Slashdot Mirror

Swiss watches, especially luxury ones are on the rise. 2005 it was a 10 billion dollar per year industry for the Swiss. It is expected to exceed 23 billion (with a B) in 2006.

WSJ article at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116674321288757160 .html

Swiss Watches Strike Export Record
Surging Demand for Luxury Lines Has Makers
Like Richemont Thinking About Capacity
By MARTIN GELNAR
December 22, 2006; Page B2

ZURICH -- Swiss watch exports hit a record in November, suggesting that big watchmakers such as Swatch Group AG, Compagnie Financière Richemont SA and Rolex SA will see strong Christmas sales that will carry into the new year.

Switzerland's watchmakers exported 1.52 billion Swiss francs ($1.25 billion) of goods in November, the Swiss watchmaking association said Thursday, up 13% from the same month last year. The biggest gains were seen for luxury watches selling for more than $6,000 each.

Sales growth is so strong for Swiss watches that the country's watchmakers are facing a new problem: a lack of spare capacity, and especially of the highly skilled craftsmen that make each watch. Last month, Richemont said surging demand for luxury watches may lead to capacity constraints in some product areas over the next few years.

Swiss companies are leaders in the global watch market, which has annual sales of about $23 billion.

The country is by far the world's biggest watch exporter in value terms.

In 2005, Swiss watchmakers exported goods valued at about $10 billion, and accounted for about 9% of Switzerland's total exports. While Hong Kong and China export more watches than Switzerland, they lag far behind in terms of value. Last year, Hong Kong exported watches worth $6 billion and China exported $2 billion, respectively.

The concentration of the watch industry in Switzerland limits growth because production can't easily be shifted outside the country for branding reasons. And within the country, there are only so many people with the training needed to make a watch by hand.

In a recent interview with Swiss daily Le Temps, Swatch Group Chief Executive Nick Hayek said the growth rates of as much as 40% in certain segments aren't sustainable. He noted his company is looking for 140 qualified watchmakers for its high-end Breguet brand, and 200 workers for its watch-movements maker ETA.

But analysts say they don't anticipate serious capacity issues in the short term, and some suggest a shortage of watches may even benefit the industry.

"Production capacity may get tight in some areas, also on the components side, but I don't think this will be a major issue next year," says Zuercher Kantonalbank analyst Patrik Schwendimann. "In a way, scarcity value may also be a positive for the image."

Jon Cox of Kepler Equities expects the "supercycle" in luxury goods to continue. Global demand for expensive jewelry and watches has been boosted by new customers in emerging markets, he says, but he also notes a surge in demand from previously sluggish markets such as France.

"So long as financial markets continue to move up, demand for luxury items will likely remain high," he says.

Any capacity problems may have an impact on the number of watches sold but shouldn't hurt revenue, he says. "To offset any shortage, the companies could simply hike prices," Mr. Cox says.

Write to Martin Gelnar at martin.gelnar@dowjones.com

oh eh, you're pumping numbers with air here, making them big balloons.

>> it's the number of people affected according to record.
indeed.

>> Let's see, 1 million Wii consoles times, say,
1 million ? now where does that come from ? You only need 10 names to be entitled to a class action.

so let's retake that equation...

10 * 30 = $300 + say ... $100 in damage and interest per claimant, that's $1,000 in addition to the $300 for replacements

so what we're saying here is that a class action can range from anywhere between $300 to $300m

but to make it $300m you need 1 million people, that's a LOT of people and an online petition will not do because you need their signature.

Of course big class action suits = big payoff for the lawyer (if he wins), you wanna know why ? because that's a lot of work, especially when the case is incertain. Just getting everyone to sign can be a pain and that's before the suit actually begins. Free work!

Shall i start accounting a VERY rough estimate for that kind of work ? always starting with a million claimants here...
*cracks fingers*
*whips out calculator*

- Take the time to actually meet the people and convince them to sign
I'm gonna put a low average of 5 minutes here. as in everything with some people it takes more time and with some it takes less.
so 1/20 * 1,000,000 = 50,000 hours of work ACK!

eek... just getting the signature is 50,000 of work. add with that a very low hourly fee for a lawyer of $100 and you've got a cost of $500,000 BEFORE the lawyer even begins filing a suit. Add to that countless sleepless night revising that, ordering it, documenting it, registering all that and you end up with a TON of work and you're not even started with the suit.

