The Fortress of Geek

So I was looking at the latest bits of info on the new iPhone 2.0 software upgrade. Now this has nothing to do with the new 3G phone due to hit in June, but rather the free software update to all iPhones. While many things have been promised with the new update (I hear it will cook you breakfast and balance your checkbook), the biggest is probably the App store, where you can purchase new programs for your phone. Now what, you might ask, does AT&T have to do with the App store? Absolutely nothing. And that's the problem. So far very few of the revenue streams the iPhone generates flow in AT&T's direction. The monthly phone plan, which would normally be entirely theirs to pocket, is split with Apple. They get absolutely nothing from ring tone sales. They use an unlimited data plan, so none of the bandwidth hogging apps the phone might offer result in increased revenue. And now there is the App store, which last time I checked splits the profit between Apple and the developers, with nothing left for AT&T. So is this really worth it for them? I'm sure they love the fact that they are one of only two retailers that can sell the phone. And the sizable spike in subscribers when the iPhone launched must have looked great in their press releases. But is it really worth it, when agreeing to Apples terms might doom the cell industry as a whole?
Now I know what you're thinking, isn't doom a strong word? And yes it is, after all, cell devices and their descendants will be around for a very long time, but what I wonder about is the revenue. For many years, the cellular industry has used a walled garden approach, where they lock their phones to their network, and restrict them so that they can only receive the content they choose to provide. While this did anger a lot of consumers, it allowed them to set their own prices, which is why my wife was stuck paying a large reoccuring fee for her single ring tone on her Verizon phone. But now AT&T is tearing down the walls with its deal with Apple, and from the sounds of things, Google's Android will continue to due so when it starts appearing on future handhelds. And once there are no walls, and each garden like the other, people will make their carrier choice based solely on who has the lowest price. So my big question is... why? When the closed networks make you so much, and the open ones potentially so little, why do it? Is it all AT&T's fault? Did their deal with Apple net them a short term gain, but open the consumer floodgates, where soon everyone will demand open networks and open devices? Is Verizon, who turned down the deal with Apple, cursing that the industry as a whole didn't stand fast and refuse them entry? I'm guessing they are, and I can't help but look at their purchasing of the new wireless spectrum as their only way of staying ahead of the game. If the cell industry will be little more than a mobile isp/voip provider, those who manage the new spectrum hold the power. Sure, they're still stuck with Google's little trick of forcing the network to be open, but open devices are going to be the future, and I have a feeling they would have been forced to open it up simply to remain competitive.
So what does this all mean? Well, first we should thank Apple. While you might not like how Apple's own technology forces you to their service and carrier of choice, their subjugation of AT&T should lead us into a future of open services and open devices. And we should thank Google, as Android seems to represent the best in open source mobile platforms, and their spectrum bid ensures that it will be a viable platform going forward. But most importantly, we should thank AT&T. I don't know why they did it (short term gains non withstanding), and I can't help but wonder how this will impact their future business. But it was a great thing for the consumer. In one of the boldest moves in mobile communications, they seem to have destroyed their own business model as well as their competitors. Who would have imagined?

So in the past few years weve figured out how to get cars to run on anything. You have some left over grease in your deep fryer, use it to drive to the mall. Bag of suger in your pantry, that might get you to your sister's house two towns over. But as cool as it soulds to fuel up your car from the shelves of your local grocery store, Im afraid all this has to stop.
"But I want an SUV powered by corn-on-the-cob!", you'll cry. But I'm sorry... biofuels days are over. Why? you ask? Because apparently the scientists who thought them up, never really thought about where the fuel would come from. So where does corn and suger (and even grass from the last brilliant idea) come from? Well, crops. Now perhaps they thought that tons of corn and sugercane were rotting on the vine (or stalk, or, um, cane), but sadly that is not the case. No, we would either have to use fields already growing this stuff for food, or plant and harvest more specifically for fuel. What's wrong with that you say? Well, if we take the stuff we planned to eat, it makes food costs sykrocket. There have already been reports of prices in the overseas markets begining to be affected. And as for planting new crops, well, someone seemed to forget exactly how damaging agriculture can be on the enviornment can be. The process of planting and harvesting crops is actually just as damaging to the enviorment as using traditional fuel, and in some recent reports, even worse.
Sure, once youve made it, distribution isnt so bad (unlike with hydrogen, which is why that stuff will never be going anywhere), high costs and enviormental damage pretty much make it impossible that biofuels will ever gain widespread use. Which brings us to the real problem. While you might now realize the dangers of supporting Biofuel, its going to take a while for the government to wise up. Senators with states that grow corn love the idea of making gas out of it, no matter how bad it might be. And in keeping people mistakenly focused on corn based fuel they will overlook the one true fuel we should be supporting, electricity.
Yes, youve year it before, in fact it seems to make a resurgance every decade or so. But the truth is electric cars (or more likely plug in gas/electric hybrids) are just a year or two away (Tesla doesnt count) with an existing infrastructure ready to support them. And while some will still howl that coal firing plants are used to power the grid they would run on, as solar, geothermal, and god knows what else were working on is deployed on a large scale, electric cars will instantly be ready to make use of them. No change in infrastructure, no need to updrade your cars fuel system.
So please, accept that electric is still the future, and biofuels...saddly... never was.

