Re:Gmail invite for intelligent John Kerry support
on
Gmail in the News
·
· Score: 1
Good job, BrakzOrz, please drop me a line at starbird at gmail dot com and I'll hook you up.
I disagree with nearly everything you wrote, but I appreciate the effort!
Gmail invite for intelligent John Kerry supporter
on
Gmail in the News
·
· Score: 1
John Kerry supporters, here's your chance:
I'll give one Gmail invite to the person who provides 10 valid reasons why John Kerry should be president.
Here are my rules:
* Reasons must be pro-Kerry, not anti-Bush. Tell me about Kerry's policy proposals or legislative record that will help this country. Don't bash Bush, his administration, or his policies. This is your chance to state why Kerry should get the job, not why Bush shouldn't have it.
* Just the facts, please.
* If relying on statistics, back 'em up. Please link to your source, and make sure your source is reputable.
* I define "valid" reasons.
* When I find the post with 10 valid reasons, I'll reply to that post, and request an email from the/.er. I'll then suspend the Gmail offer (unless I've been awarded more invites in the meantime).
This isn't meant to start a Bush v. Kerry flame war; all I want is for a Kerry supporter to actually promote Kerry's policies, not criticize Bush's. I figure a Gmail invite might encourage some smart readers to participate in a respectful discourse. My apologies for taking the Gmail discussion off-topic.
Good points. I should have differentiated between Handspring and Sprint (together referred to as Handsprint?). My frustrations are certainly with Sprint's implementation of SMS, not the Treo's capabilities.
Good catch with the web navigation. I've found that it can be difficult to get the 'focus' on the page, but once there, it's not too tough to navigate with the five-way.
From the keyboard, it seems I only have two brightness settings. Pressing [ALT+P] toggles from full bright to dim.
Today is day four with my 600, after passing my 300 to a colleague. Before that, I had a
series of Blackberries, Palms, and small mobile phones. The Treo replaced all of 'em.
A few notes to add to Alex's review:
While the 300 easily slipped into my pants pockets, the 600 makes it even less apparent
that I'm happy to see you. I don't clip these to my belt, which is fortunate, as the soft
case that ships with the 600 inexplicably excludes a belt clip. (BTW, the case closely
resembles that for my 20GB iPod,
and fits in there quite well.)
One of Handspring's stated design goals was improved one-handed operation (insert joke
here). In this respect they succeeded. I'm still growing accustomed to the navigation --
it doesn't seem completely intuitive to me -- but it's a welcome relief performing simple
tasks without the stylus.
Reduced size notwithstanding, the most notable improvement is the screen. The 300 was all
but unreadable in direct sunlight -- the 600 should ship with sunglasses so as not to
blind unsuspecting former 300 owners. I did check it in direct sunlight, and it was more
than adequate. The resolution is not good enough for movies and such, but it's sufficient
for the business and communications applications I use. Screen brightness now only has
two settings, versus the slider from the 300.
I must mention a glaring omission before continuing with the improvements. The included
SMS client DOES NOT YET WORK. Users are greeted with the message 'This service will be
available soon. You will receive a text message when it is ready. Until then, you can
use Short Mail to send text messages to any other wireless phone from the browser.' Not
only are we left with no included SMS, but the suggested alternative, Short Mail via the
browser, sucks. No other way to say it. It takes ~35 seconds to navigate to the Compose
screen (assuming the network connectivity is average and the required web pages are
available), the characters are half their usual size, so I must hold the device 6 inches
from my eyes, and I must acknowledge every 'Send' with an 'OK' click accepting that this
service might just not work. Reading messages is even worse. Same micefont. There's no
'Delete' option on the same screen as the message, so I must tap 'Menu,' and then 'Remove
message.' Since all of these screens are web pages, it can take minutes (I'm not
exaggerating) to load each one. The aforementioned joystick navigation doesn't work on
web pages, and, since the text is so small, it's nearly impossible to finger-click the
desired link. I used SMS all the time on the 300, but Handspring's inexcusable
implementation drastically reduces the 600's functionality. Yes, I had a 3rd-party SMS
client on the 300, and it will be installed and tested today.
The phone is better in that it's louder, and one-handed navigation makes it much easier
and safer to use in a car. There are now five screens with 10 favorites each, versus only
three screens on the 300. The on-screen buttons to change among these screens are still
too small, however. Thank you, Handspring, for keeping the speakerphone, as I use it far
more often than I expected to.
Battery life seems improved, according to the on-screen display, but I've not yet had the
opportunity (thankfully) to validate the claimed four-hour talk time.
The included camera is nifty, but that's about it. The crappy resolution is expected in a
camera phone. I am concerned about the lens, however, as it's rather exposed (pardon the
pun) on a back corner. It will be heavily scratched before too long.
Another improvement is the inclusion of a 'Home' button on the face of the Treo. I had to
reprogram the 'Web' button on the 300 for just this funcationality. This shows that
Handspring actually pays attention to how its products are used.
The jury is still out with respect to the keyboard. It's noticeably smaller than the
Yup, I remember selling the folks big-time on the Intellivision over the Atari. I think we were the only ones in our (little) town who had one. The games were lightyears ahead of Atari.
My cousin and I would play baseball -- entire seasons worth -- and keep score in actual scorebooks. Gawd, that was a long time ago. Tennis was pretty cool, too.
If only I still had the console and all those games...
Cool idea, but itâ(TM)s important to note that the Internet was designed as a large WAN, with redundant paths, error checking, etc., while Wi-Fi is a LAN technology, really not suitable for lotsa users over a large area.
Since Wi-Fi uses an unlicensed slice of the spectrum, all nodes (users) must share that frequency range. And because itâ(TM)s unlicensed, other devices, such as the aforementioned microwave ovens and cordless phones, contend for the same network resources. Think of a Wi-Fi network as a big parking lot. No matter how many cars you add, the parking lot doesnâ(TM)t grow, so after a while it becomes pretty congested. Throw in the light poles (microwave ovens) and curbs (cordless phones), and you can see the potential for trouble.
Parking lots arenâ(TM)t much use unless theyâ(TM)re connected to roads. Wi-Fi networks need similar access to the Internet. This access can be wireless or terrestrial, but someoneâ(TM)s paying for it. This is one of the primary reasons that the business model for hotspot providers is so iffy. Regardless of how many customers pay $x per month or per session for access to the hotspot, every hotspot needs connectivity to the Internet. Letâ(TM)s say hotspot owners use low-cost business DSL or cable modem service (minimum of $80/month for 1.5M downstream and 256K upstream). Well, this adds up when multiplied by all the hotspots requiring access. And regardless of Wi-Fiâ(TM)s theoretical speeds, a 54M meshed network will be choked by a 1.5M backhaul circuit. This make sense?
Lastly, every node on an IP network requires an IP address, and some service provider must assign that IP address (you and I canâ(TM)t go to ARIN and request âem ourselves). Therefore, that IP address can be traced to an individual when the service provider is subpoenaed. Sorry, no free ride! Illegally distributing copyrighted material beyond the parameters of âoefair useâ exposes one to prosecution. Period.
Bear in mind that this utopian meshed Wi-Fi network still needs Internet access (hey, ho, who's paying for that!), and uses unlicensed spectrum, so every microwave oven and 2.4GHz cordless phone is a potential source of interference.
