Monday, July 14, 2008
Mainstream Media Has Destroyed America
"The liberal media in this country is probably more responsible than any other group for our nation's cultural decline. For thirty years, they've been feeding us a steady diet of leftism that has transformed a once great nation into a country more concerned with Montezuma's Revenge than The Halls of Montezuma. The news media has convinced and entire generation that self-esteem is more important than national pride. Even the so-called "conservative" media outlets give us nothing but globalism and depravity. So we have a nation filled with metrosexual men, women of ill repute, and children that know more about how to put a condom on a cucumber than they do about the Constitution."
Sunday, February 4, 2007
This kind of thing really pushes my buttons...
Article title: Dell investors allege secret kickbacks by Intel
Author: Ben Ames (computerworld.com)
For those of you who haven't heard, Mike Dell is back in control of his company! hoo-RAY for all -consumers and investors alike. I believe this man has what it takes to turn Dell around and take back the market share that has been lost to HP, IBM, and even Apple.
This article talks about investors forming a class action lawsuit against Dell for inflating their profits with under-the-table gifts from Intel. Execs at Dell and Intel apparently had a deal going to keep Dell exclusively with Intel. Well now that Dell has been selling AMD processors for over 6 months, I guess the cat is out of the bag. And the snake (former CEO Kevin Rollins) is out of Dell...but that's not enough for me. As an investor in both of these companies, I want to see them go after the people at Intel too. This was done dirty, and everyone involved should be held responsible. I know in the short run if this comes down I personally am going to lose more money than I already have...But...damnit, in the long run I want justice and I want the liars out. Really, this deal wouldn't have been that bad had it been done upfront. Dell and Intel should have drawn up a small contract stating Dell would exclusively deal with Intel processors if Intel paid a rebate at the end of each year. This money could have been exchanged legally and been figured properly into the accounting. No, instead it was tacked on to Dell's profits. WrONG!
What REALLY gets is that this means that Intel's profit has been artificially low as well. So while this could have been done honestly, i've been losing money in a bull market on two high profile companies...so let me shout out a big "F YOU!" to all those greedy, sneaky execs out there that don't care if they screw people over and cause the market to be artificially volitile...
When Dell gets turned around, so will the chipmaker sector. Intel is just waiting to return to high profitablilty. It's deals with Apple, IBM and Sun have the potential to grow. AMD has clearly taken a hit on profitability by dealing with Dell as they have been forced to produce cheaper. AMD needs to operate efficiently enough to offer a solid entry level processor to keep up with supplying Dell, this will come. More importantly though, they need to return to their old mantra that says offer something comprable (equal or better) to Intel but at a lower price point. It seems with its latest dual core server and desktop processors AMD has suffered because they completely lost the price and power consumption war on high-end processors by trying to win the performance war. This failed because in the end, Intel is bigger and operates more efficiently.
Author: Ben Ames (computerworld.com)
For those of you who haven't heard, Mike Dell is back in control of his company! hoo-RAY for all -consumers and investors alike. I believe this man has what it takes to turn Dell around and take back the market share that has been lost to HP, IBM, and even Apple.
This article talks about investors forming a class action lawsuit against Dell for inflating their profits with under-the-table gifts from Intel. Execs at Dell and Intel apparently had a deal going to keep Dell exclusively with Intel. Well now that Dell has been selling AMD processors for over 6 months, I guess the cat is out of the bag. And the snake (former CEO Kevin Rollins) is out of Dell...but that's not enough for me. As an investor in both of these companies, I want to see them go after the people at Intel too. This was done dirty, and everyone involved should be held responsible. I know in the short run if this comes down I personally am going to lose more money than I already have...But...damnit, in the long run I want justice and I want the liars out. Really, this deal wouldn't have been that bad had it been done upfront. Dell and Intel should have drawn up a small contract stating Dell would exclusively deal with Intel processors if Intel paid a rebate at the end of each year. This money could have been exchanged legally and been figured properly into the accounting. No, instead it was tacked on to Dell's profits. WrONG!
