Point to Point

Technology and Me

Jan 4

Flickr and Picasa – Easy Photo Sharing

Those of you in a hurry can read the “17 Second Version” by scrolling to the end.

I’m gonna break with tradition and actually post something useful here, rather than my usual meandering ravings about how copyright extensions are harming innovation, or how your government is trying to give control of hardware you bought to a few powerful companies, despite that they didn’t build or sell it.

Nope, it’s a new year, it’s time to intersperse “practical” with “complainy-pants”. Thus I present the first in my new series of useful articles: How to easily manage and share your photos by combining two powerful tools: Flickr and Picasa. First, the components…

flickr_logo

Flickr is a powerful online photo sharing tool. I won’t go into it in too much detail, just why I use it to share my photos. Here’s the reasons I love it:

  • Storage – I can upload as many photos as I want. With the $25/yr premium account, I get unlimited storage and it even saves the full, uncompressed photos. This means people don’t email me asking for “originals” that they can download and print.
  • Control – I can set very specific rules around who sees what. I can hide everything from the world and share locked-down access to them. I can give out “guest passes” for specific galleries, or (if your friends use it) categorize as “friend” or “family”
  • Ease – 99% of the time, I take pictures of a trip or event and people wanna see them. Sending a link in an email that says “Click here for my photos from Scotland” is just stupid-easy. They can even comment on them, download them, etc.

There are lots of other services out there, but I like Flickr best. I also like the very open API. That might not matter to most of you, but when it comes to integrating into other things (like we’re about to do), it’s exactly what you want. So go ahead, sign up for a free Flickr account. If you’ve got a Yahoo! account, that works because Yahoo! owns Flickr. Once you’re all signed up, head to the next component…

picasa_logo

Picasa is one of Google’s little toys. Like most things, it’s free, as long as you don’t mind Google having a bunch of info. Me personally? I don’t so much. Basically, Picasa is a “collection manager”. It’s not a photo editor like Photoshop, though it does have a good amount of minor retouching tools. Picasa scans your hard drive and pulls out all the photos. It even tries to see if it recognizes people from photo to photo, and groups those. You can group by date, folder on your hard drive, etc. It does make it easier to look at all the photos and save the ones you want to share.

Again, I won’t go on and on about why it’s awesome. What I will say is that scans your hard drive and puts up a TON of thumbnails, making it easier to find the photos you want without clicking through all your subfolders, hunting for a photo.

Go ahead, download it, set it to scan your “My Photos” folder or wherever you keep ‘em, and then we move on to the complicated stuff…

Flickr Uploadr

Flickr Uploadr is exactly what it sounds like – it uploads files to Flickr. Sure, you CAN go through the website, which is just fine for handling a picture or two at a time. Flickr Uploader gives you a box that you can drag photos into, and then classify. You can assign them to Sets in Flickr. Think of a Set like a folder on your computer, except that a photo can exist in more than one Set. I typically group my Sets around what they’re of – say a particular event. I also have a set called “Photos I’m Proud Of” – my best-of, made up of photos I particularly like.

Download Flickr Uploadr and install. Once you’ve opened it up, click the “sign in” button and enter your account info. What’s neat is that for many people you can stop here. If you keep your photos well organized and just want to drag them into the Uploadr’s “drop photos here” box and classify them, you’re all set. But if you’re anything like me, being able to select a bunch of photos in Picasa and click one button is awesome. Enter…Picasa2Flickr!

Picasa2Flickr Button

Here’s where the magic happens. Basically, this is a button which will take a bunch of your photos, convert them (using Picasa) to a Flickr-friendly format (JPG), then send them over to the Flickr Uploadr. Any titles you’ve added will be included for you. All you need to do is add them to a set and then click “Upload”.

Click this link and then Picasa will load up. Once the install is done, you’ll get the option to add the new button to your toolbar. Add it wherever you like. You’re done!

‘But wait! Where did such a handy button come from?’ you ask. Well, some extremely clever programmers were kind enough to connect these two awesome tools for you. All YOU have to do is click a link. Pretty sweet, huh? Here’s some more info on that. Basically, Google and Yahoo aren’t exactly buddies, but because they both support open APIs, cool things can happen without complex corporate relationships. Yay, progress!

Take It Out For a Spin

You’re all set, now let’s take it for a test drive.

