell etc, since almost all
desktops here are assembled from parts by the shops, and last I checked
items like motherboards were still selling as much or more than laptops.

check again, and custom built pcs are a small minority of what's sold.

Just proves the old adage, you can always find statistics to back up your
argument if you are selective enough. However I will agree that the
laptop/notepad market is increasing more rapidly than the desktop market,
and should continue to do so as size and prices fall. So what?

those shops of yours build laptops? didn't think so. laptop sales have
probably peaked. tablets are on the rise and they are already eating
into netbook sales.

Just what is it other than CPU, RAM, hard drive, optical drive, battery
etc. you think is worth so much more money?

macs aren't 'so much more money.' as i said before, similar specs mean
similar prices.

As long as you think so, then you are happy. Good for you.

i know so. it's a fact, whether you choose to believe it or not.

it's a very simple concept. also, pc makers are having
a tough time competing with the macbook air, so much so that they are
asking intel for cheaper parts (link posted before).

Perhaps Apple are getting a better deal and they want the same.

apple is definitely getting a better deal and not just from intel.
that's why other companies are having a tough time competing on price,
further evidence that the macs are more expensive nonsense is nothing
but bull****.

Sort of like Apple did with PARC?

nothing whatsoever. apple paid xerox parc.

Only afterwards!

wrong again.

Still cheaper, and no need for expensive expansion ports either.

wrong. the original galaxy tab was 7" and cost *more* than an ipad. the
current 10" galaxy tab starts at $499, the *same* price as the ipad:
http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab/GT-P7510MAYXAB

Well cheaper here now it's available, but then that's part of my problem,
APPLE has always been a rip off merchant in many countries. We pay far more
here for their products despite the fact our dollar is now worth MORE than
yours!

you're blaming apple for the exchange rate? wow.

there is also no need for 'expensive expansion ports' on an ipad.
seriously, where the hell do people come up with this ****?

however, it's funny you should mention expansion ports. you're so
blinded by your hatred of all things apple that you fail to even notice
that the galaxy tab has a separate sd/usb dongle, just like the ipad.
it even looks the same as apple's, other than the colour:

http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab-accessories/EPL-1PLRBEGSTA

OK, not a good example then,

nope. not at all. none of your examples have been.

many others have SD/USB ports included. Seems
to defeat the idea the Apple iPad is small if you need big adapters hanging
off the side IMO.

except that the ipad works just fine without any adapters whatsoever.
not everyone is going to plug in a camera. why include what isn't going
to be used much?

competition is good. stealing is not.

That's how Apple got it's start!

absolutely wrong.

Many disagree with you, naturally Apple doesn't! :-)

anyone that knows apple history agrees with me.

and as i said before, the bulk of the cost of
a cellphone is the 2 year contract, not the phone itself.

So NOT free then! The phones are readily available WITHOUT any contract,
so the cost is well known.

iphones are also available without contract. what's your point? if you
choose an unsubsidized phone, it will cost more up front, regardless of
who makes it.

MY point? :-) The phone is NOT free! (Apple always get paid, as do every
other phone manufacturer)

in other words, the cost is similar for similar products. a recurring
theme.

The cost is simply included in the contract you choose, or DON'T choose if
you buy outright. The PHONE cost can still be compared regardless of plan.
Too hard for you to grasp?

i grasped it long ago.

the fact remains that the iphone is *not* more expensive than other
comparable phones.

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:25:32 +1100, "Trevor" wrote:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
.. .
Where?

Canada, I'm guessing. His spelling isn't that of someone from the UK
or Oz, and he seems to not be an American.

Well your'e wrong, it is Australia, but how does that make a difference to
the discussion?

Because it makes a difference to the legislative and regulatory
background behind the operation of these natural monopolies.

After all we slavishly copy all the mistakes the USA has
made in privatising everything, deregulating everything else, encouraging
corporate greed (and taxpayer bailouts when they really stuff up),
increasing corporate welfare at the expense of private welfare, and
increasingly shifting the tax burden from the rich to the poor. :-(

I guess you don't know.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:54:38 +1100, "Trevor" wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .

I don't know where you are. Can you give me an example of the kind of
natural monopoly you have in mind?

Electricity supply, water supply, gas supply etc.


Let's start with electricity. Have you ever heard of any of the stuff
described in
http://www.trade.nsw.gov.au/energy/e...rk-connections
such as the electricity Market Operations Rules, currently
administered by Industry & Investment NSW - Minerals & Energy Division
under the Electricity Supply Act 1995. Do you really want to argue
that your electricity market is unregulated?

Water is a different matter but surely you are aware of e.g. the
Murray Darling Basin Authority.
http://www.mdba.gov.au/water/river_operations It's not very effective
I know but the river is not interested in state boundaries while the
politicians are. For those who don't know it, the Murray and Darling
rivers are very large rivers, in some ways comparable to the
Mississippi. Here is how much water reaches their mouth
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC00338.JPG
This is what happens with ineffective regulation.

How come I know these things about Australia and you don't?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

nospam wrote:

what compression technology might that be? the bulk of smartphone
bandwidth usage are apps and apple has *no* control over what an app
sends and receives, nor does android or any other platform.

The only apps that apple has *no* control over are those that don't go
though the transport layer. Off hand I can't think of any.

totally wrong. apps can send and receive as much or as little data as
they want. all the operating system does it establish the connection,
transfer the bits and provide status & error messages for the app to
handle.

all the operating system does it establish the connection,
transfer the bits and provide status & error messages for the app

This is the transport layer and its job is to get the bits transferred reliably,
the app does not control data transfer implementation. The transport layer
has full control to make as efficiently as possible something the iPhone
does not do very well

w..

Walter Banks wrote:

This is the transport layer and its job is to get the bits transferred reliably,
the app does not control data transfer implementation. The transport layer
has full control to make as efficiently as possible something the iPhone
does not do very well

No, the problem is Steve Jobs. Because Apple skimped on the processor in the
iPhone, it could only play video files with a very limited set of options
when it comes to bitrate, compression method (codec), resolution, etc.

So instead of making a deal Adobe to produce an iPhone compatible flash
system, where it delivered the files that could be played, he pushed the
HTML5 system and went on a Flash war.

The problem with Flash is that there are no limitatons on the choice the
content producer has of compression and there would be a lot of unhappy
iPhone users unable to watch content they wanted.

This leaves iPhone users in a lurch when it comes to content, they really
have to take only the files prepared for them within the limitations of
their hardware.

Android users have no such limitations, they can play whatever they can
download up to the maximum their device supports and many of the files
in flash form are much smaller.


Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(