Ok, so the suit is accepted, now what ?

then start adding all the court audition you gotta go to, keep track of, listen to other attorneys, do more research as they will try to break your claim. and god knows in big trials like this it takes time.

but let's say.... a total of 60 days. not in a straight line nor contiguous. merely an average of 8 hours of work per day would mean the whole thing required 480 hours of actual work during the process.

480 * 100 = $48,000 being the actual lawyer fee.

what you dont seem to realize is that the lawyer takes all the risk here. BECAUSE he is on percentage, if he doesn't win, he gets nada, sometimes he gets a base fee but that's rarely the case because usually people agree on percentage fees because they can't afford lawyer fees to begin with.

I'm not saying 25% is right (its a lot) but you should know that percentages are always set in proportion with the work required to even get the settlement sought.

and, like i said at the beginning, you're puffing numbers here. In real life this is not the bulk of the work, more often than not, those you see in the papers and tv do not represent the rest (Jack Thompson anyone ??)

Those lawyers you mention that lives in beverly hills or other fancy places like that, they're not the majority, that's obvious otherwise everyone would be a lawyer.

Its very hard to be a lawyer, you make a lot of enemies and it is a lot of work. I'm not saying lawyers poor people, deserving pity and whatever. of course not!

im repeating myself here but you can't put all class action in the same basket just as much as you can't put all lawyers in the same basket.

Lawyers make a decent living but not because they charge excruciating fees but rather because they are fairly few of them but a big demand. why are there so few lawyers ? because its hard and nerve racking.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/07/11/careerjournal- lawyers-not-one-of-the-eight-best-careers/

lawyers have one of the highest burnout rate, did you know ? All people see about lawyers is the guy in court spitting accusation and wearing a nice robe but i can assure you there's a lot more to it than it seems.

or a personal-computer assemblage including extra monitors, an external hard drive

Is the 2006 collapse a trend? We don't know yet:

Speaking to The Register, Forrester analyst Josh Bernoff warned against extrapolating too much from the figures. It may reflect a seasonal bounce that hasn't yet manifested itself. However, it might not.

"There's no indication of enormous growth coming," he told us. "When you look at this alongside the SoundScan numbers, you may ask 'Where's the part were we're supposed to get excited?'."

The MSM notices the "collapse" but not the WARNING signs written all over it. The funds then read the MSM, and call Forrester in a flap. Forrester panics.

Meanwhile the Apple fanboys - last seen trying to jail Nick de Plume at ThinkSecret - say, "Nothing to worry about here, folks, move along..."

Can't the MSM do original research any more?

The XBox360's superiority in graphics and computing power has nothing to do with HD-TV, its far away from the Wii in SD-TV just as well. What is holding back the XBox360 so far is that a lot of games are still build for multiple platforms. If you see Marvel Ultimate Alliance on the XBox360 it won't look that much different then on a PS2 or Wii, the gameplay is all the same on every console and the much better bump mapping, resolution and light effects on the XBox360 won't change that.

All I know is what I've seen and what people in head-to-head reviews who've played both consoles - as evidenced in reviews at the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal for example, as well as G4 TV, Spike TV, etc - in that, sure, the xBox360 and PS3 have nice graphics, and they look cool close up (less than 4 feet for an HDTV that is more than 40 inches in size), but in the end it's all about the game play.

For most people, in 480p (standard TV), it really isn't that much different. And a lot of the PS3 releases don't even have good game graphics and camera controls - for example, water waves sloshing thru the land in a few, or bouncing into walls in Need for Speed 2, or whatever.

Again, it's all about the games. It's like my sports coupe - in the hands of someone like me, who actually knows the limitations of the vehicle, you can drive up to the ski hill with it, but the average Joe can't even drive their 4WD up to ski hill without getting stuck. Sure, they have more power, more clearance, they should be able to beat me there, but in real life they can't.

Now, the lead article is about first-week sales for the Wii in Japan of Zelda, compared to an already released user base of xBox360 consoles with a game that was released a couple of weeks before. It's like comparing pomegranates to oranges. Pomegranates may be better, but if they only are available right now, and people are used to oranges, you'll sell a lot more oranges.

The WSJ already had an article about the "stalling" of online music sales, claiming that it's happening for the first time. They include a chart, where you notice something interesting. The exact same thing happened last year (so it's not the "first time"), and then sales skyrocketed through the holidays as everyone got their nanos and iTunes cards. In fact, I remember the news coverage exactly 12 months ago talking about iTunes sales supposedly flatlining.

This is another article people won't even remember after December and Apple posts their biggest sales figures yet. There are so many iPods out there sitting in wrapped boxes waiting for Dec. 25th...