In Picasa, select one or more photos you want to upload. Don’t go overboard – this is a test. Select multiple photos by holding down CTRL and clicking on photos. If you want to do a bunch in a row, use SHIFT instead. Either way, once you’ve got a few, click on the “Send To flickr!” button you added in the last step. Picasa will pause for a moment while it does some magic behind the scenes (you’ll see a progress bar in the bottom right corner pop up). Then the Flickr Uploadr will open. Select your photos (CTRL + A) and add them to a set. If you don’t have any sets, you can create one directly in the editor. You can also change the visibility of these photos, either one at a time or all at once. Any way you do it, you can click “Upload!”. Once you’re finished, the Flickr Uploadr will ask if you want to go to Flickr to see your photos. Click “Yes” and you’ll get taken to a page where you can finalize any details. At this point, I usually just hit save.

17 Second Version – Configuring Picasa and Flickr to play nice.

1 ) Sign up for Flickr, it rocks

2 ) Download Picasa, it also rocks

3 ) Download and authorize the Flickr Uploadr

4 ) Install the Picasa2Flickr button from Sourceforge.

send_to_flickr5 ) Add button to Picasa (click the [Add >] button)

6 ) Select some photos, click the Send To flickr! button

7 ) Add your photos to one or more sets

8 ) Click upload!

And that’s how you upload your Picasa photos to Flickr!

Tags: , ,

Posted by Brad in Photography, Useful Tools | No Comments

Nov 24

The iPhone Killer: Time

As the iPhone has grown, every new Smartphone has been simultaneously lauded as an iPhone killer (by eager supporters), then blasted for failing to do so (by cynical bloggers). But that’s okay, I’ve finally figured out what I think will be the iPhone Killer. As you may have guessed from the title – Time. Time takes its toll on all things, and I think the iPhone is rapidly nearing the end of its position of prominence.

First off, the facts. While the iPhone is a popular device, depending how you slice your market demographics it ranges from “unquestioned overlord” to “mid-volume runner”. Yes, it has sold more than any single model, but most manufacturers don’t make only one model. In fact, may people are lying with statistics, treating the iPhone as only one model when in fact six exist in the US. There’s the 4gb and 8gb versions of the 2G, the 8 and 16gb versions of the 3G, and the 16 and 32gb versions of the 3GS. Blending all of these into one number, spanning multiple model years and often duplicate customers is misleading at best.

Apple’s competitors in the space aren’t exactly doing poorly, either. Many other mobile OSs have GROWN in size since the introduction of the iPhone. Symbian, Blackberry, and Windows Mobile have all increase their sales volume and revenues since 2007. On top of that, the removal of Palm’s PalmOS models from the market and the introduction of the Sprint-only WebOS models has left a gap filled largely by Apple and RIM. Even the aging Windows Mobile has grown, despite no major changes to the OS since the May 12 ‘05 release of Windows Mobile 5.

But all of that is not to discount the impact Apple has had. Devices are more powerful, rich application libraries are a requirement, and let’s not forget that their rapidly-dissolving relationship with Google gave rise to Android, which is already making significant gains in Apple’s tech-savvy elite, attracting developers and power-users and leaving Apple to scrape the bottom for new customers.

Take a look at the three images below. See what they say about the iPhone’s perception in the market. All images come from BrandIndex, via AppleInsider.com

att_customer_perception

First, this graph shows the perception of AT&T vs. Verizon, following the launch of the iPhone 3GS. Notice the sharp downturn in both companies, with AT&T’s being noticeably sharper. After the launch of the 3GS on June 18, people began to notice the struggling impact of a data-intensive device on AT&T’s aging, poorly-managed 3G network. Many users reported losing 3G coverage even while in areas AT&T was supposedly offering great coverage. While voice worked, AT&T’s data network was sorely lacking.

brand_perception_index

Next, take a look at the brand perception of Apple vs. Motorola leading up to the Droid launch, specifically among men aged 18+. Droid’s

 brand_recommendation_index

Lastly, look at the perception of AT&T vs. Verizon in the weeks leading up to the Droid launch. AT&T was never “liked”, but it hasn’t historically been much worse off than Verizon. Now there’s an almost 40 point difference – most likely attributable to the numerous “There’s a map for that” and “Droid does” ads. AT&T, the only source of the iPhone today, is tanking in popularity and public perception among adults. Why would you want a cool phone if it’s on the nation’s worst network?

