Delaying it 60 years might help. If we ran out of oil, or started getting low by then (ie oil prices through the roof), that would be a big motivator, and help cut emissions.

Many apps that are sub $20 would probably benefit from a similar lift. I'm not sure it would work on a $500 business app. But who knows...

Last year I upped the price of my B2B app from $399 to $699 (to coincide with a major new release). The end result is my revenue remained fairly stable, but I stopped getting Indian customers. This is a good thing because they required much more tech support than their US or European counterparts.

You probably crossed a common discretionary spend limit - under that amount people might not have to get explicit approval for purchases.

Could be, but the end result is that I have fewer customers who happen to pay more, and the time I spend responding to customer support emails has dropped =)

  It's also a little hard to believe that it was
  a "financial burden" for one of the richest
  corporations in the world.

I think you underestimate the computational resources required here.

They have something like 37 Billion dollars in retained earning and don't pay a dividend. They didn't get that mountain of cash by losing money on things.

Assure yourself, if you are using a free google-anything, somehow or other, it adds to their income.

This argument drives me crazy. You think the drug pushers are gonna say "ah shucks. no more profit in drugs. guess I better go to college and get a real job."

Trust me, they will find something else to exploit. Kidnapping in Bogota comes to mind. Crime won't go down.

Probably many would find something else, and that's a problem - but surely it can't be used as justification for not changing the policies. Legalization should happen gradually and with some kind of amnesty outreach program. But even if not: Crime like robbery would likely spike, but unless gangs quickly find a replacement product that's in similarly high demand (if there was one, wouldn't they already be serving it?) I imagine cutting off their easiest source of income would fairly quickly reduce their power to attract new members, purchase weapons, etc.

And even more quickly, since it takes a LOT more money, reduce their ability to bribe cops and judges.

Actually, crime went up a lot during the Prohibition period. Why would one illegal good differ so much from another?

EDIT: removed fragment: "This is extremely well known". I disagree with the parent, but let's keep the debate as civil as possible. My apologies.

I think you're underestimating the attraction of drug dealing as an occupation. Its profit vs. risk ratio is a lot higher than kidnapping.