I don't think this story is really very much about the record industry starting to recognize consumer frustration and so on. They simply want to distribute digital music through channels other than iTMS and still maintain access to the iPod market, which is enormous. This is the sensible explanation put forth by the WSJ (although they speculate consumer demand is a driver as well): In a Turnabout, Record Industry Releases MP3s

From the article: Blue Note and other music companies are beginning to think they will have to sell some MP3-formatted music both to satisfy customer demand and to provide access to Apple Computer Inc.'s iPod for songs that are sold by online stores other than Apple's iTunes Store.

And if the Wii starts ramping up support, it's quite possible that many who planned on getting a PS3 before, ended up forgetting about it because they're perfectly happy with the Wii - which they could at least obtain.

This was evidenced by a story in the print edition today of the Wall Street Journal (expensive subscription required), which said that a number of customers online who initially searched for a PS3 switched to an easier to purchase Wii on failing to secure the PS3 in visits to commercial store websites.

Once the installed base of satisfied users is there, it's more a matter of how many Wii games they'll buy - and how many fewer PS3 games will be sold, that dooms Sony's marketing projections.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/03/21/patents-contin ue-their-star-turn-appearing-today-at-the-supreme- court/

Well, that case was heard by the SCOTUS back in March .. i don't think they've ruled on it yet. It's quite possible they may authorize the patentability of ideas and laws of nature.

In which case I am writing a computer program that generates ideas. No longer will I need to do any research .. just spend a million bucks on patents hoping one or two may be true.

For example, I'll make a program that says "orange juice causes cancer", "wine causes cancer" etc. Then, spend 100 million patenting 200,000 of these, or similar, statements. The patent office is not a peer review board, they aren't able to discern whether I did quality research or not (for example, ironically it was recently reported that the effect in the case before the SCOTUS may not be effective). Sure, this may cause some folks not to do research cause I'd be owning any truths they find out. But maybe a few would then hopefully if they find out something useful I can sue them for stealing my ideas.

"promote the progress of the arts" Pfft.

If the current case, "obvious combining of patents" gets approved. Well I have something for that too. Everytime someone comes out with an invention, I wont spend ANY money on development or research. R&D is for suckers. I will simply buy new (at $300 each) patents that combine a popular existing patent from the industry with the new one. Regardless of whether the combination is obvious. For example this case deals with having adjustable foot pedals in combination with some sort of accelerate by wire driving. Let's say someone invents an easier to use steering wheel. Well I'll be watching for the patent issuance. The day it's issued I will immmediately file for a patent on combining that with anti-lock brakes. Anyone who put that new kind of steering wheel on a car with anti lock brakes will owe me money!

"promote the progress of the arts" Pfft.

And yes. I am being sarcastic, cynical.

The problem is that candidates don't feel the need to fill it out. They may get a little bit of bad publicity for not participating, but that's better for them than being pinned-down on where they stand on the issues. (See this article Politicians Grow Wary Of Survey as Internet Spreads Attack Ads on the topic from 10/25/26 issue of the Wall Street Journal).

Disclaimer: I used to work for Project Vote Smart about 10 years ago.

As Cars Collide, Belgian Motorists Refuse to Yield(Subscription Required).

-------

As Cars Collide, Belgian Motorists Refuse to Yield
A Shortage of Stop Signs And Quirky Driving Rules Create Culture of Crashes
By MARY JACOBY
September 25, 2006; Page A1

BRUSSELS -- The intersection outside Isabelle de Bruyn's row house in a quiet residential neighborhood here is a typical Belgian crossroads. It has no stop signs. Now and then, cars collide outside her front door.

"The air bags explode. One car flipped over in the street. Part of one car ended up here," says Ms. de Bruyn, a real-estate agent, pointing to her front steps. Her brother-in-law, Christophe de Bruyn, adds: "In America, they have stop signs. I think that's a good idea for Belgium, too."

The suggestion isn't popular at the Belgian transport ministry. "We'd have to put signs at every crossroads," says spokeswoman Els Bruggeman. "We have lots of intersections."

But insurance companies seeking an easier way to sort out who's at fault in Belgium's frequent fender benders have lobbied for a solution. And so now the government is in the process of making changes to a traffic rule at the heart of Belgium's problems. It is known as priorité de droite, or "priority from the right."

The law evolved from a rule adopted nearly a century ago in neighboring France, intended to offer drivers a simple rule of thumb: Always yield to any vehicle coming from one's right unless a sign or other road marking instructs otherwise.

