Whatever's Interesting has a new home!
Find us at http://whateversinteresting.com/
We've enjoyed Blogger (easy and cheap - free!) but we've decided to take a little more control over our experiment here. Come join us at our new home.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Friday, October 13, 2006
Google and Corporate Protectionism
I've been struggling to make sense of the Google/YouTube merger that was announced earlier this week, mentioned here in this blog. I'm not seeing the point of it, and my concerns seem to be somewhat vindicated given how quickly legal action has been threatened against the newly acquired provider of loads of copyrighted and illegally shared media.
Then it occurred to me that perhaps this story isn't about any of the potential technology or synergy or cultural issues that people are talking about. This story is about a shift in Google's corporate culture.
Google has done quite a bit of innovative and interesting work. Their search is their bread and butter but they deserve to be respected for so much more. Gmail, Google Maps, Earth and News either redefined the playing field that they entered or opened up whole new arenas of competition.
And then there was Google Video. There's nothing to love about Google Video. It works, but since it was late to the game and brought nothing really new or exciting to suggest it, nobody really got enthused about it. Google themselves never really seemed all that excited about Video - though Google is known for their spartan design aesthetic, they did an even worse job than usual slapping together the Video interface. And their commercial section has been a laughable competitor in the face of iTunes dominance.
Now, I understand that you don't always hit the ball out of the park every time you come to the plate. But Google just gave up, didn't even try to compete - this is why they bought YouTube. Google wants to be #1 in every area they engage, and they weren't getting there with their homegrown Video. Rather than persist, build a better product, make innovations and compelling improvements, they went with the established player.
And payed $1.65 billion for it.
This is standard corporate behavior. Let somebody else take the risk and snap up whatever rises to the top. Google, in their ever so brief time on top, has already undergone the transformation from tech innovator to corporate leviathan.
That didn't take long.
Then it occurred to me that perhaps this story isn't about any of the potential technology or synergy or cultural issues that people are talking about. This story is about a shift in Google's corporate culture.
Google has done quite a bit of innovative and interesting work. Their search is their bread and butter but they deserve to be respected for so much more. Gmail, Google Maps, Earth and News either redefined the playing field that they entered or opened up whole new arenas of competition.
And then there was Google Video. There's nothing to love about Google Video. It works, but since it was late to the game and brought nothing really new or exciting to suggest it, nobody really got enthused about it. Google themselves never really seemed all that excited about Video - though Google is known for their spartan design aesthetic, they did an even worse job than usual slapping together the Video interface. And their commercial section has been a laughable competitor in the face of iTunes dominance.
Now, I understand that you don't always hit the ball out of the park every time you come to the plate. But Google just gave up, didn't even try to compete - this is why they bought YouTube. Google wants to be #1 in every area they engage, and they weren't getting there with their homegrown Video. Rather than persist, build a better product, make innovations and compelling improvements, they went with the established player.
And payed $1.65 billion for it.
This is standard corporate behavior. Let somebody else take the risk and snap up whatever rises to the top. Google, in their ever so brief time on top, has already undergone the transformation from tech innovator to corporate leviathan.
That didn't take long.
Migrating from Blogger Beta to Wordpress
We will shortly be upgrading our blogging to be a little more legit. So we will be migrating from Blogger (which has been great, but is a little limiting) to an installation of Wordpress on our own domain.
/* begin shameless plug */
After all, with unlimited domains and ridiculous bandwidth with Dreamhost, why shouldn't we, right?
/* end shameless plug */
Anyway, loe and behold I found that the handy import feature that can migrate your Blogger blog to Wordpress doesn't work on Blogger Beta. We're on Blogger Beta. Lame.
Wordpress does have the ability to populate a blog from an RSS 2.0 feed though. So I checked out the Blogger Beta default and it's Atom. Lame. Then I found a post that gave an idea of how to change the feed type to RSS. This is how:
yourblog.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/full?alt=rss
Try it for yourself. The link above just points to this blog. There's one problem with this though, and that's the fact that the standard Blogger feed length is 25. Looking through the settings in the control panel didn't reveal a way to change the default. But it turns out that's not necessary - you can specify from the URL similar to above:
yourblog.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/full?alt=rss&max-results=1000
If you've got more than 1000 posts just grow the number to whatever the size of your blog is. This worked for me, but didn't bring any comments along. Luckily that's not a big deal for us. I'm sure there's a way to fix this problem for those who care, but I've not found it yet. I'll update if I do.
/* begin shameless plug */
After all, with unlimited domains and ridiculous bandwidth with Dreamhost, why shouldn't we, right?
/* end shameless plug */
Anyway, loe and behold I found that the handy import feature that can migrate your Blogger blog to Wordpress doesn't work on Blogger Beta. We're on Blogger Beta. Lame.
Wordpress does have the ability to populate a blog from an RSS 2.0 feed though. So I checked out the Blogger Beta default and it's Atom. Lame. Then I found a post that gave an idea of how to change the feed type to RSS. This is how:
yourblog.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/full?alt=rss
Try it for yourself. The link above just points to this blog. There's one problem with this though, and that's the fact that the standard Blogger feed length is 25. Looking through the settings in the control panel didn't reveal a way to change the default. But it turns out that's not necessary - you can specify from the URL similar to above:
yourblog.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/full?alt=rss&max-results=1000
If you've got more than 1000 posts just grow the number to whatever the size of your blog is. This worked for me, but didn't bring any comments along. Luckily that's not a big deal for us. I'm sure there's a way to fix this problem for those who care, but I've not found it yet. I'll update if I do.
My Latest Batch of Beer
My latest batch of beer is now carbonated. I really enjoy brewing so I thought I'd take and share some pictures of my achievement.
The first picture is of the beer right after the pour. I sent the beer right down the middle of the glass in order to get the fullest head possible. The glass is a 20oz glass, and you can see that the beer and head from the 12oz bottle nearly fill it up. Click the pictures for the full sized version.
The next picture shows the beer after it had set for a few minutes. The beer had spent the night in the refrigerator and while I had found the beer to have clarified well while aging in the basement, the beer turned cloudy when it reached the refrigerator. This is a common problem with home-brewed beers called chill haze. The simple explanation of the problem is that proteins in the beer that are clear at room temperature become cloudy at cold temperatures. Here is a more in depth explanation.
I fermented the beer for 6 days before bottling. I didn't do any secondary fermentation for clarification. The bottles have been aging for one week so the beer is very immature. Tasting the beer confirms this. My beer is not a true pilsner, but has the characteristics of one - in other words it has a very pronounced Saaz hops aroma and strong hoppy flavor. While I love hops in general, the raw-ness of the hops in this very young brew was a little too much for me to suggest to just any random beer drinker. The hops will become more moderate as the beer ages. I'm looking forward to enjoying this beer as it gets better and better.
The first picture is of the beer right after the pour. I sent the beer right down the middle of the glass in order to get the fullest head possible. The glass is a 20oz glass, and you can see that the beer and head from the 12oz bottle nearly fill it up. Click the pictures for the full sized version.
The next picture shows the beer after it had set for a few minutes. The beer had spent the night in the refrigerator and while I had found the beer to have clarified well while aging in the basement, the beer turned cloudy when it reached the refrigerator. This is a common problem with home-brewed beers called chill haze. The simple explanation of the problem is that proteins in the beer that are clear at room temperature become cloudy at cold temperatures. Here is a more in depth explanation.
I fermented the beer for 6 days before bottling. I didn't do any secondary fermentation for clarification. The bottles have been aging for one week so the beer is very immature. Tasting the beer confirms this. My beer is not a true pilsner, but has the characteristics of one - in other words it has a very pronounced Saaz hops aroma and strong hoppy flavor. While I love hops in general, the raw-ness of the hops in this very young brew was a little too much for me to suggest to just any random beer drinker. The hops will become more moderate as the beer ages. I'm looking forward to enjoying this beer as it gets better and better.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Interesting Inhterestings - 10-12-06 PM
Google Using Certified Teachers to Reach K-12 Students
School Official Sues Over MySpace Page
North Korea might now have The Bomb, but it doesn't have much electricity
Japan Takes Lead in Sanctioning N. Korea
Russia, China Oppose N. Korea Sanctions
Taking Heat for North Korea Errors, GOP Says: Probe Clinton Official!
Play Go!
This is a game I've always wanted to learn & well here's a link!
How to Fall in Love with Your iSight, Again
Apple’s new iTV universal remote control patent is revealed
School Official Sues Over MySpace Page
North Korea might now have The Bomb, but it doesn't have much electricity
Japan Takes Lead in Sanctioning N. Korea
Russia, China Oppose N. Korea Sanctions
Taking Heat for North Korea Errors, GOP Says: Probe Clinton Official!
Play Go!
This is a game I've always wanted to learn & well here's a link!
How to Fall in Love with Your iSight, Again
Apple’s new iTV universal remote control patent is revealed
Speak It, Brit Hume!
Terrorists, despots and other variously-branded thugs would like us to think that they are induced to do the evil that they do. For example, the Palestinians have no choice but to blow themselves up - after all, Israel is withdrawing from Gaza and the West Bank. Wait...
Kim Jung Il, similarly, wants the world to believe that he had no choice but to blow up nuclear bombs - after all, America is trying to invade North Korea so they've got to put in place the means to defend themselves.
Brit Hume put it bluntly:
More people should be calling it like this - Juan Williams didn't do himself or his side any favors by springing to the defense of the terrorists this time.
So here's the question - even given oppression and hardship, how do the Palestinians justify their acts of violence and murder? The answer is simple, but not something that Westerners seem to want to get their brains to comprehend - Muslims don't think there is anything wrong with killing Jews, Americans or anybody else. Getting infidels to convert is fine, but killing them works too. The Koran backs this up:
When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.
-- Qu'ran, Sura xlvii.4
Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.
-- Qu'ran, Sura ix, 5-6
Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's.
-- Qu'ran, Sura viii, 39-42
There is more like this but there is no need to belabor the point. Nothing prohibits Muslims from killing anybody who is not Muslim - in fact, Muslims are commanded to kill anybody who refuses to convert. Anybody who says differently is hiding the truth.
Kim Jung Il, similarly, wants the world to believe that he had no choice but to blow up nuclear bombs - after all, America is trying to invade North Korea so they've got to put in place the means to defend themselves.
Brit Hume put it bluntly:
More people should be calling it like this - Juan Williams didn't do himself or his side any favors by springing to the defense of the terrorists this time.
So here's the question - even given oppression and hardship, how do the Palestinians justify their acts of violence and murder? The answer is simple, but not something that Westerners seem to want to get their brains to comprehend - Muslims don't think there is anything wrong with killing Jews, Americans or anybody else. Getting infidels to convert is fine, but killing them works too. The Koran backs this up:
When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.
-- Qu'ran, Sura xlvii.4
Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.
-- Qu'ran, Sura ix, 5-6
Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's.
-- Qu'ran, Sura viii, 39-42
There is more like this but there is no need to belabor the point. Nothing prohibits Muslims from killing anybody who is not Muslim - in fact, Muslims are commanded to kill anybody who refuses to convert. Anybody who says differently is hiding the truth.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Apple Antagonizes Muslims
Muslims are reported to be unhappy about the 5th Avenue Apple Store. Take a look for yourself and see if you can figure out why:
Apparently, the Apple Store's big offenses are 1) being a cube (as is the Ka'ba, the holiest shrine in Islam) and 2) being open 24 hours, also like the Ka'ba. Oh, and 3) alcoholic beverages are served at the Genius Bar.
It's clear to me, if to nobody else, that Steve Jobs obviously has it in for Muslims. What possible reason could he have for green-lighting a cubical building, other than to stick it in the nose of peace-loving Muslims? The problem with tolerance, as I'm sure many Muslims are realizing right now, is that people will abuse that tolerance. It's only because Steve Jobs was given too much play on his leash that this sort of nonsense is taking place.
Oh, and apparently Apple fans are calling this store the "Apple Mecca." Despicable! I'm sure Israel is behind that one, at the urging of George Bush and Co.
Isn't there an aphorism that says those looking for conspiracies at every turn will find them?
Apparently, the Apple Store's big offenses are 1) being a cube (as is the Ka'ba, the holiest shrine in Islam) and 2) being open 24 hours, also like the Ka'ba. Oh, and 3) alcoholic beverages are served at the Genius Bar.
It's clear to me, if to nobody else, that Steve Jobs obviously has it in for Muslims. What possible reason could he have for green-lighting a cubical building, other than to stick it in the nose of peace-loving Muslims? The problem with tolerance, as I'm sure many Muslims are realizing right now, is that people will abuse that tolerance. It's only because Steve Jobs was given too much play on his leash that this sort of nonsense is taking place.
Oh, and apparently Apple fans are calling this store the "Apple Mecca." Despicable! I'm sure Israel is behind that one, at the urging of George Bush and Co.
Isn't there an aphorism that says those looking for conspiracies at every turn will find them?
Interesting Interestings - 10-11-06 AM
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Interesting Developments
In an earlier post I revealed that my blogging activities had a sinister purpose.
Unlike many bloggers, I don't feel the need to bare dark personal secrets in this space. Anyway, I don't have too many juicy bits of gossip that anybody (other than my mother) would care to listen to. Rather, I simply want to talk about whatever interests me (gasp!). Well that, and to learn through practical experience what moves web traffic and how crowds respond.