Bluetooth? Infrared? These technologies allow for speedy file transfers without bulky physical
connections, or expensive/large (relatively) Wi-Fi radios.
Should you want to transfer loads of data (e.g., 256MB of MP3s) in a short time, perhaps a wired solution is
best. But most folks aren't using their phones and PDAs for this... yet.
I sure as heck wouldn't want the Wi-Fi expense, bulk, and battery draw in my *portable* device just for
quick transfers.
Microsoft has been adamant that the Xbox is and will remain a gaming platform. Period. The knee-jerk
reaction to news of additional capabilities, such as voice and music, is "The Xboxes aren't selling as game
consoles, so they're trying other applications in hopes of selling more boxes."
This doesn't make much sense when one considers that Microsoft loses money on every Xbox. The bill of
materials is $400-$500, and they retail for $200. That difference can't be made up on volume. This business
model is to lose money on the consoles but make it back (and then some) on the games, much like the
razor/blade model. Games are high-margin products, especially those created in-house, and I would think that
the Xbox business case is dependent upon preserving those margins. So pushing the Xbox as an enabler of
low-margin services doesn't make much sense. Let's look at those mentioned...
Voice
Sure, Xbox Live voice quality is pretty good. Since Xbox Live requires broadband, it's not tough to obtain
toll quality. But why would they want to? There are many reasons why voice over IP hasn't taken off
(customers don't want to be tethered to their PCs, long distance is already cheap -- you'd better not be
paying more than $0.05/minute for interstate calls), and to my knowledge Xbox Live doesn't have the billing
capabilities required for voice services. The article states that Microsoft would move the chat capability
to the Xbox Live dashboard, which implies the requirement of an Xbox Live subscription. It's unlikely that
this feature would convince consumers to subscribe to Xbox Live. Microsoft would also need VOIP-PSTN
gateways, so their customers can call people who don't use an Xbox. Telephone service is complicated. Maybe
Microsoft would partner with a company such as Vonage, but
they certainly aren't the easiest to work with.
Music
A neat capability, much like the QCast Tuner for the PlayStation 2. Consumers have shown
little willingness to pay for this, however, as they're accustomed to free players. Service like Rhapsody and pressplay would undoubtedly benefit from freedom from the shackles of the PC, but their
revenue shares are micenuts compared with Microsoft's costs. Given the current crop of LAN-to-stereo
bridges, like the AudioTron and the SimpleFi, the Xbox does stand out, but this advantage may be gone in a few months when the
likes of Linksys launch its low-cost device.
Movies
One of the reasons for Movielink's slow start is the
simple fact that most consumers prefer to watch movies on their TVs, not their PCs. This problem is defeated
with the Xbox in the mix, as it enables high-quality video output to the TV. Perhaps Microsoft plans to
download the top 3-4 pay per view movies to the Xbox hard drive each night (Movielink movies are 500-600MB
each, so they would easily fit on the 8-9GB Xbox HDD), so when the consumer chooses a popular movie playback
begins immediately. The margins on this business are low, too. And Microsoft will compete with existing
TV-based PPV and Video on Demand, which is slowly rolling out to cable systems. This makes a tough market
even tougher.
Summary
Low margin + low penetration services will not lift the Xbox to profitability. Great games will. Strong Xbox
Live games will give customers a reason to pay $9.95 a month for the service. Hopefully the EA/AOL
exclusivity deal will end soon, so Xbox can benefit from good sports titles. Until the games improve,
Microsoft is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. They have the cash to be patient, however.
I have a Streamium MC-i200 in my garage (yeah, I spend a lot of time there). Here's the environment:
Connected to the Ethernet port is a D-Link
DWL-810 Ethernet-to-wireless bridge, which talks to a Netgear MR314 in
my upstairs office. Also in the office is a media server, which is simply an old PC with a big hard drive.
Finally, I have an old notebook that sits on my A/V tower downstairs, with a Y-cable from the stereo
minijack out to an unused set of audio ins (MiniDisc, I believe). The notebook is perfect for playing Rhapsody through my main receiver.
With that out of the way, here's a quick review of the Streamium:
Good
- Ability to play MP3s from media server anywhere on your network.
- Limited Internet streaming capability. Rhapsody or something similar is needed.
- Really good sound, with decent bass thump.
- Remote control is handy when I'm working underneath the car and want to change tracks.
Bad
- Requires a special version of MusicMatch Jukebox on the "server" PC, even though I had already paid (yes,
I paid) for the full version of MusicMatch.
Now I have two versions on my music server. This server app must be running for the Streamium to find it and
play music from the hard drive.
- Horrid navigation. My music is stored in folders, with an artist at the top level, and album folders
underneath. It's a chore to page down through the alphabetized list of artists. So I play more Geoff Achison than I would like, and
less of the Zombies.
Bottom Line
- While this is a good first step, $500 is far too much to pay (I evaluate this gear for my job). For that
jack I'd buy a two-year-old notebook, PC speakers, and slap in a wireless card.
- Keep an eye out for a Digital Media Adapter from Linksys, which should be released soon. It, too, sits on your A/V tower, hooks into your
receiver, and should have an out to the TV, so you can navigate playlists and such on the big screen.
BTW, the Wall Street Journal reviewed the Streamium last month. Yup, you gotta have a subscription.
It stinks. No feel at all. I've used Blackberries for years, and just got a
Treo 300. The keys on the Clie aren't high enough for "touch" typists, if
one can be a touch typist using only thumbs.
I completely agree with the poster who stated he wouldn't buy a Sony CE
device that only offers MemoryStick storage. Same here. I love Sony gear,
but support for SD and/or CF is a requirement. I purchased a Canon digital
camera and MiniDV camcorder over comparable Sony units for this reason (also,
the Canons share batteries and AC adapters, so my kit has fewer items).
What the hell is Sony thinking by requiring potential customers to PAY for
access to the online Clie Advanced Guide? $40 for six months? Are they on
crack?!? Check here for details, and you'll shake your head, too.
I like my Treo, but I wish:
- It had expansion slots (SD or CF).
- The OS was upgradeable. I'm stuck with Palm 3.5.
- The battery was external.
- The screen had higher resolution.
- Mobile service was modular. Sprint PCS is my only option now that I have
the 300.
Give Sony props for stuffing a lot of bells and whistles into a (relatively)
small space. But criticize them for "Windows-like" bloat, high prices, and
dogged determination to pimp their proprietary storage format over the pragmatic requirements of their customers.
There're some really good points in your responses. Do you think
any of them (or others not yet mentioned) have mass appeal? Some of
the ideas are already implemented:
- Workgroups collaborating over VPNs/VNCs. Seems like the limiting
factors are applications and management philosophy, not access.
Personally, my business travel hasn't returned to pre-9/11 levels.
It takes so long to get through airport security now (TSA =
Thousands Standing Around) I just audio or video conference.
NetMeeting is so easy to use, and webcams are $30. Virtual
workgroups are hindered not by technology (much), but by
pointy-headed bosses who need to see their employees typing to
believe they're working.
- Network computing is a neat concept that's still a few years away
from mainstream commercial acceptance. I'll bet we'll say the same
thing a few years from now, too. It's a $0 billion industry!
- If I were more secure and had some extra cash I'd try the
wearable computing stuff. Again, I don't think the primary obstacle
is access, I think it's society. Dating is tough enough already --
jokes like "Is that a hard drive in your pocket?" won't make it any
easier:-).