When you put all these together (as I’m sure someone at Apple has) you see a pattern emerge: the iPhone isn’t really seen as a cutting-edge device anymore. It hasn’t fundamentally changed in 3 years. Sure, memory bumps are nice and getting the features that have existed on other phones for a decade is a welcome addition, but it’s not revolutionary anymore. In fact, for the tech-elite, the cutesy, childish UI is no longer a novelty, but a frustration. For top-tier developers, having a locked-down platform with an unpredictable, often irrational gatekeeper is unforgivable. And for everyone else? AT&T sucks more than the iPhone can make up for any longer. AT&T has not invested in its 3G networks (coverage or infrastructure), and iPhone users once proud of their device’s web-surfing capabilities are now behind, from a data coverage, screen resolution, and technology standpoint.

Will any one device crush the iPhone? I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure it’ll die the way Apple’s OS did – the death of a thousand tiny cuts. You’ll have a small group of users who are willing to trade the simplicity of a locked-down, highly limited environment for poor quality coverage, a less capable device, and a single form-factor.

If I had to guess though, Apple will probably react by trying to diversify, but it’ll be too little too late. The iPhone exclusivity contract will last a few more years, and they’ll release one or two more devices. Maybe one with a keyboard, maybe one with a bigger, sharper screen, but once they do that, the simple elegance of “every app on every phone” is gone.

Then they’ll release a CDMA version to Verizon and Sprint, but no one will care. Sure, there will be blog hype (as their is around a lot of what Apple does), but for the average consumer it won’t matter, and it won’t translate into big numbers. Mostly, you’ll get people who hate AT&T jumping back to their original provider (Verizon), or switching to Sprint for the unbelievably cheap internet coverage they offer.

Tags: , ,

Posted by Brad in Cellphone, Consumer Electronics, Internet Technology | No Comments

Nov 11

FCC Proceeding 08-82: Selectable Output Control

Here’s a copy of a letter I recently sent to the FCC. Since they said it was part of public record, I felt like posting it here, too:

I am writing to express my concern about Selectable Output Control. SOC represents a struggling industry’s attempt to block consumer choice and limit the usefulness of products already purchased. Disabling the ability to use analog outputs is an absurd leap, for the sake of “protecting content”.

And let’s be honest: this will do next to nothing to stop piracy. One copy is all it takes, typically leaked from within the studios themselves, or by one of the many content partners. A federal involvement will only devalue the hardware and software already purchased and in use by consumers, harming innovation and damaging consumer confidence at a time when our country needs it most.

Imagine a parallel: what if the highway billboard industry claimed that in order to offer full video billboards (with sound!), highway speeds must be limited to 20mph or less, so that users could receive the full benefit of the new ads. In such a situation, the governing body would be severely harming a large number of consumers to protect the interests of a private industry.

I strongly urge the FCC not to agree to the MPAA’s request for SOC. SOC would represent an industry artificially limiting customer choice, and negatively impacting a much larger industry (consumer electronics) for their own favor. It does absolutely nothing to benefit the consumer in any way, increase the value of new and existing technologies, or grow the industry in a meaningful way.

And now, a little backstory, if anyone’s curious:

Selectable Output Control is a technology that the movie industry developed to cripple your TV. Basically, the idea was that while watching Pay Per View (or anything else) on your TV, the MPAA should be allowed to, at their discression, disable any and all of the analog outputs from your television (audio and video). The idea was that this would “limit piracy”, by making it harder to record something and later distribute it. Since digital connections (DVI, HDMI, DisplayLink) all conform to a High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) standard, the recording device can’t actually record “protected” content. That means that if you plug your HD cable box into your BluRay burner, it won’t let you record anything. Sounds just fine right?

But what happens when I have a legitimate reason for wanting to do this? Suppose I buy a PPV event and want to record it onto my computer so I can watch it on my laptop on my next flight. With HDCP, this is impossible (and even trying is a felony). I used to be able to use the component outputs and plug it into one of these or these. These products could happily collect data, record it, and let me do with it what I please (you know, the exact reason people BUY products like this).

SOC is bad for consumers and bad for the electronics industry. Pretty much the only people it benefits is the MPAA, who wants to do everything in its power to stop users from recording TV, since it means you can skip commercials, share with friends, etc. Trouble is, all it’ll do is push more and more users to the illegitimate services, since they won’t have any of these restrictions.