So I wrote some content that wouldn't make Robert X. Cringely fear for his job but similarly wasn't shabby for a 30 minute morning hobby. At times I'd submit my work to news sites like digg and newsvine and reddit. Not much (nothing, actually) made it to the top of any of those lists. And in the three months I've been doing this I haven't developed a following of rabidly supportive followers, ready to raise the banner in whatever direction I tell them for my cause de jeur.
I wouldn't consider this a failure of the experiment, merely an indication that I haven't figured out the formula to this whole thing - and since this has been a very casual experiment, who knows if I will ever get the formula thing down. I understand there is time (and effort!) involved in being popular.
All that to say this - I did a Google search today on "whatever's interesting". This site is number one. What!? I don't know how many people search on that exact phrase - it seems rather unlikely that a huge amount of people would - but that's just cool. Check it out.
What's weird to me is that N and I now have something like 40 posts going. A search for this site (the syntax for this is "site:whateversinteresting.blogspot") on Google only shows seven entries. And it's not just the first seven that they grabbed, but rather a random smattering.
Unsure exactly what that means.
Anyway, my social experimentation has entered a new season of its life. I'm happy that at least I'm in Google now. If somebody's looking for a story about surly chain-smoking police monkeys, we're going to be getting hits galore.
Unlike many bloggers, I don't feel the need to bare dark personal secrets in this space. Anyway, I don't have too many juicy bits of gossip that anybody (other than my mother) would care to listen to. Rather, I simply want to talk about whatever interests me (gasp!). Well that, and to learn through practical experience what moves web traffic and how crowds respond.
So I wrote some content that wouldn't make Robert X. Cringely fear for his job but similarly wasn't shabby for a 30 minute morning hobby. At times I'd submit my work to news sites like digg and newsvine and reddit. Not much (nothing, actually) made it to the top of any of those lists. And in the three months I've been doing this I haven't developed a following of rabidly supportive followers, ready to raise the banner in whatever direction I tell them for my cause de jeur.
I wouldn't consider this a failure of the experiment, merely an indication that I haven't figured out the formula to this whole thing - and since this has been a very casual experiment, who knows if I will ever get the formula thing down. I understand there is time (and effort!) involved in being popular.
All that to say this - I did a Google search today on "whatever's interesting". This site is number one. What!? I don't know how many people search on that exact phrase - it seems rather unlikely that a huge amount of people would - but that's just cool. Check it out.
What's weird to me is that N and I now have something like 40 posts going. A search for this site (the syntax for this is "site:whateversinteresting.blogspot") on Google only shows seven entries. And it's not just the first seven that they grabbed, but rather a random smattering.
Unsure exactly what that means.
Anyway, my social experimentation has entered a new season of its life. I'm happy that at least I'm in Google now. If somebody's looking for a story about surly chain-smoking police monkeys, we're going to be getting hits galore.
Interesting Interestings - 10-10-06 PM
McCain Criticizes Clinton on N. Korea
Quake Raises Fears of 2nd N. Korea Test
Pan's Labyrinth (2006)
Pan's Labyrith Official Website.
I can't wait to see this movie. It's going to be good.
Teacher, school district at odds over performance
Dallas Museum of Art
Here's the school.
Mexico May Take Fence Dispute to U.N.
Nazty
Google - Not So Smart After All?
Edit: Here, as well, I'm duping what N already posted. I warned that I got all my material from N, but this is just silly.
Google buying YouTube makes no sense. Then again, they're the gazillionnaires and I'm not - it's quite possible that I'm missing something critical here. Still, I doubt it.
For those of you that missed it, Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion. That's a lot of money, but since YouTube has managed to remain on top of the video sharing pile even with some serious competition, the YouTube brand/feature set/whatever has become very valuable.
Exactly why YouTube is valuable, though, is a mystery to me. The RIAA, MPAA et al must be licking their chops right now, thinking of the huge amount of money they can sue Google for. YouTube didn't used to be an attractive target for litigation because, frankly, there was little confidence that legal action would result in a payout.
Then there's the fact that YouTube is a big time money pit. It is speculated that YouTube's monthly loses on bandwidth alone now exceed several million dollars. YouTube employs 67 employees in a company that doesn't have a clear business model. Advertisers are wary of signing with YouTube because they don't want their brand to be associated with the vast amount of the (tasteless) content that exists on YouTube.
So YouTube is a liability legally and financially. What's more, because of the reason stated above as well as by the nature of the content YouTube serves, there's no clear way that YouTube's acquisition will actually help Google in the only way that really matters - selling ads. Adwords is the big money-maker for Google - "Ads Everywhere" is just as appropriate a motto for the company as "Don't be Evil." How is acquiring YouTube going to help Google serve better, more targeted search results and ads to its users?
Could it possibly be that Google is simply buying YouTube in order to take a competitor to its own video service off the acquisition market, increasing the cost for any other potential buyers (Disney, News Corp., Yahoo) to develop rival services? If so, is video content on the Internet, in the manner delivered by YouTube, that intrinsically valuable?
Google buying YouTube makes no sense. Then again, they're the gazillionnaires and I'm not - it's quite possible that I'm missing something critical here. Still, I doubt it.
For those of you that missed it, Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion. That's a lot of money, but since YouTube has managed to remain on top of the video sharing pile even with some serious competition, the YouTube brand/feature set/whatever has become very valuable.
Exactly why YouTube is valuable, though, is a mystery to me. The RIAA, MPAA et al must be licking their chops right now, thinking of the huge amount of money they can sue Google for. YouTube didn't used to be an attractive target for litigation because, frankly, there was little confidence that legal action would result in a payout.
Then there's the fact that YouTube is a big time money pit. It is speculated that YouTube's monthly loses on bandwidth alone now exceed several million dollars. YouTube employs 67 employees in a company that doesn't have a clear business model. Advertisers are wary of signing with YouTube because they don't want their brand to be associated with the vast amount of the (tasteless) content that exists on YouTube.
So YouTube is a liability legally and financially. What's more, because of the reason stated above as well as by the nature of the content YouTube serves, there's no clear way that YouTube's acquisition will actually help Google in the only way that really matters - selling ads. Adwords is the big money-maker for Google - "Ads Everywhere" is just as appropriate a motto for the company as "Don't be Evil." How is acquiring YouTube going to help Google serve better, more targeted search results and ads to its users?
Could it possibly be that Google is simply buying YouTube in order to take a competitor to its own video service off the acquisition market, increasing the cost for any other potential buyers (Disney, News Corp., Yahoo) to develop rival services? If so, is video content on the Internet, in the manner delivered by YouTube, that intrinsically valuable?
Naughty Korea
Edit: Oops. I didn't read N's post below before posting this. That'll teach me.
The New York Times has an interesting article detailing the recent nuclear weapons test conducted by North Korea. Interesting to note that the weapon they tested was disappointing, yielding a destructive force of only a few kilotons. Only.
In the timeline provided in the article, North Korea is shown to have been breaking its agreements and promises since 1993. There are some who would expect North Korea, now that it has officially achieved its nuclear ambition, to become a reasonable regime. Can we really take that chance with such an assumption?
The mechanisms that created balance during the cold war - mutually assured destruction, the SALT treaties, reciprocal inspections - won't work with North Korea. Agreements imply that there are responsible people on both sides ready and willing to adhere to the agreements. North Korea won't adhere to anything - it's shown this time and time again.
The New York Times has an interesting article detailing the recent nuclear weapons test conducted by North Korea. Interesting to note that the weapon they tested was disappointing, yielding a destructive force of only a few kilotons. Only.
In the timeline provided in the article, North Korea is shown to have been breaking its agreements and promises since 1993. There are some who would expect North Korea, now that it has officially achieved its nuclear ambition, to become a reasonable regime. Can we really take that chance with such an assumption?
The mechanisms that created balance during the cold war - mutually assured destruction, the SALT treaties, reciprocal inspections - won't work with North Korea. Agreements imply that there are responsible people on both sides ready and willing to adhere to the agreements. North Korea won't adhere to anything - it's shown this time and time again.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Interesting Interestings - 10-10-06
Raw Carats Anyone?
Mexico May Take Fence Dispute to U.N.
Google Snaps Up YouTube for $1.65B
The Face of Beauty
The Masked Blogger (an Apple employees blog)
Rushdie: Veils Take Power From Women
Wii Remote: An in-depth analysis
Time capsule to be beamed from Mexican pyramid
Google Software Downloads for the Mac
Blast May Be Only a Partial Success, Experts Say (North Korea)
Battlestar Galactica is the Best Ever
I love scifi. When Joss Whedon did Firefly I nearly swooned. I'm now rewatching Star Trek: Deep Space 9 with the wife (thanks to Netflix) from front to back and I'm loving it. Best Star Trek ever.
But this post isn't about those other shows. They're fine in their own way, but the real king of scifi is Battlestar Galactica. I was watching some Battlestar featurettes on the SciFi website last night and this video (7m26s) stuck out as a perfect example of why I love Battlestar so much.
The basic point of the featurette is that there is a reason for everything that is done on the show and in the sets. Everything has been designed with and for a purpose from the very beginning, not as an after thought.
What this results in is a richness in the Battlestar "world" that adds to the drama, adds to the characters, makes things richer. It doesn't superscede or become a plot in itself (usually), but rather places the characters and their actions in a context that just works.
A good example of how all this works out is to contrast how Star Trek: The Next Generation dealt with the issue of the Holodeck versus how Battlestar dealt with the problems raised by the Cylons. There are innumerable episodes of Star Trek where the Holodeck runs ammock, threatening the ship and the crew.
Reasonable people, after this happens a dozen times, would turn the Holodeck off. The writers and producers of Star Trek wouldn't dream of that - after all, where would they get half of their plot devices from?
In the Battlestar universe the Cylons attach directly, with bullets and missiles, but they also use electronic warfare, trying to infect the computer systems of ships and fighters with paralyzing viruses. The Battlestar response to that is to regress technologically, take computers off the network, rely more on humans than on heavy automation. This makes sense - it's the logical and reasonable reaction to the circumstances raised by the Cylon threat.
So Battlestar has old looking telephones, but it's a practical consideration that led to this design choice, not merely an aesthetic choice. The fighters are oldschool, but that's for a reason. It works, and the level to which the writers and producers thought everything out provides a really rich framework in which to work.
I love it.
But this post isn't about those other shows. They're fine in their own way, but the real king of scifi is Battlestar Galactica. I was watching some Battlestar featurettes on the SciFi website last night and this video (7m26s) stuck out as a perfect example of why I love Battlestar so much.
The basic point of the featurette is that there is a reason for everything that is done on the show and in the sets. Everything has been designed with and for a purpose from the very beginning, not as an after thought.
What this results in is a richness in the Battlestar "world" that adds to the drama, adds to the characters, makes things richer. It doesn't superscede or become a plot in itself (usually), but rather places the characters and their actions in a context that just works.
A good example of how all this works out is to contrast how Star Trek: The Next Generation dealt with the issue of the Holodeck versus how Battlestar dealt with the problems raised by the Cylons. There are innumerable episodes of Star Trek where the Holodeck runs ammock, threatening the ship and the crew.
Reasonable people, after this happens a dozen times, would turn the Holodeck off. The writers and producers of Star Trek wouldn't dream of that - after all, where would they get half of their plot devices from?
In the Battlestar universe the Cylons attach directly, with bullets and missiles, but they also use electronic warfare, trying to infect the computer systems of ships and fighters with paralyzing viruses. The Battlestar response to that is to regress technologically, take computers off the network, rely more on humans than on heavy automation. This makes sense - it's the logical and reasonable reaction to the circumstances raised by the Cylon threat.
So Battlestar has old looking telephones, but it's a practical consideration that led to this design choice, not merely an aesthetic choice. The fighters are oldschool, but that's for a reason. It works, and the level to which the writers and producers thought everything out provides a really rich framework in which to work.
I love it.
Interesting Interestings - 10-09-06
For those of you with unusual shotgun rules:
SHOTGUN RULES
Of course I don't play by these rules. Oldest rules the roost.
North Korea says conducted nuclear test
Is it real? Did/Do talking & sanctions work? Who's Next? Iran? Japan?
What? Me worry?
Why open source is under-utilised in graphics
Michael Robertson calls out Zune as biggest flop of 2007
Animatronic fashion is here
Will the iPod ever die?
True Video iPod at MWSF?
SHOTGUN RULES
Of course I don't play by these rules. Oldest rules the roost.
North Korea says conducted nuclear test
Is it real? Did/Do talking & sanctions work? Who's Next? Iran? Japan?
What? Me worry?
Why open source is under-utilised in graphics
Michael Robertson calls out Zune as biggest flop of 2007
Animatronic fashion is here
Will the iPod ever die?
True Video iPod at MWSF?
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Interesting Interestings - 10-08-06
N Korea's bomb 'would kill 200,000'
What to do with a madman. UN doesn't seem to be able to negotiate.
Illegal Immigrants Sue Wendy's
I hate Adobe Acrobat (even more now!)
Exec: Oil is cheaper than Coca-Cola
Guess I better learn to like the taste of petrol in the evening.
Using Fewer Images
Halloween is coming:
What to do with a madman. UN doesn't seem to be able to negotiate.
Illegal Immigrants Sue Wendy's
I hate Adobe Acrobat (even more now!)
Exec: Oil is cheaper than Coca-Cola
Guess I better learn to like the taste of petrol in the evening.
Using Fewer Images
Halloween is coming:
Saturday, October 07, 2006
It's Audcast, Silly
I've been following Leo Laporte ever since he started audcasting. He's shown a pretty good nose for serving the new medium of Internet distributed media, and while he may not have been first out of the gate, he's certainly been one of the best. As a practiced hand in television and radio, Leo has brought a degree of professionalism to 'casting that was dearly lacking in the 'casting community at large.
