|
Wordle 685 6/6
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟨⬜🟨
⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨
⬜🟨🟨⬜🟨
🟨🟨⬜🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Hard one, had to look it up (I still had a few options, but I didn't see any of them, guessed correct) 
|
|
|
|
|
I got the vowels from my starters then did my usual alphabetic scan and got lucky
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 685 5/6*
⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟨
🟩🟩⬜⬜🟨
🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 685 3/6*
🟨🟩⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 685 2/6
⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
whoa. one my best
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
From this CodeProject Article
How to Setup Blue Iris and CodeProject.AI Server on Windows Using a Wyze Cam[^]
From there is mentions a product so I was looking at the pricing for that.
Home - Blue Iris Software[^]
They have two options.
1. $40 for 1 camera
2. $80 for 64 cameras.
Does anyone else think that is a bit extreme? Shouldn't there be a middle ground?
And more so I am think the high end price is low. Seems like maybe a home setup might be 8 cameras and then small commercial setting might be 64. And the commercial one could afford more. Also those appear to be one time fees (does not actually document anything about what support might include.)
Also just curious what the effective storage needs would really be for 64 cameras. Probably want to store those for review for at least a while so does anyone know what size would be needed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a software, not the camera.
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
As a European customer I only get one option: EUR 96,65 
|
|
|
|
|
That's odd, they're offering me the "useless version" as well (somehow $40 translates to €48.30).
They're letting me pay via iDEAL so they at least know what they're doing in that regard.
|
|
|
|
|
When I use the mentioned link, I see it too.
But not when I Google Blue Iris and go to their main website ... 
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure what you're seeing on your end, but what I see is a big [Buy Now] button which I ignore, scroll down, then there are the [Full Version] and [LE Version] options
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, lesson learned: never press the big blue Buy button!
|
|
|
|
|
To me, it reads like the standard version, which supports up to 64 cameras, is the higher price. There's also a "lite" version, supporting a single camera (and hence presumably not including various other features, like multi-camera view, camera selection and switching etc) for a reduced price. Which makes sense - if you've got really basic needs, with just a single camera, you can still access the core functionality. Once you've licensed the more complex software, with multi-camera capability, they're not charging you more whether you have 2, 10, 20 or 60 cameras. Remember the pricing is just for the software license, not for the hardware.
|
|
|
|
|
I understand the pricing. What I don't understand is how they decided to charge that and to only have two versions. Especially given that the second is so much more functional.
|
|
|
|
|
well, just that. Either the full version (that includes multi-camera support); or a cut-down "lite" version that doesn't. As soon as you want more than one camera, you need multi-camera support, by definition.
|
|
|
|
|
Still a question about how the decision was made for the specific pricing model.
For example consider the following model.
1. 1 camera $40
2. 16 camera $80
3. 32 camera $200
4. 64 camera $1000
First is to experiment.
Second is a home system or small business.
Third is a medium business.
Fourth is a larger business (not national corporation but rather a single operation which has quite a bit of space.) Perhaps for example a larger self storage operation with indoor and outdoor storage.
|
|
|
|
|
That involves artificially building in additional logic to entirely arbitrarily limit the number of cameras. And you'd probably need a way to upgrade when a 16-user customer wants to add another one.
Maybe the company just want to keep it really simple. "Lite" version or "Normal" version. It's a pricing model I've used for licensed software in the past. Easy to build, easy to sell, easy to support. Wish more companies did it.
|
|
|
|
|
DerekT-P wrote: That involves artificially building in additional logic to entirely arbitrarily limit the number of cameras
Of course. So?
One of Microsoft OS versions did exactly that. There was a flag that turned it from Home to Professional.
DerekT-P wrote: And you'd probably need a way to upgrade when a 16-user customer wants to add another one.
And thus more money. Which is the point of companies.
DerekT-P wrote: Maybe the company just want to keep it really simple
Yes but the point is to actually make money. Otherwise give it away for free. That is why picking a pricing model is so important.
Especially with a product like this where it would be easy to differentiate.
|
|
|
|
|
So there is a cheap single-camera version, and a more expensive multi-camera version that can handle up to 64 cameras.
Fair enough. You want another multi-camera version with a different (lower) max limit on # of cameras. Like a sound editor that can handle a file at a time in the 'basic' version but can mix up to 64 sound files in the 'pro' version, and you request a 'semi-pro' version that can mix up to 16 sound files. Maybe even a 'low-pro' version for 32 files. I don't think you will get it. Either you have the 'multi' functionality or you don't.
You may think that paying twice as much for the 'multi' capable version is a lot. My immediate reaction is that I'd expect an even bigger price difference. Handling multiple streams introduces so much added complexity (which is very little dependent on the number of streams once you go from 1 to 2) that it should be reflected in a significantly higher price tag.
I do not think that $40 for the 'multi' functionality is any terrible overpricing.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: You want another multi-camera version with a different (lower) max limi
No. The question is about the pricing model. The price to me does not matter. But rather that they could certainly charge more for the largest one.
To me the first version is rather trivial. Except for experimenting I don't really see that, for most cases, it is useful. Certainly not, for example, sufficient to provide a home security set up.
But the only other solution seems like over kill for anything except a business which is not that small. For example a corner store would not need that many cameras. But perhaps a gas/grocery with multiple pumps and inside isles might be getting up to that limit. But for that need then they can afford, especially as a one time cost, more than that. If nothing else consider the cost of the cameras and installation in comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
So the model with 'single' functionality is not useful, but the 'multi' version that can handle 64 cameras is overkill.
