3 ms·

If you know a way to reduce the cost of moving data to zero, could you share it with the class?

harry8 7y ago
Flip it around. How high does that cost have to be before it stops being excellent value in this case? Why would you assume zero is the only cost that makes sense here, that's insane! edit: On reflection I think you've got a meaning from what I said that isn't quite right. The cost of moving is one of the things that might make this market inefficient. Anything that is a barrier to entry, a barrier to switching provider contributes to market inefficiency. It's an economic term worth knowing as people bandy it about here a bit. Barriers to entry, imperfect information, market power of suppliers (here), nonzero selling costs, nonzero switching costs all contribute. The question in most markets is to what extent do they contribute? How inefficient is it? Here paying money for gross incompetence when you found that out you'd be pretty determined to dump the supplier because you've been conned, and conned badly. Now you are aware of being exposed to a large risk, ever increasing legally once you do nothing when you clearly know the risk exists. So it's a good measure of how efficient this market is because nobody of any competence or sanity wants to stay with this supplier anymore.
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  The dominant cost here is switching cost. Data has mass-like characteristics. It exhibits inertia, momentum and gravity. To move data from one to another requires three terms: you need to be moving at least as fast as the production rate, you need to be accelerating at least fast as the production rate is and then, on top of those, you need additional movement speed to be able to move the original accumulation. For the market to be perfectly competitive in an economic sense, switching costs would have to be zero. Hence my original smartarsery. I think it's more likely that they'll call their lawyers and haggle for a few bucks off the next renewal.
  - harry8 7y ago
    You wanted service, you got a punch in the face. So negotiate a small discount while leaving yourself wide open for being sued? Crazy! These guys are a huge risk of not being around in a year. That's some kind of market inefficiency right there. How bad would this service have to be to dump the supplier? It's actually kind of hard to imagine this being worse, don't you think? It's not my area but I'm pretty sure I can design a parallel solution to get away from the vampires relatively quickly. Start collecting current data somewhere else in parallel to the existing. Move all the existing data, take as as long as that takes. Switch of the tap to the legacy vampires when it's done and the new, up-to-date collection has full history. Pay to get it done. Sue your former suppliers for the entire cost on account of them being fundamentally incompetent and dishonest. Dare them to fight it. Tell them just how much you're looking forward to discovery which by necessity will not be confidential. "How famous do you want to be?" Give interviews about how you don't put up with this kind of standover nonsense. Seriously you can't have these idiots as suppliers. You really can't. We can't have them survive in the industry and simultaneously have self-respect, surely. Airlines with planes that crash that aren't their fault go broke. These guys surviving this, just no. They need to die and be condemned to the hell of writing blog posts on medium about what they learned from their total abject and utter failure. Attunity customers who stick with them should be sued for treating their own customers health, safety and wellbeing with contempt. No fortune 100 customer agreed to that risk. A few bucks off the renewal? Just no.
    - jacques_chester 7y ago
      I'm not Attunity and I'm not defending them. I'm explaining why some companies will have different preferences from yours (and, to some degree, mine).

Flip it around. How high does that cost have to be before it stops being excellent value in this case? Why would you assume zero is the only cost that makes sense here, that's insane! edit: On reflection I think you've got a meaning from what I said that isn't quite right. The cost of moving is one of the things that might make this market inefficient. Anything that is a barrier to entry, a barrier to switching provider contributes to market inefficiency. It's an economic term worth knowing as people bandy it about here a bit. Barriers to entry, imperfect information, market power of suppliers (here), nonzero selling costs, nonzero switching costs all contribute. The question in most markets is to what extent do they contribute? How inefficient is it? Here paying money for gross incompetence when you found that out you'd be pretty determined to dump the supplier because you've been conned, and conned badly. Now you are aware of being exposed to a large risk, ever increasing legally once you do nothing when you clearly know the risk exists. So it's a good measure of how efficient this market is because nobody of any competence or sanity wants to stay with this supplier anymore.

jacques_chester 7y ago
The dominant cost here is switching cost. Data has mass-like characteristics. It exhibits inertia, momentum and gravity. To move data from one to another requires three terms: you need to be moving at least as fast as the production rate, you need to be accelerating at least fast as the production rate is and then, on top of those, you need additional movement speed to be able to move the original accumulation. For the market to be perfectly competitive in an economic sense, switching costs would have to be zero. Hence my original smartarsery. I think it's more likely that they'll call their lawyers and haggle for a few bucks off the next renewal.
- harry8 7y ago
  You wanted service, you got a punch in the face. So negotiate a small discount while leaving yourself wide open for being sued? Crazy! These guys are a huge risk of not being around in a year. That's some kind of market inefficiency right there. How bad would this service have to be to dump the supplier? It's actually kind of hard to imagine this being worse, don't you think? It's not my area but I'm pretty sure I can design a parallel solution to get away from the vampires relatively quickly. Start collecting current data somewhere else in parallel to the existing. Move all the existing data, take as as long as that takes. Switch of the tap to the legacy vampires when it's done and the new, up-to-date collection has full history. Pay to get it done. Sue your former suppliers for the entire cost on account of them being fundamentally incompetent and dishonest. Dare them to fight it. Tell them just how much you're looking forward to discovery which by necessity will not be confidential. "How famous do you want to be?" Give interviews about how you don't put up with this kind of standover nonsense. Seriously you can't have these idiots as suppliers. You really can't. We can't have them survive in the industry and simultaneously have self-respect, surely. Airlines with planes that crash that aren't their fault go broke. These guys surviving this, just no. They need to die and be condemned to the hell of writing blog posts on medium about what they learned from their total abject and utter failure. Attunity customers who stick with them should be sued for treating their own customers health, safety and wellbeing with contempt. No fortune 100 customer agreed to that risk. A few bucks off the renewal? Just no.
  - jacques_chester 7y ago
    I'm not Attunity and I'm not defending them. I'm explaining why some companies will have different preferences from yours (and, to some degree, mine).