So given his position I've been struck by certain things he's done. He lacks a certain amount of perspective of his own value and importance and when dealing with topics of interest to himself. An example of this is an infamous episode of TWiT wherein Leo fawned over Steve Wozniak for an hour - quite possibly the worst hour of media ever produced (Yellow Lasers - kudos to Leo for being sensitive to but not undermined by criticism). I nearly unsubscribed from TWiT after that but I'm glad I didn't.
Speaking of rushed judgements and ill-considered decisions, Leo also seems to make decisions far too spur of the moment. There's one particular instant that sticks out in my mind when he was congratulating Kevin Rose on being featured on the cover of Business Week. John C. Dvorak thought the BW article wasn't actually very flattering and Leo turned his opinion on a dime and was passionately angry.
(I think it's possible that Leo's willingness to consider others viewpoints before his own might be part of his appeal - he's very approachable, so what I've described above might be unavoidable.)
Leo's latest cause, dropping the word podcast in favor of netcast, is a good one but also ill considered. Audcast and vidcast are the way to go instead of netcast. Here's a few reasons:
I like Leo a lot and think he's doing a tremendous job. I do think, however, that he chose the wrong term to coin and has chosen a poor way to champion the cause. Instead of being shrill about Apple's legal tactics, I'd like to see alternatives with real benefits presented. And the only real alternatives, as I see it, are audcast and vidcast.
So given his position I've been struck by certain things he's done. He lacks a certain amount of perspective of his own value and importance and when dealing with topics of interest to himself. An example of this is an infamous episode of TWiT wherein Leo fawned over Steve Wozniak for an hour - quite possibly the worst hour of media ever produced (Yellow Lasers - kudos to Leo for being sensitive to but not undermined by criticism). I nearly unsubscribed from TWiT after that but I'm glad I didn't.
Speaking of rushed judgements and ill-considered decisions, Leo also seems to make decisions far too spur of the moment. There's one particular instant that sticks out in my mind when he was congratulating Kevin Rose on being featured on the cover of Business Week. John C. Dvorak thought the BW article wasn't actually very flattering and Leo turned his opinion on a dime and was passionately angry.
(I think it's possible that Leo's willingness to consider others viewpoints before his own might be part of his appeal - he's very approachable, so what I've described above might be unavoidable.)
Leo's latest cause, dropping the word podcast in favor of netcast, is a good one but also ill considered. Audcast and vidcast are the way to go instead of netcast. Here's a few reasons:
- Audcast sounds like broadcast (and like podcast) - not so much with netcast
- Audcast and vidcast aren't ambiguous like pod and netcast are - you know what kind of media you're getting. This avoids the problem of "get the audio podcast, not the video podcast," in the cases where there are alternatives
- Audcast and vidcast are great for noobs - it's obvious you're getting media, not so much with podcast and netcast (am I getting pod? Or am I getting net?)
- No threatening letters in the mail from Apple with audcast or vidcast
- No unwanted associations with the iPod with audcast or vidcast
- Audcast and vidcast can both contract to 'cast when you want to talk about all forms of 'casting. The terms 'caster, 'casted and 'casts also work when dealing with 'casts in general
I like Leo a lot and think he's doing a tremendous job. I do think, however, that he chose the wrong term to coin and has chosen a poor way to champion the cause. Instead of being shrill about Apple's legal tactics, I'd like to see alternatives with real benefits presented. And the only real alternatives, as I see it, are audcast and vidcast.
Super Ultra Best Ever Idea
Two words - fleece kilt.
My wife got some fleece fabric today and made blankets for the boys. That got me thinking on what other applications fleece might have. Old Navy has done some fine work in the field of fleece, but I feel a bit as if they've stagnated of late. Simultaneously, my mind wandered to kilts.
Then it occured to me - just imagine the comfort and freedom that could come from a marriage of fleece with kilt! I'm going to be rich and famous. You heard it here first.
My wife got some fleece fabric today and made blankets for the boys. That got me thinking on what other applications fleece might have. Old Navy has done some fine work in the field of fleece, but I feel a bit as if they've stagnated of late. Simultaneously, my mind wandered to kilts.
Then it occured to me - just imagine the comfort and freedom that could come from a marriage of fleece with kilt! I'm going to be rich and famous. You heard it here first.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Art Caving to Potential Muslim Reaction
UK gallery scraps art, fearing Muslim rage: curator:I first read about Mozart's "Idomeneo" Opera being cancelled in Germany last week. I found this appalling on many levels. The same is true for this recent pull back from the Art Community for "Hans Bellmer". I believe that the Art Community should not stand for this and more importantly individuals should not be so eager to sidestep anything that may offend the Muslim Community; especially the Muslim Community. This behavior only encourages the extreme movement. If people spent as much energy creating debate, talking about the problems of this movement and how to solve; we would be better off.
Though his works are not my taste, I find it baffling that this has been done. Especially coming from the Art Community. A community that prides itself on its unyielding positions.
Welcome Another Interested Blogger
I'm no longer posting alone. NBEHTM has joined me. Actually, this is a bit of a problem because many of my posts come from links sent to me by N or conversations we have together, so my production might slacken as N takes actual credit for his contributions.
Even still, it will be great to have another person to work with here. I'm looking forward to adding some more depth and variety to this site - not that a month spent in wandering contemplation of IPTV isn't awesome - just that N should add a little more flavor. Hurray for flavor!
Even still, it will be great to have another person to work with here. I'm looking forward to adding some more depth and variety to this site - not that a month spent in wandering contemplation of IPTV isn't awesome - just that N should add a little more flavor. Hurray for flavor!
Nintendo Wins
I've been dealing with IPTV and stuff for a while - time to take on something else.
So here we go. Nintendo is awesome.
Specifically, if the assertions about Wii production are true, Nintendo has just given a huge black eye to both Microsoft and Sony.
Here's why. Microsoft and Sony have found it difficult to encourage people to upgrade their machines for any other reason than increasing frame-rates and pixel count. While Microsoft was the first to introduce really robust online integration with their first console, the Xbox, the Xbox 360 basically only increases the pixel count. A similar story with Sony. Despite a whole new processor architecture and inclusion of a Blue Ray player, the Playstation 3 is basically about making more pixels hit the screen. Hurray.
Nintendo has willfully taken another approach. They've rejected the idea of technology for technology's sake and instead are pursuing technologies that are accessible for low cost while simultaneously making big strides towards making things more fun. Nintendo is the only one in the video game industry that's really innovating in big ways. Microsoft would counter with talk about how they are integrating Xbox Live with your cell phone, but I don't see that as a huge thing. Rather, getting people who don't consider themselves to be gamers to actually start playing games, as Nintendo is doing, is the achievement. Nintendo is doing this by making games fun again, something that Microsoft and Sony have apparently forgotten about. Now it appears that Nintendo is producing enough Wii consoles to get one in every house in America that wants one, and for significantly cheaper than the competition. Nintendo Wins.
So here we go. Nintendo is awesome.
Specifically, if the assertions about Wii production are true, Nintendo has just given a huge black eye to both Microsoft and Sony.
Here's why. Microsoft and Sony have found it difficult to encourage people to upgrade their machines for any other reason than increasing frame-rates and pixel count. While Microsoft was the first to introduce really robust online integration with their first console, the Xbox, the Xbox 360 basically only increases the pixel count. A similar story with Sony. Despite a whole new processor architecture and inclusion of a Blue Ray player, the Playstation 3 is basically about making more pixels hit the screen. Hurray.
Nintendo has willfully taken another approach. They've rejected the idea of technology for technology's sake and instead are pursuing technologies that are accessible for low cost while simultaneously making big strides towards making things more fun. Nintendo is the only one in the video game industry that's really innovating in big ways. Microsoft would counter with talk about how they are integrating Xbox Live with your cell phone, but I don't see that as a huge thing. Rather, getting people who don't consider themselves to be gamers to actually start playing games, as Nintendo is doing, is the achievement. Nintendo is doing this by making games fun again, something that Microsoft and Sony have apparently forgotten about. Now it appears that Nintendo is producing enough Wii consoles to get one in every house in America that wants one, and for significantly cheaper than the competition. Nintendo Wins.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Basic Brewing Is The Benchmark
I found Basic Brewing's vidcast yesterday and I think these guys set the standard for what I talked about in the previous post. They are distributing very nicely produced audcasts and vidcasts that are informative, entertaining, and interesting (though perhaps only to a narrow portion of the population). They use their 'casts to promote their DVDs and books. This is a perfect resource to be included in a broader network that has 'casts pertaining to all manner of do-it-yourself topics.
I Was Way Off
All those numbers that I quoted in the previous post were wrong, sadly. Dreamhost now gives 2 terabytes for less than $10. My bad.
This actually just goes to prove my point though, that distribution is the least of the concerns when developing media. Two terabytes is enough bandwidth to serve content to an extraordinarily large audience. A 100 megabyte file, for instance, can be delivered 20,000 times. All this for less than $10. Let's just imagine that whatever is being distributed encourages the audience to buy something that results in a $2 profit. If only one out of 4,000 people go for it, you've still managed at least to break even on the distribution cost.
Of course, that doesn't cover the cost of production, but I hope my point is being made. The cost to move bits is getting so low that some interesting trends will shortly be emerging as a direct result. I foresee a massive amount of less polished but still compelling or entertaining media hitting the Internet in a short time. I'm not talking about people filming themselves with their webcams, singing along to Ricky Martin and posting to YouTube - I'm talking about nature documentaries, how-to programs, dramas and more, all being distributed directly by the content creators themselves. I know that people are producing home-grown media to distribute online already, but many are stuck using proxy services like YouTube or Flickr. These services work for and against the content creators - while there's a possible increase in exposure for the content that is created, there's a loss of focus on the original content creator in favor of a focus on the service provider.
This is going to change, and soon. Ready-made publication software for content distributors will make it easier for the content producers to stand up sites that give Flickr- or YouTube-like functionality without relying on those service providers. Further, meta networks will also arise, organizing and further enabling independent publishing and control by the content creators.
The sites Metafilter and Kontraband, two of thousands, already do this to a degree - yet I see things getting much better than what is offered by these sites. They currently serve as aggregators of content already delivered on YouTube, Google Video and others - these meta channel sites will have to work a lot harder in the future and will become focused/specialized into certain content areas. They will serve specific markets for content, thus becoming much like channels on television.
These newly emergent "channels", providing consistent quality material serving interest groups, feeding content through RSS to the Internet community at large, will reshape the media landscape profoundly. I can hardly wait.
This actually just goes to prove my point though, that distribution is the least of the concerns when developing media. Two terabytes is enough bandwidth to serve content to an extraordinarily large audience. A 100 megabyte file, for instance, can be delivered 20,000 times. All this for less than $10. Let's just imagine that whatever is being distributed encourages the audience to buy something that results in a $2 profit. If only one out of 4,000 people go for it, you've still managed at least to break even on the distribution cost.
Of course, that doesn't cover the cost of production, but I hope my point is being made. The cost to move bits is getting so low that some interesting trends will shortly be emerging as a direct result. I foresee a massive amount of less polished but still compelling or entertaining media hitting the Internet in a short time. I'm not talking about people filming themselves with their webcams, singing along to Ricky Martin and posting to YouTube - I'm talking about nature documentaries, how-to programs, dramas and more, all being distributed directly by the content creators themselves. I know that people are producing home-grown media to distribute online already, but many are stuck using proxy services like YouTube or Flickr. These services work for and against the content creators - while there's a possible increase in exposure for the content that is created, there's a loss of focus on the original content creator in favor of a focus on the service provider.
This is going to change, and soon. Ready-made publication software for content distributors will make it easier for the content producers to stand up sites that give Flickr- or YouTube-like functionality without relying on those service providers. Further, meta networks will also arise, organizing and further enabling independent publishing and control by the content creators.
The sites Metafilter and Kontraband, two of thousands, already do this to a degree - yet I see things getting much better than what is offered by these sites. They currently serve as aggregators of content already delivered on YouTube, Google Video and others - these meta channel sites will have to work a lot harder in the future and will become focused/specialized into certain content areas. They will serve specific markets for content, thus becoming much like channels on television.
These newly emergent "channels", providing consistent quality material serving interest groups, feeding content through RSS to the Internet community at large, will reshape the media landscape profoundly. I can hardly wait.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Why IPTV Will Work
IPTV will work because the models embodied in YouTube and iTunes aren't the only models that will work. There is room for another model, which I'll get to in just a second, but first I want to provide some build up.
I did some quick research on Google about bandwidth costs and turned up some good work that somebody else has already done on the topic. I love that.
The above-linked blog goes some distance toward figuring out what the deal is with YouTube's money burn - the assessment concludes that YouTube is spending $1 million a month for around 6 petabytes of data transfer. That's 6 gigabytes for $1.
That's enough to serve quite a lot of videos.
It appears that traditional content provider networks are already trying to spread the fear, uncertainty and doubt about IPTV that always presages the death of a paradigm. Interesting, that.
I was doing a calculation (mind-blowingly complex) of how much it costs me, as a Dreamhost customer, to distribute data. I get a terabyte a month for something less than $10, but let's quote whole numbers to make it easy. That's
You might be yawning right now, but this is really amazing to me.