- One poster asked us to think of neat new ways I'd communicate
with my friends and family if we had 10Mbps links. While I have
some ideas, the access isn't the impediment. Applications and their
interfaces will keep my mother away more than price and speed. I
can't emphasize enough how important ease of use is when rolling
out mass-market residential services (and these services need to
appeal to a lot of people in order to get off the ground).
Any other ideas? Yes, I'm in new product development. And I work
for a large cable company (standard disclaimer: these views are
mine alone, not my employer's nor my industry's). My job is to
identify and launch such services. So I'm *very* interested in
applications that drive broadband adoption. And as much as I'm
intrigued by niche products, I recognize the reality of the
business, and if my products aren't profitable they won't receive a
lot of attention. We have customers, and we have shareholders.
Gotta keep everyone happy.
Thanks for letting me spend so much time on the soapbox. I
appreciate the dialog.
Comparing Ricochet to WiFi is like apples to oranges. They were designed and deployed to meet different needs. I don't believe that former will fly for a number of reasons:
- Costs involved in "re-lighting" the network are high, so Aerie must take the fiscally conservative approach of matching deployment to customer growth. This will take time. Too much time. 3G networks from the national wireless providers will leapfrog Ricochet.
- Since the technology is proprietary and the penetration is low, hardware costs will remain high. The main reason 802.11b is so dang popular is because it's so cheap. And it's cheap because it's so popular. Ricochet won't benefit from scale.
- Like another poster pointed out, that kind of latency (250ms) is a killer, especially for a service that costs so much.
I disagree with the author of the article: wireless carriers aren't staying away because Ricochet is a "loser," they're staying away from an unattractive business that in no way integrates with the platforms in which they've already invested billions.
I don't believe Ricochet can grow fast enough to matter. It'll remain a niche player, generating small returns for a short while. Without money to spend on R&D, it'll simply hang on until it's surpassed, stranding its customers with slow, proprietary modems. Too little, too late.
Yup, I agree that we'll fill the pipe. But with what? There are so many other bottlenecks (source server, transit networks, distribution and access routers, and, of course, all the home networking gear).
What kind of content do you see taking up that much throughput over the next two years? When I think of what takes up the bandwidth now, I have a hard time seeing that expand a whole lot without some significant investment on the server side.
The Bells and CableCos will invest in making more bandwidth
available to residential customers WHEN THERE IS DEMAND. Right now,
that demand doesn't exist. How many people in the U.S. have
broadband today? 15%, or something close, right? Granted, some who
want it can't get it, but broadband is available to the majority of
consumers.
So why aren't they scooping it up? Simple. Many people just don't
have a need for high-speed Internet access. All they do is check
email and sports scores. Those of us who have broadband would
rather part with a kidney than go back to dial-up, but the majority
of Americans are satisfied with dial-up.
Of course price factors in. Undoubtedly more consumers would have
broadband if it were $20/month, but it's not. The market supports
the current price models. And the companies that put money in need
to see a return on their investments. For example, the large cable
companies have spent $65 billion (with a "B") since 1996 upgrading
their plant to handle two-way data and voice. They floated this
debt through public markets, and need to pay the bills before
spending more. Maybe you haven't noticed, but the capital markets
aren't open to companies wishing to dump a lot of money into an
"opportunity" with limited demand.
This isn't rocket surgery. It's supply and demand, and the
realities of borrowing money.
Disclaimer: I work for a major cable company. My views are mine
alone, and don't represent my employer or my industry.
What would you do with 10Mb that you can't do with broadband
today?
- Watch video.
Of what? There's still no good solution for streaming first-run
movies over the 'net (Movielink is a first step, and a small one at
that). I'm not aware of any major broadcasters making a lot of
content available, either.
From where? The costs of serving up 300kbps streams are so high
that many outlets (e.g., CNN, MSNBC) are charging for their
content. Who's gonna pony up for fatter streams? Servers and access
cost $$.
- Share files.
What kind of files? You better believe copyright owners would focus
more on file sharing of their intellectual property if it were
super easy.
- Voice service.
Current residential broadband service is just fine for voice.
Granted, the upstream can't handle multiple simultaneous sessions
without significant compression, but the current broadband access
speeds will handle VOIP for a while.
How would you store the data that would stream down the pipe? Big
hard drives are cheap, but we would have to redefine "big." 250GB
wouldn't last long.
Without question content will come, and uses would pop up that we
haven't even thought of yet. But I just don't see the need right
now.
I'm not being critical -- just curious. What *would* you do with
10Mbps? How much a month would you pay for it? It wouldn't be
cheap. The companies that spend the bucks to lay the pipe and hook
up will need to make money. Would you pay $150/month for super
high-speed Internet service?
If all WiFi clients were also repeaters/bridges, the network would be supported and built by the users. Why do people insist that WiFi must be for profit?
Who's gonna bankroll the costs for gear and access? Where's the money? I'm not aware of many investors who are looking to dump loads of cash into a venture without a clear path to profitability. Not anymore, anyway.
I'll tell you who will bankroll this effort -- companies who figure out how to provide good service at a fair price to a lot of customers. Without this, the technology will be just that -- a technology, not a solution.
Public open WPOPs should be all over the place. The more a pop is used, and the more pops/users there are, the more the infrastructure supporting it will grow.
The more a POP is used, the more infrastructure (gear and access) is needed to sustain it. Again, someone somewhere needs to pay for this. Nothing is free.
By virtue of using the system you would add to it's range and capacity.
Not really. All 802.11b devices use the same slice of spectrum. Two WAPs give me the same bandwidth as 100 WAPs. (The usable bandwidth is more with two WAPs, actually, as the Ethernet collision domain of 100 WAPs would drastically reduce the network effectiveness.) Also, a fatter access pipe is needed to support additional endusers.
Just think if all cars had a WiFi repeater installed in them. the Highway becomes a true information highway. Packets jumping from car to car to get from anywhere to anywhere.
Cool idea, but we're a long way from realizing this.
What about:
- Security. You think the average consumer is exposed now, imagine the gaping holes just waiting to be exploited in WiFi networks. Who's responsible for network and application security? This leads to my next point...
- Liability. If we're neighbors, and my leaky 2.4GHz cordless phone keeps interfering with your WiFi reception, who's responsible? Me, right? What about the cordless phone manufacturer? What about the provider? Oh, wait, who is the provider? Is the upstream Internet provider, who may be 10 hops away, responsible for my environment?
- QoS. How to provide quality of service over such a shared topology? Especially when key connecting points can be dropped willy-nilly? Some of the neat services mentioned in this thread, like VOIP and streaming video, are really sensitive to delay. Retransmissions required when a network re-converges will kill such applications.
WiFi isn't the holy grail. It's a piece of the puzzle. It has strengths and weaknesses. I have a huge WiFi network in my house, and we use it at the office, too. I don't, however, see many companies willing to bet a lot of jack that WiFi is The Next Big Thing. The technology will continue to improve, the standards will mature, and wireless networking will penetrate deeper into the home and the office. But it's gonna take money, folks, and users will have to pay their share.