That was meant to modernize an even more unwieldy rule of the time: Right of way went to the driver of the highest social rank. Horse-drawn carriages were still in common use, and, after accidents, "it wasn't unusual for the passengers to get out of their carriages and compare their titles and ranks in the nobility," says Benoit Godart, a spokesman for the government-financed Belgian Road Safety Institute.

Even more confusing, a driver in Belgium who stops to look both ways at an intersection loses the legal right to proceed first. Such caution might seem prudent, given the lack of stop signs. But a driver who merely taps his brakes can find that his pause has sent a dangerous signal to other drivers: Any sign of hesitation often spurs other drivers to hit the gas in a race to get through the crossing first.

The result is a game of chicken at crossings, where to slow down is to "show weakness," says Belgian traffic court lawyer Virginie Delannoy. Neither driver wants to lose this traffic game, she says, adding: "And then, bam!"

To make matters worse, cars on many of the smallest side streets still qualify for priority over those on major thoroughfares -- so long as they are coming from the right. That forces drivers on many boulevards to slam on their brakes without warning, and some get rear-ended as a result. On certain roads, the rule is suspended, but the only indication of that is a small yield sign drivers often overlook.

Today, failing to yield is the cause of more than two-thirds of the accidents at unmarked Belgian intersections that result in bodily injury.

It contributes to Belgium's relatively high traffic fatality rate, analysts say. Last year, deaths in Belgium from driving accidents were 11.2 per 100,000 inhabitants, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in Paris.

Other countries have more stop signs and traffic lights. By comparison, deaths in the Netherlands were 4.6 per 100,000 inhabitants, 6.1 in Germany and 8.7 in France -- countries that border Belgium.

Although the U.S. has a higher number of fatalities in absolute numbers -- 14.5 per 100,000 inhabitants -- there are more cars on the street in the U.S., as a percentage of the population, than in Belgium. Americans also spend on average more time in their cars, traveling longer distances.

When the difference in the number of cars is accounted for, Belgium has

you do know that the PSP ain't doing as well as the DS, right?

I mean, you can market all you want, but that's what the Wall Street Journal says (I read the print edition).

You'd think a story crediting a WSJ story would include a link to same. Even if it's only for subscribers.

Boy, the marketing geniuses at Microsoft are really working overtime. Points can only be bought in $5.00 increments? What the hell? This isn't Costco for music - people are already used to two ideals - all you can eat subscriptions (which Zune offers) or a la carte purchases. If i hear one song I want to buy, I sure as hell am not going to go through a lengthy process and spend $5.00 to do so.

What a dumb move. Each Zune review I've read so far has been down on the player, but more importantly on Microsoft's "treat users like idiots" approach.

David Pogue - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/technology/09pog ue.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=slogin
David Ewalt - http://blogs.forbes.com/digitaldownload/
Walt Mossberg - http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB11630284839 3917854-wNNFl42I1SSNBP6dH5xF08kTRlQ_20071108.html

Better in that he actually tested the Zune, measured its battery life (and found it to be 14% shorter than claimed), tested its WiFi sharing (and found it to not work as well as advertized), and actually used it.

The review is not all negative, and is worth reading.

Zune's online store offers far fewer songs, just over two million, compared with 3.5 million for the iTunes store. In fact, as of this writing, songs from one of the big labels, Universal, were missing from Zune Marketplace, though Microsoft says it is confident it will have all the major labels when it launches Zune on Tuesday.

So that discounts the approximately 50,000 Iraqi civilians that have been killed since we invaded?* Does that discount our usage of white phosphorous in Fallujah? First they said it was for "illumination purposes". Then it was for offensive use, but only against "enemies". Then the documentaries came out, showing what our media would not or could not report: that we melted innocent people that day. And not just a couple.

After over three years have come and gone, with the situation getting progressively worse, the casualty rate increasing, civil war too blatantly obvious to be denied any longer, how could you possibly call it anything but genocide? What do you call it? A tragedy, an unfortunate thing... maybe a comma in history?

In any case, I'll answer your question. For one, I never said the intention was genocide. Only in the movies could anything be so cut and dry. Second, it would really depend on exactly how many they didn't let evacuate, and why.

* Suspected to be FAR higher. Of course, ask W, and it's "30,000, more or less".

