Tuesday, January 13, 2009
I Can't Believe Anyone Would Think It's Patentable
by Tom Bozzo
At issue is how the hell can this pass muster for novelty and non-obviousness? Inter-application communication — sending data from application A to application B — is old hat, as is combining the functions of applications A and B into Application C. This post, for instance, is written with an application (Firefox 3) that combines functions of e.g. a Web browser and RSS reader. So there has to be something extra-special about the choice of applications A="calendar" and B="map program." If you tell me that someone with ordinary skill in the art wouldn't envision the combination, then I'd laugh at you and then you'd tell me I'll never make it in patent law.
Regardless, Apple's application seems about as patentable as a Method and Apparatus for Text Entry and Editing on a Digital Computer would have been in recent prehistory. They deserve such copyright protection as is available for their code, and to be exposed to the rigors of competition otherwise.
A MacNN news item divines a possible merger of calendar and map functions on the iPhone from an Apple patent filing. My marginal propensity to consume Apple-branded electronics is at least as high as the next person's, but nevertheless if Apple is granted this patent then the USPTO is fundamentally broken.
At issue is how the hell can this pass muster for novelty and non-obviousness? Inter-application communication — sending data from application A to application B — is old hat, as is combining the functions of applications A and B into Application C. This post, for instance, is written with an application (Firefox 3) that combines functions of e.g. a Web browser and RSS reader. So there has to be something extra-special about the choice of applications A="calendar" and B="map program." If you tell me that someone with ordinary skill in the art wouldn't envision the combination, then I'd laugh at you and then you'd tell me I'll never make it in patent law.
Regardless, Apple's application seems about as patentable as a Method and Apparatus for Text Entry and Editing on a Digital Computer would have been in recent prehistory. They deserve such copyright protection as is available for their code, and to be exposed to the rigors of competition otherwise.
Labels: Apple, Intellectual Property, technology
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Why Several People Come to this Blog
Monday, June 23, 2008
All You Zombies...
by Ken Houghton
Sounds like a good idea. But YOU may be (running) a Zombie:
I think I prefer Steve's version.
Lim, Jamus Jerome (2008) "Letter: Zombies May Mean Attention Bonds Will Not Cure Spam," The Economists' Voice: Vol. 5 : Iss. 2, Article 5. Available at: http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol5/iss2/art5
They are heavily discussed at EoB. (Most recently here.) Now, Zombies have made it into The Economists' [sic] Voice:
The problem with this assumption is that there is a significant amount of spam that is currently being sent via "zombie" computers...Should the owners of these zombie bots then be made liable for their contribution to the worldwide spam problem?
Sounds like a good idea. But YOU may be (running) a Zombie:
Perhaps, the responsibility of maintaining a sound firewall lies on the owner of the machine. But, even if we do make the owner legally liable, what good would it do? The subtleties of security technology lie beyond the average user of the Internet.[emphasis mine]
I think I prefer Steve's version.
Lim, Jamus Jerome (2008) "Letter: Zombies May Mean Attention Bonds Will Not Cure Spam," The Economists' Voice: Vol. 5 : Iss. 2, Article 5. Available at: http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol5/iss2/art5
Labels: Eat Our Brains, Economics, technology
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Ruining Our Reputation as a Family Blog
by Ken Houghton
My Windows machine certainly doesn't have the capability of downloading DVDs. Maybe it's something to do with that new IPhone 2.0?
By the way, I can now say that a GPS allows you to drive around in a city as if you were a native. Except for those times when it waits until you're two car-lengths from the left turn and in the far right lane, at which point you just have to remember that having New Jersey plates is good for something.
Spam e-mail heading that is wrong on so many levels: "Downloadable porno DVD's for free"
My Windows machine certainly doesn't have the capability of downloading DVDs. Maybe it's something to do with that new IPhone 2.0?
By the way, I can now say that a GPS allows you to drive around in a city as if you were a native. Except for those times when it waits until you're two car-lengths from the left turn and in the far right lane, at which point you just have to remember that having New Jersey plates is good for something.
Labels: just life, My home not native land, technology
Thursday, May 08, 2008
C-Net Inbox to be filled with remembrances of Agnew this week
by Ken Houghton
Realizing that not having anything to publish next week would be embarassing, Koo adds:
So here would have been my list of positive things about Vista:
Feel free to add to or correct this list in comments.