Side note: one thing that is exposed here is a key component of every hosting companies offerings - that being an assumption that most customers won't come near to utilizing the full amount of bandwidth they are allowed. I don't think that Dreamhost could afford to sell a terabyte for $10 unless they understood that most customers won't use their full allotment. My question, and one that I'm sure won't be answered easily, is how much does Dreamhost oversell itself?
Overselling is commonplace in other Internet-related industries. Internet providers oversell access, assuming that their networks won't need to support the full number of subscribers at any given time. Cable companies in particular appear to be prime offenders at this practice.
So Dreamhost is extremely cheap, presumably because they oversell themselves. So far, I've seen no ill effects from this practice, if indeed this is their practice, so good for them. But what happens if I need all that bandwidth and more? Why wouldn't I just set up a second Dreamhost account for $7.95 and get another terabyte for less than $10? This instead of paying per-gigabyte overage fees of $1?
Back to the main story - why IPTV will work when so many say that the economics are fundamentally broken.
Traditional methods of Internet data delivery involve a server handling the needs of a client all by itself. Once the client gets the data they are free to move on. The idea of server mirrors simply makes several servers available, but does nothing to change this fundamentally inefficient approach. Both YouTube and iTunes use this approach.
Bittorrent has come along and introduced a means by which to harness media seekers as adjunct distributors of media. The rules of bittorrent require somebody who wants to get some media to also share some media. All files that are distributed get broken down into chunks so that during the download of any given file, a downloader will have many opportunities to share with others.
This approach not only works, but it scales AND it costs the distributor relatively little. In fact, the more people who use bittorrent, the better it works.
So, out there on the Internet at this very moment is a protocol that actually gets better the more people use it, at a pitance of what traditional media distribution costs. Sounds great, right?
The thing that bittorrent doesn't provide is individually crafted downloads per user - in other words, everybody gets the same file, and that's bad for the DRM folks. This appears to almost be a non-starter.
Except consider what happens when the model is designed for the broadest possible distribution of media. That's basically the model of traditional TV, so we have a frame of reference. Anyway, sponsorship of media that is distributed to an incredibly broad audience could become an enticing target to advertisers, just in the manner that advertising is attractive on traditional television, despite time-skipping technology (TiVO) etc.
So IPTV will be the same old TV we've always had, just delivered online to our computers using mass distribution protocols like bittorrent. What it will not be is a new way to get your NFL programming, as torrents don't do live programming. IPTV will coexist with traditional broadcast, perhaps some exclusive up-label content on iTunes, Netflix here and there, but it will go a long way toward ruining the hundreds of cable operations that exist today, reducing them to live news, talk and sports channels exclusively.
I did some quick research on Google about bandwidth costs and turned up some good work that somebody else has already done on the topic. I love that.
The above-linked blog goes some distance toward figuring out what the deal is with YouTube's money burn - the assessment concludes that YouTube is spending $1 million a month for around 6 petabytes of data transfer. That's 6 gigabytes for $1.
That's enough to serve quite a lot of videos.
It appears that traditional content provider networks are already trying to spread the fear, uncertainty and doubt about IPTV that always presages the death of a paradigm. Interesting, that.
I was doing a calculation (mind-blowingly complex) of how much it costs me, as a Dreamhost customer, to distribute data. I get a terabyte a month for something less than $10, but let's quote whole numbers to make it easy. That's
- $10 for 1TB
- $1 for 100GB
- $.10 for 10GB
- $.01 for 1GB
- $.001 for 100MB (that's 1/10th of a penny)
- $.0001 for 10MB (that's 1/100th of a penny)
- $.00001 for 1MB (that's 1/1000th of a penny)
You might be yawning right now, but this is really amazing to me.
Side note: one thing that is exposed here is a key component of every hosting companies offerings - that being an assumption that most customers won't come near to utilizing the full amount of bandwidth they are allowed. I don't think that Dreamhost could afford to sell a terabyte for $10 unless they understood that most customers won't use their full allotment. My question, and one that I'm sure won't be answered easily, is how much does Dreamhost oversell itself?
Overselling is commonplace in other Internet-related industries. Internet providers oversell access, assuming that their networks won't need to support the full number of subscribers at any given time. Cable companies in particular appear to be prime offenders at this practice.
So Dreamhost is extremely cheap, presumably because they oversell themselves. So far, I've seen no ill effects from this practice, if indeed this is their practice, so good for them. But what happens if I need all that bandwidth and more? Why wouldn't I just set up a second Dreamhost account for $7.95 and get another terabyte for less than $10? This instead of paying per-gigabyte overage fees of $1?
Back to the main story - why IPTV will work when so many say that the economics are fundamentally broken.
Traditional methods of Internet data delivery involve a server handling the needs of a client all by itself. Once the client gets the data they are free to move on. The idea of server mirrors simply makes several servers available, but does nothing to change this fundamentally inefficient approach. Both YouTube and iTunes use this approach.
Bittorrent has come along and introduced a means by which to harness media seekers as adjunct distributors of media. The rules of bittorrent require somebody who wants to get some media to also share some media. All files that are distributed get broken down into chunks so that during the download of any given file, a downloader will have many opportunities to share with others.
This approach not only works, but it scales AND it costs the distributor relatively little. In fact, the more people who use bittorrent, the better it works.
So, out there on the Internet at this very moment is a protocol that actually gets better the more people use it, at a pitance of what traditional media distribution costs. Sounds great, right?
The thing that bittorrent doesn't provide is individually crafted downloads per user - in other words, everybody gets the same file, and that's bad for the DRM folks. This appears to almost be a non-starter.
Except consider what happens when the model is designed for the broadest possible distribution of media. That's basically the model of traditional TV, so we have a frame of reference. Anyway, sponsorship of media that is distributed to an incredibly broad audience could become an enticing target to advertisers, just in the manner that advertising is attractive on traditional television, despite time-skipping technology (TiVO) etc.
So IPTV will be the same old TV we've always had, just delivered online to our computers using mass distribution protocols like bittorrent. What it will not be is a new way to get your NFL programming, as torrents don't do live programming. IPTV will coexist with traditional broadcast, perhaps some exclusive up-label content on iTunes, Netflix here and there, but it will go a long way toward ruining the hundreds of cable operations that exist today, reducing them to live news, talk and sports channels exclusively.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Update: Netflix, iTunes and Everybody Else For the Win
My last post was a ramble about my recent experience moving from cable to a hybrid of Netflix, iTunes and broadcast television.
The thought is that, in the near future, this new hybrid is going to become increasingly popular as the primary means people use to get media. Traditional television networks, incidentally, are going to be huge beneficiaries of this movement.
Then I reflected on the emergence of new Internet-based media networks, specifically TWiT and Revision3.
Both of these networks were started by former employees of TechTV/G4 and so have media savvy individuals running things. Both networks produce primarily geek-culture oriented media, audiocasts in the case of the TWiT network and videocasts for Revision3.
Now, I grant that the material these networks produce is pretty narrowly focused. And I also grant that the production values can be a bit low on many of the shows. But the production values are sufficient for the medium and the content is generally pretty good for the target audience.
Let's be honest though - production values and content aren't necessarily a formula for success. Ever consider what's involved in making an episode of American Chopper?
Anyway, consider the example of Brawny Academy. Georgia Pacific basically paid to have its own private reality television show, distributed over the Internet, in exchange for some very subtle product placement. How many more companies would be willing to support this sort of production if it means reaching the consumer in an entirely new way? The current advertising market is crowded, saturated. Surely the production of quality programming could become another, more interesting means of trying to get a message across to the now jaded public. We could ourselves looking at a thousand little PBS knockoffs, small scale but conscientiously produced programs that keeps the content first and the sponsor list exclusive.
Except nobody wants to remember hundreds of Internet addresses in order to get the programming that's interesting. So I hereby predict the rise of new Internet content networks along the lines of the traditional broadcast networks, clearinghouses for content that marry sponsors with the content creators. It will be interesting to see if any of the traditional figures are up to the challenge of making the transition or if it will be an entirely different group who makes this move.
The thought is that, in the near future, this new hybrid is going to become increasingly popular as the primary means people use to get media. Traditional television networks, incidentally, are going to be huge beneficiaries of this movement.
Then I reflected on the emergence of new Internet-based media networks, specifically TWiT and Revision3.
Both of these networks were started by former employees of TechTV/G4 and so have media savvy individuals running things. Both networks produce primarily geek-culture oriented media, audiocasts in the case of the TWiT network and videocasts for Revision3.
Now, I grant that the material these networks produce is pretty narrowly focused. And I also grant that the production values can be a bit low on many of the shows. But the production values are sufficient for the medium and the content is generally pretty good for the target audience.
Let's be honest though - production values and content aren't necessarily a formula for success. Ever consider what's involved in making an episode of American Chopper?
Anyway, consider the example of Brawny Academy. Georgia Pacific basically paid to have its own private reality television show, distributed over the Internet, in exchange for some very subtle product placement. How many more companies would be willing to support this sort of production if it means reaching the consumer in an entirely new way? The current advertising market is crowded, saturated. Surely the production of quality programming could become another, more interesting means of trying to get a message across to the now jaded public. We could ourselves looking at a thousand little PBS knockoffs, small scale but conscientiously produced programs that keeps the content first and the sponsor list exclusive.
Except nobody wants to remember hundreds of Internet addresses in order to get the programming that's interesting. So I hereby predict the rise of new Internet content networks along the lines of the traditional broadcast networks, clearinghouses for content that marry sponsors with the content creators. It will be interesting to see if any of the traditional figures are up to the challenge of making the transition or if it will be an entirely different group who makes this move.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Netflix and iTunes For The Win
I killed my cable several years ago now and I don't miss it. Netflix and iTunes have filled the void quite well.
There was a time, many years ago (before my wife and I had children), when paying more than $60 a month in cable fees seemed like nothing. I know of some who pay over $100. One day it occured to she and I to ask ourselves whether we thought that the product we were paying for was worth it. We thought about it and came to the not-too-shocking conclusion that we felt we were getting ripped off. After all, together we watched SCIFI channel and Turner Classic Movies, I watched Wings on Discovery and she watched cable news.
So we canceled our cable, not down to the basic package (because those wouldn't have left us with the channels we watched anyway), but all the way. Simultaneously, we started a Netflix subscription.
Many people are unaware that Netflix offers TV series on DVD. We began to get shows that we enjoyed, like Stargate, and movies of all sorts. What news we wanted we could get from the Internet.
But there was a slight hitch that has now been fixed by iTunes. If a show came out that we wanted to see, we'd have to wait for a really long time until its release on DVD. A perfect example of this is Battlestar Galactica. Friends had suggested it to us, but there was no way we would get a babysitter to watch the children while we went to a friends house to watch episodes.
iTunes offers Battlestar and hundreds of other shows 24 hours after they air on network television (cable). We can satisfy our fix for the one or two shows we want to watch that we can't get on regular broadcast by buying them on iTunes. Later, if we'd like to see the show again or watch back episodes, there's Netflix to fill that gap.
I have a feeling that this formula will work especially well for many who are like my wife and I. I'd say that most people only really even have time for a limited amount of media consumption, so hundreds of channels with thousands of programs just doesn't make sense. A la carte media consumption is the wave of the future, but it's already here in the form of a Netflix/iTunes hybrid.
There was a time, many years ago (before my wife and I had children), when paying more than $60 a month in cable fees seemed like nothing. I know of some who pay over $100. One day it occured to she and I to ask ourselves whether we thought that the product we were paying for was worth it. We thought about it and came to the not-too-shocking conclusion that we felt we were getting ripped off. After all, together we watched SCIFI channel and Turner Classic Movies, I watched Wings on Discovery and she watched cable news.
So we canceled our cable, not down to the basic package (because those wouldn't have left us with the channels we watched anyway), but all the way. Simultaneously, we started a Netflix subscription.
Many people are unaware that Netflix offers TV series on DVD. We began to get shows that we enjoyed, like Stargate, and movies of all sorts. What news we wanted we could get from the Internet.
But there was a slight hitch that has now been fixed by iTunes. If a show came out that we wanted to see, we'd have to wait for a really long time until its release on DVD. A perfect example of this is Battlestar Galactica. Friends had suggested it to us, but there was no way we would get a babysitter to watch the children while we went to a friends house to watch episodes.
iTunes offers Battlestar and hundreds of other shows 24 hours after they air on network television (cable). We can satisfy our fix for the one or two shows we want to watch that we can't get on regular broadcast by buying them on iTunes. Later, if we'd like to see the show again or watch back episodes, there's Netflix to fill that gap.
I have a feeling that this formula will work especially well for many who are like my wife and I. I'd say that most people only really even have time for a limited amount of media consumption, so hundreds of channels with thousands of programs just doesn't make sense. A la carte media consumption is the wave of the future, but it's already here in the form of a Netflix/iTunes hybrid.
Is Rich People in Space the Best We've Got?
This post is not a rant against rich people - after all (I think I've said this before), I want to be one some day. But reading about SpaceShip Two got me thinking about why it is that $200,000 a trip tickets are being sold for 4.5 minutes of weightlessness. What happened to the grand visions of the 1950s and 1960s, when man was supposed to have been half way around the galaxy by now?
I was tempted initially to blame NASA. They are the ones charged with getting us "there", after all, and since we aren't there it naturally follows that it's their fault. Not so fast. The more I thought about it, I realized that our stagnation has little to do with NASA and everything to do with competition. Or rather the subtext of competition.