What REALLY gets is that this means that Intel's profit has been artificially low as well. So while this could have been done honestly, i've been losing money in a bull market on two high profile companies...so let me shout out a big "F YOU!" to all those greedy, sneaky execs out there that don't care if they screw people over and cause the market to be artificially volitile...
When Dell gets turned around, so will the chipmaker sector. Intel is just waiting to return to high profitablilty. It's deals with Apple, IBM and Sun have the potential to grow. AMD has clearly taken a hit on profitability by dealing with Dell as they have been forced to produce cheaper. AMD needs to operate efficiently enough to offer a solid entry level processor to keep up with supplying Dell, this will come. More importantly though, they need to return to their old mantra that says offer something comprable (equal or better) to Intel but at a lower price point. It seems with its latest dual core server and desktop processors AMD has suffered because they completely lost the price and power consumption war on high-end processors by trying to win the performance war. This failed because in the end, Intel is bigger and operates more efficiently.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Sony Rootkit Case "Exposed"
Article Title: Sony Settles Secret Spyware Suit
Author: By Keith Regan (E-Commerce Times)
One may or may not have followed this story, so let me sum it up. Sony released a selection of CDs from about a dozen artists or so with some nasty rootkit software on it. This software was designed to control the content of the CD by restricting use of the content. Users could only rip the CD to their computer if it was encoded with special Sony DRM. Additionally, the software would report information back to Sony. While this is clearly anoying spyware and severly locked down DRM, this wasn't what Sony got in trouble for. They key issue was how the software installed itself. For those familiar with rootkits, they go in with the Windows operating system files. In some cases Sony's software would canibalize or damage critical Windows files. For this reason, Micro$oft actually declared that the rootkit was a virus anda threat to Windows. They even released a patch to fix the damage. Contributing to this nastiness, the user wasn't even given a choice. Once the CD went in the drive, this software would install automatically.
I can't say how happy I am that Sony got reamed for this. What the hell were they thinking? What corp exec actually let this stuff go to production? This is a great example of why we as consumers must be AWARE or what we are buying and who we are buying it from. Capitalism thrives best when consumers keep companies in line. We can't sit around and buy whatever is on the shelf these days. Consumer demands should drive what goes to market. Your wallet is your loudest voice, and you should use it responsibly for both positive and negative reinforcement.
A note to the author about his hyped-up headline title...Keith, I hope you don't think it actually took detective work to "uncover" this story. I have been following this story via the techie community since Sony's spyware was first discovered. There was actually a small scale ban on Sony and their record labels during the summer of 2006. This ended after Sony stopped producing CDs with the spyware, though some were still laced with tubby DRM. This law suite against Sony is just now ending, but as I recall it was a pretty big to do when it first started.
peace.
Author: By Keith Regan (E-Commerce Times)
One may or may not have followed this story, so let me sum it up. Sony released a selection of CDs from about a dozen artists or so with some nasty rootkit software on it. This software was designed to control the content of the CD by restricting use of the content. Users could only rip the CD to their computer if it was encoded with special Sony DRM. Additionally, the software would report information back to Sony. While this is clearly anoying spyware and severly locked down DRM, this wasn't what Sony got in trouble for. They key issue was how the software installed itself. For those familiar with rootkits, they go in with the Windows operating system files. In some cases Sony's software would canibalize or damage critical Windows files. For this reason, Micro$oft actually declared that the rootkit was a virus anda threat to Windows. They even released a patch to fix the damage. Contributing to this nastiness, the user wasn't even given a choice. Once the CD went in the drive, this software would install automatically.
I can't say how happy I am that Sony got reamed for this. What the hell were they thinking? What corp exec actually let this stuff go to production? This is a great example of why we as consumers must be AWARE or what we are buying and who we are buying it from. Capitalism thrives best when consumers keep companies in line. We can't sit around and buy whatever is on the shelf these days. Consumer demands should drive what goes to market. Your wallet is your loudest voice, and you should use it responsibly for both positive and negative reinforcement.