I think that’s something the MPAA forgets: they’re not fighting piracy, they’re competing with it. Right now, pirated movies offer a better experience to the user: they’re cheaper, I can do whatever I want with them, I can re-format them to put on a mobile device (iPod, phone, etc), and they never expire. I’d be perfectly happy to buy such things if I could, because I’d be guaranteed quality and a virus-free file. Since the MPAA insists on trying to fight piracy, it ends up exhibiting all manner of destructive behavior, and SOC is just the latest.

Limiting consumer choice has never been good for the consumer, and in a world where there are more and more options, locking down my TV’s outputs will probably never directly affect me. I’ll just hop to a technology that isn’t restricted, and one that the MPAA gets no money at all from. What it will do is create a headache for legitimate users (like those that still get HD cable over component video), an expense for the FCC, and a burden on consumer electronics companies, especially their support departments.

It sure as hell won’t stop piracy though!

Posted by Brad in Bad Business Ideas, Consumer Electronics, Television and Movies | 3 Comments

Oct 5

The Aristocracy of Copyright

One of the most interesting concepts today is that of “Intellectual Property”. I don’t mean patents and trademarks, but specifically the issue with Copyright. I recently read a Lewis Hyde article in the New York Times about the nature of Orphaned works (works who’s authors cannot be located or contacted, or for which an author cannot be discovered), and how Google is being set up as the defacto owner of all orphaned works it can scan. That’s not the intended result, at least publically, but it’s what’s going to happen.

When Copyright was originally established in 1710 in a document called the Statute of Anne, it declared that authors owned their works for 28 years. This was a big deal, because in the past patrons had owned the works created by authors. Prior to the Statute, authors’ works were purchased from the Stationer’s Company, after which time they were granted a perpetual monopoly on the publishing of the work with no obligation to pay the author. Authors were also forbidden from gaining membership in the Stationer’s Company, making it effectively illegal to self-publish. The original intellectual work was effectively property, and the right to publish it could be bought, transferred, and sold.

The importance of the Statute was that it acknowledged that the written works should be protected for a time, to allow the author and their publisher to profit from them in recognition of the work’s value to society. It also decided (for the first time, really) that such a monopoly should be finite, after which time the works could be published by anyone who wished to, because they become a part of our social heritage.

The term of copyright has been extended so greatly over the years, in an attempt by publishers and wealthy authors to increase their power, that it is now (from a legal standpoint) a minimum of 95 years from publish or 120 years from creation. The exact legal duration is defined as “Life of the author + 70 years until year-end” according to Title 17 of the US Code, sections 302 and 305.

Now what does this all have to do with Google books? Well, in a class-action settlement (which everyone who has ever written or published a work is named), Google will be allowed to monetize all works (orphaned or not) for the duration of their copyright period. Any fees associated with this (from advertising or the renting to libraries) will be placed in a steward account (under the Book Rights Registry). If no author has claimed ownership of the work in five years, the money will be re-distributed to authors represented by the Book Rights Registry. This “special deal” Google is striking is a huge problem though, as Hyde points out:

The only way a potential competitor could avoid the threat of statutory damages would be to do what Google did: scan lots of books, attract plaintiffs willing to form a class with an “opt out” feature, negotiate a settlement and get it approved by a judge. Even for those with time and money to spare, that promises to be an insurmountable barrier to entry.

Google will be the new Stationer’s Company – the only one with the right and privilege to electronically monetize and distribute orphaned works. And Google will be able to monetize however they see fit, with all the profits going to line the pockets of authors and administrators who had nothing to do with a work’s creation.

And just how many of the 7 million books Google has already scanned fall into this orphaned category? Roughly 70%, with every reason for Google to try and find more. Oh, and it isn’t the responsibility of the Book Rights Registry to find the authors of orphaned works. In fact, it’s the author’s responsibility, a process that will no doubt be time consuming and obtuse , since it benefits them to NOT find the authors.

Read the Statute of Anne

Tags: , ,

Posted by Brad in Copyright, Internet Technology | 1 Comment

Mar 13

Why Should Youtube pay Musicians for Showing their Commercials?

There have been quite a number of complaints over the last few weeks that Youtube isn’t paying artists enough for showing their content. The argument from the music industry is that Youtube owes much of its success to the music industry. This seems like a far-fetched idea at best, but it is something that Google/Youtube have tacitly admitted in agreeing to pay ANYTHING for allowing music videos to be put on Youtube.

