R
Ralph Mackiewicz
> Yes, we do disagree again but mostly because you mischaracterise the
> principles involved and like almost all of these types of posts, you
> exaggerate to paint us black.
I'm not using any colors that aren't provided for me by posts just like this one.
> No one disagrees with capatalism, I believe we all expect to get
> paid for a days work. I run a business for profit occasionally, I
> am a republican, although I don't register these days. I am far
> from a socialist or communist. Profit is not evil. The whole thing
> is more about value. If you run out of gas, out in the middle of
> noplace, you walk to the only station for miles, and the guy
> charges you $50.00 for a gallon of gas and a can, I suppose you
> would smile and congratulate him for being a shrewd businessman.
I certainly would not be smiling. But if you don't recognize that a gallon of gas is worth more in the middle of no place than it is on a street corner with 15 other gas stations within a 1/4 mile then you certainly do not understand what you claim to agree with: capitalism.
This is not a shrewd businessman either. He is stupid. That is why places that do this will remain dirt poor dumps in the middle of
nowhere. A shrewd businessman would try to make his customers happy by giving him good service at a fair price. In that case, the next time I drove by that out of the way place I would stop and fill up even if I didn't need gas. If I was charged $50 you can be pretty darn sure that guy would never get another penny from me as long as I lived.
> I suppose he would be even shrewder if he arranged for you to run
> out of gas or if he put a cup of water in the gas so you could
> experience his towing service and car repair service.
No. Putting water in my tank is criminal. You are attempting to insuate an equivalence between companies that aren't smart enough to see how open systems benefits their bottom line and companies that purposely sabotage their customer's equipment in order to extract
money from customers in a criminally fraudelent manner. You are the one making these equivocations between legal consensual commercial
activity and criminal behavior. I'm simply pointing out that for this to really be true you must be assuming that profit is morally wrong
if it is obtained by consensually selling proprietary technology. If you don't like me pointing this out, stop making these assertions.
> Profit is not at all evil, any good or evil is all in how you earn
> it. And this sense that there are lines that should not be crossed
> is certainly not mine alone, it is present in almost everyone. Some
> people lose track of it when they are the guy getting the $50.00,
> yet find it again if they run out of gas. I merely think we should
> be consistant in the view that someone is getting ripped off. We
> can then argue about whether it's right or wrong. It should be easy
> to gain a consensus.
Just because you don't personally agree with a consensual commercial arrangement involving proprietary technology doesn't make it wrong.
You continually want to put this in moral terms. The point I was trying to make before, and that John Dvorak made much better and much
briefer, is that putting it in moral terms when everybody else wants it in technical and economic terms is not an effective way to get your message across. You are simply distracting people from looking at the very useful technology you claim to be promoting.
> It seems what we have is simply a disagreement in how much
> manipulation and extortion is allowable.
I'm not the one painting this picture black. These are your words here. Once again you state the underlying theme: a company that develops some property and charges what people are willing to pay is involved in manipulation and extortion. This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that is what I would call "cultish" and "anti-profit". The
idea that companies that sell proprietary technology and actually charge for it are "extorting" (a criminal activity) money from their unwitting customers. This is pure BS. The companies that charge for their proprietary technology are doing so becuase their investors
demand that they show a profit. To continue using the rhetoric of criminality when discussing what most normal people refer to as "commerce" indicates to me that you must somehow think profit is bad. You don't claim that it is simply overpriced. The claim is made that this is bad and you imply criminal behavior. If you don't think that this is criminal then don't use the words. And just for the record, I don't think ANY extortion should be allowed...period. If you think that any level of extortion should be allowed then that is another area that we disagree with.
> You see, I think a person should have a free choice to buy or not
> buy additional products from a vendor based on their merit and
> value.
Everybody has that choice. Nobody is forced through a threat of violence (ie. extorted) to buy any automation products. People that buy proprietary systems are making completely voluntary economic decisions to do so.
> Most customers think that way also, and can be quite disappointed
> when they find out that they have been locked in. You might change
> this to protecting their profits or some other crisp business
> euphemism, but the fact remains that the customer was intentionally
> wronged.
No euphemism is needed. If the customer doesn't like buying proprietary products he shouldn't buy them. They were not intentionally wronged (in a moral sense) in any way shape or form.
> You might even pretend that you don't know what I am talking about
> or change the subject to attitude or attitudes or even hint at
> political persuasion rather than accept that someone is doing
> something less than honorable in the name of profit.
I'm not going to pretend anything. Up until this post I had no idea what your political affiliation was. I never thought you were a
communist because I had no personal first-hand knowledge (frankly, if you "own" anything at all then you are obviously not a communist).
All I know is the words posted here which to me indicates excactly what I said in my previous post. I see no problem at all from a moral perspective with companies selling proprietary technology nor do I have any problem at all from a moral perspective with customers buying proprietary technology. I think open technology makes a heck of a lot more economic sense. When my customers ask me why, I reply with technical and economic justifications, not moral ones.
> If you wish to discuss the issues that's fine, but it quickly boils
> down to the fact that I think some of these tactics are just plain
> wrong and I'm trying to do things another way. Rather than flag waving
> or questioning my motives, why don't you explain what makes them
> right? The view that they are right because we wish to give away
> software is illogical. The view that it is right because it makes them
> money is, well........
I'm not questioning your motives, I am questioning your assertions. I know that you feel passionately about the rightousness of your cause. That is obvious. I think that by trying to couch proprietary technology in a moral blanket of evil (their profit is bad...mine is good) will only prevent people from seeing the true technical and economic benefits of what you are doing.