A note to the author about his hyped-up headline title...Keith, I hope you don't think it actually took detective work to "uncover" this story. I have been following this story via the techie community since Sony's spyware was first discovered. There was actually a small scale ban on Sony and their record labels during the summer of 2006. This ended after Sony stopped producing CDs with the spyware, though some were still laced with tubby DRM. This law suite against Sony is just now ending, but as I recall it was a pretty big to do when it first started.
peace.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Entering a Market Not So Easy, Even for Google...
Title: "Google Checkout sees poor customer satisfaction"
Author: Jacqui Cheng
Source: ars technica
While Google checkout penetrated the market for online credit card transaction servicing rather quickly, gaining around 6% of the market in just a few months, customers seems to be marginally satisfied with the product. Market research shows that google's service simply isn't living up to the expectations of typical early adopters. Only 18.8% of Checkout users reported a "good" service, compared to Paypal's 44.2% satifaction. Cheng reports, "Google appears to have some major improvements to make to the overall user experience before being able to deal some serious blows to PayPal's market share."
While this may sound a bit like doomsday for google fair attempt, I really think this is only the beginning. A product that struggles at first, needing improvements is simply part of Google's strategy. It is not at all uncommon for Google to release an "ok" beta version, assuming their core users will pick it up. They use such customer loyalty to find out what exactly people want and will use in a product. They've been doing this with gmail for a few years now. As an early adopter of gmail, i can tell you, the product has seen a great deal of improvement. Google Docs and Spreadsheets is also in the early stages of this transformation. I really think this is good agile software development. Why spend more than you need to on man hours for features that people wont use? It is much more efficient to create a simple, flexible core product and then improve it.
If there is one thing Google users are good at it is giving honest, useful feedback. More than anyone, Google does an excellent job of facilitating this relationship.
As they do with most Google products, Slashdotter's took the time to comment on the news...
Checkout may or may not ultimately succeed. Paypal is well established and will be tough to tackle, but this is only the beginning. Expect to see more aggressive marketing of this product from Google.
peace.
Author: Jacqui Cheng
Source: ars technica
While Google checkout penetrated the market for online credit card transaction servicing rather quickly, gaining around 6% of the market in just a few months, customers seems to be marginally satisfied with the product. Market research shows that google's service simply isn't living up to the expectations of typical early adopters. Only 18.8% of Checkout users reported a "good" service, compared to Paypal's 44.2% satifaction. Cheng reports, "Google appears to have some major improvements to make to the overall user experience before being able to deal some serious blows to PayPal's market share."
While this may sound a bit like doomsday for google fair attempt, I really think this is only the beginning. A product that struggles at first, needing improvements is simply part of Google's strategy. It is not at all uncommon for Google to release an "ok" beta version, assuming their core users will pick it up. They use such customer loyalty to find out what exactly people want and will use in a product. They've been doing this with gmail for a few years now. As an early adopter of gmail, i can tell you, the product has seen a great deal of improvement. Google Docs and Spreadsheets is also in the early stages of this transformation. I really think this is good agile software development. Why spend more than you need to on man hours for features that people wont use? It is much more efficient to create a simple, flexible core product and then improve it.
If there is one thing Google users are good at it is giving honest, useful feedback. More than anyone, Google does an excellent job of facilitating this relationship.
As they do with most Google products, Slashdotter's took the time to comment on the news...
Checkout may or may not ultimately succeed. Paypal is well established and will be tough to tackle, but this is only the beginning. Expect to see more aggressive marketing of this product from Google.
peace.