What’s the purpose of a music video? Is it to be an artistic expression in-and-of itself? I can’t honestly think that it is. No, a music video (much like a radio spot) is an advertisement – for the band, the song, and the album. It is quite frankly absurd to me that artists believe that they should be paid – beyond the amount they already get through the ads they place on their own pages – because Google is providing them a platform to transmit their commercials to millions of people around the world – FREE.

So when the Performance Rights Society (PRS – UK’s RIAA) could not reach an agreement, Youtube pulled all the music videos down in the UK, signaling that, in fact, it doesn’t need them nearly as much as they need Youtube. The best part? Numerous artists, even ones who had been complaining about how Google was “stealing their money” and “not paying for music” suddenly found that their own, personal websites didn’t work. The videos on their own sites had been embedded versions of Youtube videos. That’s right, in addition to providing free advertising and free distribution, they were also shouldering the largest, most expensive part of a band’s website – the streaming media content – FREE. The cost to artists to host and stream their own videos, thousands or millions of times, would be far higher than anything they could hope to re-coupe from licensing fees.

It appears that the PRS is doing everything it can to actively torpedo its artists’ futures online. Their actions have already driven Myspace Music and Pandora to simply cut off UK service. Does it appear to be hurting either of them? Not in the slightest. You know who it is hurting though? I made a list:

  • The Fans
    • No longer able to find their favorite band’s music online
    • Can’t introduce friends to the music in an engaging way
  • The Musicians
    • Less exposure means fewer ticket sales
    • Fewer new fans because of lack of sharing
  • Music Video Makers
    • If a music video can ONLY be played on MTV, it has less value
    • Less value means people pay less to make music videos
    • Fewer bands (especially UK bands) will even bother making music videos

I hope this is helpful to the people at the PRS, and that they carefully consider who they are ultimately trying to serve. Clearly, artists and fans are both hurt by their actions, and value is generated for no one. It is yet another example of an outdated, monolithic group trying desperately to stay relevant.

So here’s my proposal: If artists want Google to pay them for every view, they can pay Google for every single embedded version of the video. Every time someone embeds it anywhere and Google isn’t getting any advertising revenue, the band can go ahead and get billed for that bandwidth. Then, at the end of the month, they can get together and see which bill is bigger – bandwidth or licensing.

Here’s a Radiohead (one of the bands that complained) video. Just for you to enjoy on Radiohead’s theoretical dime.

Posted by Brad in Bad Business Ideas, Internet Technology, Music, Web 2.x | No Comments

Feb 24

Rise of the Home Server

So there’s this interesting pattern I’ve observed in the distribution of technology – things generally trickle down to consumers. What used to be expensive and elite will, over time, become inexpensive and commonplace. Cellphones, computers, digital sound systems, etc. I know that’s not much of a surprise to most of you, so here’s what I think is going to happen.

Media storage is getting cheaper and easier all the time: the rise of the home server. Over the next few years (certainly by the end of 2020) most homes will have some kind of centralized storage. Just like 10 years ago people didn’t have routers and switches in their homes, now almost everyone does. With a home network comes multiple comptuers. Multiple computers leads to all kinds of problems – syncing files between machines, duplication of data, ease of access, usage location, etc. All of this adds up to a solution early adopters are starting to notice. Why put music on every computer when you could just store it on some low-powered, high-storage computer? Why set up complex mechanisms for downloading, transferring, and storing content on a laptop when you could just as easily store it on some server you own?

The obvious solution is to store it on a remote server someplace, up in the “cloud” for easy access anytime. The problem is that people don’t trust the cloud yet – data gets lost, privacy and security aren’t well explained, and retreival times are limited. Sure, you’ll keep things you explicitly want to share with others, but not most things. You’ll never keep your collection of tax records, illegal mp3s, adult entertainment and pirated movies up on a server someplace. No, you want it in a little box, tucked away in your house.

Ideally, it’ll be the size and shape of a router. It’ll plug in and have a bunch of storage for local use, and you’ll be able to expand it anytime. Why not?

Routers with extensible RAID file systems: the next big thing in home networks.

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Brad in Computing, Consumer Electronics, Internet Technology, Web 2.x | 2 Comments

Jan 23

New Year, New Hope for IPTV

So as a new year (and a new President) are upon us, I find myself wondering about the future of television. I hypothesized last year that in the future, we’d free ourselves from arbitrary schedules and the concept of a “broadcast network” entirely. Why should a network (or “channel” for that matter) have to release only one show at a time? Why not let all the new shows for a day come out at a certain time?