The short list of "challenges" I won't send in response to this query, even with its opening:
Today, I'm not here to create another discussion topic dealing with how Vista sucks or how peripherals aren't working because they don't have drivers for Vista, or how I want to revert to XP again, and so forth. [T]his week's topic stems from a forum discussion created by CNET member chustar, who wants to know if there are any folks out there who are part of a silent, Vista-loving majority and would like to express their enthusiasm for it. He has used Vista for close to a year without any problems and simply loves it. I'm sure he's heard enough of the bashes on Vista and would like to take this opportunity to hear from the people who actually are using Vista and, quite frankly, like it or love it
Realizing that not having anything to publish next week would be embarassing, Koo adds:
Now remember, folks this discussion is, for the most part, based on the positive experiences around using Vista, but not just limited to that. So I ask that you please be civil in your replies and be considerate of others when posting.
So here would have been my list of positive things about Vista:
- It has given me a new appreciation of Linux systems
- It has confirmed that Bill Gates and/or Steve Ballmer really were good at finding products for MSFT, since the results since they moved to being upper management have been a monopolistic version of the Peter Principle
- It has given me a new appreciation of those cute little Apple computers.
- It has proved that the OEMs are still dumb enough to believe anything they are told by MSFT. (Releasing Vista OSes on a machine that can handle a maximum of two MB of RAM should, in itself, put several firms out of business.)
- It has given me a greater appreciation of Unix systems
- It has reminded users who had forgotten with the NT4.0-XP that MSFT systems require Constant Vigilance.
- It has given me a greater appreciation of XP
- It has demonstrated that Judge T. P. Jackson was correct, and that the Fourth Circuit and the Bush Justice Department are not working in the best interest of the long-run survival and growth of United States corporations.
- I has given me a greater appreciation of Sun systems
- It has returned us to the Good Old Days where you could make a cup of coffee, have a conversation with your family, and catch up on your reading—and that's just waiting for it to boot up.
- It has given me a greater appreciation of OpenOffice 2.0 and GoogleDocs, since the money spent on that 2 Meg of RAM (see point 4 above) would otherwise have gone to buying MS-Office.
Feel free to add to or correct this list in comments.
Labels: Apple, competitive advantage, computers, Linux, Monopoly, MSFT, technology
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
For those who play video games
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Specious Reasoning as Journalism
by Ken Houghton
Now, don't get me wrong. Charles Platt has been making this argument for over a decade. But Robert Cryan and Jeff Segal resort to a strange argument to "make" their point:
What else happened in the past year? GMail became available to anyone, not just people who were recommended to the service.
What should be amazing is if GMail only doubled in the past year. If it was already reaching 50% of its near-term potential audience before "going public," then there is good reason that Google now depends primarily on non-US sources for its revenue.
Via Infectious Greed, Breaking Views argues that privacy is dead.
Now, don't get me wrong. Charles Platt has been making this argument for over a decade. But Robert Cryan and Jeff Segal resort to a strange argument to "make" their point:
Just look at Google's free e-mail service, Gmail. Google mines messages so that it can insert context-related advertising. Just a few years ago, this seemed like an outrageous incursion into privacy. Now, Gmail is common, and the number of accounts doubled in the past year. [emphasis mine]
What else happened in the past year? GMail became available to anyone, not just people who were recommended to the service.
What should be amazing is if GMail only doubled in the past year. If it was already reaching 50% of its near-term potential audience before "going public," then there is good reason that Google now depends primarily on non-US sources for its revenue.
Labels: Journamalism, technology
Monday, November 19, 2007
Another Reason to Support OLPC
by Ken Houghton
For T-Mobile subscribers (which apparently doesn't include people in the Madison area), or those who frequent Starbuck's (which probably does), not only can you feel good and get a machine that doesn't result in the BSoD, but you also get one year of free T-Mobile HotSpot access.
It's the Giving Season, and the Chic Gift of the Year should be One Laptop Per Child.
For T-Mobile subscribers (which apparently doesn't include people in the Madison area), or those who frequent Starbuck's (which probably does), not only can you feel good and get a machine that doesn't result in the BSoD, but you also get one year of free T-Mobile HotSpot access.