Well, the Wall Street Journal (as seen in the link from another current article) is even worse. Their narrow column is so far to the right that I actually have to scroll over to read the column where the article is. The main part of the page is occupied by ads, links to other stories, and yes, stripey backgrounds (though not as stripey as 1up.com)

Seriously, with the number of interviews required to get a job at Google down to a mere 5.1, I wonder which is easier: Getting a job at Google or just starting your own company and waiting for them to buy you out?

Actually, according to the print edition of the Wall Street Journal, Sony's in serious trouble and at major risk of damaging their entire company with the disasterous PS3 launch, combined with the battery recall.

Meanwhile, Nintendo is laughing all the way to the bank and quietly gearing up production as fast as it can.

I'll be pondering that on Nov. 19th when my son and I line up in Seattle to get our pre-ordered Wii and then spend the day driving to Costco and ToysRUs and Fred Meyer to buy another one for a friend of his who only brought $25 when he lined up all night to buy a Wii at Northgate Mall.

In all fairness to the troll. Most of the deaths in Iraq can be chalked up to people FROM iraq blowing the shit out of each other in an attempt to start a civil war.

Yep once again, it's all America's fault!

So yea I'd say the current state of Iraq and the minimum 44,000 or half million that wouldn't have died without the war is the US's fault.

All right, here's just one result from Google: "fundamental rewrite"

By the time most people have HDTVs, we'll be three or four console generations further along anyway. Not only do the prices have to come down massively, but a lot more content has to be produced in HDTV to make it viable, and they have to make smaller versions (believe it or not but most people don't even have the room for a 50" TV).

Exactly. By the time we reach 50 percent utilization of HDTV it will be 2010 - most people will use their 2001 or older TV sets with their digital cable boxes quite nicely to see HDTV (at lower res). Market adoption curves currently projected - as I read in the print edition of the Wall Street Journal - show that we won't have full adoption of 1080p HDTV until at least 2015.

No matter what Sony wants, them's the cold hard facts.

Take the word "hacker" for an example of how words evolve to mean total opposites in a matter of decades.

This is so true. What's funny is that I read an article in the WSJ during my train ride into NYC one morning and kinda chuckled over the fact that the article said how "hacker" has now gained a good connotation and "it has shed its nefarious undertones." The point of the article was that "hacker" used to mean bad bad computer villain and now it's a term for a clever computer person. What made me laugh is that the author was completely blind to the fact that the original meaning of hacker didnt have a negative connotation associated with it and that really people are just now using it more along the lines of its original meaning (albeit somewhat deviated). I made a mental note to email the author to alert him to this fact. I forgot to do that, but many people didn't. Seems like the MIT folk were the quickest to chime in with comments such as:

When I was at the Artificial Intelligence lab at MIT in the mid-1960s working for Marvin Minsky, the word "hack" referred to a clever bit of programming: for instance, one might work for several days in order to save a word or two of memory. (In the days before mass online storage, saving a word or two of memory might make the difference between a program running and not running.)

or

This is an addition to your history of the words "hack" and "hacker." At MIT, a "hack" has meant (for at least 40 years, maybe more) a very clever, and usually very public, prank. The rules have always been that the hack must be ethical and not do permanent damage. Typically, they require great planning and teamwork (in addition to secrecy) by the students who perpetrate the hack.

For people with WSJ subscriptions:
Original Article
Readers' Comments

Take the word "hacker" for an example of how words evolve to mean total opposites in a matter of decades.

This is so true. What's funny is that I read an article in the WSJ during my train ride into NYC one morning and kinda chuckled over the fact that the article said how "hacker" has now gained a good connotation and "it has shed its nefarious undertones." The point of the article was that "hacker" used to mean bad bad computer villain and now it's a term for a clever computer person. What made me laugh is that the author was completely blind to the fact that the original meaning of hacker didnt have a negative connotation associated with it and that really people are just now using it more along the lines of its original meaning (albeit somewhat deviated). I made a mental note to email the author to alert him to this fact. I forgot to do that, but many people didn't. Seems like the MIT folk were the quickest to chime in with comments such as:

When I was at the Artificial Intelligence lab at MIT in the mid-1960s working for Marvin Minsky, the word "hack" referred to a clever bit of programming: for instance, one might work for several days in order to save a word or two of memory. (In the days before mass online storage, saving a word or two of memory might make the difference between a program running and not running.)

or

This is an addition to your history of the words "hack" and "hacker." At MIT, a "hack" has meant (for at least 40 years, maybe more) a very clever, and usually very public, prank. The rules have always been that the hack must be ethical and not do permanent damage. Typically, they require great planning and teamwork (in addition to secrecy) by the students who perpetrate the hack.