Certainly, a portion of this country receives broadcasts over the air, and probably will for quite some time. This will limit us to the time-locked, one-show-per-channel But an ever-growing number of us have a feed from our local cable or phone company for internet. What that means is that the same person providing me the access to some arbitrary multicast feed of channels that I pay an exorbitant amount for is also letting me stream from the myriad of services online – Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, and a myriad of network-specific sites, like NBC.com and ABC.com. I feed all the “channels” into my Tivo DVR and then watch them when I want. The whole thing seems silly though, and there has to be a better way for everyone involved.

And here it is:

Currently, networks like NBC see themselves as content providers, effectively they are both publishers and distribution houses for a very narrow stream of content. They have a limit on the content they can carry, both from a financial resource standpoint, but more importantly they only own a few channels, which can only put a single show at a time on. This is a choking point which doesn’t NEED to exist in a modern system, but is vestigial backwash from when radio waves carried a signal out from one tower to your house.

I envision a day when networks like NBC act almost exclusively as content aggregation. They pay for shows to be made, insert their commercials and so forth directly into them, and then send dozens (or hundreds) of shows directly to my local cable / internet provider each week. Then, my provider can set up a “portal” – possibly even give me a little Set Top Box to stream it directly from their servers. Even manage subscriptions through the box – letting me automatically download a show (effectively subscribe), letting me pick my shows and pay for groups, seasons, genres, or just single episodes. Or an “all I can eat” pass to watch whatever I want when I want it.

Everything is On Demand. The amount of traffic I pull down from the Internet is dwarfed by the amount I pull down over a high-speed, local connection to a server sitting halfway across town. Why stream from NBC’s servers over an expensive, “real” internet connection when I can pull down from my local ISP?

What this will do is basically abolish the concept of a TV “network”. They’ll be feed services, and can focus on what they’re actually supposed to do – provide content. They’re publishers, not distributors, and they should stick to that. The value of a themed “schedule” pales in comparison to the value of watching what I want, when I want it, with not limit to storage, capacity, or the number of channels I can record at once. And I shouldn’t need a $1000+ piece of hardware or something I pay an extra $15/mo for. I should just do it.

Microsoft is working on something called “Media Room” – it is effectively a DVR for an entire cable provider. Record everything, turn your entire network into an “on demand”. It is incredibly promising, but the current content providers are crying “Foul!” at the concept of delivering content to users whenever they want it, rather than based on an arbitrary schedule. They’re fighting with lawyers and lawmakers, and it’ll be a while before technology and consumer benefit win out. The old, lumbering media giants don’t want to give up a piece of their estate, even though they’d be better off in the long run. Also, they don’t want to make it really easy for new competitors to enter the business of media distribution. There isn’t a way to easily monetize Youtube (yet), but if I could put content on my local ISP’s network and let people pay a quarter per show? I wouldn’t need NBC at all, except to make the expensive shows. The value of their distribution network would no longer be a hurdle, just the amount they can front for famous actors / sets / equipment.

Leveling the playing filed scares them, so they’ll fight it as long as they can.

Tags: ,

Posted by Brad in Internet Technology, Television and Movies | No Comments

Dec 23

A Free Market on Money

On Sunday morning, I found myself sitting in a trendy little cafe in Hollywood, talking to a good friend of mine, Spaceman. We stood in line to place our order, discussing a wide variety of topics ranging from work to life to (naturally) the economy. We mused over the concept of a private currency, which some companies are implementing in baby steps (like Visa gift cards) and others are truly running with (like Microsoft points). And that brings me to tonight’s musing:

What would happen if the dollar lost 50% of it’s value next week? What would it mean? A lot of people have a difficult time separating the terms “currency”, “money”, and “wealth”. The US Dollar is just currency – it symbolizes an agreed-upon value (known as fiat money), but has no intrinsic value in and of itself. It is a tool, to facilitate trade. But like all tools, its usefulness waxes and wanes, and sometimes there’s a better tool for the job. Another currency, or another method all together.

Right now, I get paid in US Dollars, because the convenience (and expense) of not having to convert form another currency to the one used where I live is less than I’m likely to lose due to fluctuation in the value of the Dollar. If my economy started to nose-dive, what motivation would I have to keep my money there? Sure, decades ago it would have been nearly impossible to jump-ship with my money. Today, it’s a button on a (good) bank’s website. Why shouldn’t we shop around for the currency that offers us the best “bang for our buck”?