That's cable companies' problem. Why digital satellite STB cost less than $100, including dish? Something rotten in cable technology? Or in marketing?;) And satellite receivers with integrated PVR cost less than $300. (and they include two tuners)
One of the benefits of DBS's platform is that the high manufacturing volume means lower component costs, which translates to lower receiver costs. However, the *big* downside of the DBS platform is legendary, and familiar to anyone who has ever had a "test" card. I recently read where 20-30% of all DBS receivers sold at retail are never activated. Theft of service is a billion dollar problem for them.
The two primary STB providers, S-A and Motorola, know that there're only two of them. Since thecablecos have a huge investment in head-end gear, the STB folks aren't incented to reduce their margins by lowering prices.
What the problem? Just have two different boxes. If customer rents it - it is not customer's problem. If customer owns it - customer have to sell it and buy a new one. That's why we have eBay;)
Ah, if only it were that easy. The rental solution works for the customer, but, like I previously stated, not many cablecos are looked to sink a lot of capital into boxes with such a *looong* payback period. And as much as I love eBay (please buy my Sprint PCS phone that's for sale now), that's probably not a feasible solution for most customers:-).
Disclaimer: I work for a large cable company. My comments are mine alone, and don't represent the views of my employer or the cable industry.
Please bear in mind that while cable companies do own and profit from some of the advertising inventory, the broadcaster (e.g., NBC, ESPN) uses much of the advertising revenue to offset programming costs. You think the cast of Friends is cheap? How 'bout ER? Production of sci-fi shows, like Enterprise, is pretty expensive, too. Advertising pays these bills.
One of the reasons for the popularity of reality-based programming is the low cost. No fat salaries for celebrities. No special effects. Sets are cheap. Viewership is high. These shows, as horrible as they may be, subsidize the better/more-expensive shows.
So we can complain about advertising, but we must recognize that it's part of the equation that keeps good TV (and there *are* good shows -- you just have to dig) on the major broadcast networks.
Disclaimer: I work for a large cable company. My comments are mine
alone, and don't represent the views of my employer or the cable
industry.
While the concept of a bundled STB (Set Top Box) and PVR is good,
it's difficult to implement. A few problems:
1. Cost. Current digital STBs are already ~$400. Double that for
one that includes two tuners and a fat hard drive. Few consumers
will pay $800 for this device. Given the current economic climate,
it's doubtful that cablecos will lease the device to the customer,
as that requires a *large* initial capital outlay, and cable
companies just aren't in a position right now to justify that to
Wall Street.
2. Price. Let's say cablecos do lease these boxes to their
customers. Assuming a simplistic three-year payback model, the
monthly charge for the box alone would be ~$25. Again, not many
consumers would add this to their monthly cable bill.
3. Conditional Access. Scientific-Atlanta STBs talk with S-A
head-ends, and Motorola STBs talk with Motorola head-ends. Let's
say you're currently served by an S-A headend, so you buy an
STB/PVR with S-A's encryption technology. Then you move to another
area, one that uses Motorola gear. The STB portion of your box,
along with all the neat integrated features, no longer works. A
big chunk of your investment is stranded. You would not be
happy.
4. Reality. Movie studios aren't yet comfortable enough with
encryption technolgy to allow their intellectual property to be
downloaded to a consumer device. Period. They know it's only a
matter of time before the digital files are ripped from the boxes.
It costs *a lot* to develop and test this technology, and the
uncertain payback makes this an investment few are willing to
make.
So, until there is enough consumer demand (see my previous post), an integrated box isn't at the
top of cableco's to-do list.
Disclaimer: I work for a large cable company. My comments are mine alone, and don't represent the views of my employer or the cable industry.
No, cable companies don't hate PVRs. To my knowledge every major MSO (Multiple System Operator) is in some stage of developing a PVR service. Why haven't they launched such a service yet?
1. Lack of consumer demand. In the US, more people still use out-houses than PVRs. That's not to say it's not a cool technology -- 'cause it is -- but it's not yet mainstream. Won't be for a while. Note that TiVo and SONICblue aren't yet raking in the dough.
2. High cost. While Series 1 TiVos can be purchased for $150, most decent PVRs are still ~$300, with a ~$10/month subscription fee. Sure, you can build your own PC-based PVR and get TitanTV.com for free, but this solution doesn't appeal to the majority of consumers.
3. Unattractive business model. Consumers are conditioned to lease their digital set-top box (STB) from their cable company, which means the MSO must purchase the STB from the manufacturer and keep the capital cost of equipment on its books. Most MSOs are limiting captial expenditures as they move toward free cash flow, so new services that require heavy capital spending are scrutinized. Especially new services with limited (albeit growing) appeal (see #1 above).
Product development is simple:
1. What do customers want?
2. How much will they pay?
3. Can we make money charging that?
For a more detailed look at Product Development 101, see this post.
Changing gears for a moment, let's talk about rising cable rates. <soapbox> Why do MSOs raise their rates? Mostly because of increased programming costs. You see, MSOs have to pay the content providers for some of the most popular channels. It's been published (so I'm not giving away any secrets here) that ESPN raises the price it charges MSOs by ~20% per year, and won't let MSOs move the channel(s) onto a premium tier. Gotta stay in basic, as that's accessible to all viewers.
Ah, so we blame ESPN! Not so fast. *Their* costs are rising, too. The money to pay for Alex Rodriguez's $252 million contract isn't coming from ticket and beer sales. It's TV money. The Yankees can afford the highest payroll in baseball in part because of their TV contract. Follow the money: players' salaries skyrocket, which dramatically increase broadcast rights fees, so video networks (such as ESPN) charge more for their content, and cable companies are forced to increase their rates. Salaries, broadcast rights, and carriage fees increase much more than the typical 5% cable rate boost. </soapbox>
Funny, I thought it was the insurance companies' notion that they have a right to a profit that continually drove up premiums.
Depending on their structure, most insurance companies do have a right to a profit. They must balance the drive for profits with the necessity of attracting and keeping policy holders. If their premiums are too high, their customers may (should) jump to a competitor.
Simply put, if you're really a "power user" and want to do any of the things you see on "lightning fast internet access" commercials such as downloading digital video or transferring large files, broadband ISPs don't want you on their network.
This is not true. Smart BSPs like "power users," as they tend to subscribe to more revenue-generating services than the average customer. Power users are often "early adopters," trying new products first.
BSPs don't like "abusers," like those in Ohio. Those who abuse access are in part responsible for higher prices for all users, much like insurance fraud leads to unnecessarily high premiums for all policy holders.
I completely agree that the penalties imposed on the Ohio cable customers were far too severe. Usually a sharply worded, "attorneyized" letter does the trick. Involving the FBI is overkill, and even abusive.
This is not news. This is simple product development.
Very few new products are cash-flow positive in year one. Start-up costs, including building the team, spooling up manufacturing, and marketing are usually far greater than first-year revenues. Most product lifecycles span many years. Products at first generate horrible losses, but as sales volume picks up and manufacturing and distribution costs drop, they creep toward cash-flow positive status. Once mature, successful products are throwing off free cash flow. Products die, and the cycle begins anew.
Talk with your friends in product development and financial analysis. Ask them about discounted cash flow with terminal value, net present value, internal rate of return, present value of breakeven, benefit cost ratio, profitability index, weighted average cost of capital, risk-adjusted return, and scores of other metrics and methods used when creating business models. Most in this forum focus on the technology that enables new products and services. Much has to happen before a project is green-lighted to even get to the technology architecture phase.