For people with WSJ subscriptions:
Original Article
Readers' Comments

I also am susprised at the opinion that OLPC is targeted at OSS community. It has never been isn't and won't be. The goal is efficient, capable product using efficient solutions to solve a concrete proplem, of children having laptops with network connectivity for education, discussions, information exchange, communication and so on.

If it's not, than why aren't they using OS X?

According to their manifesto, they are indeed targetting OSS. Maybe not the OSS community, but that community's ideals.

From the orignal article:
"YouTube commanded 46% of visits to U.S. online video sites in August, according to market research firm Hitwise. That compared to a 23% share for the video activities of News Corp.'s MySpace social-networking site, and 10% for Google Video."

I wouldn't go as far to say a 10% share for Google video was unsuccessful, but getting a 50%+ share of the video market would be far more successful. So in that sense I say it would be worth quite a bit. I'd agree I can't see why they need to buy it, though I can see why they might want to...

The more important thing is if they are buying it for the name what would they do with it? Change the name, or leave it as it is? Change the URL or not? I'm just not sure how this could work myself.

Seriously, I've read many print edition articles in both Fortune and the Wall Street Journal which basically say that the whole Blu-Ray debacle may drag Sony down and cripple the company.

These are business analysts, and they usually pump new tech, but even they are down on this Bet The Company decision by Sony.

I know it's fun to bash Sony and all lately, but the caption below the title is talking about XBOX 360 games being $72. Is that $3 newsworthy?

No, but if a Sony PS3 game sells for $72 US in Japan (Yen) and a Wii game sells for $40 US in Japan (Yen), that's quite a dramatic difference.

Remember, Sony makes a lot of the profit on the game sales, and loses money on the console (almost $200 with their new Japan pricing, according to today's B1 page article in the Wall Street Journal). Nintendo makes a profit on their consoles, and also makes a profit on their games.

It's hard not to be evil when you have shareholders (and a private party plane)

I agree with the author on his conclusion, but I would add this. The amount of setup I ususally have to do to a linux system to get it what I call "fully working" (i.e. totem works with WMA, playes DVDs, flash, quicktime etc) is a large investment of time and would be a very steep learning curve for people who have never done it before.

link to artical: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB11472713661 0348924-Et3a0yO82d_xJdMWN_y8xKXLl7c_20060521.html? mod=blogs

I know it's popular to bash Zoink right now for being so biased (typically biased towards the XBox) but I don't think that it is really fair. For the most part, at this point in time there are far more positive stories for the Wii and XBox 360 than there are for the PS3; and there are far more negative stories for the PS3 than there are for the Wii or XBox 360. Just a quick look at google news and you get the following stories:

Testing Sony
I remember those being my first thoughts as I learned of Sony's ambitious goals for the launch of the PS3. 2 million units shipped and a worldwide launch? Pretty sweet. Sony's plan looked like a good thing, too -- there'd be enough PS3s to go around, and everyone in the world could lay hands on the company's next-gen console. But things don't always go as planned, and it seems like Sony's in a bit of a pickle right now.
http://www.gamersmark.com/articles/206

Sony Doesn't Even Have Dev Kits Anymore
And just when you thought things can't get any worse for the guys at Sony... I'm no big Sony fan, but i honestly feel kinda bad for them, they've been running into alot of trouble lately... Yesterday their PAL release issues and the dramatic cut in numbers of PS3s available at launch... And today an even more shameful event: Sony don't even have enough dev kits to supply game-developers.
http://www.playfuls.com/news_7071_Sony_Doesnt_Even _Have_Dev_Kits_Anymore.html

Game Delay Hits Sony's Shares
TOKYO -- Sony Corp. shares fell 1.6% in Tokyo on concerns that a four-month delay in the launch of its PlayStation 3 game console in Europe could damage the Japanese electronics giant's earnings.
http://online.wsj.com/google_login.html?url=http%3 A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB11576590436725 6693.html%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj

Sony Setback Will Help Rivals
Sony Corp.'s disclosure Wednesday that manufacturing problems will diminish the launch of its PlayStation 3, slated to be the market's most expensive and advanced videogame player, will give rivals more time to establish their consoles in the market.
http://online.wsj.com/google_login.html?url=http%3 A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB11575827587965 5647.html%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj

The truth is that the Playstation 3 went from being the golden child of the videogame industry (where everyone was certain of it's success before it's launch), to being a console which many gamers want to see fail. I know, you'll say "But the opinion of people online doesn't matter, just look at 'snakes on a plane' or Microsoft's Windows." to which I would reply:

There are certain similarities between the Movie (operating system) market and the videogame market; in these markets it is the uninformed consumers who (simply through their massive numbers) makes most of the purchases. The difference though is that for (about) the first 12-18 months the only people who buy a videogame system are the informed customer (who will spend their time online chatting in forums about the fate of a product); in order for a console to attract exclusive third party development the console's manufacturer has to sell vast quantities of systems to the informed consumer.