If the USD began to slide, and I mean really slide, due to inflation, poor management by our government, or for any other reason, today I can opt for another. How’s the Yen, Yuan, or Euro doing?

If you want to see what this is like, open up a Paypal account. Deposit, say, $20. Then flip it back and forth between any of the few dozen currencies they suppor, maybe once or twice a week at most . Their conversion rates are pretty good, they take a very nominal fee for the conversion (less than 3%). You’ll see you can, in fact, keep your money in any curency from USD to GBP to Yen to Euros. Neat, huh? Now, you’re a currency trader.

if you can easily switch currencies, there’s a second advantage: any one backed by a reasonably large and developed country won’t really nose-dive. The value of wealth circulating in a country can be thought of a lot like the market cap of a corporation. Currency is a futures market; betting on the ability of one currency (country) to out-perform another in the long-term. If the USD slips below the cash value of all the assets within the country, international currency traders will buy up TONS of it, because you know it is going to recover. You know you’ll get your money back if you wait long enough. Buying up billions of dollars will raise the price of dollars, correcting any downturn we begin to see. Or maybe they’ll just offer really valuable foreign currency for local services, like buying your house or car off you.

But until the rest of the world’s major and ancillary economies all collapse at the same time (in which case, you’re SOL no matter what),

don’t panic.

Tags: , , , ,

Posted by Brad in Finance, Internet Technology | 1 Comment

Dec 17

The RIAA and Universities

Hey there, college students. There’s a new fee on next semester’s tuition. No, it’s not to cover upgrades in the library or repaving the bike paths. It’s to cover the music you’re stealing. And you’ve got no say in the matter.

Warner Music Group recently approached a number of Universities throughout the US with a problem, and a wonderfully elegant solution. The problem? College students “steal” music. Now, we’re not talking about walking out of Target with it tucked under your jacket, when they say “steal” they mean “copyright infringement”, the big DL, swappin’ bits, or whatever you kids are calling it these days. Downloading music.

Warner proposed a truly graceful solution, one that I’m sure any 14th century monarch would be proud of: just fine EVERYONE! It is much too time consuming and expensive to actually bring everyone to court, especially for the relatively small number of people actually committing a crime. Rather than just take the shotgun-to-a-swarm-of-bees-in-front-of-a-small-child approach they have been, where an occasional target actually settles out of court, though hundreds of innocent people get accused and dragged through lengthy, expensive legal proceedings, Warner would like to simply place an arbitrary “tax” on all university students. A few dollars, maybe $5 or $10/mo, from every student, in every university in the country! This would all go into (their words, not mine) “a pot of money”. Then they would, on their honor, dole out money to content creators (it will be too hard to find out who) and license holders (themselves and their friends) in a “fair, not profit-motivated manner”.

And what do you get in exchange for this wonderful, per-student tax? The RIAA agrees to not sue the University. Note, this doesn’t say students, it says University. There are roughly 20.5 million undergraduate and graduate students in the US, according to the 2006 census . This means this pot-o-gold they’re hoping to gather could easily be in the hundreds of millions of dollars a MONTH, and billions per year.

Think about that. They’re trying to set up a scheme by which they get billions of dollars a year from students who’ve done nothing wrong, simply by virtue of belonging to a group in which SOME members break the law, and offer no protection in return.

One of the particularly upsetting points is on Slide 4, Point 1, Subpoint 2. “All Students or None”. This means that despite never having downloaded an album illegally, copied a friend’s CD or even listened to music played in an unlicensed venue, students will be forking over $5-10/mo in protection money. Now think about this: $15/mo gets you unlimited music from Microsoft, Rhapsody, or eMusic, legally. But they want $10 simply because SOME students at SOME universities are downloading music, and better to drown them all.

I hope, with every capitalist bone in my body, that no University would sell out its own students for this. I really genuinely do. But I have seen the music industry do some monumentally cruel things to its best customers, and the fact that this proposition is on the table means that somewhere, someone is considering it (Update: Columbia, Stanford, University of Chicago, University of Washington, MIT, University of Colorado, University of Michigan, Cornell, Penn State, University of California at Berkeley and University of Virginia are in active talks, “considering” it). And it only takes one before “precedent” is set and more fall in line. How long before this just gets rolled into our monthly Internet connection bill?