History lesson - in the late 50s and early 60s the United States faced an actual menace in the form of the Soviet Union. Our respective national space programs were the public fronts for propaganda and diplomacy. In effect we were able to communicate key strategic capabilities to our enemies through the proxy of our space programs - in other words, putting a satellite in orbit was an indication of the ability to deliver nuclear weaponry from space.
This doesn't paint the whole picture, but it's a large part of it.
The competition of the space race created the subtext within which NASA was able to make wondrous and very rapid advances. It's amazing to see how many barriers fall, as well as how many resources emerge, when government wants something done badly enough. Our success in delivering men to the moon was a self-defeating success, however, as in the end we found that the subtext that drove our efforts vanished when we succeeded in outpacing the Soviets.
So complete was our victory, in fact, that for the last 30 years we've been the victims of our own success. The subtext of competition doesn't work as a motivator to public sentiment when all the other competitors have quit the field. We have since been unable to come up with any other subtext compelling enough to justify our return to space en mass, and this is a failure of our society as a whole, not just NASA. Scientific research alone isn't ever going to be enough to justify a continuance of our space efforts when we've got cancer, AIDS, crime, poverty and any of another hundred issues to worry about at home. What worked in the 60s worked because people had a tangible fear of the Soviets that was soothed when we launched bigger, better rockets than they did. Bigger rockets have simply come to be seen as wasteful in our modern era.
What's to be done? A new subtext needs to emerge towards which the space program can strive. Competition in strategic weaponry is passe, but I'd suggest that striving to provide for strategic energy independence might be the trick - specifically, fusion powered by Helium-3 mined from the Moon.
This might be a little far fetched, so I'm not totally endorsing this plan yet. But seen in light of our current national crises of energy dependence and pollution, we have to start thinking big again. We have to start thinking about what things will free us from rogue nations who happen to sit on top of oil reserves and the effects of the use of those resources. Exploitation of natural resources outside our own planet seems to me to be the ultimate solution, and it will all be led by the newly refocused NASA.
Edit - More information about Helium-3 (this last article is very interesting).
I was tempted initially to blame NASA. They are the ones charged with getting us "there", after all, and since we aren't there it naturally follows that it's their fault. Not so fast. The more I thought about it, I realized that our stagnation has little to do with NASA and everything to do with competition. Or rather the subtext of competition.
History lesson - in the late 50s and early 60s the United States faced an actual menace in the form of the Soviet Union. Our respective national space programs were the public fronts for propaganda and diplomacy. In effect we were able to communicate key strategic capabilities to our enemies through the proxy of our space programs - in other words, putting a satellite in orbit was an indication of the ability to deliver nuclear weaponry from space.
This doesn't paint the whole picture, but it's a large part of it.
The competition of the space race created the subtext within which NASA was able to make wondrous and very rapid advances. It's amazing to see how many barriers fall, as well as how many resources emerge, when government wants something done badly enough. Our success in delivering men to the moon was a self-defeating success, however, as in the end we found that the subtext that drove our efforts vanished when we succeeded in outpacing the Soviets.
So complete was our victory, in fact, that for the last 30 years we've been the victims of our own success. The subtext of competition doesn't work as a motivator to public sentiment when all the other competitors have quit the field. We have since been unable to come up with any other subtext compelling enough to justify our return to space en mass, and this is a failure of our society as a whole, not just NASA. Scientific research alone isn't ever going to be enough to justify a continuance of our space efforts when we've got cancer, AIDS, crime, poverty and any of another hundred issues to worry about at home. What worked in the 60s worked because people had a tangible fear of the Soviets that was soothed when we launched bigger, better rockets than they did. Bigger rockets have simply come to be seen as wasteful in our modern era.
What's to be done? A new subtext needs to emerge towards which the space program can strive. Competition in strategic weaponry is passe, but I'd suggest that striving to provide for strategic energy independence might be the trick - specifically, fusion powered by Helium-3 mined from the Moon.
This might be a little far fetched, so I'm not totally endorsing this plan yet. But seen in light of our current national crises of energy dependence and pollution, we have to start thinking big again. We have to start thinking about what things will free us from rogue nations who happen to sit on top of oil reserves and the effects of the use of those resources. Exploitation of natural resources outside our own planet seems to me to be the ultimate solution, and it will all be led by the newly refocused NASA.
Edit - More information about Helium-3 (this last article is very interesting).
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Why a Sexy PC Doesn't Matter
Intel is running a competition for the sexiest PC. Moderately good loot is involved for the winner.
Intel must realize though that encouraging sexy design won't result in viable products for any manufacturer. Apple has shown that sexiness must be combined with attractive applications on a modern OS to create a "platform" - that platform then builds an image that has sexiness only as one of many features. Sony has shown how sexiness alone can fail - I consider Sony computers, especially the Vaio W, to be extremely attractively designed. Yet Sony, without any differentiator but sexiness, found that few were willing to pay a premium for sexiness alone. It's all about the platform.
Surely Intel knows all this and is simply running this contest as a form of marketing. Still, it seems to me that even if Intel is so enlightened, the rest of the PC industry hasn't yet woken up to the fact that simply running Microsoft on Intel or AMD won't allow any single company to trump the competition - even given sexy design. Rather, the only formula in the PC industry that works (lacking platform and brand) is cost. The big manufacturers seem to be content trying to undercut the other and when that cycle begins everything suffers - innovation especially.
Intel must realize though that encouraging sexy design won't result in viable products for any manufacturer. Apple has shown that sexiness must be combined with attractive applications on a modern OS to create a "platform" - that platform then builds an image that has sexiness only as one of many features. Sony has shown how sexiness alone can fail - I consider Sony computers, especially the Vaio W, to be extremely attractively designed. Yet Sony, without any differentiator but sexiness, found that few were willing to pay a premium for sexiness alone. It's all about the platform.
Surely Intel knows all this and is simply running this contest as a form of marketing. Still, it seems to me that even if Intel is so enlightened, the rest of the PC industry hasn't yet woken up to the fact that simply running Microsoft on Intel or AMD won't allow any single company to trump the competition - even given sexy design. Rather, the only formula in the PC industry that works (lacking platform and brand) is cost. The big manufacturers seem to be content trying to undercut the other and when that cycle begins everything suffers - innovation especially.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Dreamhost
I got broadband way back in the 90's, back when the earth was still inhabited by strange beasts and when magic could be felt in the primordial air. I got broadband and began to host small sites for friends and myself. It was convenient to have a server in my house and liberating - I could offer what I wanted, when I wanted, without restriction.
Speakeasy only made it that much better.
But over time I became annoyed with having to do manual setup of applications and sub-domains, ensuring that I was throttling bandwidth between computers to keep things responsive. I began to think to myself that maybe it wasn't so great trying to run the Internet out of my bedroom. Then I read that it costs about $10 a month in electricity alone to run a normal computer.
That sealed it for me, especially since Dreamhost only costs $10 a month, and it comes with a ton of great stuff. Setting up websites and services through Dreamhost is trivially easy - so easy that I feel a little like I've been spinning my wheels for a couple years, doing an excess of work that I've not needed to. At least I'm better now.
Speakeasy only made it that much better.
But over time I became annoyed with having to do manual setup of applications and sub-domains, ensuring that I was throttling bandwidth between computers to keep things responsive. I began to think to myself that maybe it wasn't so great trying to run the Internet out of my bedroom. Then I read that it costs about $10 a month in electricity alone to run a normal computer.
That sealed it for me, especially since Dreamhost only costs $10 a month, and it comes with a ton of great stuff. Setting up websites and services through Dreamhost is trivially easy - so easy that I feel a little like I've been spinning my wheels for a couple years, doing an excess of work that I've not needed to. At least I'm better now.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Social Experiment
My visit to the Apple Store grand opening was part interest and part social experiment. Given the interest in the event that I had seen on sites like digg and Ars Technica's Infinite Loop, I figured maybe I could get some eyes on my blog here if I delivered the goods. No go.
In fact, spectacularly so. I think I got a couple of people through the site here, but my attempt at doing anything more, in this instance, was pretty much a flop. Oh well.
The trip wasn't a total waste, however. I did, after all, get to enjoy the whole "experience" that is Apple. The crowd was enormous, the store was really well done and I think that I determined a few other bits of information.
For example, I now believe that Apple brings in store opening "ringers". That is, there were some very attractive and nice people running the show, and I find it hard to believe that Columbia itself could have produced that many beautiful nerds. That's something that's hard to do even on a national level.
There were a bunch of really professional photographers there, but I didn't see many of them taking any pictures. In fact, I don't think I saw any of them take any pictures. That's not to say that there weren't pictures being taken, because there were - just not so many by the pros.
All in all, though, it was a cool experience.
In fact, spectacularly so. I think I got a couple of people through the site here, but my attempt at doing anything more, in this instance, was pretty much a flop. Oh well.
The trip wasn't a total waste, however. I did, after all, get to enjoy the whole "experience" that is Apple. The crowd was enormous, the store was really well done and I think that I determined a few other bits of information.
For example, I now believe that Apple brings in store opening "ringers". That is, there were some very attractive and nice people running the show, and I find it hard to believe that Columbia itself could have produced that many beautiful nerds. That's something that's hard to do even on a national level.
There were a bunch of really professional photographers there, but I didn't see many of them taking any pictures. In fact, I don't think I saw any of them take any pictures. That's not to say that there weren't pictures being taken, because there were - just not so many by the pros.
All in all, though, it was a cool experience.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Columbia Apple Store Grand Opening
The Columbia Apple Store sports a new look so, seeing as how I live less than a mile from The Mall in Columbia, the wife and kids and I headed over. Here are some photos that I put on flickr.
* I took some videos and posted them, along with the hi-res versions of the pictures above, in a torrent. I've taken the torrent server down now, so if there is interest place a comment and I'll post an archive link *
* I took some videos and posted them, along with the hi-res versions of the pictures above, in a torrent. I've taken the torrent server down now, so if there is interest place a comment and I'll post an archive link *
Friday, September 22, 2006
Japan at the Crossroads (Where We've Been Before)
Japan is an interesting economy. It defies description as a manufacturing or knowledge economy because it spans these two descriptions and more.
This NY Times article points out something that I think is an inconsistency with modern Japanese attitudes. Specifically, the Japanese still see themselves as masters of manufacturing, with that being a valuable industry even beyond their knowledge and service assets.
I think that Japan needs to wake up to the reality that manufacturing excellence is not quite the thing it used to be. It used to be that the quality of goods could be determined, prior to having experience with those goods, simply by knowing what the country of origin was. Something from Western Europe was good, Eastern Europe bad. Japan good, China bad. North America good, South America bad.
Times have changed. When a modern company moves manufacturing, they move manufacturing know-how as well. China, South America, India and Eastern Europe are all becoming skilled at manufacturing high quality goods. The one time manufacturers are switching wholesale to enterprises based on knowledge and service.
The debacle with the batteries shows how much of a liability manufacturing can become to an economy that makes such high demands of quality simply in order to differentiate itself from the competition. When the perception of high quality is threatened, the basis for any price premium disappears. Japan is facing that threat because the quality margin between China and South Korea has been quickly shrinking in the last few years.
But Japan's real asset is something other than manufacturing entirely - its asset is design and engineering and perhaps this latest crisis of quality will force Japan to realize and focus on this. Japan is in for some rocky times ahead as they are forced to shift entirely to a knowledge and services economy, but this is the inevitable and proper direction to take.
This NY Times article points out something that I think is an inconsistency with modern Japanese attitudes. Specifically, the Japanese still see themselves as masters of manufacturing, with that being a valuable industry even beyond their knowledge and service assets.
I think that Japan needs to wake up to the reality that manufacturing excellence is not quite the thing it used to be. It used to be that the quality of goods could be determined, prior to having experience with those goods, simply by knowing what the country of origin was. Something from Western Europe was good, Eastern Europe bad. Japan good, China bad. North America good, South America bad.
Times have changed. When a modern company moves manufacturing, they move manufacturing know-how as well. China, South America, India and Eastern Europe are all becoming skilled at manufacturing high quality goods. The one time manufacturers are switching wholesale to enterprises based on knowledge and service.
The debacle with the batteries shows how much of a liability manufacturing can become to an economy that makes such high demands of quality simply in order to differentiate itself from the competition. When the perception of high quality is threatened, the basis for any price premium disappears. Japan is facing that threat because the quality margin between China and South Korea has been quickly shrinking in the last few years.
But Japan's real asset is something other than manufacturing entirely - its asset is design and engineering and perhaps this latest crisis of quality will force Japan to realize and focus on this. Japan is in for some rocky times ahead as they are forced to shift entirely to a knowledge and services economy, but this is the inevitable and proper direction to take.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
iTunes is the Key
Apple isn't going to come to rule the world through the iPod or the Mac mini and they're fine with that. I think that the iPod is simply a device to drive activity to the iTunes music store, as far as Apple is concerned, despite the fact that it currently offers a higher profit margin for Apple. Similarly, the mini is intended to drive user interest and participation in the offerings of iTunes, particularly how the Mac platform can enhance the iTunes experience.
Why do I think this? After all, the numbers would seem to point out that the iPod is making Apple more money than song sales. Apple has sold, to date, 60 million iPods. Take this Forbes article for a dose of reality. Margins on the iPod, while good, are lower than in their other product lines. Apple is making, on average somewhere around $35 per iPod if the sales of all models are averaged together.
$35 profit on 60 million units is pretty good. That's over $2 billion that can be attributed straight to the iPod. So why do I assert that iTunes is ultimately more important, and the real wedge for Apple dominence? Simple - just as you buy a car once in a great while, but fill it with gas quite often, Apple will be rolling in long term dough thanks to iTunes.
