And be sure to tell the pitcher your thoughts about the baseball playbook before he pitches.
Blackmagic Raises Price of Many Items
- Thread starter jonpais
- Start date
And be sure to tell the pitcher your thoughts about the baseball playbook before he pitches.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Is that a joke? My biggest client is constantly surveilling the work of their primary competitor to pick up style cues. (And personnel are constantly passing back and forth between the two companies, getting promotions each time they do)
It is.
JAMedia
Well-known member
As it happens I own an electronics company. For various reasons (I can give you the full chapter and verse story) there has been a global shortage of electronics components since mid 2020. This shortage is unlikely to easy until Q2 2023. At the moment for many CPU's and MCU's prices have gone up drastically. One $4 MCU was going for $40 per unit (if you can get it). Many parts are simply unavailable and low volume users like BMD will not be at the front of any queue. The costs of IC's (silicon) parts for kit like BMD equipment could disappear the profit margin IF they can get the parts.
Also it is not just build costs. BMD has a large R&D department to fund. Innovation does not come cheap.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
And I would gladly accept your money.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Hey, this reminds me of the time I was shooting stills at a college baseball game. I was near third base shooting the batter. I heard the ball hit the bat but I couldn't tell where it went. I dropped the camera to see where the action was going to be and the ball was coming right at my face. I just barely had time to duck out of the way and feel it brush past my hair. Yeah, I had hair back then. Closest I ever came to really getting seriously injured at an event.
NorBro
Major Contributor
About 15 years ago, I was at a women's field hockey game grabbing b-roll on the field.
I had the camera on the turf filming a timelapse (not a real one but video for a few minutes that would be later sped up in post) and a ball came rolling right at its side and completely ripped off the battery.
The camera wasn't damaged but the latches that held in the battery were gone.
The odds of the camera and the ball perfectly meeting at that angle were probably up there.
I had the camera on the turf filming a timelapse (not a real one but video for a few minutes that would be later sped up in post) and a ball came rolling right at its side and completely ripped off the battery.
The camera wasn't damaged but the latches that held in the battery were gone.
The odds of the camera and the ball perfectly meeting at that angle were probably up there.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
A few years ago I was shooting at a national Lacrosse championship game and they had a bunch of booths and activities setup outside the stadium for fans. At one of the booths kid swould take a Lacrosse stick and try to shoot a ball through a hole in a canvas wall about 30' feet away to win a prize. I shot a bunch of b-roll of kids shooting the ball and nobody ever came close to the hole, so I went around back and stuck my Fujinon Betacam lens through the hole for a nice POV shot. The very next kid put the ball right into the hole and hit my lens head on, thus shattering the glass. I though, oh **** I've just ruined my $20K lens, but even worse, I'd have no lens for the rest of the shoot. Fortunately when I looked at the damage it had only shattered the Tiffen Soft F/X filter I always had on my lens. Lesson learned.
I stil have the filter. The client said they would send me a copy of the footage, but of course, they never did. I love being able to record my own proxy files these days so I never have to ask for footage.
I stil have the filter. The client said they would send me a copy of the footage, but of course, they never did. I love being able to record my own proxy files these days so I never have to ask for footage.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Yeah except they were not told they couldn’t work anywhere else. They had an agreement not to poach employees between a few large companies. So Google couldn’t just call up a lead developer or project manager at Apple and snatch them away knowing they are working on a certain project of interest. These employees could actively look for other jobs if they wanted to.
big difference.
I’m not sure how Google and Apple agreeing to not poach talent from each other is breaking any kind of a law or immoral in any way. Poaching meaning actively try to snatch employees from each other. If an employee is unhappy at one company and wants a career change that’s a different story. Employees fired, quit or laid off could apply anywhere they want to. I’m pretty sure this lawsuit was strictly about poaching.
lots of companies have similar rules. I used to work for a software development company where we were consultants that would go and work for other companies that needed help. There were strict rules with those clients that they couldn’t offer us a job for one year after the contract ended. That’s so companies couldn’t use consulting companies as a back door free trial talent search. Consultants would be snatched up every ten minutes if there were no such rules in place.
employees would get to test out clients as well to see if they would want to work there and then just leave the consulting company. It would be a huge mess.
like I said before poaching is an ugly practice. This has nothing to do with employees rights.
plus this is why there are 3rd party recruiters now. They are the ones doing the poaching now. Knowingly poaching talent from company A to company B. Is the world better off with them and this process now common? Not really. It’s the same as it ever was. Except I now get contacted on a daily basis by some recruiter trying to convince me to go to mother company. It’s kind of annoying actually. It’s so much noise I tend to just ignore them now. One half are scams and the other half tend to be sweatshops so desperate to find people they offer more money to compensate for the crappy work environment. I’m not going to weed through that just to find the one legitimate option out of 100. I have a job so I don’t have to hunt for a job. I hate applying for jobs if I’m in between jobs. I don’t want to do it every day for the rest of my life. If I’m unhappy I will then pursue some other options.
Peter C.
Veteran
I'm not sure why you are arguing against workers rights. You might do well to revisit the reasons there are antitrust laws. These companies shared confidential information with their competitors and some were even strong armed into secret agreements for the companies benefit at the expense of the employees to suppress salaries. These laws are to prevent companies from colluding to undermine a free market that is at the core of a fair and equitable system that benefits individuals.