If you find yourself on the receiving end of such a fee, I strongly encourage you not to pay it. Pay your University fees, short the exact amount of the RIAA protection money. Refuse to pay, write a polite but firm letter to your bursar that you don’t download illegal music and feel that being treated as though you were a criminal by your own University is both wrong and unlawful. If the RIAA wishes to bring charges, then bring them in a court of law, not behind closed doors where the accused can’t even hear the charges against them or face their accuser.

One final gem: “Our approach is supported by the EFF, Public Knowledge and many organizations dedicated to network freedom.” Representatives of both the EFF and Public Knowledge have spoken out against this. They were never contacted for comment, input, feedback, or approval. It was just put in the bottom.

Tags: , ,

Posted by Brad in Bad Business Ideas, Music | 2 Comments

Nov 11

So Long, and Thanks for All the Drugs

So here I am, thinking about the Starbucks business model, and how they could see a 97% fall in gross profit. Let’s take a look:

Starbucks doesn’t sell that much coffee, really. They sell milkshakes and cream and other high-sugar, high-fat substitutes. Like all drug-dealers, they eventually weaned their customers onto the hard stuff. Except that black(crack) coffee doesn’t require the glitz and glamor of going to Starbucks. Most offices give it away for free. Hell, pretend you’re going to buy a Prius and they’ll give you a cup of coffee at the dealership for free.

Starbucks was a part of the golden days of of the Coffee-Rush. People were excited that what was once a bitter, uncomfortable drink could be made delicious with just a few dozen grams of fat and sugar. So an entire generation on the verge of giving up coffee for energy drinks and caffeine pills came swarming back.

But then they went black, and you know what they say. “Once you go black, you never go back.” True enough, people could get their fix anywhere, and suddenly the Starbucks empire crumbled around the bleach-tipped heads of its Baristas. Why go to Starbucks for long lines and bad music when you can get your coffee (even your iced vanilla late) at McDonalds or Jack-in-the-Box for half as much? And sure, throw on an egg and a muffin, too.

Starbucks was a victim of its own success. Coffee became so popular that you could get it anywhere. Technology (paid for, in many cases, by Starbucks) improved to the point where a strung out monkey with no thumbs could brew you a perfect double-soy, half-caff latte with sugar-free caramel and non-fat foam. Even low-end delis became “coffee bars”, and in doing so people sought alternatives.

As consumer choice multiplied, flaws (real or imagined) in Starbucks began to emerge. Everyone became coffee snobs, and Starbucks, once a healthy margin above Folgers Crystals was now dropped to the level of the 4pm re-heated pot at Denny’s. People discussed how the region didn’t have a good rainy season this year, or how they roasted it a little to warm, or not long enough, or too long, or ground it too finely, or any number of other minutia to justify going someplace besides Starbucks. Anyplace, really.

And that, my friends, is how Starbucks was lost. The built a market, and rather than growing with it, acted like they were still wooing customers away from boiling water at home and mixing in a sand-colored powder to get a “cuppichino”, and failing to realize that once you can get a “Starbucks-quality” cup of coffee everywhere, it becomes a commodity. Smug satisfaction is gone, as is the sense that it’s somehow “worth” $3.75.

You know what they could do to fix it? Re-brand. Turn 1 in 10 Starbucks into a “Starbucks Experience”. Lower the light levels. Put in all-leather furniture. Kill the pop music, and stick with low volume ambinet jazz. Carpet everything, and make the machines quieter. Make Starbucks what it used to be, a destination, not merely a vendor. Charge 20% more for the coffee, but use “higher end” beans, for every drink. Use organic milk. Use syrups that aren’t just Tornai’s, or if you do, hide it by putting them in curved pitchers. Limit the crowd size, limit seating. Use soft, overhead lighting above each table and chair. Only let natural light in through diffused curtains, and use double-pane windows to block street noise. Serve coffee at the tables. Allow people to run a tab (even if it’s done thorugh a Starbucks credit-card). Create the impression that this is somehow “above” merely Starbucks, this is a Starbucks Experience. This is a place to be away from crowds, better than the common man. Somewhere that only a certain “class” of customer comes. A sanctuary. Over time, convert all your stores. Enjoy another 10-15 years of astronomic profits, then call me again.

Or just watch your stock price fall until you’re bought out by Proctor & Gamble. Whichever.

Tags: , , , ,

Posted by Brad in Bad Business Ideas, Finance | 2 Comments