Promising Collaborations in the Tech Sector...but my stock is still loosing money
Title: Sun, Intel Strike Win-Win Server Pact
Author: Walaika Haskins
From: ecommercetimes.com
This article outlines the details of a new deal between Sun Microsystems and Intel Corp. Haskins writes "Under the new partnership, Intel has agreed to distribute and support the Solaris OS to its customers". Additionally, "Intel will also endorse Java and Netbeans products and support the OpenSolaris and open Java communities.I really like to see companies with traditionally separate, proprietary technologies getting together these days. As Haskins notes, "They are following the money." These companies are learning to recognize what consumers really want. Not only that, but now, unlike during the tech boom, they are willing to share ideas and technologies to sell products. Ten years ago, especially companies like Sun tried to do everything on their own so as to scrounge up and lock-in as many customers as possible. Since Microsoft was really the only one that has been able to sustain that, now we (as consumers) have a need for something to compete with Microsoft. Not that M$ is all that evil, but they it is better for the progression of the market that should never stand unopposed. I see great promise for both producer and consumer in this deal. When Intel decides explicitly to support something, it contributes to the advancement of Intel's products, as well as the products it includes. Sun will no doubt be driven to improve Solaris, and the Java/Netbeans suite and to match the features and performance of competing M$ and even open source enterprise solutions. AMD, in a similar fashion, made improvements in production efficiency, power consumption, and pricing when it partnered with Dell....of course that hasn't really helped my stock in either of those, so I guess I shouldn't expect to make money from the Sun/Intel deal...but who knows what Q2 and Q3 will bring in '07....
peace.
Author: Walaika Haskins
From: ecommercetimes.com
This article outlines the details of a new deal between Sun Microsystems and Intel Corp. Haskins writes "Under the new partnership, Intel has agreed to distribute and support the Solaris OS to its customers". Additionally, "Intel will also endorse Java and Netbeans products and support the OpenSolaris and open Java communities.I really like to see companies with traditionally separate, proprietary technologies getting together these days. As Haskins notes, "They are following the money." These companies are learning to recognize what consumers really want. Not only that, but now, unlike during the tech boom, they are willing to share ideas and technologies to sell products. Ten years ago, especially companies like Sun tried to do everything on their own so as to scrounge up and lock-in as many customers as possible. Since Microsoft was really the only one that has been able to sustain that, now we (as consumers) have a need for something to compete with Microsoft. Not that M$ is all that evil, but they it is better for the progression of the market that should never stand unopposed. I see great promise for both producer and consumer in this deal. When Intel decides explicitly to support something, it contributes to the advancement of Intel's products, as well as the products it includes. Sun will no doubt be driven to improve Solaris, and the Java/Netbeans suite and to match the features and performance of competing M$ and even open source enterprise solutions. AMD, in a similar fashion, made improvements in production efficiency, power consumption, and pricing when it partnered with Dell....of course that hasn't really helped my stock in either of those, so I guess I shouldn't expect to make money from the Sun/Intel deal...but who knows what Q2 and Q3 will bring in '07....
peace.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Why I Hate The Stock Market...and the Government!
This post has little to nothing to do with an eCommerce periodical...but it's an interesting rant about the business world...
This Tuesday Jan. 16, my google finance feeds lead me to this report:
http://www.123jump.com/earnings-story/Commerce-Bancorp-Quarterly-Profit-Rises-68/20470/
Here is an exerpt:
"...a net income of $78.7 million, or 40 cents per share compared with the last-year net income of $46.9 million, or 26 cents per share. Revenue jumped 24% to $492.3 million. Excluding non-recurring charges in the year-ago quarter, net income grew 19%"
Sounds like GREEAT news...especially for someone like me, an owner of CBH stock as of 01/12/2007....Whoopeee...so how much did their stock go up?? 3%? 6%? 8%? Who knows? , i mean...a 68% raise in quarterly profit!
In all the stock value changed 8.3%....ummm....but in the NEGATIVE direction...
Why??
Well, according to Reuters, "federal regulators are investigating transactions involving the company, its officers and directors, and "related" parties." Additionally, "A cloud will remain over the stock for some time, at least until the results of the investigation are revealed"
Additionally, "Commerce said the probe by the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) "will include but not be limited to transactions with its officers, directors and related parties, including transactions involving bank premises."
