They do things by the book irregardless to real world situations.
In April’s issue of Macworld, it was reported that a product marketing official from Rio, the first company to ship MP3 players, said “Apple shipped a somewhat neutered product” in regards to the iPod Shuffle presumably for the player’s not having an user interface.
In the real world, one indeed needs an user interface for large capacity MP3 players with a huge number of songs stored in the player, and preferably an excellent UI for that matter. But in capacities under 1GB, and especially those who strive for audio quality but prefer a solid state unit so number of songs are kept fairly low, all that is really needed is a shuffle function so that the player would not play the exact same song as well as sequence as it gets turned on every single time.
Even if the shuffle function were to be optional, I doubt anyone would want to omit it. Besides, if one loves that one opening song so much, one can simply unload just that one song like my cousin used to fill up an audio cassette tape with just one song recorded over and over again on the entire tape both sides.
In a recent Government’s urban renewal project, officials tried to convince property owners who have an entire building rented out with the fact that the fair market value of a vacant building being higher than one collecting rents, so such rent collecting building owners are therefore expected to accept an offer to buy at that same market value as the vacant building without further saying unless and only unless an independent surveyor had calculated otherwise.
While that fact for the sake of calculating market value by the book is indeed true, it does not take into account that the “building value” of such a rent collecting building especially when it is over several decades old is also higher than that vacant building with the exact same specifications in the real world.
Lawyers and Government officials tried to explain and support their point with an analogy that if the two buildings were to be bought out with the help of a bank loan, then banks would no doubt give a much more attractive and lower interest rate for the purchase of the vacant building than the fully occupied one.
And heaven forbid that I should be not stupid enough to know also in fact that if the owner of the same 40 year old building were to try to take out a second mortgage from a bank, it would be rather difficult to get anything at all for such a fully vacant building let alone a better interest rate.
With another analogy. Would any owner of a fully rented building be stupid enough to be let to believe that he should exchange buildings with the owner who owns the exact same spec’d but fully vacant one and pay for the difference of the market value?
The problem here is whether or not the owner had put the building up for sale. In the case of the urban renewal project, the owners were offered to buy. Most owners did not offer to sell. So what it boils down to is if the offered prices were attractive enough to the owners.
To the owners of fully vacant 40 year old buildings who had been paying for Government Rates, repairs, and all other necessary expenses without any income generated by the building at all, the answer is simple. However, to the owners receiving a fair investment return rate from rents with the protential to increase the rent in the immediate future, who were told that by the book and calculation of the professional surveyors that their buildings are worth 6% less than those that are fully vacant - without the rights to decline the offer for it is a Government’s urban renewal project, it is meet on a cutting board.
The owers may not be bookworms and may look like “Don-Paul Meet” or fish toros, but they are not as stupid as the Government looks.
WhaUSay?!