I don't see any worker rights being taken away Peter. The employees are free to move about from company to company as they wish. In California, no contract can prevent an employee from moving to another company (non-competetive clauses are void in California). Even back when things were not as clearly defined for worker's rights in California, I worked in the industry during the dot-com hiring madness. Competition for employees was at a feverish pitch. Non-compete clauses existed. Companies sued companies and individuals for moving to another company. In that environment, with lawsuits and contracts 'limiting' employees, we had so many bonuses and perks, it was madness and delightful. One year, I was offered as a bonus, a full-year's salary. We were making embarrassing amounts of money and salaries went through the roof.
What I am saying is that in that less regulated, more restricted environment, nothing held employees or salaries back. What was happening is that innovation and development was stiffled. It became nearly impossible to keep a project going because employees were jumping from ship to ship. Very little of the worker movement to another company was poaching. 99% of it was people moving to another company on their own.
To allow companies to have some level of sanity to their plans and schedules, an anti-poaching policy brings some stability to all companies, which helped innovation and planning, while not restricting workers from moving to another company.
Having said all that, I don't have any opinion one way or the other about Google, Apple, et. al. anti-poaching attempts.
What I am saying is that in that less regulated, more restricted environment, nothing held employees or salaries back. What was happening is that innovation and development was stiffled. It became nearly impossible to keep a project going because employees were jumping from ship to ship. Very little of the worker movement to another company was poaching. 99% of it was people moving to another company on their own.
To allow companies to have some level of sanity to their plans and schedules, an anti-poaching policy brings some stability to all companies, which helped innovation and planning, while not restricting workers from moving to another company.
Having said all that, I don't have any opinion one way or the other about Google, Apple, et. al. anti-poaching attempts.
One big downside of all of that was that the salaries got so big, companies started moving jobs to India. Whole departments moved to India. A substantial portion of the industry now is located in India, Vietnam, and the Phillipines. A good third to maybe half of the people I worked with lost their jobs and had to find new careers. Examples being bus drivers, ATM machine repair person, nursing, part time teacher, and so on. Many went from big money to no money, losing their houses and experiencing crushing depression and worry. So we always need to be careful of what we ask for.
cyvideo
Veteran
++++ 1 to these memories.
As you say it was equally wonderful. Lived through all those events you outlined. In the "Good old days" in the UK you could drive north through East Anglia past open fields with batteries of US Nike and British Bloodhound missiles pointing east to Russia. The UK also had rather novel and fearful "Four minute Warning" drills and sirens. If those sirens went off we had four minutes to make it to a nuclear fallout shelter before the Rusky bombers and missiles arrived. Nobody ever explained to us what we would do after such an event though. I had a fatalistic friend though who said F the four-minute warning I'm just going to grab this chick I know and grab a few beers and then hit the motorway in a stolen E-Type Jag and go out in style at 150mph. He reckoned he could do all that in four minutes. Those were the good old days of the '60s.
Chris Young
Thomas Smet
Veteran
This has nothing to do with workers rights. Employees still had the right to go do what they want. It was a practice to reduce poaching that mostly benefited the companies taken the talent.
I have clearly stated a few times there are a ton of better examples of employee injustices to use as an example. I just feel this one particular example was a bad example. What does antitrust have to do with anything? You are now mixing up your own mistrust of companies and assuming everything they do is wrong.
I am first in line when I see workers being mistreated. I just feel like there are a lot more people suffering out there than this one particular example of family well off employees. I work in that industry and I can tell you they are not exactly struggling. They might pretend they are but they are not.
Do not confuse my position that this is a bad example to assume I am against any type of workers rights. You aware that anybody can be greedy right? Its not juts a one side vs the other side kind of thing. Sometimes in some cases people do take advantage of situations. As well intentioned as this particular lawsuit may have started out I think it was quickly hijacked by lawyers hoping to win a big case against big tech. How could that many people be attached to a lawsuit if those people were never even approached by other companies? If no poaching was taking place at the time none of them would ever know of what opportunities were missed out on. 95% in that lawsuit may have never even been poached but just think they could have been.
Again this has nothing to do with workers right at all. There is no law that says one can be poached with no restrictions. Anybody can look for a different job if they want to but poaching like I said a few times now is very different.
I'm not even sure what this has to do with the topic this thread started as. As I said a few times now this is really starting to become too political. On top of that its going way off topic. This topic is about BMD raising some of their prices due to material and component costs.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I think that's exactly the point. They may have been head hunted, they may never have been head hunted. They'll never know.
I think this tangent started because of a comment of how much Petty makes relative to his employees, and the possibility that workers wages are being suppressed by unfair industry practices. This is purely speculation: but I wouldn't be surprised if Japaneae camera companies had ways of reducing competition and suppressing wages (given how closely I believe they coordinate), which would have ripples throughout the global camera manufacturing industry.
Why is it that we'll say of workers: they're earning a fabulous salary; if they're complaining, they're just greedy. But then we'll say of management/ownership: Hey, it's their right to squeeze the customer for more profit; if you don't like it, shop elsewhere.
Peter C.
Veteran
I'm always surprised how common it is to see individuals sticking up for large multi million dollar corporations.
The argument people are making is like if only two companies made phones and they came to a secret agreement at what price they would sell them for that because consumers could decide not to buy a phone and thus they were not force to pay the price that would be ok. These companies did the same thing only with wages by discouraging other tech companies bidding up salaries and competing for employees. It be like going to an auction and have secret agreements not to bid against each other.
It's odd that I actually have to argue for reason you want a free market.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Except I’m not sticking up for anybody. I’m saying sometimes greed can go both ways. You seem to think myself or others are all pro corporation which is not true at all. I think there are employment injustices all over. I just said this one particular situation may not be the best example.
I guess I prefer to worry more about the little people who really are suffering in the world. The ones that can’t afford health care or food.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Nobody said this was the greatest injustice in the world or that Apple's software engineers are starving. That's not the point