So maybe I should be blaming greedy or unwise corporate execs more than anything. This kind of thing really screws over investors and consumers a like. It's just so frustrating! I have been researching/watching this company on-and-off for a few months now...projections have been steady, the sector has performed well, and I waited for what I felt was a good time/price point for the stock...all I've gotten so far is screwed! I am just hopinf that the investigation reveals no foul play so the stock will continue to grow...in the meantime I'll just have to be content with the 1.5% dividend yield....*sigh*
This Tuesday Jan. 16, my google finance feeds lead me to this report:
http://www.123jump.com/earnings-story/Commerce-Bancorp-Quarterly-Profit-Rises-68/20470/
Here is an exerpt:
"...a net income of $78.7 million, or 40 cents per share compared with the last-year net income of $46.9 million, or 26 cents per share. Revenue jumped 24% to $492.3 million. Excluding non-recurring charges in the year-ago quarter, net income grew 19%"
Sounds like GREEAT news...especially for someone like me, an owner of CBH stock as of 01/12/2007....Whoopeee...so how much did their stock go up?? 3%? 6%? 8%? Who knows? , i mean...a 68% raise in quarterly profit!
In all the stock value changed 8.3%....ummm....but in the NEGATIVE direction...
Why??
Well, according to Reuters, "federal regulators are investigating transactions involving the company, its officers and directors, and "related" parties." Additionally, "A cloud will remain over the stock for some time, at least until the results of the investigation are revealed"
Additionally, "Commerce said the probe by the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) "will include but not be limited to transactions with its officers, directors and related parties, including transactions involving bank premises."
So maybe I should be blaming greedy or unwise corporate execs more than anything. This kind of thing really screws over investors and consumers a like. It's just so frustrating! I have been researching/watching this company on-and-off for a few months now...projections have been steady, the sector has performed well, and I waited for what I felt was a good time/price point for the stock...all I've gotten so far is screwed! I am just hopinf that the investigation reveals no foul play so the stock will continue to grow...in the meantime I'll just have to be content with the 1.5% dividend yield....*sigh*
Thursday, January 11, 2007
P&G's Social Networking Ventures
When you are the worlds biggest advertiser, it is imperative to know your consumers. P&G spends $6.7 Billion annually on advertising, so needless to say they are trying to stay on top of makret research. Suzanne Vranica writes about the consumer products giant's newest market research tools Monday's WSJ in an article titled "P&G Plunges Into Social Networking."
The article talks about two instances where P&G is trying to use the internet's social networking phenomenon to learn more about its customers. Once site, called Capessa, is a part of Yahoo! Health where women can go to talk and get information about nutrition, raising children, women's health issues, and the like. Marketing on this site is subtle. It does not directly adverstise any P&G products, as it is intended for more serious research and discussion. I really like that the company is resisting the urge to over-commercialize this site, and I think it will positively contribute to the sites effectiveness. The idea here is a broad focus group-like scenario. P&G is aiming to learn more about its target audience's likes, dislikes, and priorities.
The second site mentioned is that of The People's Choice Awards. The focus of this site is more commercial, and the site does contain ads for many P&G and non-P&G brands. This site has a much different flair, touting celebrity endorsements and pop culture. One major goal of this site is to inprove the dwindling ratings of the People's Choice Awards show.
As a Proctor and Gamble shareholder, I am quite happy to see them keeping it innovative with market research. I was first attracted to the company's strategic placement of multiple products at different price points. These guys are definately into knowing how to deliver what people want. These new sites are an excellent way to do research faster and on a larger scale. In his article "Strategy and the Internet", Michael Porter touts that companies must find new and innovative uses for the web in order for the web to yield a competitive advantage. P&G's new strategies
The article talks about two instances where P&G is trying to use the internet's social networking phenomenon to learn more about its customers. Once site, called Capessa, is a part of Yahoo! Health where women can go to talk and get information about nutrition, raising children, women's health issues, and the like. Marketing on this site is subtle. It does not directly adverstise any P&G products, as it is intended for more serious research and discussion. I really like that the company is resisting the urge to over-commercialize this site, and I think it will positively contribute to the sites effectiveness. The idea here is a broad focus group-like scenario. P&G is aiming to learn more about its target audience's likes, dislikes, and priorities.