Speaking of green lights, the Xbox offers a fine example of this cycle at work. Microsoft planned to lose -- and lose big -- selling consoles the first few years. The game console business is like the razor business. Gillette loses money on each razor, but makes it up on the blades. Console games are blades.
Microsoft is counting on yet another revenue stream, however. The holy grail of recurring revenue -- Xbox Live subscriptions. Neither Sony nor Nintendo is following a similar model. Investors like recurring revenue.
Is Microsoft engaging in anti-competitive behavior by dumping Xboxes on the market below cost? Heck no. They're just early on in the product lifecycle. Their YE2004 results will look much different.
BTW, up until recently the Ford Escort was the top selling car worldwide (I think the Toyota Corolla recently passed it). The Escort program by itself lost money for Ford, even though a gigillian models were sold. All those fuel-sipping cars allowed Ford to sell more pickups and SUVs, however, and not violate the government-imposed CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) limits. Ford lost money on the Escort to make boatloads on the F-Series.
For those with an Xbox, enjoy 'em. I'll pick up Ghost Recon tonight, so I can play on my black Xbox, not just the green one. Sure, I also enjoy PC games and SOCOM on the PS2. To each his own. Happy gaming.
Slashdot Mirror
Good job, BrakzOrz, please drop me a line at starbird at gmail dot com and I'll hook you up. I disagree with nearly everything you wrote, but I appreciate the effort!
John Kerry supporters, here's your chance:
/.er. I'll then suspend the Gmail offer (unless I've been awarded more invites in the meantime).
I'll give one Gmail invite to the person who provides 10 valid reasons why John Kerry should be president.
Here are my rules:
* Reasons must be pro-Kerry, not anti-Bush. Tell me about Kerry's policy proposals or legislative record that will help this country. Don't bash Bush, his administration, or his policies. This is your chance to state why Kerry should get the job, not why Bush shouldn't have it.
* Just the facts, please.
* If relying on statistics, back 'em up. Please link to your source, and make sure your source is reputable.
* I define "valid" reasons.
* When I find the post with 10 valid reasons, I'll reply to that post, and request an email from the
This isn't meant to start a Bush v. Kerry flame war; all I want is for a Kerry supporter to actually promote Kerry's policies, not criticize Bush's. I figure a Gmail invite might encourage some smart readers to participate in a respectful discourse. My apologies for taking the Gmail discussion off-topic.
link
Good points. I should have differentiated between Handspring and Sprint (together referred to as Handsprint?). My frustrations are certainly with Sprint's implementation of SMS, not the Treo's capabilities.
Good catch with the web navigation. I've found that it can be difficult to get the 'focus' on the page, but once there, it's not too tough to navigate with the five-way.
From the keyboard, it seems I only have two brightness settings. Pressing [ALT+P] toggles from full bright to dim.
Today is day four with my 600, after passing my 300 to a colleague. Before that, I had a series of Blackberries, Palms, and small mobile phones. The Treo replaced all of 'em.
A few notes to add to Alex's review:
While the 300 easily slipped into my pants pockets, the 600 makes it even less apparent that I'm happy to see you. I don't clip these to my belt, which is fortunate, as the soft case that ships with the 600 inexplicably excludes a belt clip. (BTW, the case closely resembles that for my 20GB iPod, and fits in there quite well.)
One of Handspring's stated design goals was improved one-handed operation (insert joke here). In this respect they succeeded. I'm still growing accustomed to the navigation -- it doesn't seem completely intuitive to me -- but it's a welcome relief performing simple tasks without the stylus.
Reduced size notwithstanding, the most notable improvement is the screen. The 300 was all but unreadable in direct sunlight -- the 600 should ship with sunglasses so as not to blind unsuspecting former 300 owners. I did check it in direct sunlight, and it was more than adequate. The resolution is not good enough for movies and such, but it's sufficient for the business and communications applications I use. Screen brightness now only has two settings, versus the slider from the 300.
I must mention a glaring omission before continuing with the improvements. The included SMS client DOES NOT YET WORK. Users are greeted with the message 'This service will be available soon. You will receive a text message when it is ready. Until then, you can use Short Mail to send text messages to any other wireless phone from the browser.' Not only are we left with no included SMS, but the suggested alternative, Short Mail via the browser, sucks. No other way to say it. It takes ~35 seconds to navigate to the Compose screen (assuming the network connectivity is average and the required web pages are available), the characters are half their usual size, so I must hold the device 6 inches from my eyes, and I must acknowledge every 'Send' with an 'OK' click accepting that this service might just not work. Reading messages is even worse. Same micefont. There's no 'Delete' option on the same screen as the message, so I must tap 'Menu,' and then 'Remove message.' Since all of these screens are web pages, it can take minutes (I'm not exaggerating) to load each one. The aforementioned joystick navigation doesn't work on web pages, and, since the text is so small, it's nearly impossible to finger-click the desired link. I used SMS all the time on the 300, but Handspring's inexcusable implementation drastically reduces the 600's functionality. Yes, I had a 3rd-party SMS client on the 300, and it will be installed and tested today.
The phone is better in that it's louder, and one-handed navigation makes it much easier and safer to use in a car. There are now five screens with 10 favorites each, versus only three screens on the 300. The on-screen buttons to change among these screens are still too small, however. Thank you, Handspring, for keeping the speakerphone, as I use it far more often than I expected to.
Battery life seems improved, according to the on-screen display, but I've not yet had the opportunity (thankfully) to validate the claimed four-hour talk time.
The included camera is nifty, but that's about it. The crappy resolution is expected in a camera phone. I am concerned about the lens, however, as it's rather exposed (pardon the pun) on a back corner. It will be heavily scratched before too long.
Another improvement is the inclusion of a 'Home' button on the face of the Treo. I had to reprogram the 'Web' button on the 300 for just this funcationality. This shows that Handspring actually pays attention to how its products are used.
The jury is still out with respect to the keyboard. It's noticeably smaller than the
Yup, I remember selling the folks big-time on the Intellivision over the Atari. I think we were the only ones in our (little) town who had one. The games were lightyears ahead of Atari.
My cousin and I would play baseball -- entire seasons worth -- and keep score in actual scorebooks. Gawd, that was a long time ago. Tennis was pretty cool, too.
If only I still had the console and all those games...
Cool idea, but itâ(TM)s important to note that the Internet was designed as a large WAN, with redundant paths, error checking, etc., while Wi-Fi is a LAN technology, really not suitable for lotsa users over a large area.
Since Wi-Fi uses an unlicensed slice of the spectrum, all nodes (users) must share that frequency range. And because itâ(TM)s unlicensed, other devices, such as the aforementioned microwave ovens and cordless phones, contend for the same network resources. Think of a Wi-Fi network as a big parking lot. No matter how many cars you add, the parking lot doesnâ(TM)t grow, so after a while it becomes pretty congested. Throw in the light poles (microwave ovens) and curbs (cordless phones), and you can see the potential for trouble.
Parking lots arenâ(TM)t much use unless theyâ(TM)re connected to roads. Wi-Fi networks need similar access to the Internet. This access can be wireless or terrestrial, but someoneâ(TM)s paying for it. This is one of the primary reasons that the business model for hotspot providers is so iffy. Regardless of how many customers pay $x per month or per session for access to the hotspot, every hotspot needs connectivity to the Internet. Letâ(TM)s say hotspot owners use low-cost business DSL or cable modem service (minimum of $80/month for 1.5M downstream and 256K upstream). Well, this adds up when multiplied by all the hotspots requiring access. And regardless of Wi-Fiâ(TM)s theoretical speeds, a 54M meshed network will be choked by a 1.5M backhaul circuit. This make sense?