Apple has sold over 1.5 billion songs through its store. This, despite easy access to free (albeit illegal) media on the Internet. Apple is now the #5 music retailer in the entire United States and it's gotten there in less than five years. Apple predicts it will be the #4 retailer by the holiday season.
Various analysts have been quoted as saying that Apple makes $0.04 per song downloaded, which would result in an astoundingly low $60 million in profit from the running of the iTunes store. That's 33 times less profit than the iPod. But here's the thing - iTunes is going to keep on accelerating in its' growth, even while iPod sales slow down. Apple has added TV shows to iTunes and just added movies as well. The more that iTunes comes to dominate the music retail space, the better deals they will be able to cut with music distributors, leading to higher margins. Owners of iPods who feel no need to buy the latest model will still be returning to the store to get new tunes, TV shows and movies.
And with more content to sell every day - new studios and distributors - iTunes is becoming something far more than a simple retailer. It's becoming a distribution channel and that puts it in competition with the likes of the cable companies. Unlike cable companies, iTunes is providing a significantly greater amount of consumer choice and that should help to endear, and even further accelerate, Apple's rise through iTunes.
Why do I think this? After all, the numbers would seem to point out that the iPod is making Apple more money than song sales. Apple has sold, to date, 60 million iPods. Take this Forbes article for a dose of reality. Margins on the iPod, while good, are lower than in their other product lines. Apple is making, on average somewhere around $35 per iPod if the sales of all models are averaged together.
$35 profit on 60 million units is pretty good. That's over $2 billion that can be attributed straight to the iPod. So why do I assert that iTunes is ultimately more important, and the real wedge for Apple dominence? Simple - just as you buy a car once in a great while, but fill it with gas quite often, Apple will be rolling in long term dough thanks to iTunes.
Apple has sold over 1.5 billion songs through its store. This, despite easy access to free (albeit illegal) media on the Internet. Apple is now the #5 music retailer in the entire United States and it's gotten there in less than five years. Apple predicts it will be the #4 retailer by the holiday season.
Various analysts have been quoted as saying that Apple makes $0.04 per song downloaded, which would result in an astoundingly low $60 million in profit from the running of the iTunes store. That's 33 times less profit than the iPod. But here's the thing - iTunes is going to keep on accelerating in its' growth, even while iPod sales slow down. Apple has added TV shows to iTunes and just added movies as well. The more that iTunes comes to dominate the music retail space, the better deals they will be able to cut with music distributors, leading to higher margins. Owners of iPods who feel no need to buy the latest model will still be returning to the store to get new tunes, TV shows and movies.
And with more content to sell every day - new studios and distributors - iTunes is becoming something far more than a simple retailer. It's becoming a distribution channel and that puts it in competition with the likes of the cable companies. Unlike cable companies, iTunes is providing a significantly greater amount of consumer choice and that should help to endear, and even further accelerate, Apple's rise through iTunes.
Monday, September 18, 2006
My New Project
When I've got nothing better to do with my time I'm going to start a project to document all the stuff that our modern generations (me included) are forgetting about how to live without technology.
While down in North Carolina I spent a fair amount of time talking to a really interesting older man who is ridiculously smart in practical matters, like how to stay alive matters. I could do pretty well (certainly far better than most I'd wager) if I was dropped in the middle of the wilderness, or if robots destroyed civilization, but I'd have some issues. This guy would have no issue whatsoever because he can do or make whatever it is he wants to use from scratch anyway, so modern conveniences simply save him time rather than make available things he'd have had no idea how to get or make.
It struck me as interesting that, in the span of two generations, our society has mostly forgotten how to survive outside of itself. If people had to build their own homes most would get crushed by their creations. If people couldn't get pickles or sauerkraut at the grocery store they would just stop eating them rather than making them themselves. If people couldn't get their tanks filled at the gas station they have no way of moving around.
Not this guy. He pretty much can, and has, made anything and everything necessary to support a high quality of life with or without civilization to back him up.
Let me make clear that I'm not a survivalist nut job who thinks that I need to learn basic skills in order to be able to escape to the hills when the UN takes over America and puts Iran "peacekeepers" in downtown NY city. Rather, I think it's an interesting juxtaposition that our society, while becoming more comfortable and prosperous has simultaneously become more fragile and ignorant in certain matters.
How many of you could even differentiate an oak from a maple from a birch? How about how to make something edible from acorns (careful, they're poisonous without special preparation)?
While down in North Carolina I spent a fair amount of time talking to a really interesting older man who is ridiculously smart in practical matters, like how to stay alive matters. I could do pretty well (certainly far better than most I'd wager) if I was dropped in the middle of the wilderness, or if robots destroyed civilization, but I'd have some issues. This guy would have no issue whatsoever because he can do or make whatever it is he wants to use from scratch anyway, so modern conveniences simply save him time rather than make available things he'd have had no idea how to get or make.
It struck me as interesting that, in the span of two generations, our society has mostly forgotten how to survive outside of itself. If people had to build their own homes most would get crushed by their creations. If people couldn't get pickles or sauerkraut at the grocery store they would just stop eating them rather than making them themselves. If people couldn't get their tanks filled at the gas station they have no way of moving around.
Not this guy. He pretty much can, and has, made anything and everything necessary to support a high quality of life with or without civilization to back him up.
Let me make clear that I'm not a survivalist nut job who thinks that I need to learn basic skills in order to be able to escape to the hills when the UN takes over America and puts Iran "peacekeepers" in downtown NY city. Rather, I think it's an interesting juxtaposition that our society, while becoming more comfortable and prosperous has simultaneously become more fragile and ignorant in certain matters.
How many of you could even differentiate an oak from a maple from a birch? How about how to make something edible from acorns (careful, they're poisonous without special preparation)?
Friday, September 08, 2006
On Second Thought (Xerox Just Found El Dorado)
If Xerox is targeting government, then this technology could have some interesting potential. Freedom of Information Act requests just got a whole lot easier to comply with while being simultaneously less helpful.
Not quite, really, as electronic records and the means to reveal hidden data are also subject to FOIA requests. But still, the government produces a lot of material that doesn't necessarily have to be kept "for record" and this might be just the thing to make all non-record publication that much more confidential. Not that I approve of the government having more ways on hand to deceive the citizenry, but...
Not quite, really, as electronic records and the means to reveal hidden data are also subject to FOIA requests. But still, the government produces a lot of material that doesn't necessarily have to be kept "for record" and this might be just the thing to make all non-record publication that much more confidential. Not that I approve of the government having more ways on hand to deceive the citizenry, but...
Xerox and the Old Way
Xerox announced some pretty interesting new technology yesterday, and it makes me sad to know that this will go nowhere.
Basically what they've got is an ink that disappears after a certain amount of time, giving paper the ability to be re-used. "How cool," I thought to myself, having long been a double-printer of documents (email on one side and fax coversheet on the other, for example).
But then it occurred to me that in order to realize any benefit from this technology people will have to 1) change the way they use paper and 2) adopt and purchase a new infrastructure. Getting companies to change their infrastructure and work practices is difficult at best - high-priced consultants get called in to do this all the time and fail as often as not.
So, without any evidence or statistics or anything to back myself up I hereby declare that Xerox, in pursuing this technology, has created something cool that nobody will ever use, ever.
Basically what they've got is an ink that disappears after a certain amount of time, giving paper the ability to be re-used. "How cool," I thought to myself, having long been a double-printer of documents (email on one side and fax coversheet on the other, for example).
But then it occurred to me that in order to realize any benefit from this technology people will have to 1) change the way they use paper and 2) adopt and purchase a new infrastructure. Getting companies to change their infrastructure and work practices is difficult at best - high-priced consultants get called in to do this all the time and fail as often as not.
So, without any evidence or statistics or anything to back myself up I hereby declare that Xerox, in pursuing this technology, has created something cool that nobody will ever use, ever.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
The Digg Effect
Users of Digg may or may not recall the phenomenon of "Karma Whoring" that threatened Slashdot years ago. In brief, a certain subset of Slashdot users were essentially spamming the site to get "karma", a (limited) form of social recognition on Slashdot. Slashdot responded, eventually, by introducing arbitrary limits to the amount of karma any user could receive, both in total and for a single comment or other contribution. In changing Slashdot's community dynamic, the site angered and alienated many of the users who had spent lots of time building up legitimate karma, arguing that they were being lumped in with others whose contributions were of a low general quality. I had forgotten all about that piece of history until the current top-user behavior "crisis" hit Digg recently. Techcrunch has a good wrap-up of the issue that you should read if you're unaware of what's going on with Digg these days.
I have three thoughts regarding all this.
1. Social web sites, gasp, resemble society!
The main complaint of those who are crying foul over this latest issue cite a "top-30 cabal" as being destructively influential to the site. Who is shocked by this? Why are so many people amazed to find out that certain elite users would (whether by malice or not) associate with other elite users? That these users' contributions and "diggs" would count for more than those of the unwashed masses is a feature uf Digg and isn't their fault.
Cliques form, online and in life. People who are upset by this are out of touch with reality. Digg made a choice in making their weighting algorithm, and the results speak for themselves - it's not the concern of the top users to moderate themselves to meet the desires of others whose feelings are hurt because their stories didn't make the front page.
Anyway, if cabals are so powerful in Digg, why aren't we seeing "top 31-60" cabals and "top 61-90" cabals? It would be interesting to see if these partitions start to form as a response to the influence of the top diggers.
2. Digg needs to learn lessons from those who have been there before.
Kevin Rose was inspired by Slashdot and was doubtlessly aware of many of the emergent social phenomena that have been featured on Slashdot over the years. It therefore makes me wonder why certain of the lessons that Slashdot learned very publicly many years ago are being re-learned by Rose and Co. today. Users have suggested fixes to address many of the Digg issues, and unsurprisingly many of them reflect the current state of Slashdot. I understand that learning from personal experience can be very rewarding, but the Digg crew needs to be sharper than this if they really expect to stay ahead of the competition.
Speaking of staying ahead of the competition, it is interesting to look back in hindsight now and see the actions of Netscape's Calacanis in the present light. Calacanis sought to draw top submitters from Digg to Netscape's clone site by actually paying them (Revolting! How dare he try to compensate people for doing work!). However, given what is now known about how some of the submitters may have gained their top perch, it might seem that Calacanis could have been better off going in another direction, because...
3. Influential top users aren't a good thing.
The Techcrunch article makes an excellent point that is this - if site content is generated by a few rather than by the many, what's to differentiate Digg from the New York Times? Users in effect are simply trading one group of editors (professional) for another (amateur).
Digg is/was differentiated because of the range and volume of content submitted. Anecdotally, I've witnessed Digg being transformed into another form of RSS aggregator as top diggers simply post forwards to top blogs and sites like Techcrunch and Wired. This prevents lots of content that is interesting or more difficult to uncover from rising out of the noise, as the weight of the cabal overwhelms the lesser contributors.
So, despite all the huge volume of work being done by many of the top diggers, in reality their efforts are counter to the public interest. By carrying "weight" in their efforts, they have become a force to skew Digg, and that's not Digg.
So what's the thing for Digg to do? Digg doesn't need to topple the top users, but they definately should make it so that the voice of the top users don't carry any more weight than any body else. Digg has grown enough, has a large enough base now, that there is no longer any benefit in that practice.
The top contributors will still remain the top contributors due simply to the fact that they submit whole raft-loads of content. Their "promoted" ratios will fall, though, and this will be good for everybody.
I have three thoughts regarding all this.
1. Social web sites, gasp, resemble society!
The main complaint of those who are crying foul over this latest issue cite a "top-30 cabal" as being destructively influential to the site. Who is shocked by this? Why are so many people amazed to find out that certain elite users would (whether by malice or not) associate with other elite users? That these users' contributions and "diggs" would count for more than those of the unwashed masses is a feature uf Digg and isn't their fault.
Cliques form, online and in life. People who are upset by this are out of touch with reality. Digg made a choice in making their weighting algorithm, and the results speak for themselves - it's not the concern of the top users to moderate themselves to meet the desires of others whose feelings are hurt because their stories didn't make the front page.
Anyway, if cabals are so powerful in Digg, why aren't we seeing "top 31-60" cabals and "top 61-90" cabals? It would be interesting to see if these partitions start to form as a response to the influence of the top diggers.
2. Digg needs to learn lessons from those who have been there before.
Kevin Rose was inspired by Slashdot and was doubtlessly aware of many of the emergent social phenomena that have been featured on Slashdot over the years. It therefore makes me wonder why certain of the lessons that Slashdot learned very publicly many years ago are being re-learned by Rose and Co. today. Users have suggested fixes to address many of the Digg issues, and unsurprisingly many of them reflect the current state of Slashdot. I understand that learning from personal experience can be very rewarding, but the Digg crew needs to be sharper than this if they really expect to stay ahead of the competition.
Speaking of staying ahead of the competition, it is interesting to look back in hindsight now and see the actions of Netscape's Calacanis in the present light. Calacanis sought to draw top submitters from Digg to Netscape's clone site by actually paying them (Revolting! How dare he try to compensate people for doing work!). However, given what is now known about how some of the submitters may have gained their top perch, it might seem that Calacanis could have been better off going in another direction, because...
3. Influential top users aren't a good thing.
The Techcrunch article makes an excellent point that is this - if site content is generated by a few rather than by the many, what's to differentiate Digg from the New York Times? Users in effect are simply trading one group of editors (professional) for another (amateur).