The second site mentioned is that of The People's Choice Awards. The focus of this site is more commercial, and the site does contain ads for many P&G and non-P&G brands. This site has a much different flair, touting celebrity endorsements and pop culture. One major goal of this site is to inprove the dwindling ratings of the People's Choice Awards show.
As a Proctor and Gamble shareholder, I am quite happy to see them keeping it innovative with market research. I was first attracted to the company's strategic placement of multiple products at different price points. These guys are definately into knowing how to deliver what people want. These new sites are an excellent way to do research faster and on a larger scale. In his article "Strategy and the Internet", Michael Porter touts that companies must find new and innovative uses for the web in order for the web to yield a competitive advantage. P&G's new strategies
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Google's New Ad Offerings - Sucess pending
Kevin J. Delaney brings us an atricle in Thursday's Wall Street Journal (from here on out, this will blog will call it "The Journal"), entitled "Google Tests New Ad Offerings —but Will Advertisers Follow?
Google has been discussing trying to shift some of its dependency on online advertising for revenue. Sure they want to bring us all the informaiton in the world, and yeah they are good at "Don't be evil." But, at its core, Google is an adversiting company, so why not aim for selling ads through traditional channels such as TV, radio and print? In fact, why not set up a system where advertisers can let Google take care of all their advertising needs? This is precisely Google's thinking.
With it's developing strategies Google doesn't just want advertisers to buy ads. They want to sell marketing services. As Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt says, "The long-term fantasy is we walk up to you and you give us, say, $10 million and we'll completely allocate it for you." But don't worry Google won't just divy out you advertising money across different media and ad types. They also plan to bring extensive reporting on the success of different types of ads. In other words, Google will help you track your advertising revenue and get the most bang for your buck.
Sounds pretty competetive, eh? Well, the big marketing firms may not need to worry just yet, as Google admits these ideas are still being conceptualized and developed. Ideally, all these features would be avaialable through a single, easy to use and maintain, online interface. But, some speculate Google may struggle to attract big advertisers....I don't think so. The reason Google's core advertisers are small and medium sized businesses is because Google does'nt yet offer ads through traditional channels. I think these new strides will really take off, pending Google can provide the personell infrastructure to sustain such a system. Most big advertisers are used to getting some face-to-face time with their marketing firm, and I think Google will have to provide that to be successful.
This article caught my interest, not just because I am an avid Google user (and a shareholder), but also because I have seen this plan going into action and succeeding. During a certain high-profile college football game, I saw a zesty new pontiac ad, pushing one of their new compact SUVs. At the end of the commercial, did they pitch pontiac.com?? NO! The TV man said "Google pontiac for more information!", as the screen showed the Google home page with a mouse clicking the "I'm feeling lucky" button with pontiac typed into the text field. What an ingenius way to get hits on a website. I say go Google!
Peace!
Google has been discussing trying to shift some of its dependency on online advertising for revenue. Sure they want to bring us all the informaiton in the world, and yeah they are good at "Don't be evil." But, at its core, Google is an adversiting company, so why not aim for selling ads through traditional channels such as TV, radio and print? In fact, why not set up a system where advertisers can let Google take care of all their advertising needs? This is precisely Google's thinking.
With it's developing strategies Google doesn't just want advertisers to buy ads. They want to sell marketing services. As Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt says, "The long-term fantasy is we walk up to you and you give us, say, $10 million and we'll completely allocate it for you." But don't worry Google won't just divy out you advertising money across different media and ad types. They also plan to bring extensive reporting on the success of different types of ads. In other words, Google will help you track your advertising revenue and get the most bang for your buck.
Sounds pretty competetive, eh? Well, the big marketing firms may not need to worry just yet, as Google admits these ideas are still being conceptualized and developed. Ideally, all these features would be avaialable through a single, easy to use and maintain, online interface. But, some speculate Google may struggle to attract big advertisers....I don't think so. The reason Google's core advertisers are small and medium sized businesses is because Google does'nt yet offer ads through traditional channels. I think these new strides will really take off, pending Google can provide the personell infrastructure to sustain such a system. Most big advertisers are used to getting some face-to-face time with their marketing firm, and I think Google will have to provide that to be successful.