Lastly, every node on an IP network requires an IP address, and some service provider must assign that IP address (you and I canâ(TM)t go to ARIN and request âem ourselves). Therefore, that IP address can be traced to an individual when the service provider is subpoenaed. Sorry, no free ride! Illegally distributing copyrighted material beyond the parameters of âoefair useâ exposes one to prosecution. Period.
Hope this helps.
Bear in mind that this utopian meshed Wi-Fi network still needs Internet access (hey, ho, who's paying for that!), and uses unlicensed spectrum, so every microwave oven and 2.4GHz cordless phone is a potential source of interference.
Bluetooth? Infrared? These technologies allow for speedy file transfers without bulky physical connections, or expensive/large (relatively) Wi-Fi radios.
Should you want to transfer loads of data (e.g., 256MB of MP3s) in a short time, perhaps a wired solution is best. But most folks aren't using their phones and PDAs for this... yet.
I sure as heck wouldn't want the Wi-Fi expense, bulk, and battery draw in my *portable* device just for quick transfers.
Microsoft has been adamant that the Xbox is and will remain a gaming platform. Period. The knee-jerk reaction to news of additional capabilities, such as voice and music, is "The Xboxes aren't selling as game consoles, so they're trying other applications in hopes of selling more boxes."
This doesn't make much sense when one considers that Microsoft loses money on every Xbox. The bill of materials is $400-$500, and they retail for $200. That difference can't be made up on volume. This business model is to lose money on the consoles but make it back (and then some) on the games, much like the razor/blade model. Games are high-margin products, especially those created in-house, and I would think that the Xbox business case is dependent upon preserving those margins. So pushing the Xbox as an enabler of low-margin services doesn't make much sense. Let's look at those mentioned...
Voice
Sure, Xbox Live voice quality is pretty good. Since Xbox Live requires broadband, it's not tough to obtain toll quality. But why would they want to? There are many reasons why voice over IP hasn't taken off (customers don't want to be tethered to their PCs, long distance is already cheap -- you'd better not be paying more than $0.05/minute for interstate calls), and to my knowledge Xbox Live doesn't have the billing capabilities required for voice services. The article states that Microsoft would move the chat capability to the Xbox Live dashboard, which implies the requirement of an Xbox Live subscription. It's unlikely that this feature would convince consumers to subscribe to Xbox Live. Microsoft would also need VOIP-PSTN gateways, so their customers can call people who don't use an Xbox. Telephone service is complicated. Maybe Microsoft would partner with a company such as Vonage, but they certainly aren't the easiest to work with.
Music
A neat capability, much like the QCast Tuner for the PlayStation 2. Consumers have shown little willingness to pay for this, however, as they're accustomed to free players. Service like Rhapsody and pressplay would undoubtedly benefit from freedom from the shackles of the PC, but their revenue shares are micenuts compared with Microsoft's costs. Given the current crop of LAN-to-stereo bridges, like the AudioTron and the SimpleFi, the Xbox does stand out, but this advantage may be gone in a few months when the likes of Linksys launch its low-cost device.
Movies
One of the reasons for Movielink's slow start is the simple fact that most consumers prefer to watch movies on their TVs, not their PCs. This problem is defeated with the Xbox in the mix, as it enables high-quality video output to the TV. Perhaps Microsoft plans to download the top 3-4 pay per view movies to the Xbox hard drive each night (Movielink movies are 500-600MB each, so they would easily fit on the 8-9GB Xbox HDD), so when the consumer chooses a popular movie playback begins immediately. The margins on this business are low, too. And Microsoft will compete with existing TV-based PPV and Video on Demand, which is slowly rolling out to cable systems. This makes a tough market even tougher.
Summary
Low margin + low penetration services will not lift the Xbox to profitability. Great games will. Strong Xbox Live games will give customers a reason to pay $9.95 a month for the service. Hopefully the EA/AOL exclusivity deal will end soon, so Xbox can benefit from good sports titles. Until the games improve, Microsoft is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. They have the cash to be patient, however.
Disclaimer: I work fo
I have a Streamium MC-i200 in my garage (yeah, I spend a lot of time there). Here's the environment: Connected to the Ethernet port is a D-Link DWL-810 Ethernet-to-wireless bridge, which talks to a Netgear MR314 in my upstairs office. Also in the office is a media server, which is simply an old PC with a big hard drive. Finally, I have an old notebook that sits on my A/V tower downstairs, with a Y-cable from the stereo minijack out to an unused set of audio ins (MiniDisc, I believe). The notebook is perfect for playing Rhapsody through my main receiver.
With that out of the way, here's a quick review of the Streamium:
Good
- Ability to play MP3s from media server anywhere on your network.
- Limited Internet streaming capability. Rhapsody or something similar is needed.
- Really good sound, with decent bass thump.
- Remote control is handy when I'm working underneath the car and want to change tracks.
Bad
- Requires a special version of MusicMatch Jukebox on the "server" PC, even though I had already paid (yes, I paid) for the full version of MusicMatch. Now I have two versions on my music server. This server app must be running for the Streamium to find it and play music from the hard drive.
- Horrid navigation. My music is stored in folders, with an artist at the top level, and album folders underneath. It's a chore to page down through the alphabetized list of artists. So I play more Geoff Achison than I would like, and less of the Zombies.
Bottom Line
- While this is a good first step, $500 is far too much to pay (I evaluate this gear for my job). For that jack I'd buy a two-year-old notebook, PC speakers, and slap in a wireless card.
- Keep an eye out for a Digital Media Adapter from Linksys, which should be released soon. It, too, sits on your A/V tower, hooks into your receiver, and should have an out to the TV, so you can navigate playlists and such on the big screen.
BTW, the Wall Street Journal reviewed the Streamium last month. Yup, you gotta have a subscription.
Hope this helps.
-Ray
I completely agree with the poster who stated he wouldn't buy a Sony CE device that only offers MemoryStick storage. Same here. I love Sony gear, but support for SD and/or CF is a requirement. I purchased a Canon digital camera and MiniDV camcorder over comparable Sony units for this reason (also, the Canons share batteries and AC adapters, so my kit has fewer items).
What the hell is Sony thinking by requiring potential customers to PAY for access to the online Clie Advanced Guide? $40 for six months? Are they on crack?!? Check here for details, and you'll shake your head, too.
I like my Treo, but I wish:
- It had expansion slots (SD or CF).
- The OS was upgradeable. I'm stuck with Palm 3.5.
- The battery was external.
- The screen had higher resolution.
- Mobile service was modular. Sprint PCS is my only option now that I have the 300.
Give Sony props for stuffing a lot of bells and whistles into a (relatively) small space. But criticize them for "Windows-like" bloat, high prices, and dogged determination to pimp their proprietary storage format over the pragmatic requirements of their customers.
- Workgroups collaborating over VPNs/VNCs. Seems like the limiting factors are applications and management philosophy, not access. Personally, my business travel hasn't returned to pre-9/11 levels. It takes so long to get through airport security now (TSA = Thousands Standing Around) I just audio or video conference. NetMeeting is so easy to use, and webcams are $30. Virtual workgroups are hindered not by technology (much), but by pointy-headed bosses who need to see their employees typing to believe they're working.