Labels: Bigger Places Than This on the Intertubes, charity, LDC, mobiletelephony, technology
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Blogging By Request (Radiohead and Music Downloading Edition)
by Tom Bozzo
Before claims of average selling prices began to leak out, some silly things were said regarding the exercise. Following word from a source that the band had sold 1.2 million downloads, gigwise.com did some math and worked out:
My correspondent describes a surprising number of music business insiders, who should know better, incorrectly regarding the download revenue as pure profit for the band. To borrow some regulatory terminology, part of it is a "contribution" to cover the costs of producing the album, arranging for industrial-strength web hosting [**], etc. Recording studios don't build themselves, and had Radiohead not occupied theirs for the production of In Rainbows, it could have been collecting recording fees ("exorbitant" or otherwise) from someone else. [***]
Radiohead also reserve the right to charge a 45p transaction fee, which is apparently imposed on lower-priced transactions. Compare Radio 6 DJ Tom Robinson, whose breakdown of the recipients of a 79p iTMS download's revenue, quoted by Macworld UK, suggests Apple and the credit card processors receive roughly 19p. Assuming the charge imposed by the band reflects the actual transaction cost, they've given up roughly £300,000 to inefficient transaction processing.
Now, the band seems to have done a lot better than that, with reports suggesting an average selling price as much as £4. I think I speak on behalf of the quantitative socioeconoblogiverse in saying that actual data on the price distribution would be really interesting. That's not bad, but iTunes terms — which reportedly hand 70% of the sales price to the label, a cut which would go to the band for an independent release — could have given the band £5.59 out of a £7.99 iTMS UK download (or $7 or €7 for US and Eurozone sales, respectively).
Tom Robinson (op. cit.) says "sod that" to the labels getting such a large cut of the legal-download proceeds. While an array of jokes implying record-company inefficiencies may be cued at will [****], it can be forgotten that record labels do useful things for musicians like advancing them money that's to be paid back from music sales proceeds. The terms of the deals may or may not be great, from the performer's perspective. But consider as an exercise what terms you'd require before lending the kids down the street who are Serious About Their Band (say) $50,000 to advance their career.
Reportedly part of Radiohead's desire to avoid iTunes is not so much money issues as control over the sales model; they don't want people diminishing their album-oriented art by picking up tracks a la carte from iTMS or other services. In traditional music retailing, insisting people buy the CD album for a single track would (and does) drive people to free-as-in-beer alternatives. The name-your-price model can address this problem, since someone who would otherwise be willing to buy a 79p/99cent track can get the track (along with the rest of the album) for that price. The customer might even be willing to state a positive cash value for the rest of the album.
Whether a £4 average is sustainable for further sales is a good question (see again, sales data would be really interesting [*****]). I'd expect that super-fans willing to pay at least a standard download charge for In Rainbows are overrepresented relative to the idly curious and passers-by who will take a legal bargain over an extra-legal download among the early adopters. After the initial wave of people willing to pre-order the download given the band's terms, it's hard to see where they'd find a reservoir of high-net-revenue customers. [******]
In the end, I can see things moving to a world in which recorded music is given away to serve as a gateway drug for things like attendance at live appearances which will retain scarcity as data bandwidth and storage costs continue to vanish. Former Creation Records boss Alan McGee says that much with regards to the Charlatans' name-your-price exercise (again from Macworld):
[*] Their ex-label.
[**] The band has taken some guff over a site outage caused by inadequate traffic planning.
[***] Lots of people have trouble with the concept of "owners' equivalent rent," see (e.g.) here. Correct imputation of the value of non-market services is important for preventing economics statistics like GDP from mischaracterizing substitution of market for non-market services as representing economic growth.
[****] Such as the one about the mathematician's dog, the engineer's dog, and the record company A&R guy's dog, which is not suitable for a family blog.
[*****] I'd also suggest, in the spirit of undermining elites who don't need special help, that if Radiohead were willing to share data with Steve Levitt, they should publish it for the use of any interested researcher.
[******] On the gross revenue front, some might be willing to pay for a physical CD, though not the £40 super-deluxe box set; that's a higher transaction cost format.