No matter what you think, it is clear that Sony is in trouble and no ammount of spin or bias on their behalf will actually help them; Zoink isn't going out of his way to publish bad Sony stories and Positive Wii/XBox 360 stories, those are just the stories that exist.

I know it's popular to bash Zoink right now for being so biased (typically biased towards the XBox) but I don't think that it is really fair. For the most part, at this point in time there are far more positive stories for the Wii and XBox 360 than there are for the PS3; and there are far more negative stories for the PS3 than there are for the Wii or XBox 360. Just a quick look at google news and you get the following stories:

Testing Sony
I remember those being my first thoughts as I learned of Sony's ambitious goals for the launch of the PS3. 2 million units shipped and a worldwide launch? Pretty sweet. Sony's plan looked like a good thing, too -- there'd be enough PS3s to go around, and everyone in the world could lay hands on the company's next-gen console. But things don't always go as planned, and it seems like Sony's in a bit of a pickle right now.
http://www.gamersmark.com/articles/206

Sony Doesn't Even Have Dev Kits Anymore
And just when you thought things can't get any worse for the guys at Sony... I'm no big Sony fan, but i honestly feel kinda bad for them, they've been running into alot of trouble lately... Yesterday their PAL release issues and the dramatic cut in numbers of PS3s available at launch... And today an even more shameful event: Sony don't even have enough dev kits to supply game-developers.
http://www.playfuls.com/news_7071_Sony_Doesnt_Even _Have_Dev_Kits_Anymore.html

Game Delay Hits Sony's Shares
TOKYO -- Sony Corp. shares fell 1.6% in Tokyo on concerns that a four-month delay in the launch of its PlayStation 3 game console in Europe could damage the Japanese electronics giant's earnings.
http://online.wsj.com/google_login.html?url=http%3 A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB11576590436725 6693.html%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj

Sony Setback Will Help Rivals
Sony Corp.'s disclosure Wednesday that manufacturing problems will diminish the launch of its PlayStation 3, slated to be the market's most expensive and advanced videogame player, will give rivals more time to establish their consoles in the market.
http://online.wsj.com/google_login.html?url=http%3 A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB11575827587965 5647.html%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj

The truth is that the Playstation 3 went from being the golden child of the videogame industry (where everyone was certain of it's success before it's launch), to being a console which many gamers want to see fail. I know, you'll say "But the opinion of people online doesn't matter, just look at 'snakes on a plane' or Microsoft's Windows." to which I would reply:

There are certain similarities between the Movie (operating system) market and the videogame market; in these markets it is the uninformed consumers who (simply through their massive numbers) makes most of the purchases. The difference though is that for (about) the first 12-18 months the only people who buy a videogame system are the informed customer (who will spend their time online chatting in forums about the fate of a product); in order for a console to attract exclusive third party development the console's manufacturer has to sell vast quantities of systems to the informed consumer.

No matter what you think, it is clear that Sony is in trouble and no ammount of spin or bias on their behalf will actually help them; Zoink isn't going out of his way to publish bad Sony stories and Positive Wii/XBox 360 stories, those are just the stories that exist.

If the PS3 fails to ignite blu-ray sales, Sony is going to have to back down and start licensing the blu-ray technology to manufacturers of hybrids

They've already been forced to license it in China, due to widescale piracy of the tech. At least, according to Fortune and the Wall Street Journal. Showed up in an interview with the Scottish CEO of Sony and then followup articles in the WSJ.

At least when they get their party jet completed.

Ah, finally an article about the PS3 failing. I was getting jitters because I hadn't gotten my fix yet.

Well, you must really hate the Wall Street Journal then. Cause they and Fortune both have been fairly explicit that Sony's betting the PS3 will drive adoption of the blu-Ray, but that all the analysis shows that noone's interested in buying the PS3 and are far more interested in the Wii.

Capitalism sucks that way.

BlueCup seems to have forgotten to give credit to The Wall Street Journal for the information presented in this post. Wall Street Journal Online subscribers can read the complete article here.