Digg is/was differentiated because of the range and volume of content submitted. Anecdotally, I've witnessed Digg being transformed into another form of RSS aggregator as top diggers simply post forwards to top blogs and sites like Techcrunch and Wired. This prevents lots of content that is interesting or more difficult to uncover from rising out of the noise, as the weight of the cabal overwhelms the lesser contributors.
So, despite all the huge volume of work being done by many of the top diggers, in reality their efforts are counter to the public interest. By carrying "weight" in their efforts, they have become a force to skew Digg, and that's not Digg.
So what's the thing for Digg to do? Digg doesn't need to topple the top users, but they definately should make it so that the voice of the top users don't carry any more weight than any body else. Digg has grown enough, has a large enough base now, that there is no longer any benefit in that practice.
The top contributors will still remain the top contributors due simply to the fact that they submit whole raft-loads of content. Their "promoted" ratios will fall, though, and this will be good for everybody.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
My Philosophy
I do a fair amount of random poking around on Wikipedia. I forget how I came to this, but I ended up on Valerie Solanas, Situationism and most interestingly, Alternative Society.
I'm conservative. I think radical feminists like Valerie Solanas are destructive to society, and not in a good way (meaning they seek only to destroy and have little to offer, rather than destroying with the aim of rebuilding something superior in its place). I think counter-culture movements like Situationism, Anarcho-communism, Leftism and the associated bits are similarly non-productive/-effective/-reasonable/-helpful.
So I found it interesting that I identified with some of the ideas of Alernative Society. Specifically, rather than trying to destroy something to build something else in its place, AS seeks to provide viable, working alternative to a system that draws people to it. Think about it as the new idea wins the popularity contest.
I grant that AS is a bit unworkable in certain situations, but America is an open and free enough society that, rather than seeking revolutionary progress, anybody should be able to communicate and further their ideas and goals through AS (if they're good ideas). I'd like to pursue this topic further, to see what's been done, and to explore what might be the natural limitations of this form of activism.
I'm conservative. I think radical feminists like Valerie Solanas are destructive to society, and not in a good way (meaning they seek only to destroy and have little to offer, rather than destroying with the aim of rebuilding something superior in its place). I think counter-culture movements like Situationism, Anarcho-communism, Leftism and the associated bits are similarly non-productive/-effective/-reasonable/-helpful.
So I found it interesting that I identified with some of the ideas of Alernative Society. Specifically, rather than trying to destroy something to build something else in its place, AS seeks to provide viable, working alternative to a system that draws people to it. Think about it as the new idea wins the popularity contest.
I grant that AS is a bit unworkable in certain situations, but America is an open and free enough society that, rather than seeking revolutionary progress, anybody should be able to communicate and further their ideas and goals through AS (if they're good ideas). I'd like to pursue this topic further, to see what's been done, and to explore what might be the natural limitations of this form of activism.
New From Apple and Other Musings
Today saw the release of an updated line of iMacs from Apple. This update expands the iMac line in both directions, going both toward the low end as well as the high end.
In releasing the new 24" iMac Apple has filled the space between the iMac line and the Mac Pro line. What puzzles me, however, is what the expansion toward the low end (in the form of the $1000 17" iMac) does for Apple, as the new iMac encroaches on the Mac mini line. Specifically, only $200 separate the high-end mini from the low-end iMac, and while it's true that the iMac actually has weaker stats in some areas than the mini (specifically in the optical drive), you get a nice wide-screen 17" display, faster and larger HDD, keyboard and mouse, iSight camera and significantly more powerful Inter Core 2 Duo (as opposed to Core Duo in the mini) processor in the iMac.
So what this is resulting in, for me, is a little confusion about what Apple is intending to do with their mini. It seems that the current price of the computer makes it unattractive in relation to the iMac. If Apple doesn't come out with a significant price reduction or feature increase for the mini, Apple will have itself to blame for turning the mini into a dog.
This confusion about product specs and led me to reflect back on my thoughts on creating a new hardware paradigm/platform (ref. Utopian View (of Hardware)). I'd like to think that, under a sufficiently elevated model, products could be intelligently designed and promoted in such a way as to make understanding them simple and free of drama. Maybe that's naive.
In releasing the new 24" iMac Apple has filled the space between the iMac line and the Mac Pro line. What puzzles me, however, is what the expansion toward the low end (in the form of the $1000 17" iMac) does for Apple, as the new iMac encroaches on the Mac mini line. Specifically, only $200 separate the high-end mini from the low-end iMac, and while it's true that the iMac actually has weaker stats in some areas than the mini (specifically in the optical drive), you get a nice wide-screen 17" display, faster and larger HDD, keyboard and mouse, iSight camera and significantly more powerful Inter Core 2 Duo (as opposed to Core Duo in the mini) processor in the iMac.
So what this is resulting in, for me, is a little confusion about what Apple is intending to do with their mini. It seems that the current price of the computer makes it unattractive in relation to the iMac. If Apple doesn't come out with a significant price reduction or feature increase for the mini, Apple will have itself to blame for turning the mini into a dog.
This confusion about product specs and led me to reflect back on my thoughts on creating a new hardware paradigm/platform (ref. Utopian View (of Hardware)). I'd like to think that, under a sufficiently elevated model, products could be intelligently designed and promoted in such a way as to make understanding them simple and free of drama. Maybe that's naive.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Google is the New Microsoft
And all you Microsoft bashing Google fanboys don't realise it.
I'm not saying that Google is the new anti-competitive bully, though that might be true. My assertion here is that Google is the new writer of bland but universal applications that everybody will hate and complain about in a few years time.
History lesson. Microsoft beat everybody else back in the day by making their software hardware independent. Thus Microsoft succeeded while Apple, and everybody else, receded.
Fast forward 25 years and the web, through the web browser, is now a platform in its own right, capable of becoming the target of application development. Google is a leader in this new environment. Their recent release of several business applications extends that lead.
Problem is, who's going to use this sort of software for anything other than dabbling? Probably not many, and for good reason. Even though the web is enabling rich application development, it's still not rich enough to compete with applications designed to operate natively/locally to a computer. Therefore, Google has some neat technology, but it's essentially mediocre software that is unreliable (whether by the fault of the client or server) and has sketchy performance. Sound familiar?
Many critics have judged Microsoft pretty harshly, fair or not, for putting a lot of marginal software into the wild. Security of their OS software is notoriously bad, their applications are closed and features are added at a glacial pace. Concepts that are great, and deserve real kudos, get released but remain unimproved thereafter.
I see similar things happening with Google. Google releases application that are interesting and in some cases really fantastic (Gmail anyone?) but then they take forever to improve or finalize those applications. Google is becoming famous as the company that invented the perpetual "beta" release. Also, their focus on Adsense is driving their development in a single dimension. I see there being some attempt to diversify their revenue sources, but not a lot. Selling individual server boxen is not terribly profitable and I hear nothing of their other pay for use/service offerings as real drivers of growth.
I see Google trying to force everything to work a) on the web and b) with Adsense. Sounds like a pretty limiting and limited vision, similar to the limiting vision that has kept Microsoft from being a true driver of massive innovation.
(To be fair, Microsoft has done tremendous amounts of good work. My opinion is simply that they could have done more with themselves in the time they've been on top. WinFS, delayed Vista, multiplatform goodness, security neglect - these and more are areas that I feel have been dropped opportunities by MS.)
So that's it. Google will continue to rise, but in so doing it will try to fit everything into the Google mould/formula. It's inevitable, and it's already happening, and it's going to make Google look a lot like Microsoft in a few years.
I'm not saying that Google is the new anti-competitive bully, though that might be true. My assertion here is that Google is the new writer of bland but universal applications that everybody will hate and complain about in a few years time.
History lesson. Microsoft beat everybody else back in the day by making their software hardware independent. Thus Microsoft succeeded while Apple, and everybody else, receded.
Fast forward 25 years and the web, through the web browser, is now a platform in its own right, capable of becoming the target of application development. Google is a leader in this new environment. Their recent release of several business applications extends that lead.
Problem is, who's going to use this sort of software for anything other than dabbling? Probably not many, and for good reason. Even though the web is enabling rich application development, it's still not rich enough to compete with applications designed to operate natively/locally to a computer. Therefore, Google has some neat technology, but it's essentially mediocre software that is unreliable (whether by the fault of the client or server) and has sketchy performance. Sound familiar?
Many critics have judged Microsoft pretty harshly, fair or not, for putting a lot of marginal software into the wild. Security of their OS software is notoriously bad, their applications are closed and features are added at a glacial pace. Concepts that are great, and deserve real kudos, get released but remain unimproved thereafter.
I see similar things happening with Google. Google releases application that are interesting and in some cases really fantastic (Gmail anyone?) but then they take forever to improve or finalize those applications. Google is becoming famous as the company that invented the perpetual "beta" release. Also, their focus on Adsense is driving their development in a single dimension. I see there being some attempt to diversify their revenue sources, but not a lot. Selling individual server boxen is not terribly profitable and I hear nothing of their other pay for use/service offerings as real drivers of growth.
I see Google trying to force everything to work a) on the web and b) with Adsense. Sounds like a pretty limiting and limited vision, similar to the limiting vision that has kept Microsoft from being a true driver of massive innovation.
(To be fair, Microsoft has done tremendous amounts of good work. My opinion is simply that they could have done more with themselves in the time they've been on top. WinFS, delayed Vista, multiplatform goodness, security neglect - these and more are areas that I feel have been dropped opportunities by MS.)
So that's it. Google will continue to rise, but in so doing it will try to fit everything into the Google mould/formula. It's inevitable, and it's already happening, and it's going to make Google look a lot like Microsoft in a few years.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Raytracing
The potential of raytracing is incredible. Raytracing, to my knowledge, is the best/only way to get photorealistic results out of computers. Check out this example.
So raytracing is cool and capable of quite a lot. This article goes some way toward explaining how now might be the time for raytracing.
Except it misses a big point. Raytracing on general purpose processors is incredibly inefficient. As the article itself states, the raytracer only does a single physics calculation over and over again. Other graphics technologies need to be versatile to be able to do pixel shading and texture mapping and all sorts of things, but the raytracer just does one thing over and over again. A general purpose processor's power would be wasted in operations like that, because it isn't designed for physics calculations, specifically.
Rather than simply follow the assertions of the author, I'm going to suggest that the time for raytracing is now, but that's going to have to mean that raytracing chips need to appear on the market as well. Doing raytracing on the CPU is not the way to go.
So raytracing is cool and capable of quite a lot. This article goes some way toward explaining how now might be the time for raytracing.
Except it misses a big point. Raytracing on general purpose processors is incredibly inefficient. As the article itself states, the raytracer only does a single physics calculation over and over again. Other graphics technologies need to be versatile to be able to do pixel shading and texture mapping and all sorts of things, but the raytracer just does one thing over and over again. A general purpose processor's power would be wasted in operations like that, because it isn't designed for physics calculations, specifically.
Rather than simply follow the assertions of the author, I'm going to suggest that the time for raytracing is now, but that's going to have to mean that raytracing chips need to appear on the market as well. Doing raytracing on the CPU is not the way to go.
Friday, August 25, 2006
How to Resurrect Dell
Dell doesn't need to be resurrected, what with it not being dead and all - far from it. Still, analysts and professional prognosticators are crowing about Dell's big problems and, not wanting to be left out of the fun, I've decided to toss in with my few ideas. Here they are, in no particular order: my collection of magical bullets that will save Dell from imminent destruction.
First thing I'd do - hire a designer that isn't impaired.
Whatever impairment the Dell guy suffers from is serious, and I grieve for him and his family. Whether it's out of sympathy or compassion or whatever, Dell keeps this designer going, which is kudos for them and their charity. But instead of just giving the designer an office and mostly ignoring him, they've given him the run of their product line. Bad.
Here's an anecdotal example of what bothers me about Dell design. For years the standard Dimension tower computer featured this enormous gray flap. This flap lifted up, but this fact wasn't obvious to many. Underneath this flap were USB ports and headphone jacks. The flap opened upward and the USB ports faced downward. The flap was situated toward the bottom of the computer.
So what's the issue? Consider that most tower computers sit on the floor. Assuming you know that the USB ports were there, you would have to get to them by lifting the flap which totally blocks your view of the panel with the USB ports. Then you literally are reaching down to the floor and blindly trying to plug your cable into a socket you can't even see.
This wonder of design has me convinced that Dell employees don't actually use Dell products, otherwise this "feature" wouldn't have lasted a week. Personally, because of how poorly the flaps actually functioned - apart from how tacky they looked - I've seen many offices that simply removed the flaps entirely.
Second thing I'd do - take some of that (paltry) R&D budget and heave it at some (non-in-house) software developers.
Taking a page from Google, Dell should be on the lookout for fun and useful applications and should be chucking some of their (paltry) R&D budget toward the developers. In return they should get a huge number of free licenses, or licenses for cheap.
Consider Picasa, an application that Google picked up a while ago. If Dell could find a Picasa wannabe and set them up, Dell would have the beginnings of its very own iLife suite. Toss in Firefox and Thunderbird as the default mail and web applications and Dell starts to offer a better and safer online experience for their customers right out of the box. Add in a few more apps, like maybe a simple movie editor, Paint.Net or GIMP-type image manipulators, and you start to have an interesting base of applications that make a Dell a good buy beyond simply the cost factor. And all for very little actual cost to Dell. Microsoft might complain about Internet Explorer being ditched in favor of Firefox, but is Bill G really prepared to cut Dell and its nearly 20% domination of the PC OEM business out? I think Dell can dictate what it's going to do to the industry without fear of reprisal.