A friend wrote a couple days ago to suggest I chime in on the much-blogged new album, In Rainbows, from Radiohead. The band's experiment (as they put it) is effectively sacking the middlemen of the recording business, not only the major labels but also Apple and the other online music distributors. In addition to releasing the album themselves, they're offering it mainly as a download of DRM-free MP3 audio files at whatever price (of at least 1p) the purchaser chooses to pay.
Before claims of average selling prices began to leak out, some silly things were said regarding the exercise. Following word from a source that the band had sold 1.2 million downloads, gigwise.com did some math and worked out:
Even if every person who downloaded the album paid just 10 pence, the band will still rake in a massive £120,000.Massive, eh? That's about four times the average annual household income for the UK, and the previous Radiohead studio album was released in 2003. Likewise, ABC News' Silicon Insider column suggested:
[E]ven assuming the worst-case scenario, that all of those millions of Radiohead fans decide to take In Rainbows for free, it's still hard to imagine how the band loses. After all, it produced the album without a contract, using its own studio outside Oxford, so it hasn't had to pay exorbitant recording fees.There may be some debate as to whether economists understand opportunity costs, but ABC's columnist certainly doesn't. If the band had 120 grand, let alone nothing, to show for the experiment, there would be champagne corks popping at Parlophone Records [*] in anticipation of re-signing the band on favorable terms.
My correspondent describes a surprising number of music business insiders, who should know better, incorrectly regarding the download revenue as pure profit for the band. To borrow some regulatory terminology, part of it is a "contribution" to cover the costs of producing the album, arranging for industrial-strength web hosting [**], etc. Recording studios don't build themselves, and had Radiohead not occupied theirs for the production of In Rainbows, it could have been collecting recording fees ("exorbitant" or otherwise) from someone else. [***]
Radiohead also reserve the right to charge a 45p transaction fee, which is apparently imposed on lower-priced transactions. Compare Radio 6 DJ Tom Robinson, whose breakdown of the recipients of a 79p iTMS download's revenue, quoted by Macworld UK, suggests Apple and the credit card processors receive roughly 19p. Assuming the charge imposed by the band reflects the actual transaction cost, they've given up roughly £300,000 to inefficient transaction processing.
Now, the band seems to have done a lot better than that, with reports suggesting an average selling price as much as £4. I think I speak on behalf of the quantitative socioeconoblogiverse in saying that actual data on the price distribution would be really interesting. That's not bad, but iTunes terms — which reportedly hand 70% of the sales price to the label, a cut which would go to the band for an independent release — could have given the band £5.59 out of a £7.99 iTMS UK download (or $7 or €7 for US and Eurozone sales, respectively).
Tom Robinson (op. cit.) says "sod that" to the labels getting such a large cut of the legal-download proceeds. While an array of jokes implying record-company inefficiencies may be cued at will [****], it can be forgotten that record labels do useful things for musicians like advancing them money that's to be paid back from music sales proceeds. The terms of the deals may or may not be great, from the performer's perspective. But consider as an exercise what terms you'd require before lending the kids down the street who are Serious About Their Band (say) $50,000 to advance their career.
Reportedly part of Radiohead's desire to avoid iTunes is not so much money issues as control over the sales model; they don't want people diminishing their album-oriented art by picking up tracks a la carte from iTMS or other services. In traditional music retailing, insisting people buy the CD album for a single track would (and does) drive people to free-as-in-beer alternatives. The name-your-price model can address this problem, since someone who would otherwise be willing to buy a 79p/99cent track can get the track (along with the rest of the album) for that price. The customer might even be willing to state a positive cash value for the rest of the album.
Whether a £4 average is sustainable for further sales is a good question (see again, sales data would be really interesting [*****]). I'd expect that super-fans willing to pay at least a standard download charge for In Rainbows are overrepresented relative to the idly curious and passers-by who will take a legal bargain over an extra-legal download among the early adopters. After the initial wave of people willing to pre-order the download given the band's terms, it's hard to see where they'd find a reservoir of high-net-revenue customers. [******]
In the end, I can see things moving to a world in which recorded music is given away to serve as a gateway drug for things like attendance at live appearances which will retain scarcity as data bandwidth and storage costs continue to vanish. Former Creation Records boss Alan McGee says that much with regards to the Charlatans' name-your-price exercise (again from Macworld):
[The Charlatans] will get paid by more people coming to gigs, buying merchandise, publishing and synch fees. I believe it’s the future business model.Quite probably so. But there is still money in music sales.
