Add to Google

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Tipping point for Apple?

Back in June I predicted that this back-to-school season would be a phenomenal one for the iMac, signaling a change from small niche player to the beginning of something much bigger. This week my prediction proved true, as iMac sales grew at a rate (30%) twice as fast as the industry. Half of those sales were to first time iMac owners.

Tim Cook, Apple's Chief Operating Officer stated to the press that:

Students helped account for the surge in Mac shipments, during a quarter that Cook called "the most successful back-to-school season we've ever had."

As of Friday, Apple's new operating system (Leopard) was released. I think that as of this week, Apple's little iMac has reached a "Tipping Point" in the PC industry.

In the business world, the term "Tipping Point" is used to refer to point at which a product reaches a certain level of popularity, and conditions are just right, that what were previously gradual sales begin to take off.

And the conditions are right for Apple, Consider the following:
  • Windows Vista owners have played with their new computers, and are either underwhelmed or wildly dissatisfied with the upgrade. They are telling their friends.
  • Mac OS Leopard just came out, users will love it (I just played with it for an hour at the Mac store). They will tell their friends.
  • With the advent of browser based applications (Web 2.0), the web browser is becoming more relevant that Windows, making switching easier.
  • You can run your Windows applications on a Mac.
  • Brand awareness is at an all time high, thanks to the iPod.
  • As of this week, we are no longer waiting for Apple to release products (the iPhone and Leopard have arrived).
  • Microsoft is distracted with the Google threat instead of focusing on it's core business, software.
  • In the hit show 24, the bad guys use PCs, the good guys use iMacs.
If I were a betting man, I would venture to say that by this time next year, the iMac will realize a growth rate 5x higher than that of the computer industry.

There are only two things left that are holding them back:
  1. Price - Still really high compared to a PC
  2. Distribution - It's hard to find an Apple store (In Canada), and the big box stores hide iMacs in the back, keeping the PCs prominently on display

Rogers is trying too hard to be cool

I just received the following text message on my Rogers cell phone:
Rogers msg: What's ur opinion? Tell us w/ Txt Ur 2Cents & dwnld content 4chance 2win a laptop & more! Reply WIN b4 Nov28 4info. 2opt out of mktg msgs reply STOP

Wow, what a load of drivel. Rogers is trying to "be cool" by using SMS shorthand, which is used generally by teenagers as a way to quickly send out messages on a cell phone that doesn't have a full keyboard. It is very cumbersome and time consuming to send out a full message on a cell phone.

The Rogers marketing department on the other hand, has all the time in the world to write out a proper message. It probably not even sent from a cell phone.

I can see in my mind, a bunch of Rogers' "suits" sitting around a table saying "hey, if we use SMS shorthand, maybe the kids will think we're cool, and then they'll pay us more money!"

Rogers, you are over-compensating for something (could be your high prices, terrible customer service, locked phones, etc...), and it definitely makes you more "uncool".

WORLD TO TELCOS: The way to be a "cool" company in today's age isn't through cheesy marketing hype... it's by listening and responding to your customers needs (a la Apple & Google)

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Online newspapers missing the point

Have you ever noticed that newspapers that publish their newsprint content online don't publish links in their articles? Take a look at any article in the Globe and Mail and you will see that they refer to reports and facts, but NEVER provide a link to the source (except in their special web-only blog section).

Huh? Haven't we had 15 years to figure out that links are the backbone of the web?

Compare this to a news site that doesn't have a print version such as News.com or even most parts of MSN which will always have an external link to another web page when referring to other reports or statistics. Blogs are usually the best at referring to source material. To the reader, these are the sites that have the most value, because being able to check up on an author helps keep them honest, and the reader can expand their knowledge if they so desire.

Some websites such as CNN or IGN take a different approach, they include links but only to other articles within their site. They never refer to external sites. This removes value from the site, which acts as though it is the ultimate authority and knows all.