Interesting side effect of including software with its PCs - Dell could instantly create whole new economies for software and support and services. If 10% of all users buying Dells actually use the included image editor/viewer/manipulator, you've instantly got the equivalent to the entire installed base of iPhoto users. That's huge. Ensure that there's an API to go along with the application and small companies can start offering complementary services, like direct-to-eBay publishing plugins or whatever. Get a small software start up that makes a killer app, that's another thing Dell can toss a little cash at and include as a perk for buying Dell - it's a cycle that feeds itself once it's started.
Third thing I'd do - streamline the product line and introduce a different pricing structure.
Simply put, going to the Dell site feels like going to a car dealership. It's not a pleasant experience and somehow you always feel like you just got jipped/swindled.
I went over to Dell and started counting how many different models of laptop they have. I stopped at 20, and I wasn't much more than 1/2 way through. What is interesting to me about this is that Dell was the pioneer of Build to Order on the epic scale. Given this, why do they need 20+ models of laptop? Is this something that their customers really demand? Why can't Dell create, say, five models of laptop and let all the holes be filled with BTO variations? Create one product per "bracket" that is intended to dominate that bracket. Brackets could be:
The product line listed above could be adapted, through BTO, to handle any variation of need that customers would have. There is no need to offer 20+ products. Seriously.
The other point was about pricing. Given five products, choose a fair price for a decent configuration and make that the price that's quoted. Dell essentially scams people by quoting low prices for stripped-down systems - once you have it the way you'd want it the price suddenly is back to normal. Skeezy car dealers do the same thing by offering a new Mustang for cheap (it's a Mustang without a radio, with plastic seats, wooden tires and a three cylinder engine). This is a practice that leaves customers, even customers that go ahead and buy the product in spite of everything, feeling that they just got a bad deal. This perceptions persists regardless of whether the perception is valid. Dell needs to focus some time and effort trying to build a perception that they are giving their customers a great deal. Or at least a fair deal.
One more thing and I'll stop my rant, I promise.
Fourth thing I'd do - stop trying to shoe-horn products into a business model they aren't necessarily suited for.
TVs. When was the last time you bought a TV without seeing it in person? I never have, though admittedly I've only ever bought two new TVs larger than 14" in my life.
From what I understand, Dell does a pretty good business with their TVs, but even so this might be an area where breaking with the direct-to-consumer model might be in order for Dell. Here's my revolutionary concept - spin TVs off into a separate company. There aren't any movements to integrate the capabilities of TVs into any of the other products, so just set up a company called Dell Electronics and hand over the consumer electronics portions of the Dell product line (TVs, music players, etc.). Dell still sells their consumer electronics through an online direct-to-consumer channel, but also seeks to put these particular products into big-box stores like Best Buy and Compusa so that customers can see the products with their own eyes. I've seen Dell TVs and they're nice - I think more people would buy them if they had a chance to see them outside a chance encounter at a friends house or in a non-flattering corporate environment where the thing is showing Power Points.
Dell Electronics would take a drop in profit for any units moved through the big retailers, but for customers who could delay gratification, the online channel could still offer better deals at higher margins.
So that's it. I think that Dell could be doing so much more for themselves and for consumers if they tried to focus less on cutting the bottom out of everything and focused more on making a great buying experience for its customers. Is that naive?
First thing I'd do - hire a designer that isn't impaired.
Whatever impairment the Dell guy suffers from is serious, and I grieve for him and his family. Whether it's out of sympathy or compassion or whatever, Dell keeps this designer going, which is kudos for them and their charity. But instead of just giving the designer an office and mostly ignoring him, they've given him the run of their product line. Bad.
Here's an anecdotal example of what bothers me about Dell design. For years the standard Dimension tower computer featured this enormous gray flap. This flap lifted up, but this fact wasn't obvious to many. Underneath this flap were USB ports and headphone jacks. The flap opened upward and the USB ports faced downward. The flap was situated toward the bottom of the computer.
So what's the issue? Consider that most tower computers sit on the floor. Assuming you know that the USB ports were there, you would have to get to them by lifting the flap which totally blocks your view of the panel with the USB ports. Then you literally are reaching down to the floor and blindly trying to plug your cable into a socket you can't even see.
This wonder of design has me convinced that Dell employees don't actually use Dell products, otherwise this "feature" wouldn't have lasted a week. Personally, because of how poorly the flaps actually functioned - apart from how tacky they looked - I've seen many offices that simply removed the flaps entirely.
Second thing I'd do - take some of that (paltry) R&D budget and heave it at some (non-in-house) software developers.
Taking a page from Google, Dell should be on the lookout for fun and useful applications and should be chucking some of their (paltry) R&D budget toward the developers. In return they should get a huge number of free licenses, or licenses for cheap.
Consider Picasa, an application that Google picked up a while ago. If Dell could find a Picasa wannabe and set them up, Dell would have the beginnings of its very own iLife suite. Toss in Firefox and Thunderbird as the default mail and web applications and Dell starts to offer a better and safer online experience for their customers right out of the box. Add in a few more apps, like maybe a simple movie editor, Paint.Net or GIMP-type image manipulators, and you start to have an interesting base of applications that make a Dell a good buy beyond simply the cost factor. And all for very little actual cost to Dell. Microsoft might complain about Internet Explorer being ditched in favor of Firefox, but is Bill G really prepared to cut Dell and its nearly 20% domination of the PC OEM business out? I think Dell can dictate what it's going to do to the industry without fear of reprisal.
Interesting side effect of including software with its PCs - Dell could instantly create whole new economies for software and support and services. If 10% of all users buying Dells actually use the included image editor/viewer/manipulator, you've instantly got the equivalent to the entire installed base of iPhoto users. That's huge. Ensure that there's an API to go along with the application and small companies can start offering complementary services, like direct-to-eBay publishing plugins or whatever. Get a small software start up that makes a killer app, that's another thing Dell can toss a little cash at and include as a perk for buying Dell - it's a cycle that feeds itself once it's started.
Third thing I'd do - streamline the product line and introduce a different pricing structure.
Simply put, going to the Dell site feels like going to a car dealership. It's not a pleasant experience and somehow you always feel like you just got jipped/swindled.
I went over to Dell and started counting how many different models of laptop they have. I stopped at 20, and I wasn't much more than 1/2 way through. What is interesting to me about this is that Dell was the pioneer of Build to Order on the epic scale. Given this, why do they need 20+ models of laptop? Is this something that their customers really demand? Why can't Dell create, say, five models of laptop and let all the holes be filled with BTO variations? Create one product per "bracket" that is intended to dominate that bracket. Brackets could be:
- Ultra-budget laptop. Small screen, lightweight processor, little RAM, small HDD, limited connectivity options. Gets people online and editing documents, but not much else.
- Kitchen-counter laptop. Reasonable screen, processor and RAM, not really hot in multimedia, but more connectivity to wireless and whatnot. A noticeable bump from the Ultra-budget model.
- Small-business laptop. Enough juice to run several Office apps without choking, nice specs generally but compromises on things like separate video cards and RAM.
- Pro laptop. Nice features, including lots of processor, RAM and HDD, separate video card and memory, plus connectivity options galore. Still, when possible, choices in parts will favor enhanced battery longevity.
- Gamer/desktop-replacement laptop. Best of everything, no compromises.
The product line listed above could be adapted, through BTO, to handle any variation of need that customers would have. There is no need to offer 20+ products. Seriously.
The other point was about pricing. Given five products, choose a fair price for a decent configuration and make that the price that's quoted. Dell essentially scams people by quoting low prices for stripped-down systems - once you have it the way you'd want it the price suddenly is back to normal. Skeezy car dealers do the same thing by offering a new Mustang for cheap (it's a Mustang without a radio, with plastic seats, wooden tires and a three cylinder engine). This is a practice that leaves customers, even customers that go ahead and buy the product in spite of everything, feeling that they just got a bad deal. This perceptions persists regardless of whether the perception is valid. Dell needs to focus some time and effort trying to build a perception that they are giving their customers a great deal. Or at least a fair deal.
One more thing and I'll stop my rant, I promise.
Fourth thing I'd do - stop trying to shoe-horn products into a business model they aren't necessarily suited for.
TVs. When was the last time you bought a TV without seeing it in person? I never have, though admittedly I've only ever bought two new TVs larger than 14" in my life.
From what I understand, Dell does a pretty good business with their TVs, but even so this might be an area where breaking with the direct-to-consumer model might be in order for Dell. Here's my revolutionary concept - spin TVs off into a separate company. There aren't any movements to integrate the capabilities of TVs into any of the other products, so just set up a company called Dell Electronics and hand over the consumer electronics portions of the Dell product line (TVs, music players, etc.). Dell still sells their consumer electronics through an online direct-to-consumer channel, but also seeks to put these particular products into big-box stores like Best Buy and Compusa so that customers can see the products with their own eyes. I've seen Dell TVs and they're nice - I think more people would buy them if they had a chance to see them outside a chance encounter at a friends house or in a non-flattering corporate environment where the thing is showing Power Points.
Dell Electronics would take a drop in profit for any units moved through the big retailers, but for customers who could delay gratification, the online channel could still offer better deals at higher margins.
So that's it. I think that Dell could be doing so much more for themselves and for consumers if they tried to focus less on cutting the bottom out of everything and focused more on making a great buying experience for its customers. Is that naive?
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Who's Crying For Dell?
Dell isn't my favorite computer manufacturer, despite being the largest and most successful computer seller in the world with around 19% of the market according to Business Week. I'd like to think that I've got legit reasons for not caring for Dell rather than just being a playa hata.
So let's get started. What has Dell, with their enormous power, reach and influence done for computerdom? Of course they brought USB into the mainstream, making cheap and universal peripherals possible. Oh, wait, that was Apple. Okay, they pioneered the home computer media center - oops, wrong again. That was Gateway. Okay, well they've been at the forefront of the revolution of computer industrial design. Wrong again - Apple, Sony and to a lesser extent HP.
Truth is Dell hasn't really been a leader in any sort of innovation, that I can think of (save for a few minor, marginally effective and narrowly adopted system management firmware applications intended for enterprise) in the ten years they've been #1 in the PC business.
Dell has squandered its time on top of the heap. Even now, after so much time to develop itself as a platform, to innovate or whatever, Dell hasn't managed to make itself valuable for anything else than its cost. I'll repeat that because I think it's important. There is no value in a Dell computer outside of cost.
I love the question in the Business Week article that asked if Dell was a one trick pony. It appears to me that they are. It also appears to me that they always will be - this article, also from Business Week, includes an observation that Dell spends less than 1% of its budget on R&D annually. This blew my mind when I read this because it has to be understood that this 1% of R&D is being spread not just over desktop computers, but over servers, laptops, music players, big-screen televisions, projectors and more. No wonder they haven't innovated in a decade - their R&D budget is big enough to buy lunches for the team and keep the lights on and that's it.
Not quite, but you get my point. So what should Dell do? I think, if Dell were smart, they would realize that the commodity days of the PC business are ending - and their model has to change to adapt. It's no longer acceptable to let Microsoft and Intel do all the innovation - Dell has to start treating their brand as a platform, much like Apple does. Dell needs to start to find ways to get people excited about using their products, rather than settling because of price.
There was a great suggestion in the second BW article that encouraged Dell to develop ways to ensure easy customer data migration. This would be a great first step, but would require a lot of development effort and expertise that Dell hasn't earned itself in the 10 years its been on top.
I'll continue this tomorrow.
So let's get started. What has Dell, with their enormous power, reach and influence done for computerdom? Of course they brought USB into the mainstream, making cheap and universal peripherals possible. Oh, wait, that was Apple. Okay, they pioneered the home computer media center - oops, wrong again. That was Gateway. Okay, well they've been at the forefront of the revolution of computer industrial design. Wrong again - Apple, Sony and to a lesser extent HP.
Truth is Dell hasn't really been a leader in any sort of innovation, that I can think of (save for a few minor, marginally effective and narrowly adopted system management firmware applications intended for enterprise) in the ten years they've been #1 in the PC business.
Dell has squandered its time on top of the heap. Even now, after so much time to develop itself as a platform, to innovate or whatever, Dell hasn't managed to make itself valuable for anything else than its cost. I'll repeat that because I think it's important. There is no value in a Dell computer outside of cost.
I love the question in the Business Week article that asked if Dell was a one trick pony. It appears to me that they are. It also appears to me that they always will be - this article, also from Business Week, includes an observation that Dell spends less than 1% of its budget on R&D annually. This blew my mind when I read this because it has to be understood that this 1% of R&D is being spread not just over desktop computers, but over servers, laptops, music players, big-screen televisions, projectors and more. No wonder they haven't innovated in a decade - their R&D budget is big enough to buy lunches for the team and keep the lights on and that's it.
Not quite, but you get my point. So what should Dell do? I think, if Dell were smart, they would realize that the commodity days of the PC business are ending - and their model has to change to adapt. It's no longer acceptable to let Microsoft and Intel do all the innovation - Dell has to start treating their brand as a platform, much like Apple does. Dell needs to start to find ways to get people excited about using their products, rather than settling because of price.
There was a great suggestion in the second BW article that encouraged Dell to develop ways to ensure easy customer data migration. This would be a great first step, but would require a lot of development effort and expertise that Dell hasn't earned itself in the 10 years its been on top.
I'll continue this tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)