[*] Their ex-label.
[**] The band has taken some guff over a site outage caused by inadequate traffic planning.
[***] Lots of people have trouble with the concept of "owners' equivalent rent," see (e.g.) here. Correct imputation of the value of non-market services is important for preventing economics statistics like GDP from mischaracterizing substitution of market for non-market services as representing economic growth.
[****] Such as the one about the mathematician's dog, the engineer's dog, and the record company A&R guy's dog, which is not suitable for a family blog.
[*****] I'd also suggest, in the spirit of undermining elites who don't need special help, that if Radiohead were willing to share data with Steve Levitt, they should publish it for the use of any interested researcher.
[******] On the gross revenue front, some might be willing to pay for a physical CD, though not the £40 super-deluxe box set; that's a higher transaction cost format.
Labels: I Just Love Corporations, Modern Retailing, Music, technology
Sunday, September 16, 2007
What Windows Vista Does for Users (or, why Linux doesn't need Marketers)
by Ken Houghton
Shira's laptop has been fairly useless for the past couple of weeks, claiming that the OEM copy of Windows Vista is "not genuine." We've used workarounds for a while, but this weekend was Time To Take Action:
Act I, Scene 1
Saturday late afternoon:
Attempt several times to use the links suggested by MSFT. After searching through multiple screens, find the Technical Support number.
Call MSFT Support. Surely this is an easy issue to solve, and they will Know What to Do.
Three to six menu options later: "Our Technical Support line is closed. Our hours on weekends are 6:00am to 3:00pm, Pacific time. Please try your call again then."
Scene 2: The Manufacturer
HP/Compaq takes a while, but at least tells you from the start they they offer 24/7 service. It takes a while to figure out that I'm calling about a Compaq C2500. (Compaq no problem; model numbers should be hidden, apparently.) No wait time indication on the line; several suggestions that I should be thrilled to buy their Total Care Package, their Television sets, and possibly a stray bugging device or two. Roughly six Total Care ads, three television set promotions, a couple of random moments, and several Gene Hackman imitations later, the obligatory Subcontinent-accented "support" person comes on the telephone.
A roundelay ensues in which he tells me to keep tapping F8 while rebooting the machine. I attempt to make it clear that this is a Vista machine with MSFT-spec'd memory, and that rebooting therefore lasts only slightly less time than a Ken Burns "documentary." But he has a script, and I keep trying.
Me: "The screen is blank."
Him: "What do you see?"
Me: "A blank screen."
Him: "Keep hitting F8. And try turning the machine off and on again." (I have, by this point, pulled the battery twice.)
Finally, we get to the right screen.
Me: "There are multiple options. Are we running diagnostics?"
Him: "How about Safe Mode."
I silently note that I have tried bringing the machine up in safe mode several times in the past few weeks, and it doesn't appear to have helped.
Him: "When you bought the machine, did you register it and call MSFT?"
Me: "We registered it online, yes. What do you mean, call MSFT?"
Him: "You were supposed to call MSFT and register your copy of Vista."
Me: "There's nothing in the registration or the documentation that said that."
Him: "You were supposed to do it. You'll have to call MSFT."
By this point, I'm wondering why he didn't tell me this fifteen minutes ago, not to mention being rather irritated that it's now being described as my fault.
Him: "I'll give you the number."
(He gives me a different number than the one called in I, i)
Me (encouraged): "Thank you."
The number turns out to be Microsoft SALES. When I get through to where I need to be, we are again at "Our Technical Support line is closed. Our hours on weekends are 6:00am to 3:00pm, Pacific time."
UPDATE: Credit where due: HP Support recognizes that they have an issue, and they set up a Case Number and follow-up calls to ensure it is resolved.
Act II: Sunday afternoon
MSFT Technical Support, whose motto is "We're a monopoly, so we can afford to provide the worst service and call ourselves the best company."
