Jimmy Carter's not the one in sandals; that would be me ;P And I am not pointing at Peter's right arm; I was slipping in a Hook 'Em sign!Now those of us who were there know which is Jimmy but we'll never tell. At least not unless you buy us a couple Shiners.

One more point: your hardware did not become suddenly obsolete just because you can't install iOS6. It works just as well as it did before the iOS6 announcement, as do all your third-party apps; and they will continue to do so well after iOS6 is released. The existence of a  large installed base of iOS5 devices will ensure this. For instance, one of my favorite apps, Instapaper, still supports iOS4.2; iOS3 support was only dropped late last year (because so few people still use it!).

I actually don't think that Apple is counting on this iOS6 exclusion "forcing" iPad 1 users to upgrade. They don't need to. They have a huge base of rabid fans that will buy the latest and greatest hardware the minute it comes out, simply because it exists.

Of course, what do I know, my Windows machines still run Windows XP :P

There is no doubt that Apple made a business decision not to support the iPad 1, older iPhones, and older iPod Touches from the iOS6 update. There is, however, a non-zero cost to add that support. Each of these devices has differing amounts of RAM, different CPUs, and different GPUs. There will be a variety of routines that have to be implemented and tested separately for each device. Some features simply won't be possible or practical on the older hardware.

Remember when iOS4 came out? It could, in theory, have been supported on all devices, but Apple did not support it for the very first iPhone. They did choose to support the iPhone 3G with it; and the reports flooded the web: iOS4 on the iPhone 3G was slow, buggy, difficult to use. The reports were widespread enough to catch the attention of the mainstream press.

They should have done a better job optimizing iOS4 for the iPhone 3G. One can certainly argue that they should support older hardware for iOS6, too. But it would cost them. Is that cost worthwhile, even in the long term?

I don't mean to be an impatient old cuss, but how about posting those photos of the Austin meetup? :P

I might have set the record for the shortest drive to the meetup, unless someone else walked :P What a fun evening, and I'm sorry I found out about all the hub-bub too late to attend the next day.

If you count the Democratic takeover of Congress it's more like 5.5 ...

Why, Allen's Boots, of course :P

Understood! I suppose I could have talked about the question of objectives in terms of the same shorthand, too. (After all, objectives matter in tax policy as well: one could, in theory, attempt to maximize tax revenue, but that doesn't mean you should... :P)

Don't forget about "Follow" counts, too! I definitely like the idea of finding a way to reward those who are clearly boosting the value of the site. The rewards might not need to be monetary, but could include invitations to limited-space events, etc.

Oh, and Peter, the above comment is the closest you're likely to get to seeing an equation in my posts. (Inside joke for us Austin meet-up-ers. :P)

Peter did entreat us last night to promote Ricochet, to encourage more people to subscribe. Apparently they're not quite paying the bills yet. This post seems like a good place to repeat Peter's entreaty!

This is not so much about a Laffer curve (which concerns tax policy) but rather a revenue management problem.

First: objectives matter. Does Ricochet want to maximize profit? Then they must find that sweet spot where further increases in the subscription fee would slow the total revenue growth. I suspect there is room to move upward there.

But I don't think that's the objective. Consider the two-fold mission:

[E]xcellent and addictive conversation characterized by frankness, wit, civility, and respect; and a mutual aid society where conservatives can give and receive help in winning arguments with their liberal friends and neighbors.

The objective is not profit, but rather the cultivation of a large, high-quality, active subscriber base. Ricochet will likely want to set the subscription fee just high enough to pay the bills (including comfortable salaries for staff of course).

I said "likely", though. As much as we would like to believe otherwise, we're irrational beings. Sometimes we value something more because we pay more, not vice versa. Revenue management wizards know this and play it to the hilt.

Looking at your profile, Franco (212 conversations started!) I suspect that Peter would not have directed his admonition to you. Rather, I think his call was for more of us who have not posted to start doing so. The theory is that the more of us who come out of our virtual introversion and post, the richer this community will be.

In any case, DutchTex, you definitely acquitted yourself well with your debut! :P I don't have much to add. I would agree that Romney could have crafted a better message, but on balance he did well with this one by getting out there quickly.

I think he will have time over the course of the campaign to expand on the response. Romney's position will fare better in further discussion and elaboration than the President's in this case.

A fun evening, y'all. Thanks, Peter, Ricochet team, and fellow members. I actually rushed out of there so fast I forgot to pay my bar tab---turned around and came back though :P

Someone ought to ask Stephen Crowder to take his song "Peace Prize"  and transform it to "Green Job" ... I mowed my lawn, that's a Green Job / I re-sold a gun, that's a Green Job

This household will be voting for Cruz and will be disappointed with a Dewhurst win. And being an Austinite I have to savor the national races since the local ones don't go my way.

So don't get me wrong when I say: I love the fact that I live in a state where the key decision is which Republican I like better. My brother's boss just won the Republican primary for Montgomery County District Attorney; and that's it. There's no Democratic challenger. Love it.

Gryffin has it right. Austin is no San Francisco and never will be. The "live and let live" attitude here really does extend into the city. It's sort of a conservative or libertarian streak, and I think it's in the water. And it's not just "leave me alone", either. People seem to get along better in Austin despite differences in politics.