So NBC has decided it wants be be friends with Apple again. And since the whole "We want you to charge more for our stuff" demand didn't go well, they've come up with a new one. So what little concession do they want now? Oh, they just want Apple to make their Ipod's check everyones files to make sure none of them are pirated. Isn't that great? Then NBC can just sit back and relax, and Apple can become the Big Brother everyone will love to hate, thus obliterating their Ipod sales. To think such idiocy exists that high up the corporate ladder. So here's some new tips for you NBC.

1. Apple is not going to police their users. Users don't like being policed, and tend not to buy things from those doing the policing.
2. Pirated files do not have an animated skull and crossbones flag flapping away to indicate it as such. There is no technical means to identify pirated files unless you ONLY allow files with DRM to be used. This will never happen.
3. No DRM you, Apple, or anyone else comes up with will work for more then a week. There is a bored hacker on the outskirts of Norway who can crack your protection scheme in about an hour (his name is Sven).
4. Accept that file sharing has changed your business model. You need to offer DRM free content at prices so cheap its just not worth the time and effort to pirate it. End of story.

Follow these rules and you'll be shocked at how many people would suddenly be willing to buy your product. Not the mention that if you went with a low cost, DRM free solution, you could easily sell your content yourself, cut Itunes out of the picture, and create a more competitive market for all the people making MP3/Video players. Or, you could keep doing what your doing, forcing me and a thousand other people to get our episodes of the Office from Bit Torrent. You decide.

So there have been two stories about macs in the news the past couple days. The first is that some company is selling crappy pc's with the mac operating system on them for about 500 bucks. The second story is how mac's market share has jumped over 30% in the first quarter this year, the biggest gain of all computer makers this quarter. So obviously, a lot more poeple are buying macs. It's evidenced by the boost in market share, and supported by the fact that some company (possibly a fictional one) is making cheap knock offs. But when you look at what their offering, is that what people are really buying?
The company, Psystar, seems to think people want a generic looking system that contains OSX, the operating system you can normally only get when you buy an apple computer. But I would have to say only about 2 out of 10 mac buyers are getting one because they want the OS. No, my guess is that most want one of two things: the physical look and design of a mac (who doesnt like that brushed aluminum look) and the fact that it has the apple brand stamped on it.
People want to be "Mac" people or "Apple" people, they don't want to be OSX people. And that's all Psystar is selling. Good luck with that.

I was watching the news the other day, and it being earlier then usual I caught the 5 o’clock broadcast. And as I watched, I couldn’t help but wonder if I really understood the news profession any longer. What I watched at 5:23 that evening, was an in depth look at the characters on Fox’s series, 24. Shockingly enough, it was on the same network that broadcasts the show in the first place, I couldn’t help but wonder… is this news? And for that matter, is it really news when a kitten falls in a well, or when a B-list celebrity goes to jail for a week? After all, there are those they believe that placing anything in a gallery makes it art. Could the same be said about the news? Some say we should only talk about things that are newsworthy, and by definition of the word that means “of sufficient interest to the public or a special audience to warrant press attention or coverage”. So how do we gage public interest, which seems to be the biggest factor in something being newsworthy? Well recently, we’ve been doing that by looking at the ratings news broadcasts receive. And sadly, those very stories I’m dismayed to see run, seem to be what attract people in the first place. So it seems I’m in an uncomfortable place, where my interests and that of my fellow viewers are no longer one and the same. This leaves me in a very difficult spot. Originally, I was going to end this rant by referencing a very famous scene in the movie “Network”, where a newscaster suggest people stick their head out their window and yell “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it any more”. And given the day and age, I was going to suggest that window be one on your computer, as these days the internet seems to be where people find their voice. I thought doing so might send a message to the networks, who are only allowed to transmit their broadcasts because they are willing to present the news to the public. But I realized that perhaps it is not the broadcasters that are solely to blame, but perhaps it’s everyone at home who reading this right now, an amount that probably pales in comparison to the number of people who are reading about American Idol instead. No, perhaps it best I end by mentioning “1984”, a book I read many years ago, that was written by George Orwell. In it, a small group of people rule over the impoverished masses. They treat these people, called the Proles, as little more then animals and placate them with vast quantities of cheap beer, widespread pornography, and a national lottery. When I read this many years ago, I never imagined that a society could reach a point where so few could rule over so many, and the masses would voluntarily give up their voices in exchange for beer and porn. Of course I also never imagined that one day more people would vote for the winner of a talent contest then their future president. Or that large companies wouldn’t get into the publishing business because 40% of the US population read one book or less last year. So all I can ask of you, or beg even, is whatever you do, don’t become a Prole. Read more then one book a year, be an informed voter in the upcoming election, spend less time watching porn and more time watching the real news, which can still be found if you look hard enough. I would spend the rest of my days trying to convince you of this, but I just heard that TMZ has photos of Brad and Angelina’s wedding, so I gotta go…

After the crushing failure of the old fortress of geek, I have relaunched across multiple blogs and services. If you have found me, then speak your mind. Comment or die!