Several moments of information being given to the suport person. After gathering which she finally says:
MSFT Rep (cheerfully): "You need to call the MSFT Genuine Advantage Support Team. But they're not available on weekends."
Me, irritated: "So you can't provide any support?"
MSFT (even more cheerfully): "No. I'll give you their telephone number."
Me: "When are they open?"
MSFT (approaching orgasm): "The number is..."
Me: "And what hours are they open?"
MSFT (having climaxed, through her cigarette): "They're open from 9 to 5."
Me (having dealt with the MSFT telephone system): Is that Eastern or Pacific time?"
MSFT (taken aback, as if it shouldn't be an issue): That's Pacific time."
The chance of my buying another Vista machine, or any hardware from HP again, is fading by the day.
(The following true story is posted due to What Windows Vista Does For Me.)
UPDATE II: Chris at MSFT, who is either one hour ahead of me or 11 hours behind, was wonderful yesterday in getting the laptop back to where it should have been all along.
He was also far too honest. Me: "How much RAM do you need to run Vista?" Him: "At least a Gig. Probably two."
Shira's laptop has been fairly useless for the past couple of weeks, claiming that the OEM copy of Windows Vista is "not genuine." We've used workarounds for a while, but this weekend was Time To Take Action:
Act I, Scene 1
Saturday late afternoon:
Attempt several times to use the links suggested by MSFT. After searching through multiple screens, find the Technical Support number.
Call MSFT Support. Surely this is an easy issue to solve, and they will Know What to Do.
Three to six menu options later: "Our Technical Support line is closed. Our hours on weekends are 6:00am to 3:00pm, Pacific time. Please try your call again then."
Scene 2: The Manufacturer
HP/Compaq takes a while, but at least tells you from the start they they offer 24/7 service. It takes a while to figure out that I'm calling about a Compaq C2500. (Compaq no problem; model numbers should be hidden, apparently.) No wait time indication on the line; several suggestions that I should be thrilled to buy their Total Care Package, their Television sets, and possibly a stray bugging device or two. Roughly six Total Care ads, three television set promotions, a couple of random moments, and several Gene Hackman imitations later, the obligatory Subcontinent-accented "support" person comes on the telephone.
A roundelay ensues in which he tells me to keep tapping F8 while rebooting the machine. I attempt to make it clear that this is a Vista machine with MSFT-spec'd memory, and that rebooting therefore lasts only slightly less time than a Ken Burns "documentary." But he has a script, and I keep trying.
Me: "The screen is blank."
Him: "What do you see?"
Me: "A blank screen."
Him: "Keep hitting F8. And try turning the machine off and on again." (I have, by this point, pulled the battery twice.)
Finally, we get to the right screen.
Me: "There are multiple options. Are we running diagnostics?"
Him: "How about Safe Mode."
I silently note that I have tried bringing the machine up in safe mode several times in the past few weeks, and it doesn't appear to have helped.
Him: "When you bought the machine, did you register it and call MSFT?"
Me: "We registered it online, yes. What do you mean, call MSFT?"
Him: "You were supposed to call MSFT and register your copy of Vista."
Me: "There's nothing in the registration or the documentation that said that."
Him: "You were supposed to do it. You'll have to call MSFT."
By this point, I'm wondering why he didn't tell me this fifteen minutes ago, not to mention being rather irritated that it's now being described as my fault.
Him: "I'll give you the number."
(He gives me a different number than the one called in I, i)
Me (encouraged): "Thank you."
The number turns out to be Microsoft SALES. When I get through to where I need to be, we are again at "Our Technical Support line is closed. Our hours on weekends are 6:00am to 3:00pm, Pacific time."
UPDATE: Credit where due: HP Support recognizes that they have an issue, and they set up a Case Number and follow-up calls to ensure it is resolved.
Act II: Sunday afternoon
MSFT Technical Support, whose motto is "We're a monopoly, so we can afford to provide the worst service and call ourselves the best company."
Several moments of information being given to the suport person. After gathering which she finally says:
MSFT Rep (cheerfully): "You need to call the MSFT Genuine Advantage Support Team. But they're not available on weekends."
Me, irritated: "So you can't provide any support?"
MSFT (even more cheerfully): "No. I'll give you their telephone number."
Me: "When are they open?"