This article caught my interest, not just because I am an avid Google user (and a shareholder), but also because I have seen this plan going into action and succeeding. During a certain high-profile college football game, I saw a zesty new pontiac ad, pushing one of their new compact SUVs. At the end of the commercial, did they pitch pontiac.com?? NO! The TV man said "Google pontiac for more information!", as the screen showed the Google home page with a mouse clicking the "I'm feeling lucky" button with pontiac typed into the text field. What an ingenius way to get hits on a website. I say go Google!
Peace!
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
iPod Fighting the Good Fight! But...Let the Zune Loom
Years after the demise of the original Napster and openly available "free but legal" MP3 downloads music lovers and tech-geeks alike (and hell, just about everyone else too) still gripe about the up-and-coming evil that is DRM (Digital Rights Management). I've even seen Slashdotters complain about the Apple's DRM on iTunes downloads....
But, I bet they never imagined the iPod (and its immense popularity) may begin to contribute to the continued availablility of DRM-free music files...
Ethan Smith and Nick Wingfield wrote an article in this Wednesday's Wall Street journal entitled "In a Turnabout Record Industry Releases MP3s". Here they site several examples of big record companies (such as EMI and even Song BMG) giving up some ground when it comes to providing DRM-free digital music files. The article sited 5 artists on major labels that are now offering DRM-free MP3 files via YahooMusic. It is currently the convention of many labels to only sell digital music files that are restricted by Antipiracy software of some kind.
Why the turn around? Because most antipiracy measures prevent the most popular MP3 player in the world (the iPod, of course) from playing those files. While Apple has been widely criticized for not opening up the iPod to other file/DRM formats, it has remained steadfast in maintianing it's proprietary technologies for the iPod.
So what are we seeing here? More open MP3s being made avaialable because people are targeting the iPod nation? Whoda thunk? Personally, I think this was bound to start happening...the record companies have to break and this is only the begininning. Simply put DRM-laden digital media (pix and vids included) is simply tubby. It's a pain to worry about how many plays you have left on a file, or whether or not the file can do to a CD or an MP3 player. No one wants limitation on their personal digital media collections. And while digital song sales have risen to almost 150 million quarterly in the US, pirated files still make up an estimated 90% of total digital song files downloaded. People are willing to pay for music...that's not the issue here. What people don't want is for most of their money to go to big music labels and get restricted access to the products they purchase.
I think we're starting to see a positive turn-around in the digital music revolution. And while, not everything about the iPods dominance is positive, there is definately some good coming from it. Hats off to YahooMusic exec David Goldberg for widdling down the record companies.
But, I bet they never imagined the iPod (and its immense popularity) may begin to contribute to the continued availablility of DRM-free music files...
Ethan Smith and Nick Wingfield wrote an article in this Wednesday's Wall Street journal entitled "In a Turnabout Record Industry Releases MP3s". Here they site several examples of big record companies (such as EMI and even Song BMG) giving up some ground when it comes to providing DRM-free digital music files. The article sited 5 artists on major labels that are now offering DRM-free MP3 files via YahooMusic. It is currently the convention of many labels to only sell digital music files that are restricted by Antipiracy software of some kind.
Why the turn around? Because most antipiracy measures prevent the most popular MP3 player in the world (the iPod, of course) from playing those files. While Apple has been widely criticized for not opening up the iPod to other file/DRM formats, it has remained steadfast in maintianing it's proprietary technologies for the iPod.
So what are we seeing here? More open MP3s being made avaialable because people are targeting the iPod nation? Whoda thunk? Personally, I think this was bound to start happening...the record companies have to break and this is only the begininning. Simply put DRM-laden digital media (pix and vids included) is simply tubby. It's a pain to worry about how many plays you have left on a file, or whether or not the file can do to a CD or an MP3 player. No one wants limitation on their personal digital media collections. And while digital song sales have risen to almost 150 million quarterly in the US, pirated files still make up an estimated 90% of total digital song files downloaded. People are willing to pay for music...that's not the issue here. What people don't want is for most of their money to go to big music labels and get restricted access to the products they purchase.
