Slashdot Mirror

This was a /. article from the week before: https://stratechery.com/2018/i...

It's hard to take moral argument seriously when the same people making them say it's fine for Google and FB to censor or ban people on their networks because 'it's a private company, the First Amendment doesn't apply'. Well no, it doesn't. But not everywhere is the US and free speech is a wider concept than speech protected by the First Amendment. And if it's a moral argument not a legal one, shouldn't it be a wider issue than the First Amendment?

Actually Net Neutrality is very narrow issue - it's whether ISPs should be regulated under Title II or not.

And it turns out you can make a pro NN argument for not regulating ISPs under Title II

E.g.

https://stratechery.com/2017/p...

There's "insane taxes" on all packages, though. There's a sports tax, a religions tax, a soap opera tax, etc.

If you asked me to list examples of problems facing the world today, and I responded with "child slavery, having to wait for elevators, and people who snuffle instead of blowing their noses" as my list, you'd probably look at me funny, since that first one is in a league of its own compared to the others. Right?

Likewise, ESPN's sports tax is not like those other taxes you listed. Not even close. Back in 2013, ESPN collected affiliate fees that averaged to $5.13/mo. for each cable subscription, meaning that any American with a cable subscription in 2013 was paying $5.13/mo. for ESPN, regardless of whether they were part of the then-1/3 of Americans who watched it. Today? Despite losing over 12M viewers, ESPN collects over $9/mo. per subscriber for its channels. Again, that's regardless of whether the subscribers watch it or not, and that number is still going up because ESPN is still the single biggest thing keeping viewers from cutting the cord. For comparison, AMC (i.e. a channel with several big name shows) barely pulled in 1/10 the affiliate fees of ESPN back in 2013, and even less today.

When low-cost TV packages get at $10 per month with no other fees, then they'll be competitive with Netflix and others.

I agree that they need to cut fees in general to get to that point, but if just one of those fees accounts for over 90% of your proposed monthly subscription, don't you think it's worth specifically calling that one out for hindering providers from offering competitive packages? In fact, wouldn't you agree that it's a waste to even bother mentioning channels that only cost a few cents each month in the same breath with ESPN?

Google should simply make this whole block a biddable AdWords item.
Search image

Then if the external shopping engine's bid exceeds the total of the bids for the five items, the external engine gets control of the entire block.
"Shop for adidas boost on Google" would be replaced with "Shop for adidas boost on Price Grabber". And the five ads would be sourced from the external engine.

This is a win-win solution. The external engines can achieve exactly the same ad placement Google does, and Google gets compensated for generating the traffic if someone clicks. External engines still make money because they are after affiliate commissions which are far high enough to cover the cost of the clicks.

Solutions where these external engines get fed valuable, easily monetizable traffic for free are a non-started with me. Google has invested a lot of effort in generating this traffic, Google deserves some compensation if they pass the consumer to the external site.

Glad I looked more closely at the summary before proceeding with my original thought for a comment -- I was going to link to that exact article. The key point for those who don't RTFAs:

WHAT SHOULD MICROSOFT DO?
Choose between devices and services. The problem with pursuing both, as Microsoft is doing, is that strategy taxes are inevitable. If you favor your devices by giving them better services, you are by definition limiting your services on competing devices. Meanwhile, by offering your services on competing devices, you are limiting the competitive advantage of your devices.

This article at Stratechery has some interesting points about 'disruption' and being 'obsoletive'. http://stratechery.com/2013/obsoletive/

But a big part of the main thrust is that the iPhone reduced both the BlackBerry and the standard candybar phone to APPS. It wasn't necessary to have a whole device that did just phoning, or one that just did messaging, you could have a device that did a lot more than that.

The iPhone wasn't cheaper, but it WAS better. It was a general purpose device in a world that previously basically just had single-purpose devices.

Anyway, the article is worth a read.

Ballmer was a successful CEO. At wringing out profits. Which is what Wall Street wanted. But doesn't drive the company forwards.

From here:
http://stratechery.com/2013/if-steve-ballmer-ran-apple/

I know you're being facetious, but I think it's worth sharing a few reasons why this reorganization really is a bad idea in the long-term. I'd write something up, but someone who has firsthand experience working inside both Apple and Microsoft (he only left Microsoft a few weeks ago, in fact) has already provided a series of insightful essays on the issue, explaining why this sort of organization works for Apple but not for Microsoft:

Functional vs. Divisional organization structures
Why functional doesn't work for MS
Microsoft's failure to recognize what role their products should be playing

I feel like I'm shilling for him, but I really do think that what he's written on the topic is a must-read with a lot of good points.

I know you're being facetious, but I think it's worth sharing a few reasons why this reorganization really is a bad idea in the long-term. I'd write something up, but someone who has firsthand experience working inside both Apple and Microsoft (he only left Microsoft a few weeks ago, in fact) has already provided a series of insightful essays on the issue, explaining why this sort of organization works for Apple but not for Microsoft:

Functional vs. Divisional organization structures
Why functional doesn't work for MS
Microsoft's failure to recognize what role their products should be playing

I feel like I'm shilling for him, but I really do think that what he's written on the topic is a must-read with a lot of good points.

I know you're being facetious, but I think it's worth sharing a few reasons why this reorganization really is a bad idea in the long-term. I'd write something up, but someone who has firsthand experience working inside both Apple and Microsoft (he only left Microsoft a few weeks ago, in fact) has already provided a series of insightful essays on the issue, explaining why this sort of organization works for Apple but not for Microsoft:

Functional vs. Divisional organization structures
Why functional doesn't work for MS
Microsoft's failure to recognize what role their products should be playing

I feel like I'm shilling for him, but I really do think that what he's written on the topic is a must-read with a lot of good points.

I know you're being facetious, but I think it's worth sharing a few reasons why this reorganization really is a bad idea in the long-term. I'd write something up, but someone who has firsthand experience working inside both Apple and Microsoft (he only left Microsoft a few weeks ago, in fact) has already provided a series of insightful essays on the issue, explaining why this sort of organization works for Apple but not for Microsoft:

Functional vs. Divisional organization structures
Why functional doesn't work for MS
Microsoft's failure to recognize what role their products should be playing

I feel like I'm shilling for him, but I really do think that what he's written on the topic is a must-read with a lot of good points.

Why Microsoft’s reorganization is a bad idea, explains differences of the Functional & Divisional organization as well.

http://stratechery.com/2013/why-microsofts-reorganization-is-a-bad-idea/

Perhaps judge him on the basis of what he should be doing as a CEO then? That article has some of the best insight into Ballmer's latest move that I've seen so far, and it indicates that he's way off-base.