MSFT (approaching orgasm): "The number is..."
Me: "And what hours are they open?"
MSFT (having climaxed, through her cigarette): "They're open from 9 to 5."
Me (having dealt with the MSFT telephone system): Is that Eastern or Pacific time?"
MSFT (taken aback, as if it shouldn't be an issue): That's Pacific time."
The chance of my buying another Vista machine, or any hardware from HP again, is fading by the day.
Labels: Monopoly, MSFT, technology, Vista
Sunday, August 26, 2007
I Doubt this is Still True
by Ken Houghton
So, while I try to gear up again, this note from Tim Harford's Undercover Economist column** in the weekend FT caught my eye:
But would this still be true? One of the glories of the universal scanner technology is its ability to reduce the need for manual price changes on goods.
The corollary has been that stores have been "guaranteeing" that their scanned price will not be greater than the marked price. This is a labor-saving device: prices need not be marked on the goods themselves, but rather only on one or two signs for the shelf.
It does imply some other measures; for instance, "price checks" at the register may be more frequent. But the current effect of inflation on the cost of managing a supermarket undoubtedly should be lower than it was even in the 1990s. If it isn't, the fault lies with the management.
*My productivity appears not to have kept the firm at which I currently consult from laying off a significant number of people—and they have very little direct exposure to the U.S. mortgage market.
**Harford is one of those economists, like the sainted Coyle and the aggrandized Levitt, referenced in this post of Jeremy's as a:
The column title, of course, is the same as the title of Harford's popularization effort.
While Tom is hanging out with senatorial candidates this weekend, I've been recovering from a productive work week.*
So, while I try to gear up again, this note from Tim Harford's Undercover Economist column** in the weekend FT caught my eye:
According to a credible 1990s estimate from the economist Daniel Levy, the typical American supermarket spent $100,000 a year changing the labels on its products: at high inflation rates it would have spent much more.
But would this still be true? One of the glories of the universal scanner technology is its ability to reduce the need for manual price changes on goods.
The corollary has been that stores have been "guaranteeing" that their scanned price will not be greater than the marked price. This is a labor-saving device: prices need not be marked on the goods themselves, but rather only on one or two signs for the shelf.
It does imply some other measures; for instance, "price checks" at the register may be more frequent. But the current effect of inflation on the cost of managing a supermarket undoubtedly should be lower than it was even in the 1990s. If it isn't, the fault lies with the management.
*My productivity appears not to have kept the firm at which I currently consult from laying off a significant number of people—and they have very little direct exposure to the U.S. mortgage market.
**Harford is one of those economists, like the sainted Coyle and the aggrandized Levitt, referenced in this post of Jeremy's as a:
popular economics [writer] [who] ha[s] created a stage in which another economist talking about how much of the world of interpersonal relationships and intrapersonal striving is not, in fact, like buying bananas at the supermarket can be called channeling one's Inner Economist, instead of, well, one's Humanity.
The column title, of course, is the same as the title of Harford's popularization effort.
Labels: Economics, technology
Monday, August 20, 2007
These are the ones that have working batteries, right?
by Ken Houghton
Apparently, people are learning that the rumours about AT&T's lack of infrastructure are true. Or maybe it's just a side-effect of the 300-page and $5,000 iPhone bills.
At any rate, the discussion of that Aussie band with short pants and album production values to make Phil Spector proud is probably no longer visible.
With a hat tip to Paul Kedrosky's Infectious Greed, the value of that new iPod appears to have declined 20-25% since the end of the quarter.
Apparently, people are learning that the rumours about AT&T's lack of infrastructure are true. Or maybe it's just a side-effect of the 300-page and $5,000 iPhone bills.
At any rate, the discussion of that Aussie band with short pants and album production values to make Phil Spector proud is probably no longer visible.
Labels: Apple, iPod, technology
Monday, August 13, 2007
This is What They Mean by "Thin Client"
by Ken Houghton
After clicking submit—but well before the window completes posting the data (I think)—I remember that I cannot check my (home) e-mail to verify that everything is fine. I close the window in haste and pick up the telephone.
Ken: "Hi. I, er, started to, uh, make a reservation online but, well, I, uh, don't know...."