I think we're starting to see a positive turn-around in the digital music revolution. And while, not everything about the iPods dominance is positive, there is definately some good coming from it. Hats off to YahooMusic exec David Goldberg for widdling down the record companies.
Saturday, December 2, 2006
"Black Friday eCommerce Up" ...to Cyber Monday
On Cyber Monday (aka the Monday after Black Friday) Roger Park of iMedia Connection wrote an interesting article regarding the rise in online shopping this holiday season. The article can be found here:
http://www.imediaconnection.com/news/12583.asp
I am quite impressed how much online purchasing has gone up in recent years, and this year is the one of the biggest yet.
"Online retail spending reached $8.31 billion during the first 24 days of November this year, marking a 23 percent increase versus the corresponding days in 2005."
"Black Friday saw online sales with $434 million spent, up 42 percent from last year" ....that's ONE DAY ya'll!
Here is the breakdown of the top visited shopping sites on Black Friday:
(# of unique visitors)
eBay - 7.5 million
Amazon.com - 3.4 million
Walmart.com - 3.2 million
What is truly impressive to me about these numbers is that the majority of online shoppers seem to be using sites that do not have traditional retail outlets. People are putting more of their trust into online shopping....even on eBay! This leads me to beleive that maybe online shopping is becoming more convenient and probably even safer. Think about it though...major sites consistently offer discounted prices AND discounted shipping making online shopping cheaper. Product descriptions and users reviews are becoming abundant and more complex. The wallet of the average American seems to be saying that the overall offers presented by online retailers are good enough...or maybe even better than going to the store. I'd rather deal with internet traffic than city traffic ANYday!
The way Americans shop is changing in a big way. This is probably the only thing that has sustained the shipping industry through recent downtimes in the economy. While the change is great for the USPS and FedEx, however, it presents new challenges to all retailers across the board. Websites aren't just for getting information to customers anymore...they're for obtaining customers.
As an up-and-coming computer scientist, this news makes me quite happy...not necessarily because I prefer to shop online (although I usually do), rather because it creates massive competition between online retailers forcing them all to improve to keep up...and lets face it online retailing still has a loooong way to go, particularly when it comes to user interface design....oh but that's a whole 'nother rant....
Cheers!
http://www.imediaconnection.com/news/12583.asp
I am quite impressed how much online purchasing has gone up in recent years, and this year is the one of the biggest yet.
"Online retail spending reached $8.31 billion during the first 24 days of November this year, marking a 23 percent increase versus the corresponding days in 2005."
"Black Friday saw online sales with $434 million spent, up 42 percent from last year" ....that's ONE DAY ya'll!
Here is the breakdown of the top visited shopping sites on Black Friday:
(# of unique visitors)
eBay - 7.5 million
Amazon.com - 3.4 million
Walmart.com - 3.2 million
What is truly impressive to me about these numbers is that the majority of online shoppers seem to be using sites that do not have traditional retail outlets. People are putting more of their trust into online shopping....even on eBay! This leads me to beleive that maybe online shopping is becoming more convenient and probably even safer. Think about it though...major sites consistently offer discounted prices AND discounted shipping making online shopping cheaper. Product descriptions and users reviews are becoming abundant and more complex. The wallet of the average American seems to be saying that the overall offers presented by online retailers are good enough...or maybe even better than going to the store. I'd rather deal with internet traffic than city traffic ANYday!
The way Americans shop is changing in a big way. This is probably the only thing that has sustained the shipping industry through recent downtimes in the economy. While the change is great for the USPS and FedEx, however, it presents new challenges to all retailers across the board. Websites aren't just for getting information to customers anymore...they're for obtaining customers.
As an up-and-coming computer scientist, this news makes me quite happy...not necessarily because I prefer to shop online (although I usually do), rather because it creates massive competition between online retailers forcing them all to improve to keep up...and lets face it online retailing still has a loooong way to go, particularly when it comes to user interface design....oh but that's a whole 'nother rant....
Cheers!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)