- Network computing is a neat concept that's still a few years away from mainstream commercial acceptance. I'll bet we'll say the same thing a few years from now, too. It's a $0 billion industry!
- If I were more secure and had some extra cash I'd try the wearable computing stuff. Again, I don't think the primary obstacle is access, I think it's society. Dating is tough enough already -- jokes like "Is that a hard drive in your pocket?" won't make it any easier
- One poster asked us to think of neat new ways I'd communicate with my friends and family if we had 10Mbps links. While I have some ideas, the access isn't the impediment. Applications and their interfaces will keep my mother away more than price and speed. I can't emphasize enough how important ease of use is when rolling out mass-market residential services (and these services need to appeal to a lot of people in order to get off the ground).
Any other ideas? Yes, I'm in new product development. And I work for a large cable company (standard disclaimer: these views are mine alone, not my employer's nor my industry's). My job is to identify and launch such services. So I'm *very* interested in applications that drive broadband adoption. And as much as I'm intrigued by niche products, I recognize the reality of the business, and if my products aren't profitable they won't receive a lot of attention. We have customers, and we have shareholders. Gotta keep everyone happy.
Thanks for letting me spend so much time on the soapbox. I appreciate the dialog.
- Costs involved in "re-lighting" the network are high, so Aerie must take the fiscally conservative approach of matching deployment to customer growth. This will take time. Too much time. 3G networks from the national wireless providers will leapfrog Ricochet.
- Since the technology is proprietary and the penetration is low, hardware costs will remain high. The main reason 802.11b is so dang popular is because it's so cheap. And it's cheap because it's so popular. Ricochet won't benefit from scale.
- Like another poster pointed out, that kind of latency (250ms) is a killer, especially for a service that costs so much.
I disagree with the author of the article: wireless carriers aren't staying away because Ricochet is a "loser," they're staying away from an unattractive business that in no way integrates with the platforms in which they've already invested billions.
I don't believe Ricochet can grow fast enough to matter. It'll remain a niche player, generating small returns for a short while. Without money to spend on R&D, it'll simply hang on until it's surpassed, stranding its customers with slow, proprietary modems. Too little, too late.
What kind of content do you see taking up that much throughput over the next two years? When I think of what takes up the bandwidth now, I have a hard time seeing that expand a whole lot without some significant investment on the server side.
What do y'all think?
So why aren't they scooping it up? Simple. Many people just don't have a need for high-speed Internet access. All they do is check email and sports scores. Those of us who have broadband would rather part with a kidney than go back to dial-up, but the majority of Americans are satisfied with dial-up.
Of course price factors in. Undoubtedly more consumers would have broadband if it were $20/month, but it's not. The market supports the current price models. And the companies that put money in need to see a return on their investments. For example, the large cable companies have spent $65 billion (with a "B") since 1996 upgrading their plant to handle two-way data and voice. They floated this debt through public markets, and need to pay the bills before spending more. Maybe you haven't noticed, but the capital markets aren't open to companies wishing to dump a lot of money into an "opportunity" with limited demand.
This isn't rocket surgery. It's supply and demand, and the realities of borrowing money.
Disclaimer: I work for a major cable company. My views are mine alone, and don't represent my employer or my industry.
- Watch video.
Of what? There's still no good solution for streaming first-run movies over the 'net (Movielink is a first step, and a small one at that). I'm not aware of any major broadcasters making a lot of content available, either.
From where? The costs of serving up 300kbps streams are so high that many outlets (e.g., CNN, MSNBC) are charging for their content. Who's gonna pony up for fatter streams? Servers and access cost $$.
- Share files.
What kind of files? You better believe copyright owners would focus more on file sharing of their intellectual property if it were super easy.
- Voice service.
Current residential broadband service is just fine for voice. Granted, the upstream can't handle multiple simultaneous sessions without significant compression, but the current broadband access speeds will handle VOIP for a while.
How would you store the data that would stream down the pipe? Big hard drives are cheap, but we would have to redefine "big." 250GB wouldn't last long.
Without question content will come, and uses would pop up that we haven't even thought of yet. But I just don't see the need right now.
I'm not being critical -- just curious. What *would* you do with 10Mbps? How much a month would you pay for it? It wouldn't be cheap. The companies that spend the bucks to lay the pipe and hook up will need to make money. Would you pay $150/month for super high-speed Internet service?
-Ray
Who's gonna bankroll the costs for gear and access? Where's the money? I'm not aware of many investors who are looking to dump loads of cash into a venture without a clear path to profitability. Not anymore, anyway.
I'll tell you who will bankroll this effort -- companies who figure out how to provide good service at a fair price to a lot of customers. Without this, the technology will be just that -- a technology, not a solution.
Public open WPOPs should be all over the place. The more a pop is used, and the more pops/users there are, the more the infrastructure supporting it will grow.
The more a POP is used, the more infrastructure (gear and access) is needed to sustain it. Again, someone somewhere needs to pay for this. Nothing is free.
By virtue of using the system you would add to it's range and capacity.
Not really. All 802.11b devices use the same slice of spectrum. Two WAPs give me the same bandwidth as 100 WAPs. (The usable bandwidth is more with two WAPs, actually, as the Ethernet collision domain of 100 WAPs would drastically reduce the network effectiveness.) Also, a fatter access pipe is needed to support additional endusers.
Just think if all cars had a WiFi repeater installed in them. the Highway becomes a true information highway. Packets jumping from car to car to get from anywhere to anywhere.
Cool idea, but we're a long way from realizing this.
What about:
- Security. You think the average consumer is exposed now, imagine the gaping holes just waiting to be exploited in WiFi networks. Who's responsible for network and application security? This leads to my next point...
- Liability. If we're neighbors, and my leaky 2.4GHz cordless phone keeps interfering with your WiFi reception, who's responsible? Me, right? What about the cordless phone manufacturer? What about the provider? Oh, wait, who is the provider? Is the upstream Internet provider, who may be 10 hops away, responsible for my environment?
- QoS. How to provide quality of service over such a shared topology? Especially when key connecting points can be dropped willy-nilly? Some of the neat services mentioned in this thread, like VOIP and streaming video, are really sensitive to delay. Retransmissions required when a network re-converges will kill such applications.
WiFi isn't the holy grail. It's a piece of the puzzle. It has strengths and weaknesses. I have a huge WiFi network in my house, and we use it at the office, too. I don't, however, see many companies willing to bet a lot of jack that WiFi is The Next Big Thing. The technology will continue to improve, the standards will mature, and wireless networking will penetrate deeper into the home and the office. But it's gonna take money, folks, and users will have to pay their share.
-Ray
One of the benefits of DBS's platform is that the high manufacturing volume means lower component costs, which translates to lower receiver costs. However, the *big* downside of the DBS platform is legendary, and familiar to anyone who has ever had a "test" card. I recently read where 20-30% of all DBS receivers sold at retail are never activated. Theft of service is a billion dollar problem for them.
The two primary STB providers, S-A and Motorola, know that there're only two of them. Since thecablecos have a huge investment in head-end gear, the STB folks aren't incented to reduce their margins by lowering prices.
