At present migrants who invest substantial sums in gilts or in British registered companies can apply for permanent residence. A million pounds ($1.7m) gets them leave to remain after five years; £5m reduces the waiting time to three years and £10m to two. They need not speak English and can bring their families. Between 2009 and 2013 Britain flogged 1,628 such visas, about half to Chinese and Russians. The market is heating up: 560 went last year.
This system is deeply flawed. The minimum investment level has not gone up since 1994. Because the value of an investment must remain above £1m until residency is granted, most applicants pile into low-risk gilts, for which buyers are already plentiful.
These could be auctioned off with a reserve price of £2.5m. Anything above the minimum investment would go into a pot to be spent on good causes.
An auction would have two clear advantages over the current system: the number of visas could be easily controlled, and they would sell for more. A revenue-maximising government should prefer an auction based on single sealed bids, as the committee suggests.
If you think the recent announcement from the Canadian government to cancel the millionaire Visa is because they want less foreigners than you are flat out wrong. If you have a product that you sell for $600,000 and you have a waitlist of over 40,000 then the economically rational thing to do is raise prices.
I’d like to share with you how we managed this evolution. First, I’ll talk about how we changed our culture to make testing a first class citizen. Next, I’ll discuss some of the tooling we’ve put in place to make it easier for our team to write and run tests. Finally, I’ll talk about some of the testing challenges we’ve faced while working with specialized code and an increasingly service oriented architecture.
I always fret about automated testing on projects that I am on. It’s good to see that even developers at multi-billion dollar companies fret about it, too.
Everyone in that arena knew exactly what was going on. They knew what the Seahawks fans knew. They knew what Mavs fans know. They know that they are not just observers, they are participants. Teams take pride in their “6th man” or their “12th man”. The fans that cheer them on and provide energy to help them rally through fatigue. The only people who take more pride than the teams in their 6th man are the fans themselves.
So how can sports marketers learn from all of this ? Here are some guidelines.
Know where your team is in their “lifecycle”.
Know who your long time fans/customers are.
Price to the market, not to maximize revenue.
Fans buy tickets where they like to buy them
Selling is the most important job at a team
Spend money on fun.
The Canucks (and Canucks fans) could learn a lot from Mark Cuban. I hope he finds his way into the NHL somehow.
Consider the hypothetical Acme Saddle Company. They could just sell saddles, and if so, they’d probably be selling on the basis of things like the quality of the leather they use or the fancy adornments their saddles include; they could be selling on the range of styles and sizes available, or on durability, or on price.
Or, they could sell horseback riding. Being successful at selling horseback riding means they grow the market for their product while giving the perfect context for talking about their saddles. It lets them position themselves as the leader and affords them different kinds of marketing and promotion opportunities (e.g., sponsoring school programs to promote riding to kids, working on land conservation or trail maps). It lets them think big and potentially be big.
There are many reasons why the Red Hat model doesn’t work, but its key point of failure is that the business model simply does not enable adequate funding of ongoing investments. The consequence of the model is minimal product differentiation resulting in limited pricing power and corresponding lack of revenue.
The winning open source model turns open source 1.0 on its head. By packaging open source into a service (as in cloud computing or software-as-a-service) or as a software or hardware appliance, companies can monetize open source with a far more robust and flexible model, encouraging innovation, and on-going investment in software development.
I’ve been in the camp that says Objective-C’s incremental improvements will get it there, that we don’t need a revolution. We can have great performance and a great language and frameworks at the same time.
But the one thing that’s made me consider changing my mind is how fast devices are getting. Performance changes the calculations.
New languages don’t have to be slower. Go is pretty darn fast even at this early of a stage.
To summarize: a new developer platform includes a language designed for concurrency and safety, tools better tuned for writing/reading/debugging code, and powerful frameworks for building apps that can easily talk to our friends, apps, services, and devices. Such a platform would be very well suited for the current hardware we own (laptops, phones, tablets, TVs) and can expand to other device categories like smart watches, cars, appliances, and office tools. It would help us make better, safer, more secure, and more stable software.
If you accept the premise that programming language abstraction increases over time, then consider where Objective-C is on our progression. Pointers. C-based APIs. No virtual machine. Ugh.
So Objective-C is a little behind, so what? It has benefits, after all. Being close to the metal has made performance better on resource-constrained iOS devices.
Sure, but that’s not the point. The point isn’t that Objective-C needs to be replaced today, but rather that eventually, progress in programming languages is going to leave it behind. Someday, someday soon, writing Objective-C as we know it today will seem as antiquated as writing assembly. That’s going to hurt Apple.
I’ve been doing Android/Java development for the last little while. From where I’m sitting, Objective-C is actually miles ahead of other environments.