Gracious Hostess: "You're not certain you made a reservation online. What's your name?"
Ken: "Houghton"
GH (perkily): "It's right here."
I go onto the web to find a restaurant (whose name I have forgotten) for dinner tonight for Tom, Suzanne, Shira, and me. As with many NYC restaurants, it accepts online reservations.
After clicking submit—but well before the window completes posting the data (I think)—I remember that I cannot check my (home) e-mail to verify that everything is fine. I close the window in haste and pick up the telephone.
Ken: "Hi. I, er, started to, uh, make a reservation online but, well, I, uh, don't know...."
Gracious Hostess: "You're not certain you made a reservation online. What's your name?"
Ken: "Houghton"
GH (perkily): "It's right here."
Labels: just life, technology
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
"Indoor toilets are miraculous, but you take them for granted after a while."
by Ken Houghton
The bad news is that "the best phone that anybody has ever made" hitched its wagon to a falling star:
The bold, daring, innovative, and technically-savvy thing to do last Friday—not coincidentally, the last Business Day of the Quarter&mash;was to drop two bills over the next two years subsidizing SBC's takeover of AT&T.
The bad news is that "the best phone that anybody has ever made" hitched its wagon to a falling star:
Data congestion left the mobile operator red-faced, and buyers fuming. Because most of AT&T's network uses an ancient, time sharing 2.5G technology - placing the USA on a par with Cambodia and Sierra Leone - the data congestion impacted voice callers, too.
(Apple decided against supporting the thoroughly modern 3G CDMA networks used by Sprint PCS and Verizon. Contrast this with the much smaller Palm, which managed to launch its Treo 650 in 3G CDMA and EDGE versions.)
Absolving Apple of this odd decision to cripple the iPhone, DKIB instead gives AT&T a brisk slap.
"AT&T has spent next to nothing on its GSM/EDGE network in the past nine months," notes DKIB analyst Pers Lindberg, who points out that in Q1, AT&T's capital expenditure for wireless was around $500m, a tenth of its fiscal year budget of $5bn.
Labels: Apple, conspicuous consumption, just life, technology
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Program Note: Elsewhere in teh Intertubes
by Tom Bozzo
Warren Ellis's dispatches from SL for Reuters (yes, a First Life news agency covers virtual goings-on) really make me wonder whether corporations know what they're getting into in the Metaverse.
Total Drek co-blogger Slag and I talk about aspects of Second Life chez Drek.
Warren Ellis's dispatches from SL for Reuters (yes, a First Life news agency covers virtual goings-on) really make me wonder whether corporations know what they're getting into in the Metaverse.
Labels: Economics, Realities Virtual and Otherwise, Sociology, technology
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Annals of My Switch to Google Reader, Part 2
by Ken Houghton
I've settled, at least for now, on Google Reader, it being easy, accessible from the office, and not requiring data duplication on multiple machines. And it has affected my blog reading; blogs that do not offer any feeds—I'm talking to you, AngryBears; note that several others are several steps further along —are, probably, checked less often, while I may miss a day or two of the NYT cartoons.
Overall, though, it has offered more information more efficiently. And, contrary to the claims of some, it has also produced some interesting juxtapositions.
This piece, for instance, projects great patient benefits:
Patient Safety Through Technology
while the following piece noted how those benefits might be taken away by technological advances of another type:
Growth Drug Is Caught Up in Patent Fight
I am not what you could call an "early adapter." (Working with IT people can cause that, as can having children [reducing disposal income, or changing utility preferences, depending on your perspective].) So it took me until a couple weeks ago to start using the various "readers."
I've settled, at least for now, on Google Reader, it being easy, accessible from the office, and not requiring data duplication on multiple machines. And it has affected my blog reading; blogs that do not offer any feeds—I'm talking to you, AngryBears; note that several others are several steps further along —are, probably, checked less often, while I may miss a day or two of the NYT cartoons.
Overall, though, it has offered more information more efficiently. And, contrary to the claims of some, it has also produced some interesting juxtapositions.
This piece, for instance, projects great patient benefits:
Patient Safety Through Technology
while the following piece noted how those benefits might be taken away by technological advances of another type:
Growth Drug Is Caught Up in Patent Fight
Labels: Health Care, technology