Sincerely,
Ralph Mackiewicz
SISCO, Inc.
> principles involved and like almost all of these types of posts, you
> exaggerate to paint us black.
I'm not using any colors that aren't provided for me by posts just like this one.
> No one disagrees with capatalism, I believe we all expect to get
> paid for a days work. I run a business for profit occasionally, I
> am a republican, although I don't register these days. I am far
> from a socialist or communist. Profit is not evil. The whole thing
> is more about value. If you run out of gas, out in the middle of
> noplace, you walk to the only station for miles, and the guy
> charges you $50.00 for a gallon of gas and a can, I suppose you
> would smile and congratulate him for being a shrewd businessman.
I certainly would not be smiling. But if you don't recognize that a gallon of gas is worth more in the middle of no place than it is on a street corner with 15 other gas stations within a 1/4 mile then you certainly do not understand what you claim to agree with: capitalism.
This is not a shrewd businessman either. He is stupid. That is why places that do this will remain dirt poor dumps in the middle of
nowhere. A shrewd businessman would try to make his customers happy by giving him good service at a fair price. In that case, the next time I drove by that out of the way place I would stop and fill up even if I didn't need gas. If I was charged $50 you can be pretty darn sure that guy would never get another penny from me as long as I lived.
> I suppose he would be even shrewder if he arranged for you to run
> out of gas or if he put a cup of water in the gas so you could
> experience his towing service and car repair service.
No. Putting water in my tank is criminal. You are attempting to insuate an equivalence between companies that aren't smart enough to see how open systems benefits their bottom line and companies that purposely sabotage their customer's equipment in order to extract
money from customers in a criminally fraudelent manner. You are the one making these equivocations between legal consensual commercial
activity and criminal behavior. I'm simply pointing out that for this to really be true you must be assuming that profit is morally wrong
if it is obtained by consensually selling proprietary technology. If you don't like me pointing this out, stop making these assertions.
> Profit is not at all evil, any good or evil is all in how you earn
> it. And this sense that there are lines that should not be crossed
> is certainly not mine alone, it is present in almost everyone. Some
> people lose track of it when they are the guy getting the $50.00,
> yet find it again if they run out of gas. I merely think we should
> be consistant in the view that someone is getting ripped off. We
> can then argue about whether it's right or wrong. It should be easy
> to gain a consensus.
Just because you don't personally agree with a consensual commercial arrangement involving proprietary technology doesn't make it wrong.
You continually want to put this in moral terms. The point I was trying to make before, and that John Dvorak made much better and much
briefer, is that putting it in moral terms when everybody else wants it in technical and economic terms is not an effective way to get your message across. You are simply distracting people from looking at the very useful technology you claim to be promoting.
> It seems what we have is simply a disagreement in how much
> manipulation and extortion is allowable.
I'm not the one painting this picture black. These are your words here. Once again you state the underlying theme: a company that develops some property and charges what people are willing to pay is involved in manipulation and extortion. This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that is what I would call "cultish" and "anti-profit". The
idea that companies that sell proprietary technology and actually charge for it are "extorting" (a criminal activity) money from their unwitting customers. This is pure BS. The companies that charge for their proprietary technology are doing so becuase their investors
demand that they show a profit. To continue using the rhetoric of criminality when discussing what most normal people refer to as "commerce" indicates to me that you must somehow think profit is bad. You don't claim that it is simply overpriced. The claim is made that this is bad and you imply criminal behavior. If you don't think that this is criminal then don't use the words. And just for the record, I don't think ANY extortion should be allowed...period. If you think that any level of extortion should be allowed then that is another area that we disagree with.
> You see, I think a person should have a free choice to buy or not
> buy additional products from a vendor based on their merit and
> value.
Everybody has that choice. Nobody is forced through a threat of violence (ie. extorted) to buy any automation products. People that buy proprietary systems are making completely voluntary economic decisions to do so.
> Most customers think that way also, and can be quite disappointed
> when they find out that they have been locked in. You might change
> this to protecting their profits or some other crisp business
> euphemism, but the fact remains that the customer was intentionally
> wronged.
No euphemism is needed. If the customer doesn't like buying proprietary products he shouldn't buy them. They were not intentionally wronged (in a moral sense) in any way shape or form.
> You might even pretend that you don't know what I am talking about
> or change the subject to attitude or attitudes or even hint at
> political persuasion rather than accept that someone is doing
> something less than honorable in the name of profit.
I'm not going to pretend anything. Up until this post I had no idea what your political affiliation was. I never thought you were a
communist because I had no personal first-hand knowledge (frankly, if you "own" anything at all then you are obviously not a communist).
All I know is the words posted here which to me indicates excactly what I said in my previous post. I see no problem at all from a moral perspective with companies selling proprietary technology nor do I have any problem at all from a moral perspective with customers buying proprietary technology. I think open technology makes a heck of a lot more economic sense. When my customers ask me why, I reply with technical and economic justifications, not moral ones.
> If you wish to discuss the issues that's fine, but it quickly boils
> down to the fact that I think some of these tactics are just plain
> wrong and I'm trying to do things another way. Rather than flag waving
> or questioning my motives, why don't you explain what makes them
> right? The view that they are right because we wish to give away
> software is illogical. The view that it is right because it makes them
> money is, well........
I'm not questioning your motives, I am questioning your assertions. I know that you feel passionately about the rightousness of your cause. That is obvious. I think that by trying to couch proprietary technology in a moral blanket of evil (their profit is bad...mine is good) will only prevent people from seeing the true technical and economic benefits of what you are doing.
Sincerely,
Ralph Mackiewicz
SISCO, Inc.