No one site on the web will EVER be the ultimate resource for everything, news sites should embrace that and start linking.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Anti-Piracy Expectations

This week Google finally announced some new anti-copyright measures for their video-sharing website, Youtube. In a nutshell, the technology creates a "fingerprint" video clips uploaded by the content owners to Youtube, and then compares them against any new clips uploaded.

The major problem with this approach is that it puts quite a burden on content owners. HOWEVER, it is the most advanced tool available for video protection. Content protection online is difficult, because there are simply so many ways to break the rules. As such, we should expect that content protection mechanisms will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary (i.e., we can't solve this problem all at once).

What's interesting is some of the silly criticisms have been arising about this issue.

Boehm National Legal and Policy Center Chairman (U.S) Ken Boehm made one of the silliest comments I've read...
"We think it's too little, too late [...] Google is the most technologically advanced search engine company in the world and in all this interim time when they could have set filters of some sort in place, they chose nothing rather than something that may be not perfect."
Lets break this arguement down:
  • Too little too late...: But then he criticizes Google for doing what would have been even less, but earlier ("some sort of filter"). It's also the most anybody has done to protect content.
  • Google is most technologicall advanced... : Yes they are, AND they now have the most advanced piracy technology technology. Boehm then uses this as a foundation to critisize Google for using techniques that are NOT advanced (... set filters of "some sort" in place). Huh?
  • Chose nothing rather than something that may not be perfect.: Actually, they did choose something, they willingly took down content that copyright holders deemed infringing... and it wasn't perfect.
Seriously Mr.Boehm... there are indeed problems with Googles approach, but a little bit of intellectual honesty would be nice, your arguments aren't consistent.

I think a good idea might be to allow copyright holders to flag videos online that violate copyright, then Google would fingerprint those videos and use them for filtering. In this case, the copyright holder wouldn't need to upload nearly as much content, making the process much less onerous.

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Don't believe the beavers

Frank and Gordon, those mildly amusing yet irritating Bell Canada mascots would have you believe they are a fun and consumer oriented company. I recently tried to sign up for Bell home phone and internet, and wow, do they ever have poor customer service.

I spent over a MONTH trying to get subscribe to internet with them, and ran into the following problems:
  • I had scheduled SIX appointments with their service reps before they showed up.
  • Their service reps were scheduled to come "sometime between 9am - 5pm", and couldn't be any more accurate. I waited all day for them at home on a few occasions.
  • You can't call them after 7:00pm on weekdays, or at all on weekends.
  • Their customer service lines are in India, and they are not allowed to do anything helpful. I had a problem with my phone not ringing. When they tried to fix it, they asked me to call my line to test it. But I was on my second phone line with them already. When I asked them why they didn't call me, they told me they (a TELECOM company!) weren't allowed to make outgoing calls.
  • After spending 5 "business" days to set up a phone line, then it takes another 5 "business" days to set up internet (for a total of 2 weeks). That's if nothing goes wrong. If something does go wrong, you're looking at a month for internet.
  • They are more expensive than everybody else.
  • I couldn't pick up a DSL modem at a Bell store, I had to get it mailed to me
  • My DSL Modem didn't arrive on the day it was scheduled to arrive
Eventually I switched everything over to Rogers, because it was such a hassle. Interestingly enough, my DSL modem arrived AFTER I switched to Rogers. Go figure.

So, I've come to the conclusion that Bell Canada is pretty much the worst run company in this country, and I have no intention of EVER purchasing ANY service from them again. I throw popcorn at the screen whenever those stupid beavers show up on the commercials.

Somebody, please make them stop defaming our national animal.


UPDATE (Oct 15 2007): We were supposed to finally get internet set up with Rogers today. It didn't work though, because Bell STOLE the phone account without our authorization and switched us back to them. They actually did this a day after they called us trying to get us to switch back to Bell. Someone please... make the incompetence stop!

UPDATE (Nov 6 2007): I finally am set up with Rogers as my internet provider, but Bell slapped me with $120 bill for service they never provided properly since September... and I was SUPPOSED to have over $300 in credits. I told them I'm not paying, now I'm being "investigated".