Maybe you could ask for something like that in, say, Windows as well: Being able to open hundreds of windows is overkill; you want a cheaper Windows that handles only a few windows. Or, NTFS easily handles a million files; you want to pay less for a file system handling at most 65535 files.
Here in Norway, the highest speed limit is 110 km/h. I find it unreasonable that all the cars offered can easily reach 200 km/h. I want a car that is identical with that, but locked at 110 km/h at a lower price. Why can't I get it?
I never take more than 256 MByte worth of pictures with my digital camera before emptying them to my PC. Why can't I buy a memory card with 1/128 the capacity of a 32 GByte card at 1/128 the price? I don't need those 32 GBytes!
Sorry, if you want offerings in the market to be tailor made to fit your needs exactly, then you'll have to pay the price for a tailor made suit. I guarantee you that it won't be cheaper than a standard suit.
Half of multi-stream handling is still multi-stream handling. Halving the number of streams makes no simplification of software development and maintenance.
Sometimes manufacturers decide to sell a product below production cost to capture low-budget customers (hoping that the budget of these customers may grow in the future). In the early 1980s I worked for a company making 32-bit superminis. The company could afford developing a 'cheap' line for low-budget customers; they had to capture them by selling the standard model cheap. So they were searching for ways to 'castrate' the cheap model. One proposal - a serious one, not meant as a joke - was to insert wait cycles in the microcode between every macro-instruction, to slow the machine down. The winning proposal was a better one: Pull out the cache memory. That saved about USD 40,000 in component costs - that is how expensive cache memory was 40 years ago! You can more than triple it for the price level of today.
Lots of complex software packages is offered in similar 'castrated' versions, usually disabling some function that you really need, so that you will regret not buying the full version. You make it sound like you want the complete functionality of the full version, only with a lower number of cameras. You won't get that. If the manufacturer made an 'intermediate level', you can be assured that a handful of essential multi-channel functions would be disabled.
Second: No manufacturer would take that effort to save you $20 ($60 rather than $80)! How many BigMac is that? $20 is small change. Maybe the vendor would it to offer you a machine at $20,000 less (or even a software package - there is software costing that much).
So 1 camera is the toy version. The 'real' version sells at $80. If you need the real version, pay the $80, and don't worry about the software having higher capacity limits than you need, functions that you don't use. All software is like that.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: Sorry, if you want offerings in the market to be tailor made to fit your needs exactly
Seems to be some confusion about what I am asking.
I don't care how they sell the product.
I was starting a conversation about how that company decided to do their price modeling. Thus the process through which an individual or company makes a decision on how to price the product/service.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: I was starting a conversation about how that company decided to do their price modeling.
The problem is that you completely refuse to accept that is twice as costly (actually, the factor is probably higher) is sold for twice the price. You seem to insist that reducing an array size will reduce development and maintenance cost so much that the product should be sold for a significantly lower price.
That is an incorrect assumption. The same program system with half as big a camera connection array costs just as much to maintain as a full capacity one. The company has no justification at all, based on real costs, for selling an 8 or 16 camera version any cheaper than a 64 camera version.
So if they followed your line of thought, reducing the array size to 8 and disable a few essential functions, and then raise the price tag for the 64 camera model to $120, you would have it your way: A fewer-camera (and reduced functionality) model at a lower price than the full blown one. It would be your way, but not cheaper for you. It would be to suck the maximum amount of money from the market, regardless of their own real expenses.
This is not according to my ideals. I do not want a manufacturer to manipulate prices to squeeze the market. Ideally, the sales price of any product should reflect the real cost of manufacturing it - obviously with a not unreasonable margin for the manufacturers return on investment, transportation costs and things like that. I strongly dislike when two products with identical production costs are sold at significantly different prices for the sole purpose of market manipulation.
I have tried to get this through in my previous entry: This is my thought about the price modeling of this company. That it is sound and right. You seem to be unwilling to understand that I have been talking about the price modeling all the time, by supporting the price model that they have today.
I am sorry for that. I clearly see that you are searching for someone agreeing with you, that this price modeling is horrible, that you should be able to get an 8-camera version for a significantly lower price than the 64-camera version. When I do not support you in this, you apparently refuse to see that I am talking about the price modeling.
Bottom line, if you still are unable to relate my comments to the price modeling:
I support that company's price modeling. I do not support your demand for a cheaper version for fewer cameras.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: The problem is that you completely refuse to accept that is twice as costly (actually, the factor is probably higher) is sold for twice the price. You seem to insist that reducing an array size will reduce development and maintenance cost so much that the product should be sold for a significantly lower price.
I didn't say anything at all about any of that.
trønderen wrote: This is not according to my ideals. I do not want a manufacturer to manipulate prices to squeeze the market
Then you probably are not the best one to discuss actual price modeling.
The fact is that successful companies make money. The more money they make the more likely that they will continue to exist. And do other things like support the product when OS/hardware changes occur. And a specific example in this case might be that if there is a problem with a specific camera vendor the company can afford to and might find it profitable to buy the camera and figure out the problem.
trønderen wrote: that you should be able to get an 8-camera version for a significantly lower price than the 64-camera version.
No that doesn't state what I said. I pointed out that in the market there will be different types of users and those users will have different needs. Thus the company could provide different product offerings appropriate for those types and, to the benefit of the company, make more money.
trønderen wrote: I do not support your demand for a cheaper version for fewer cameras.
First I didn't "demand" anything.
Second I did not request that it be "cheaper". Exactly the opposite in the example I suggested in that it should be more expensive for the the current top offering. That is then offset with the addition of one or more midline offerings.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