What the problem? Just have two different boxes. If customer rents it - it is not customer's problem. If customer owns it - customer have to sell it and buy a new one. That's why we have eBay ;)
Ah, if only it were that easy. The rental solution works for the customer, but, like I previously stated, not many cablecos are looked to sink a lot of capital into boxes with such a *looong* payback period. And as much as I love eBay (please buy my Sprint PCS phone that's for sale now), that's probably not a feasible solution for most customers :-).
Good points, though.
-Ray
Please bear in mind that while cable companies do own and profit from some of the advertising inventory, the broadcaster (e.g., NBC, ESPN) uses much of the advertising revenue to offset programming costs. You think the cast of Friends is cheap? How 'bout ER? Production of sci-fi shows, like Enterprise, is pretty expensive, too. Advertising pays these bills.
One of the reasons for the popularity of reality-based programming is the low cost. No fat salaries for celebrities. No special effects. Sets are cheap. Viewership is high. These shows, as horrible as they may be, subsidize the better/more-expensive shows.
So we can complain about advertising, but we must recognize that it's part of the equation that keeps good TV (and there *are* good shows -- you just have to dig) on the major broadcast networks.
-Ray
While the concept of a bundled STB (Set Top Box) and PVR is good, it's difficult to implement. A few problems:
1. Cost. Current digital STBs are already ~$400. Double that for one that includes two tuners and a fat hard drive. Few consumers will pay $800 for this device. Given the current economic climate, it's doubtful that cablecos will lease the device to the customer, as that requires a *large* initial capital outlay, and cable companies just aren't in a position right now to justify that to Wall Street.
2. Price. Let's say cablecos do lease these boxes to their customers. Assuming a simplistic three-year payback model, the monthly charge for the box alone would be ~$25. Again, not many consumers would add this to their monthly cable bill.
3. Conditional Access. Scientific-Atlanta STBs talk with S-A head-ends, and Motorola STBs talk with Motorola head-ends. Let's say you're currently served by an S-A headend, so you buy an STB/PVR with S-A's encryption technology. Then you move to another area, one that uses Motorola gear. The STB portion of your box, along with all the neat integrated features, no longer works. A big chunk of your investment is stranded. You would not be happy.
4. Reality. Movie studios aren't yet comfortable enough with encryption technolgy to allow their intellectual property to be downloaded to a consumer device. Period. They know it's only a matter of time before the digital files are ripped from the boxes. It costs *a lot* to develop and test this technology, and the uncertain payback makes this an investment few are willing to make.
So, until there is enough consumer demand (see my previous post), an integrated box isn't at the top of cableco's to-do list.
-Ray
No, cable companies don't hate PVRs. To my knowledge every major MSO (Multiple System Operator) is in some stage of developing a PVR service. Why haven't they launched such a service yet?
1. Lack of consumer demand. In the US, more people still use out-houses than PVRs. That's not to say it's not a cool technology -- 'cause it is -- but it's not yet mainstream. Won't be for a while. Note that TiVo and SONICblue aren't yet raking in the dough.
2. High cost. While Series 1 TiVos can be purchased for $150, most decent PVRs are still ~$300, with a ~$10/month subscription fee. Sure, you can build your own PC-based PVR and get TitanTV.com for free, but this solution doesn't appeal to the majority of consumers.
3. Unattractive business model. Consumers are conditioned to lease their digital set-top box (STB) from their cable company, which means the MSO must purchase the STB from the manufacturer and keep the capital cost of equipment on its books. Most MSOs are limiting captial expenditures as they move toward free cash flow, so new services that require heavy capital spending are scrutinized. Especially new services with limited (albeit growing) appeal (see #1 above).
Product development is simple:
1. What do customers want?
2. How much will they pay?
3. Can we make money charging that?
For a more detailed look at Product Development 101, see this post.
Changing gears for a moment, let's talk about rising cable rates. <soapbox> Why do MSOs raise their rates? Mostly because of increased programming costs. You see, MSOs have to pay the content providers for some of the most popular channels. It's been published (so I'm not giving away any secrets here) that ESPN raises the price it charges MSOs by ~20% per year, and won't let MSOs move the channel(s) onto a premium tier. Gotta stay in basic, as that's accessible to all viewers.
Ah, so we blame ESPN! Not so fast. *Their* costs are rising, too. The money to pay for Alex Rodriguez's $252 million contract isn't coming from ticket and beer sales. It's TV money. The Yankees can afford the highest payroll in baseball in part because of their TV contract. Follow the money: players' salaries skyrocket, which dramatically increase broadcast rights fees, so video networks (such as ESPN) charge more for their content, and cable companies are forced to increase their rates. Salaries, broadcast rights, and carriage fees increase much more than the typical 5% cable rate boost. </soapbox>
Thanks for reading. Bring on the flames!
-Ray
Depending on their structure, most insurance companies do have a right to a profit. They must balance the drive for profits with the necessity of attracting and keeping policy holders. If their premiums are too high, their customers may (should) jump to a competitor.
Pretty simple stuff.
-Ray
This is not true. Smart BSPs like "power users," as they tend to subscribe to more revenue-generating services than the average customer. Power users are often "early adopters," trying new products first.
BSPs don't like "abusers," like those in Ohio. Those who abuse access are in part responsible for higher prices for all users, much like insurance fraud leads to unnecessarily high premiums for all policy holders.
I completely agree that the penalties imposed on the Ohio cable customers were far too severe. Usually a sharply worded, "attorneyized" letter does the trick. Involving the FBI is overkill, and even abusive.
-Ray
This is not news. This is simple product development.
Very few new products are cash-flow positive in year one. Start-up costs, including building the team, spooling up manufacturing, and marketing are usually far greater than first-year revenues. Most product lifecycles span many years. Products at first generate horrible losses, but as sales volume picks up and manufacturing and distribution costs drop, they creep toward cash-flow positive status. Once mature, successful products are throwing off free cash flow. Products die, and the cycle begins anew.
Talk with your friends in product development and financial analysis. Ask them about discounted cash flow with terminal value, net present value, internal rate of return, present value of breakeven, benefit cost ratio, profitability index, weighted average cost of capital, risk-adjusted return, and scores of other metrics and methods used when creating business models. Most in this forum focus on the technology that enables new products and services. Much has to happen before a project is green-lighted to even get to the technology architecture phase.
Speaking of green lights, the Xbox offers a fine example of this cycle at work. Microsoft planned to lose -- and lose big -- selling consoles the first few years. The game console business is like the razor business. Gillette loses money on each razor, but makes it up on the blades. Console games are blades.
Microsoft is counting on yet another revenue stream, however. The holy grail of recurring revenue -- Xbox Live subscriptions. Neither Sony nor Nintendo is following a similar model. Investors like recurring revenue.
Is Microsoft engaging in anti-competitive behavior by dumping Xboxes on the market below cost? Heck no. They're just early on in the product lifecycle. Their YE2004 results will look much different.
BTW, up until recently the Ford Escort was the top selling car worldwide (I think the Toyota Corolla recently passed it). The Escort program by itself lost money for Ford, even though a gigillian models were sold. All those fuel-sipping cars allowed Ford to sell more pickups and SUVs, however, and not violate the government-imposed CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) limits. Ford lost money on the Escort to make boatloads on the F-Series.
For those with an Xbox, enjoy 'em. I'll pick up Ghost Recon tonight, so I can play on my black Xbox, not just the green one. Sure, I also enjoy PC games and SOCOM on the PS2. To each his own. Happy gaming.
-Ray