I was reading my print edition of the Wall Street Journal, in the personal tech section, and they basically said that not only isn't it time - in terms of cost - but it's not time in terms of performance.

They did real world tests with the same brands using their 802.11g and 802.11n versions, and found little or no difference.

I think I'll wait until I see a demonstrated reason for upgrading from 802.11b/g, quite frankly.

Walt Mossberg's recent column says they're not any better yet anyway.

I mean, seriously, every article I read in the Wall Street Journal says that that's not true, that in fact it will be Nintendo then Sony then Microsoft - except in the US, where it will be Nintendo then Microsoft then Sony.

Do you think they'll share?

If you look at the print edition (sorry, get it delivered at home) of the Wall Street Journal, you'll see an article entitled Cable Industry May Need to Spend Heavily on Broadband Upgrades, which points out that all cable-television providers will very soon need to upgrade their entire networks with fiber optic cables direct to every home.

It only makes sense, in rebuilding the damaged New Orleans, that they would be laying the new tech, rather than lay current standard and have to rip it up in just two to four years.

My brother is a high-speed cable manager in an oceanfront area of California, and when they get a corroded connection, they find it's cheaper to just lay a new line than to try to fix it.

It's interesting that they project that, but at the very same time, starting with an article on the front page of today's print edition of the Wall Street Journal, I see that they're projecting increased outsourcing to India.

Not that it's not possible to have "increased hiring by CIOs" and outsourcing, as they'll be "hiring" the outsourced jobs, which a handy graph in the same edition shows is where certain major firms have been "expanding".

Results matter, not spin.

In a print edition of the Wall Street Journal, they had (think it was D1, but the cover of one of the inside sections) a fairly lengthy article yesterday, and another lengthy one on Saturday (the weekend edition), on how Sarbanes-Oxley and back-dated options are in fact serious problems and most of the CEOs and senior execs who were so upset at options expensing being a balance sheet cost for tech businesses later turned out to be the people using back-dated options to steal money from the shareowners of the company.

So, you may call it a witch hunt. I'll call it going after employees who steal from me, thank you very much.

...and the article is here.

True! How about taking some the millions that the Redhat founders made and the BILLIONS that the Google founders made off of OSS and funding OSCON for all? Oh wait, I forgot - the Google guys need a fucking plane: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB11522278853 6400097-i72SXBBTMX_EPvtfDIn9uNjtiss_20070707.html? mod=blogs

Thanks for your support guys!

From WSJ "Lawsuits Fly Over Google Founders' Big Private Plane"

Mr. Jennings says Messrs. Brin and Page "had some strange requests," including hammocks hung from the ceiling of the plane. At one point he witnessed a dispute between them over whether Mr. Brin should have a "California king" size bed, he says. Mr. Jennings says Mr. Schmidt stepped in to resolve that by saying, "Sergey, you can have whatever bed you want in your room; Larry, you can have whatever kind of bed you want in your bedroom. Let's move on."

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB11522278853 6400097-i72SXBBTMX_EPvtfDIn9uNjtiss_20070707.html

The Wall Street Journal ran an article today on concerns about long-term sales (subscribers only, I think) for the PS3. Wall Street analysts and industry watchers are concerned that the PS3 just won't succeed with the majority of gamers, especially with the Wii's lower price tag and innovative controller and the time lead that XBox 360 has.

which didn't even make it to the US

Yeah, well neither do the people who've been racially profiled onto the no-fly-list once they've left. (registration free link)

It will be a while before they get their $25 / 4 megabit wholesale price to anywhere close to reasonable.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB11524917130 4801944-v71_ITCad7JIwzqJZ_nfN_pacDg_20060809.html? mod=tff_main_tff_top

Question: What happens to Lay's conviction?

Answer: Lay's conviction might be expunged, says criminal law professor Peter Henning in a fascinating post on the White Collar CrimeProf blog. Citing Fifth Circuit law (the federal jurisdiction encompassing Houston), Henning says that when a defendant dies before appellate review of a conviction, the death "abates, ab initio, the entire criminal proceeding." In a recent Fifth Circuit decision, United States v. Estate of Parsons, the court explained that "the appeal does not just disappear, and the case is not merely dismissed. Instead, everything associated with the case is extinguished, leaving the defendant as if he had never been indicted or convicted." The Fifth Circuit explained the rationale for the rule: "The finality principle reasons that the state should not label one as guilty until he has exhausted his opportunity to appeal. The punishment principle asserts that the state should not punish a dead person or his estate."